|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the only two logical possibilites, of the existence of things and that existence allows us. Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluations the Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from a logical proposition Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution Again, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusions Neither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear Agent See what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes
See what I mean? Now see Agent, did this man offer an argument in contrast to what I said, or only sarcasm an insult. Thats all they have in this connection Watch and see if anything of an argument is offered. They know that the proposition is solid and cannot be touched. Lets see if they have anything Agent Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4182 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
Judging by your post history, you made 4 posts before converting to atheism. You sure sound like you came prepared to "destroy evolution."
And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1774 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a whole
Who ever claimed otherwise??? Only creationists (such as you) and the otherwise ill-informed claim that evolutionists claim that "evolution is the ultimate origin of things". How could you possibly not have known that, given that you have been here a good number of years now? The ill-informed have an excuse; you have none. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
There is evidence of natural causes.
Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, Well done. Can you please inform all the other creationists here of your revelation.
Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent Now then, was there any reason that you felt the need to lie about this? It's not even a good lie, I mean we could go back and show you the number of times it's been pointed out that abogenesis is about how life started and evolution is what happens after that. Isn't it enough for you that you can say that science can't yet say how life started? Why lie when you've got a decent story anyway? Is it just habbit?Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Now then, was there any reason that you felt the need to lie about this? It's not even a good lie, I mean we could go back and show you the number of times it's been pointed out that abogenesis is about how life started and evolution is what happens after that. Isn't it enough for you that you can say that science can't yet say how life started? Why lie when you've got a decent story anyway? Is it just habbit? I feel I must rise to the defense of Dawn. I don't for a moment believe that he's lying. A lie is knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's clear that Dawn's connection with reality is so tenuous that he actually believes that supporters of the ToE lump it in together with abiogenesis. He is, of course, wrong. But I don't believe he knows he is.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
I'm prepared to accept insanity as a defense. God knows there's enough evidence.
Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is evidence of natural causes. Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing. It really is that simple. Jar likes to play with words. He likes to leave the very mistaken impression that there is 'evidence' of the cause for the things in existence The actual fact is, that there are things in existence, thats all we actually know outside and disregarding the scripture and other texts explaining existences causes For Jars intimation to be taken seriously as evidence, of the ultimate causes, he would actually have to provide the actual source of these properties, like quarks and other particles, that seem come into existence from nowhere or from another source as yet unknown So no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimating Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things That being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerations Both should be taught in the science classroom We have been over all of this to many times to mentionDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Now then, was there any reason that you felt the need to lie about this? It's not even a good lie, I mean we could go back and show you the number of times it's been pointed out that abogenesis is about how life started and evolution is what happens after that. Isn't it enough for you that you can say that science can't yet say how life started? Why lie when you've got a decent story anyway? Is it just habbit? We have been through all of this, over the years,that is not my implication at all. Yes I know they believe what you have stated, it is not what they practice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I feel I must rise to the defense of Dawn. I don't for a moment believe that he's lying. A lie is knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's clear that Dawn's connection with reality is so tenuous that he actually believes that supporters of the ToE lump it in together with abiogenesis. He is, of course, wrong. But I don't believe he knows he is. For once inyour life Subbie try and go deeper, before it is explained why I dont believe what you stated above I know they dont believe that Subbie, but it is not what is practived in the media, televison or the classroom Try to show atleast some intelligence, Subbie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3727 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Both should be taught in the science classroom Why? One is science one isn't. Why would we want to teach religion in a science class? Shall we teach the ToE in religious education classes or Sunday School? How about metalwork in cookery classes or maths in history classes? I have a better suggestion, lets teach maths in maths class, history in history clases, religion in religion classes and science in science classes. There, sorted! I suppose Kitzmiller-v-Dover didn't make it to your planet. Just in case you missed the nub of the matter, it can be summarised as follows, Religion is NOT science and therefore has NO place in science classes. Have you read any of the Dover transcript? Have you read the Dover judgement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Both should be taught in the science classroom maby this will help to get it trough your thick scull. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things What has fanaticism, be it religious, political, or personal ever shown anyone on earth throughout history how anything worked?
