Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 32 of 90 (570031)
07-25-2010 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
07-24-2010 6:23 PM


thats some lie
Why are people who say that the evidence of the universe, including its synchronicity, its fine-tunedness, its ability to create such diverse and wondrous life forms, or even just the ability of the universe to create a being that wonders-fundamentally dishonest.
What an absurd lie that is. Because they disagree with you, they must be lying?
You have proof for the existence of this universe, that the "liars" are denying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 6:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 07-25-2010 11:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 90 (570158)
07-26-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
07-25-2010 11:53 AM


Re: thats some lie
Specifically, what "evidence" are all creationists ignoring, that constitutes lying?
That's a pretty strong charge, so you must be able to provide some very specific examples of what evidence you are referring to.
You are not saying that a few examples of bacterial mutations must be enough to convince everybody on the planet that Darwinian evolution must be correct or they are liars are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 07-25-2010 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 07-26-2010 1:37 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 49 of 90 (570163)
07-26-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ringo
07-26-2010 1:37 AM


Re: thats some lie
Well, it is YOU, who has made the accusation that people are ignoring, thosands as you say, so it is incumbent on you to give a few of these examples.
You are pulling the same stunt that so many do on this forum, claiming evidence abounds, and then shucking off that responsibility to show any, by saying it is in some book, or others have already provided it.
So since you are claiming the evidence is so overwhelming as to be obvious to anyone who isn't "lying" as you charge, then you must back up that statement with evidence, or it is you who is doing the lying.
Are you just throwing about baseless accusations are not? Don't just talk out your ass. Back up your claims. I thought that was a fundamental rule of this forum-if you make outrageous claims, you should be able to support it with evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 07-26-2010 1:37 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 2:12 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 51 of 90 (570166)
07-26-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 2:12 AM


Re: thats some lie
That is a link to a discussion about common descent, which is not what the question is. The question is what mechanism was used to create the common descent. How can we know it wasn't intelligently planned that way?
Secondly, if all you can do is throw out a link, you are going to have to explain where in that link it provides the answers you are suggesting it does.
For instance, one paragraph says: "One of the oldest, most basic, and most frequently used methods for character resolution is the maximum parsimony (MP) criterion (Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza 1963; Kitching et al. 1998). The parsimony criterion mandates that the best tree describing the data is the tree that minimizes the amount of character conflict...."
Now, how would one know if THIS is the evidence you are citing to claim that it is overwhelming, if none of you are even able to state for yourself what evidence is overwhelming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 54 of 90 (570170)
07-26-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 3:15 AM


Re: thats some lie
Is it asking too much for you to actually read the link that YOU posted?
The name of the article is QUOTE: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
Did you catch the line that says-'The Scientific Case for Common Descent"? Well, there's a clue there. It's talking about the case for common descent!!!!!
Geez, and you wonder why creationists can't believe what you say?
As a whole, I don't think the evolutionist side of the argument on this forum, although clearly the great majority of posters, can be very proud of their abilities to communicate intellectually.
You all would probably just be better off saying "Well, I can't answer any of your questions, but I know it is in a book. Someone told me"
No, wait, that IS what your side always says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:15 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 75 by killinghurts, posted 07-27-2010 12:33 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 56 of 90 (570172)
07-26-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 3:35 AM


Re: My take on Hugh Ross
If wikipedia is anything to go by:
It most definitely isn't.
At least when it comes to writing objectively about worldviews. In fact, I would say it is downright propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:35 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:44 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 58 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 90 (570176)
07-26-2010 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 3:43 AM


