Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rocks speak
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 59 (39986)
05-13-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 5:28 PM


its amazing the huge reaction i get when people start to feel insecure .
my point was that most evos havent heard the creation evidence i have , because they ask me silly questions when they are losing arguements.
as for your question, i have not taken these courses because your so much more cleverer than me which means i have no right to have an opinion! lol
Insecure?
(..........Someone hurry and get the ego surgeon, we have a critical case in post 15, we need an emergency self aggrandizement bypass stat......)
Most of us "evo's" have trawled through page after page of the mindless pap at AIG and co. fact is we have probably seen more attempts to justify YEC than you have, strangely we are still "evo's", why? Because the "evidence" that we are told refutes "evolutionism" is usually uterly uncompelling, ad hoc, downright lies or any mixture of the above....
As for silly questions would that be the requests that you (attempt to) back up any assertions that you make, such as the flowers in Australia example above? Hardly a silly question, and as for "losing arguements".....
(....Dammit man we need Dr H.Umility down here straight away, we're losing him, if this man doesn't have his ego deflated to normal levels his head will explode....)
As for the rest you have the right to an opinion, the rest of us also have the right to correct you when you bollocks something simple up and point out that maybe, just maybe, if you took a few courses, read a few books, whatever, you might be able to form an educated opinion and not need correcting all the time....
[This message has been edited by joz, 05-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by joz, 05-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 5:28 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:09 PM joz has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 17 of 59 (39991)
05-13-2003 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 5:28 PM


I'm another evo who has waded through the mountains of Creationist material and has remained an evo.
Maybe you could present the evidence we haven't seen. That sounds interesting!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 5:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fencer, posted 05-13-2003 7:58 PM roxrkool has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 59 (39998)
05-13-2003 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 5:28 PM


Mike says
quote:
my point was that most evos havent heard the creation evidence i have
And is the amazing orchid story some of the creation evidence? It doesn't even rate as "the other half" because it was only a small fraction of supposed evidence for creationism. And you failed to provide any of the missing bits of the story.
It seems you wish to remain wilfully ignorant of the scientific explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 5:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 59 (40003)
05-13-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
05-13-2003 6:42 PM


'As for the rest you have the right to an opinion, the rest of us also have the right to correct you when you bollocks something simple up and point out that maybe, just maybe, if you took a few courses, read a few books, whatever, you might be able to form an educated opinion and not need correcting all the time.... '
you have just proved my point ,by swearing and suggesting i read books e.t.c however i will not lower myself to swearing back at fools.
'why? Because the "evidence" that we are told refutes "evolutionism" is usually uterly uncompelling, ad hoc, downright lies or any mixture of the above....'
oh , show me this evidence , however dont expect me to change my mind.cos i have heard it all before , and oh er remind me where i messed up because i dont recall doing this,i simply was asking for some opinions!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 05-13-2003 6:42 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 05-13-2003 8:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 59 (40004)
05-13-2003 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:09 PM


Mike,
I'm with Joz. Where's this evidence?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:09 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:26 PM mark24 has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 59 (40007)
05-13-2003 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mark24
05-13-2003 8:14 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 05-13-2003 8:14 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 05-13-2003 8:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-13-2003 8:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 26 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 8:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 59 (40008)
05-13-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:26 PM


Evidence
LOL, you'd better pull the particular examples from that site that you think are any good and place them in the appropriate topics. You get to pick the very best ones rather than us picking the absolutely worst ones. That seems fair.
You wouldn't want us to pick 2 or 3 that have already been knocked off in topics here would you? It would make your choice of references look bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 59 (40010)
05-13-2003 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
05-13-2003 8:34 PM


Re: Evidence
'You get to pick the very best ones rather than us picking the absolutely worst ones. That seems fair.'
this just prooves you want to play scoring games

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 05-13-2003 8:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 8:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2003 3:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 59 (40011)
05-13-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:26 PM


mike the wiz, you're long past being a "visitor". It's time you either register or shut up.
If you've registered under another name, but have password problems, please contact Admin (Percy), to get them straightened out.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 26 of 59 (40012)
05-13-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:26 PM


