Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 154 (121213)
07-02-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 11:51 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
quote:
The examples of IC in Behe's book have not been disproved.
All Behe "proved" is that these IC systems exist. He offered nothing in the way of positive evidence that these systems came about by an intelligent designer. It takes more work than simply stating "IC systems ergo ID." Behe makes the claim that these systems came about in one fell swoop. He has yet to show positive evidence of this beyond his incredulity towards evolutionary mechanisms. Incredulidty is not a valid argument, positive evidence is.
quote:
You evos are locked into "step by tiny step", those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma. There is no way around it.
Indirect evoluionary pathways are viable pathways. Behe only rejects them because they do no pass his "incredulity filter". Evolution is not limited to non-IC systems. Rather, Behe claims that evolution is limited by his imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 11:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 154 (121293)
07-02-2004 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 11:51 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
willowtree writes:
The examples of IC in Behe's book have not been disproved.
You evos are locked into "step by tiny step", those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma. There is no way around it.
The concept is that such systems cannot arrive on their own through the process of evolution. Every one of his examples have been shown to be evolvable by the standard process of evolution with actual examples along the way. That disproves the concept that they cannot meet the criteria of evolution.
For IC to be tested it has to distinguish itself from standard evolution -- it has to be a system that cannot meet the criteria of evolution. That is the way a scientific theory is tested: it makes a prediction that says if theory "Y" is true then {observation \ experimental result} "X" will be observed while if {old \ other} theory is true it won't. Behe's examples of IC do not meet this criterion.
The failure of creationists to accept evolution in no way discredits the fact that the steps meet the criteria of evolution, particularly the criteria of evolution by scientists and not some imaginary version of it used by creationists.
Note that the concept of ID contradicts creationism; the two are incompatible at a basic level that is irreconcilable. Further there is no such basic level incompatibility and conflict between ID and evolution. There may be an incompatibility between some things proposed to test ID (such as IC) but if their failure to pass scientific the procedures testing (prediction / validation testing) does not invalidate ID, then they are not a test of ID, just the proposed concept: IC is such a non-test (especially as it has been invalidated).
ID must meet the criteria of {science \ scientists} by it's own position, and not the criteria of creationists, for creationism is ultimately irrelevant to ID.
IC systems exist and they are the product of ID.
Neither of those statements are proved, so this is just opinion, based in large part (IMHO) on an argument from incredulity. Sorry.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 11:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
chicowboy
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 154 (124084)
07-12-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
05-21-2004 1:44 PM


Re: Kudos!!
Another analogy that came to me the other day was the "Face" on Mars. Using the design inference, we would have to come to the conclusion that an intelligence put this structure on Mars. However, using a naturalistic viewpoint, the "Face" can be explained as combination of chance erosion and shadows that the human brain construes as a human face.
Another example is the difficulty archealogists have in determining whether a tool find is actually an artifact or a naturally chiselled rock. IOW, the definition of design can be tenuous. What appears to be natural may in fact be designed. How does ID differentiate between the two? ID postulates an intelligent designer using man-made or humanly identifyable objects as evidence. If a scientist can't tell me whether the object in my hand is a stone axe or a rock, how can ID tell me life is the product of god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 05-21-2004 1:44 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 94 of 154 (124088)
07-12-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 11:51 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
The examples of IC in Behe's book have not been disproved.
have you read behe's book, then? so far i haven't seen a single example that hasn't been disproved. including the mousetrap.
he changed his definition of ic outside the context of the book to mean that overall system doesn't work, even though subsystems (which he's supposedly concerned with) still function perfectly. even with that change in definition, his blood clotting example is disproved by the existance of dolphins, who are missing one of his neccessary components.
You evos are locked into "step by tiny step", those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma. There is no way around it.
no, evolution very often does NOT happen "step by tiny step." often, steps are cumulative, and features and subsystems are borrowed and adapted to new uses. this often produces whole new features in single generations. such as been observed, and proven with theoretical models in labs. evolutionary algorithms consistently develop ic systems. how does behe answer that?
IC systems exist
show me one. remember, no working subsystems, otherwise i'll just remove everything but the subsystem and it'll still work.
and they are the product of ID.
prove it. i found behe's philosophical rambling towards the end there a little unsatisfactory. actually, come to think of it, even behe admitted that it can't be proven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 11:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 12:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 95 of 154 (126134)
07-21-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by arachnophilia
07-12-2004 6:27 PM


Just Assert IC Systems are Random
have you read behe's book
I own a copy - so what.
he changed his definition of ic outside the context of the book
Bare assertion.