So no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimating Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things That being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerations Both should be taught in the science classroom Why should your minority (and in the vast majority of all Christians, adherents to other religions, and the actual vast majority of all people on earth) interpretation be forced upon all? So, I am curious. Now that satellites are close to able to establish parallax beyond any 6k distance of stars, are the fanatics going to turn against mathematics and try to prevent the teaching of trigonometry? I am on to your game, I have actually studied the source of your obvious hatred of science or any other human endeavor that does not fit within the model of the 'great leader' that is stealing your soul. Protestant, my ass. Martin Luther (despite his antisemitic influence on Hitler along with others) told you to read the Bible and think for yourself. No, instead we have self-appointed messiahs that state flat out the only way to God is through them. So which are you? Seventh, and worship White and Miller (didn't any one notice he got it wrong twice, what? three times a charm?) over Jesus and God. I notice that there is little to no New Testament, did Miller and White specifically set this thing up to reject Jesus and hate on science. Orthodox Judaism doesn't need intermediaries or pretenders. Pentecosts. What can be said? Let me tell you a story. My grandmother was a bit off and in her advanced years appeared starved for attention despite the fact my father visited her every day or so. Nevertheless somehow some door to door Pentecosts got hold of her need for attention. Sure enough, she wound up in their hangout promising all her resources to her new fake friends. Well the old man and his two brothers caught wind of this and decided it was their responsibility to save their mother over those who would save them for personal profit in Jesus' name. Considering that my dad worked for the mob during the prohibition along with his siblings, one of which had a bad attitude due to prison, they made rather short work of the congregation. So much for the Pentecosts. OK, how about Jehovah's Witnesses? Have not seen much of them since they gave up on the annoying door-to-door crap since the 60s and early 70s. My dad's friend actually whipped out a 12 gauge and told them that if they ever set foot on his property again, they would be carrying a load of buckshot. BTW, this was in Anaheim. I wasn't that mean, I just told them I was Buddhist and they left me alone. Now what is the problem with science that some Baptists have? These self-righteous assholes are perhaps the largest threat to Christianity, reason, democracy, human rights, everyone who is not Baptist, and pretty much everyone on earth. That being said, some Baptists are pretty cool. At least they have a thing about Jesus (for them, Jesus is God). The problem is that they forgot their heritage in order to gain political power. Now this compromise with the state has resulted The Baptist church is an offshoot of the Mennonites (who don't mess with science, they believe in let live and live) and some individual preachers who stuck with interpreting scripture over a desire to overthrow temporal kingdoms. Originally, it was the laity, given their belief in the essential tenets of Protestantism, that ruled the church, much like the Presbyterians. However, over time, much to the eternal shame of the Baptists, not only did the Southern Baptist church wind up splitting with the Baptist church over their support of slavery, they denied their heritage of the congregation deciding upon the pastor. Today, we have the anointed fuhrer of the southern baptist church! So considering you have a religious 'reason' to be against reason science and indeed Christian charity, which one are you? Most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, along with Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians, along with other adherents of various religions and atheists and agnostics are not against science and reason. Even Baptists, who know about and respect their heritage, and are properly ashamed about their past support of slavery and current support of theocracy among those who claim to speak for God, agree. So, in rejecting the message of Jesus, along with Laoste, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Socrates, and the recently and deservedly recognized founder of the enlightenment Baruch Spinoza, I must ask. Are you a troll? Edited by anglagard, : complete sentence, 2nd to last paragraph Edited by anglagard, : Clean up last paragraph and next to last sentenceRead not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You like to misrepresent what I write it seems.
We can see many causes without any necessity to find some ultimate cause, and we have found many causes. In every case we have found only Natural Causes. Not one single example of supernatural cause has ever been found. There is evidence that the "Scripture" is often patently false. It is wrong to teach falsehoods in school. There is only one model and that is the scientific model.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024