Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rocks speak
Fencer
Guest


Message 19 of 59 (40000)
05-13-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by roxrkool
05-13-2003 7:14 PM


Well, I'm not an evo anymore because I've looked at the entire body of evidence in its totality and it compelled me to rethink whether evolution is probable. Therefore, I could no longer be an evolutionist since it was the wrong paradigm. Non-matter does not create matter, naturalistically speaking, despite your strange belief it does; likewise, inorganic matter does not magically transform into organic matter, but believe this only if you want to remain consistent with science.
You've seen the same evidence, but you've reached the wrong conclusions. I think the erroneous conclusions are the product of falsely accepting things as evidence for your theory, when in fact it is not evidence at all. I don't really know how to help you in this regard.
Many well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's heiling from every major accredited university in the world reject evolution and embrace creation as the most probable scenario of reality.
Why is that? Tell me please, but providing what you think is the evidence for your conclusion would be most helpful this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by roxrkool, posted 05-13-2003 7:14 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 05-13-2003 8:52 PM You replied
 Message 29 by roxrkool, posted 05-14-2003 1:35 AM You have not replied
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2003 8:56 AM You have not replied

  
Fencer
Guest


Message 32 of 59 (40056)
05-14-2003 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
05-13-2003 8:52 PM


quote:
Inorganic matter is different from organic matter in what way exactly?
You asked me to posit relevant questions, however, I don't think I could top this hum-dinger from you. Honestly, you can't be serious with this question, or if you are serious, you must be 10 years old or purposely acting like one. If you really don't know the fundamental difference b/n inorganic matter and organic matter, please don't respond to me anymore.
quote:
Many? Would that be 'many' in relation to those that do not accept creationism? Or would that be 'many' as in sort-of a meaningless literary device?
Meaningless to you, just like the distinction b/n inorganic matter and organic matter is meaningless. FYI: there are many accredited universities around the world, and it is hardly a testament to the persuasive power of the evolution argument that so many universities fail at indoctrinating 100% of its graduates. Some of us see a difference b/n organic matter and inorganic matter.
quote:
You seem to feel that numbers of believers is an important factor in determining the truth of a claim, though this is fallacious. Numbers has no real bearing on whether the claim is true.
You seem to have failed to understand/("feel" if you're the touchy-feely kind of guy) the purpose of my example. I merely found it intrigueing that the evolution argument regularly fails to convince people far more educated and accomplished than yourself.
quote:
Now try this. Ask a relevant question.
Like, "in what way exactly is inorganic matter different from organic matter?"
quote:
Say, ask a geologist about the flood.
Do you mean a Ph.D Geologist who has graduated from a major accredited university and believes in evolution? You do require that conjunction, do you not? I just want to be sure. I wouldn't want one of the "others" that slipped through the cracks to think he/she knows anything about geology.
quote:
Or ask an archeaologist about the exodus.
Why would I do that, Mr. Relevance? We were talking about evolution here, not about some irrelevant historical event you believe didn't happen.
quote:
The numbers will fail you.
You are contradicting your self-cited ideology. Anywho...
Unlike you, I don't measure truth by counting the majority beliefs of scientists. I have the uncanny ability to objectively weigh the merits of dissenting opinions and not get all emotional about the fact that alot of people believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 05-13-2003 8:52 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 05-14-2003 8:51 AM You have not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:11 PM You have not replied
 Message 36 by John, posted 05-15-2003 2:08 AM You replied

  
Fencer
Guest


Message 37 of 59 (40202)
05-15-2003 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
05-15-2003 2:08 AM


quote:
I suggest you stick to asking questions within the field of the individual scientist
You suggested I inquire from an archaeologist in order to show me evolution is true? Archaeology is merely the historical study of one species, human beings (according to my dictionary anyway); therefore, you will have do more to explain the relevance of how archaeology proves evolution. I would agree that Archaeology shows human beings to have human ancestors, unless the current assumption is that apes built those grand civilizations, but archaeology has nothing to do with biological evolution and certainly doesn't establish human beings have a common anscestor with a zoo gorilla.
Which simply shows (again) you have some emotional hang-up over the fact that alot of people believe in God, and can hardly control yourself to advertise your heartfelt displeasure of an alleged historical event recorded in a purported religious text, although not in response to any question or relevant line of inquiry within the consideration set of biological evolution.
However, I never did disclose my religious leanings, Mr. Relevance. Accordingly, watching you put forth so much energy into an irrelevant argument is about as entertaining as watching a zoo gorilla making piles with his feces.
quote:
So you don't really know what the difference is then. That's what I thought
I'm glad to see you agree that there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter. What that difference is and why real chemists felt the need to clearly distinguish between what constitutes inorganic matter and organic matter is not the conundrum to me as it is to you. Better that you go back to making feces piles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 05-15-2003 2:08 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Karl, posted 05-15-2003 7:54 AM You have not replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:37 AM You replied
 Message 43 by joz, posted 05-15-2003 11:02 AM You have not replied
 Message 46 by John, posted 05-15-2003 12:16 PM You have not replied

  
Fencer
Guest


Message 49 of 59 (40285)
05-15-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
05-15-2003 9:37 AM


quote:
Gosh, you are really winning my respect for your well-reasoned arguments and careful citations to the professional literature.
If it were only my life's goal to win your respect ...
I like that line, though. Shakespeare could've used it in one of his tragedies.
quote:
For a new poster (and Creationist), you sure seem to be skilled at staying calm and sticking to discussing the facts rather than making distracting and irrelevant personal attacks.
Thanks. However, please be on notice that it is in my ability to evolve into a jackass.
quote:
Most creationists who come here tend to make a lot of those personal attacks in the mistaken belief that they somehow win argments about scientific matters that way.
I know. Better to stick with substance. I'm relieved you see I'm different. I'm not perfect though.
quote:
Makes you kind of chuckle, doesn't it, thos people acting like angry knuckleheads, eh?
Actually, not. I'm a man who takes no pleasure in another's suffering. But you're not a man. Maybe it's different for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:37 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:39 PM You have not replied
 Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 05-16-2003 2:44 AM You have not replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 05-16-2003 9:06 AM You have not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024