"Unintelligent Design" by Mark Perakh (physicist) [2004]
In this book, written to refute Behe, Perakh admits IC systems exist then he arbitrarily asserts that they are the product of some wacko theory called ATP, which of course is a random probabilities theory.
Perakh writes a book and sidesteps Behe's challenge to the foundational premise of ToE: ultra slow step by tiny step.
What are you evos making this stuff up ?
IC systems defy your foundational premise.
These systems are the fingerprints of God.
The chronological sequence of history has Darwinian and neo-Darwinian claims "disproving" Genesis claims VIA the ultra slow step by tiny step processes of evolution. THEN the discovery of IC systems. These systems disprove your ultra slow evo process TO DISPROVE GENESIS. The Bible, in Romans, ONLY claims enough fingerprints to deduce a Creator from. The fact that IC systems are few is in perfect harmony with Romans.
Micro evolution within animal species is a fact - and this fact is taken to the ridiculous extreme out into inter-species and humans and the macro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 6:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 07-21-2004 1:10 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2004 1:52 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 154 (126140)
07-21-2004 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 12:39 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
quote:
IC systems defy your foundational premise.
How so? Indirect evolutionary pathways are able to produce IC systems. Behe just ignores them because he feels, with no evidence, that they are "improbable". Also, he is always under the illusion that only one mutation can cause the wanted change. He is obsessed with showing the improbability of just one mutation when in fact there are possibly many such mutations in the same gene that will cause the same result. He also claims that neutral mutations that later become advantageous are not part of Darwinian mechanisms. He makes one such equivocation about indirect pathways creating the blood clotting cascade. One person posited that several mutations that were neutral at the time may have become advantageous after another gene mutated. He claimed that this is non-Darwinian because the neutral mutations were not selected for. Behe's shortsightedness, his inability to show positive evidence for "one-fell swoop" production of IC systems, his reluctance to accept observed production of macroscopic IC systems in step by step fashion, and his reluctance to accept indirect evolutionary pathways due only to his incredulity has really damaged his position. He is now bordering on Crackpotville, much like the skeptics who claim that the moon landings were faked.
The foundational premise is that DNA changes over time. If DNA changes, then so do the proteins coded by the DNA. If the proteins change, then what the proteins do and what they bind to also change. There is nothing in the premise that disallows IC systems. IC systems are only impossible to create through step by step mechanisms if steps are disallowed, such as those seen in indirect pathways, and if the final product observed today is considered to be the complete history of the IC system. For example, denying the existence of scaffolding would disallow the construction of an arch or a skyscraper. Behe hides his dishonesty behind an appeal to christianity. Without this appeal, creationists would have thrown out his ideas long ago. If Behe claimed that only aliens are capable of producing IC systems, would you still be supporting his views?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 12:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 97 of 154 (126146)
07-21-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 12:39 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Bare assertion.
uh, no. i just didn't actually provide the quote. but i will now.
in regards to deleting all but the type-3 secretory system of a bacterial flagellum:
quote:
For some reason that I was trying to say before, the function of the system is to be a rotary whip and to propel the bacterium or to [...]push liquid over top of it. This does not have that function.
and in regards to other uses for mouse-trap parts:
quote:
[...] the system itself has a function. The mousetrap [...] can catch mice. [...] If you take apart the mousetrap [...] you can [...] hammer the mousetrap to your door and use it as a doorknocker, or something like that. So, but [...] the point is that the system itself is not functional.
the "uhhs" have been editted out by "[...]" to be fair, since this was a debate, and he was apparently pretty nervous. a transcript can be found here.
so yes. he changed his definition. non-functional now means that it cannot have another function. since you have a copy of behe's book, turn to page 48 and tell me what he says about why systems with subsystems cannot be used to demonstrate ic.
IC systems defy your foundational premise.
no, this is an argument from incredulity. i've seen a number of experiments that use a computer programmed with evolutionary algoriths that ROUTINELY created systems behe would have called irreducibly complex. here is one such study.
The chronological sequence of history has Darwinian and neo-Darwinian claims "disproving" Genesis claims VIA the ultra slow step by tiny step processes of evolution.
maybe we're reading a different bible. mine says this:
quote:
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
and
quote:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
quote:
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
it keeps saying things like "let the earth bring forth" hmm. what could that be talking about? it seems the process by which god makes things is by having the earth produce them. i think hovind had better think his "i don't believe i come from a rock" argument. indeed, the verb in verse 27, when god creates man, seems to be describing a process in hebrew.