mike the wiz:
quote:
*another non-specific reference to a site full of unsupported assertions and misunderstandings about real scientific evidence*
You really should try to paraphrase some of it. Demonstrate understanding, you know? Otherwise the discussion will be more of "we've read all that and it's without merit" and you saying "no it's not" and round and round ad nauseum thereafter. Please, if you want to debate in good faith, do this: cite a specific piece of evidence you find convincing, with sources provided (and not just a web site but a specific document) and when it is challenged, answer in specific factual terms, not just dismissal of the poor faithless atheists' ideas.
I read all of the "evidence for creation" on that site. No actual evidence is described in enough detail to indicate understanding on the part of the author(s). I have no formal training in geology and could probably summarize the polonium halo issue in a more factual and organized manner. In fact, for every single one of the issues mentioned, a solid rebuttal has existed, in some cases for decades. I'd like you to pick one issue and state 1)what facts it is based on, and 2)why you find it convincing. Then we can talk about evidence, and whether it supports that claim or not. The fact is that every single one of those claims has been refuted time and time again, and those making them may even know it. They are WRONG. They describe irregularities among mountains of evidence for evolution: irregularities which have been explained. That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 27 of 59 (40013)
05-13-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:38 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:
You get to pick the very best ones rather than us picking the absolutely worst ones. That seems fair.'
this just prooves you want to play scoring game
Don't get all emotional now. He was giving you a chance to choose your battles. That's more than fair IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 59 (40014)
05-13-2003 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fencer
05-13-2003 7:58 PM


quote:
Non-matter does not create matter, naturalistically speaking, despite your strange belief it does
Well... that's not evolution.
Non-matter didn't create matter, but energy and matter are interchangeable. And matter does, BTW, appear to pop into and out of existence all the time. It can be measured. It is called the Casimir effect.
quote:
likewise, inorganic matter does not magically transform into organic matter
Inorganic matter is different from organic matter in what way exactly? Seems to be the same stuff to me-- atoms, molecules, and bigger molecules.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
Why is that?
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. But just for fun, why is it that you are getting 93 out of a hundred rejecting creationism?
[qs]This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."
ncseweb.org
Not exactly creationism but...
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/rcd/researchreporter/summer99/god.html
So... why is that?
Now try this. Ask a relevant question. Say, ask a geologist about the flood. Or ask an archeaologist about the exodus. The numbers will fail you.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fencer, posted 05-13-2003 7:58 PM Fencer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Fencer, posted 05-14-2003 8:19 AM John has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 29 of 59 (40033)
05-14-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fencer
05-13-2003 7:58 PM


To be perfectly honest, I don't need to look at ALL the evidence that exists - that is nowhere near to being possible - for the average Joe, that is. Moreover, I'm not going to lie and say I completely understand the finer points of genetics, cell mutation, abiogenesis, or evolutionary theory. Fact is, I don't need to.
I know enough about the history of the Earth, as seen in the geologic record, to believe without one single doubt that this Earth is at least 4 billion years old (making room for possible future errors). I know enough about the origin of *man* and paleontology to know that evolution makes logical sense AND fits the geologic record. I also know enough about many other sciences to know that they all agree on the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and the universe even older. To me, that is enough to make evolution a fact, as well as an old Earth.
As for you and I seeing the "same evidence"... no, I don't think so. If your evidence is based on what Creationist sites have to say and not on reality, then, with all due respect, I believe you are the one who has come to the wrong conclusions.
You want evidence? One piece of evidence that convinces me? I don't have it. My evidence consists of the entire geologic record and all that it divulges and infers.
Evolutionary theory, paleontology, anthropology,... all that is simply icing on the cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fencer, posted 05-13-2003 7:58 PM Fencer has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 59 (40039)
05-14-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
05-12-2003 9:15 PM


Adding my voice to the people who most certainly have seen "both sides" of the story.
Except, of course, there aren't two sides. There is one side, science, and a load of sniping in the loosely organised religious umbrella of "Creation Science".
Trust me - I've seen the "evidence" of the "other side". I used to be a YEC - for a whole week. I'm so totally ashamed that it took a whole week for me - on an undergrad Biology course, a week to see it for the drivel it was. But such is the power of fundamentalist religion, or, more properly, the power of the assumed authority of its paperbacks.
But I thank God that the Christian community I was in, conservative and verging on the fundamentalist that it was, was not largely YEC. If it had have been, and I had had YEC in my mind as a fundamental part of Christianity, I would have abandoned the faith. Hell, I'd probably never have taken it on in the first place!
So think on this Mike the Wiz. You want to see people on here come to faith in Christ? You want to see Crashfrog return to the fold? You're doing a damned fine job by associating the Faith with something they (and I) know isn't true. Why not add "Christians believe the moon is made of green cheese" and be done with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 05-12-2003 9:15 PM mike the wiz 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