Posted on 03/20/2009 8:09:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You have been challenged and already found wanting, NL. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method, but that didn’t stop like-minded individuals (such as yourself) from drinking the coolaide.
By whom? If it is you, with your limited abilities, I wear it as a badge of honor.
If find honor in being defeated right out of the box, then you are quite honorable. LOL
==The Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote; “Oh what a gift the Gods could give, but to see our selves as other see us”
So now you think you are one of the gods? So far, that makes you and Darwood...are there more gods in your pantheon?
Given your god complex, your comments are quite predictable.
d:op
“Remind me why this does not belong in religion section?Start reading here (3 or 4 relevant posts follow)
And it getting posted in news activism?”
“Testability of evolution?Good so far...
OK, I start with a single bacteria and plate it onto ten plates.” [excerpt]
“After numerous generations do you predict that...
a) there will be no change, thus no evolution
b) there will be random detrimental changes
or...
c) the heat treated population will be heat resistant, the cold treated population will be cold resistant, the antibiotic treated population will be antibiotic resistant, etc, etc.” [excerpt]
“Well, how is this not testing evolution?Good work demonstrating micro-evolution! (aka, variation within a kind)
What result would you predict?” [excerpt]
So tell all of us again us all how you think a proponent of Theistic Evolution, the belief that God is the creator of the universe and all life within it, has a god complex for rejecting your version of abracadabra creationism. I might also point out that the phrase "god complex", like much of the tripe you post, is slang and has absolutely no in any known science or psychology, but I won't because it wouldn't make any difference to you either.
[[So this means you have no formal scientific training and don’t have or can’t discuss data. By the way, there is a spell check available.]]
What it means is that I have enough e4ducation, common sense, intellect, and IQ to recognize scientific BS when I see it- The claism made by macroevolutionists IGNORE the impossibilities against Macroevolution, assume loads of crap, and when faced with evdiences exposing their ineptitude, they simply hand-wave it away as though it werre meaningless- I didn’t htink you’d look at the thread I pointed out to you- and I see you’re under the impression that because someone has a phd after their name, then what they say must be gospel truth despite the overwhelming evidences against their claims- but again- whatever, we’ve discussed the issues here many times on FR- I pointed you to one very itneresting thread, I asked that IF you had any evdience for macroevolution to present it,. but I see that apparently, all you’ve got are petty insults behind your querries- whatever.
For a myriad of evidences against macroevolution, head on over to trueorigins.org, you’ll find plenty of scientific evidences that refute the claims of the ‘scientists’ over on talkorigins.org- claims that seem to be the standard positions brought here on FR by those who beleive the LIES that talkorigins.org feeds them. As a ‘believer’, you owe it to yourself to find out how you’re being lied to by macroevolutionists, and trueorigins.org will open your eyes to the LIES, expose the silly assumptions of macroevolutionists, and point you in the right direction. As I said, I’m tired of arguing with folks like you who have nothign more substantial than microevolutionary ‘evidences’ to bring to the table. All the time in the world won’t be enough time to turn microevolution into a wholly different biological macroevolutionary process. By hte way- when statistitians talk abotu hte impossibility of Macroevolution, and hte macroevos attempt to wave it away with yet more silly arguments, the mathematicians are talking about hte impossibility of JUST ONE SINGLE EVENT in the mythical process of macroevolution- just one event- or change- now, take that one single event, that one impossible event, and multiply that by trillions of supposed ‘past’ changes, and you can quite easily see how silly the hwole idea of macroevolution really is- Macroevos can squirm about trying to dismiss the impossibility of one single event, one single impossibility all they like, but at hte end of hte day, they still have trillions of equally impossible events, changes to explain away- But- believe what ya want- just don’t expect us to swallow that crap
[[abracadabra creationism.]]
Gee- isn’t that cute? As opposed to what? The Abracadabra ‘nature did it’ hypothesis?
==So tell all of us again us all how you think a proponent of Theistic Evolution, the belief that God is the creator of the universe and all life within it, has a god complex for rejecting your version of abracadabra creationism. I might also point out that the phrase “god complex”
I was specifically referring to your line from Burns, where you presumed that the Temple of Darwin cult sees creationists in the same way Burn’s pantheistic “gods” do.