THEN the discovery of IC systems. These systems disprove your ultra slow evo process TO DISPROVE GENESIS
disproof of genesis as a literal historical account is totally unrelated to biology. we have enough geologic and historical records to totally negate that. on top of that, i doubt darwin, a catholic, was trying to do anything the of sort.
besides the fact that ic systems are actually a predicted result of evolutionary theory.
The Bible, in Romans, ONLY claims enough fingerprints to deduce a Creator from. The fact that IC systems are few is in perfect harmony with Romans.
what in god's name are you talking about? i don't see how you can use any verse in romans to justify creationism. but, if you're going to, let's at least get the author right. romans was written by the apostle paul. the same woman-hating, gay-hating, judgemental bastard that seems to have neglected almost everything christ was actually about. paul is hardly god. i wouldn't even call his letters "inspired." one christian to another.
Micro evolution within animal species is a fact - and this fact is taken to the ridiculous extreme out into inter-species and humans and the macro.
ok, please provide a brief description of the mechanism which prevents small changes from being cumulative. the micro/macro distinction is something creationists simply made up, because they can't deny it happens when you observe it, but they don't like the idea of the whole thing. in reality, all steps are small. all evolution is "micro" evolution.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-21-2004 12:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 12:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 102 by CK, posted 07-21-2004 7:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 98 of 154 (126310)
07-21-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by arachnophilia
07-21-2004 1:52 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
so yes. he changed his definition.
Which you did for him.
no, this is an argument from incredulity. i've seen a number of experiments that use a computer programmed with evolutionary algoriths that ROUTINELY created systems behe would have called irreducibly complex.
This opinion of yours totally avoids the evidence of your Mark Perakh and his avoidance of Behe's actual claim. I will not recognize your argument until you address mine.
ATP is a THEORY created to explain why something is not ID. You theorists are as such because to consider evidence is to entertain God.
Then you cite Genesis to say God is not the Creator.
Very convincing argument - just assert contrary to the intended meaning of the text.
i don't see how you can use any verse in romans to justify creationism.
Romans tells us WHY so many people deny the existence of God as Creator while wrapped around the icons of evolution.
romans was written by the apostle paul. the same woman-hating, gay-hating, judgemental bastard that seems to have neglected almost everything christ was actually about. paul is hardly god. i wouldn't even call his letters "inspired." one christian to another.
Pure rant. Your reaction betrays the hate in you.
If you are a christian - then I am an atheist.
Your moronic rant against Paul diametrically reveals the truth of his apostleship.
Acts 9 says Jesus Himself chose Paul.
Your smear of Paul is mental midget political correct nonsense.
You are a typical evo who thinks that they are born an expert in the Bible.
Darwin and Huxley were admitted racists but this undeniable fact is conveniently winked at.
Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2004 1:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-21-2004 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 100 by jar, posted 07-21-2004 5:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 101 by Loudmouth, posted 07-21-2004 6:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 2:22 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2004 2:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 154 (126314)
07-21-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 5:00 PM


Comparing Evolution/Christianity
Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.
Christianity: The precious father of the philosophy behind pogroms (and other antisematic practices), religious intolerance and the KKK.
Lucy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 100 of 154 (126315)
07-21-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Acts 9 says Jesus Himself chose Paul.
LOL
The important point is if there was an Intellegent Designer he was a piss poor one. The only place that Intellegent Design can be even possibly seen is at the very simplest level. If you can accept that the basic laws of nature are the design, you have half a chance.
But if you want to believe that humans are the direct result of Intellegent Design then is would be far more appropriate to call it

"Really stupid not yet ready for the local Middle School Science Fair design".


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 154 (126336)
07-21-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
quote:
Darwin and Huxley were admitted racists but this undeniable fact is conveniently winked at.
Given that the Aryan Nation Church (a bible based, anti-evolutionist movement) did quite well in Northern Idaho speaks against evolution being the root cause of racism. Needless to say, racists live in both camps of this debate. Racism is part of the human psyche, and some give into it regardless of their philosophical viewpoint.
quote:
Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.
Notice that you had to turn a scientific theory into a philosophy to make the mud stick. Science does not deal with the metaphysical while philosophy (fascism, marxism, etc) does. They have no bearing on each other. In fact, capatilism has a stronger dose of Darwinian mechansisms than marxism does, being that the strongest companies will outcompete the weaker companies. Capatilism is the epitome of Darwinism, where the strong survive. Since most agree that Capitalism is the way to go, by your argument that makes evolution right.