Re: thats some lie
I am sorry to be so blunt, but now you are sounding downright silly.
Go back and read what you just wrote. No wait, let me just show it to you right here so you don't get lost on the way:
That is a link to a discussion about common descent (me talking!)
No, it's a link to "29+ evidences for evolution." You're supposed to follow the outline. (you talking!)
I repeat, its a discussion about common descent! Thus the title.
Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. Did you accidentally recall hearing that?
I think you have convinced me of one thing however. It is fundamentally useless to discuss evolution on this website. I have already seen how ineffectively the rules of discussion are enforced, I have seen how un-opened minded, and incapable of reflection most of the posters are, and now lately I am seeing just how plain uninformed the evolutionists here are about their own dam theory. They believe in something they don't even have the darndest clue about, so they certainly aren't going to be able to articulate why they believe it.
And yet they rave on and on about how dumb and misguided creationists are.
I am not referencing you in particular, but the wealth of mindless blind faith and ignorance on this website is astounding.
And quite a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:21 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 90 (570179)
07-26-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 3:48 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
I don't necessarily have an opinion about their particular beliefs, but I think it would have been difficult during their time to speak out as a complete atheist.
And sure, I think it would be great to discuss scientific believes and the validity of arguments without first assigning one's religious faith as a criteria for credence; but since every non-evolutionist is swathed by evolutionists with the dismissive cloth of religious faith, I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 4:34 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 64 of 90 (570182)
07-26-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Huntard
07-26-2010 4:21 AM


Re: thats some lie
As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent.
No surprise there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:21 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:39 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:55 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 69 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 8:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 70 of 90 (570257)
07-26-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 4:34 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
WTF???
The religious beliefs about the Lyell and Hutton are MORE on topic than a discussion about a the validity of the evolutionary argument, when the entire topic is about trying to disprove this one man's argument against evolution?
Are you out of your mind, or just exceedingly rude and shameless to consider me off topic when you are writing reams and reams of paragraphs that are so far off topic that I had to go back and check why you were writing what you were to begin with?
Are you just pulling my leg?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 4:34 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:28 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 72 of 90 (570283)
07-26-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:28 PM


Correction: The topic was about asking people to refute Hugh Ross's argument about the time necessary for abiogenesis to take place.
The topic is NOT at all about religion, or about people's literal take on the bible.
Plus point me to the post where you have addressed this issue and attempted to refute his argument?
Secondly, I was RESPONDING to another poster who claimed that by definition, any creationist who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in fact lying (whom you didn't choose to say was off topic)-which is much more pertinent to the topic then ANYTHING you have written about so far.
Respectfully.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:28 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:55 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 74 of 90 (570289)
07-27-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:55 PM


My question to you is, WHY with all of the paragraphs and paragraphs being written talking about the bible, and about Peter and Luther and Calvin, and original sin, and oh my, how far does it go...why did you choose to say that it is ME who is off topic.
I suspect that your bias towards seeing me as the one who derailed a topic is not intentional, but simply more evidence of how evolutionists are blinded by their own worldview.
I was simply pointing out the fact that if there are arguments, such as Ross's!, that take issue with the status quo arguments about evolution, those people are NOT in fact liars!
Frankly, I think it has only been NWR and kbertsche who have tried to answer the topic most directly. EVERYTHING else has been a tangent.
I joined this topic because I am waiting to see more people attempt to refute his arguments-other than calling him a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:55 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 2:23 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 77 of 90 (570363)
07-27-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by dwise1
07-27-2010 2:23 AM


It took you that many paragraphs to say something so fundamentally incorrect??
Just because you can point to some specific creationist that you feel lied, you think that equates to all creationists lie?
Gee, I can point to a number of evolutionists who have lied, Granny Magda, Dr. A certainly, Huntard..., so I guess evolutionists always lie.
Wow, its easy to draw such a conclusion, much easier than I thought. Or perhaps you lie; because you are an evolutionist and we now know that evolutionists lie.
Or just don't realize how incorrect you are.
But let's get back to the topic for the good of others, ok.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 2:23 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:08 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 10:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 79 of 90 (570373)
07-27-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Huntard
07-27-2010 9:08 AM


Gee I thought on this forum you just get to accuse people of lying and you don't have to prove anything. Or else you can just say someone is lying, and if they aren't lying, it must just mean they are badly mistaken.
But can you prove you don't lie, ever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:08 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 82 of 90 (570379)
07-27-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Wounded King
07-27-2010 9:16 AM


Re: Leading/misleading questions?
I can, because the only person I have ever had sex with is your mother, and she can't be a ....
well wait, no actually I can't prove it for certain.
Ok, sorry, just joking. Come on let's let this thread get back on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:16 AM Wounded King has 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