First, there are no “gods”, there is only the God of the Bible. Second, He has given us His creation account in Genesis, confirmed by Jesus Christ himself. Third, if anyone is laughing at fools (who profess themselves to be wise), it is God laughing at those who try to give Darwood’s brain-dead natural selection idol credit for God’s wondrous creation.
Romans 1:
20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
Sans cross reference links:
==So tell all of us again us all how you think a proponent of Theistic Evolution, the belief that God is the creator of the universe and all life within it, has a god complex for rejecting your version of abracadabra creationism. I might also point out that the phrase “god complex”
I was specifically referring to your line from Burns, where you presumed that the Temple of Darwin cult sees creationists in the same way Burn’s pantheistic “gods” do.
First, there are no “gods”, there is only the God of the Bible. Second, He has given us His creation account in Genesis, confirmed by Jesus Christ himself. Third, if anyone is laughing at fools (who profess themselves to be wise), it is God laughing at those who try to give Darwood’s brain-dead natural selection idol credit for God’s wondrous creation.
Romans 1:
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
==Gee- isn’t that cute? As opposed to what? The Abracadabra ‘nature did it’ hypothesis?
One wonders what “theos” NL believes created the world via RM + NS.
Had I been trying to be cute, or flippant, or even trying to return the insults, I would have used the phrase "hocus pocus". Abracadabra is a legitimate description with biblical origins. I would have thought a self described bible, theological, and linguistic scholar such as your self would have known that. To save you further embarrassment I am providing a tutorial at no charge.
The term originated from the Aramaic. The original Aramaic phrase was used with a Hebrew prefix Alef rather than the latter version with an Ayin. The difference was that the original meaning was "I will create, as I say," while the latter was "What was said has been done." The original Aramaic was either עַבְדָא כְּדַברָא, avda kedavra, which means, "what was said has been done," or עברא כדברא, avra kedavra, which means "what was said has come to pass" or "caused to perish like the word." Over time, it was corrupted to its current pronunciation with the replacement of both "v" sounds with "b" sounds: b and v can be interchangeable in Aramaic.
As to what "theos" i believe created the world, it is simple:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
How about you since you downplay any sequential process associated with the rest of the first chapter of Genesis?
[[One wonders what “theos” NL believes created the world via RM + NS.]]
Had to be soem lesser god what done did it, because nature certainly isn’t capable of creating hte trillions of non species specific ‘changes’ that had to occure for all the species alive today and past. Not only that, but ‘nature musta done it’ hypothesis can’t explain how metainformation necessary to handle all the mythical changes that supposedly took place despite zero evidence. One has to ownder where all the transitionals went- the “We’re lucky enough to have the fossils we have today concidering the ‘rarity’ of them” Argument just doesn’t hold up
And NL wonders why I’m reluctant to get into a pages long ‘discussion’ abotu hte evidences? Gee, could I? Why I’d love to have everythign presented and researched ONCE AGAIN, ignored and dismissed with the wave of a hand.
That is simply not the case and betrays the abject ignorance of the scientific subject.
The “micro”/”macro” distinction is as idiotic as saying that the “micro” erosion observed currently is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of geographic features.
What is going to stop “micro” changes from accumulating in two divergent populations over some seven million years such that there will be a 2% genetic difference and a 6% genomic difference such as is found between humans and chimps?
“When it is idiotically claimed that evolution cannot be tested,the claim is not about the common descent of species being directly reproduced in the lab; but that natural selection of genetic variation is not sufficient to add “information” or derive useful traits or shape a populations behavior, morphology, and molecular make up.” [excerpt]Strawman and bait-n-switch, all in one.
“The “micro”/”macro” distinction is as idiotic as saying that the “micro” erosion observed currently is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of geographic features.” [excerpt]Well, the “micro” erosion observed currently is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion found on Mount St. Helens.
“What is going to stop “micro” changes from accumulating in two divergent populations over some seven million years such that there will be a 2% genetic difference and a 6% genomic difference such as is found between humans and chimps?” [excerpt]That is not the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.