But alas, we are again way off topic. Hehe, I couldn't stop myself. I will step off of the off-topic soap box and wait for the next on-topic post.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-21-2004 05:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 8:11 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 102 of 154 (126350)
07-21-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by arachnophilia
07-21-2004 1:52 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Things must be going badly when they reach for that old chestnut!
Want to claim Darwin recanted on his deathbed?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-21-2004 06:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2004 1:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 2:41 AM CK has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 103 of 154 (126371)
07-21-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Loudmouth
07-21-2004 6:01 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Notice that you had to turn a scientific theory into a philosophy to make the mud stick
I notice you had to conveniently ignore the slander which produced my factual statement.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-21-2004 07:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Loudmouth, posted 07-21-2004 6:01 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 2:28 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 109 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 1:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 154 (126481)
07-22-2004 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Which you did for him.
no, i quoted him. did you miss that? did you read the page i told you to read? looking it up again, i suppose it's on 38, not 48. my bad.
This opinion of yours totally avoids the evidence of your Mark Perakh and his avoidance of Behe's actual claim. I will not recognize your argument until you address mine.
and i won't address your point until you address mine, that creation process is god saying something, and earth (nature) responding.
who cares what perakh said? as far as i can, he's just pointing out that behe doesn't understand probability. dawkins does the same thing, and he wrote before behe made his argument.
ATP is a THEORY created to explain why something is not ID. You theorists are as such because to consider evidence is to entertain God.
you're arguing in circles.
here's the next step. i say "show me the evidence of god" and you say "irreducibly complexity" and i say "here's the refutation of that that has nothing to do with probability"
what do you want? i posted a study that show evolutionary algorithms producing complex systems. i posted evidence that behe's argument is full of crap by his own words. you want the quotes again? behe says that other ic arguments are
quote:
vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system
quote:
The mousetrap [...] can catch mice. [...] If you take apart the mousetrap [...] you can [...] hammer the mousetrap to your door and use it as a doorknocker, or something like that. So, but [...] the point is that the system itself is not functional.
these are behe's own words. not mine. i'm not making this stuff up.
look at that argument for a second. of COURSE the system itself is nonfunctional. that's not the definition of ic, that's the definition of ANY system. take away its parts, it doesn't work. an ic system, instead, according to pages 38 and 39 has to be a system WITHOUT functioning subsystems. otherwise, it's just a collection of smaller systems, like his stereo example. reading along yet?
Romans tells us WHY so many people deny the existence of God as Creator while wrapped around the icons of evolution.
chapter and verse. i don't recall the bible ever having said anything about evolution, at all. but then again, i'm not real keen on stuff paul wrote.
Pure rant. Your reaction betrays the hate in you.
If you are a christian - then I am an atheist.
i'm glad that you've finally come out an admitted that. because i am, in fact, a christian. and what you wrote has hardly a defense of his authority.
simply put, paul projects a lot of ideals that aren't christian. one of which, as you pointed out, was judgement. if paul was a christian, well, i am too. and he does saying things like women cannot be saved except by giving birth, and they should shuttup, stay at home, and do dishes at such. i translated the greek on that one myself to be sure. and that hardly sounds like something christ would say. if you recall, christ was the one who gave women -- even prostitutes -- a chance, and respect, when no one else did.
Your smear of Paul is mental midget political correct nonsense.
You are a typical evo who thinks that they are born an expert in the Bible.
no, i'm a christian who's actually read the bible, and who thinks for himself, and can spot inconsistencies in doctrine. and uhh, it's quite the educated opinion, actually. perhaps you should read more of what he wrote, and see if you can spot the contradictions with christ's teachings.
Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.
actually, the nazi's were intensely christian. so were the crusaders. and the kkk. in fact, i think christianity has been the driving force behind alot more violence than any other single force in history. you might want to watch silly arguments like that.
and for the record, social darwin existed before darwin did. darwin never suggested that selection should be applied to humans; he simply observed what happened in nature. the social darwinists attempted to use darwinian theory to justify their already racist position, and adopted the name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 105 of 154 (126482)
07-22-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 8:11 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
actually, you ignored the assertions about the kkk, aryan nation (officially called the "church of jesus christ, christian" btw), the holocaust, the crusades, etc.
and which slander? mine? it's not slander if it's true. paul speaks out against gay people, effeminite people, and women, as if they were children of a lesser god. he sits in judgement, and judgement is not his. he even says that women can only be saved by childbirth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 8:11 PM Cold Foreign Object 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