Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Only one version?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 51 of 106 (19299)
10-08-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wordswordsman
10-08-2002 7:22 AM


WS:
The reason you find yourself "banging your head against" what you call a wall is because Jesus Christ is my wall, my fortress, against whom you cannot prevail.
Hmm..as an atheist I never found anything about the bible compelling and am not even convinced that a real individual named Jesus ever existed...thus I have prevailed....so have lots of other people.
My trust and wisdom is in Him.
Whatever floats your boat
You are dealing with HIM through me.
This sounds like megalomania...so far your manner and reasoning hardly seem to represent the "loving god" you claim must be forced down everyones throats.
Resistance is futile-
Resistance is magnificently successful...thus the billions of other people who have completely different beliefs from you.
you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.
You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.
They are frustrated and desperate to find a crack into which they can thrust an arrow of deception.
Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?
It's a delibrate rebellion against the one living, all powerful God of the Bible who will have the last word.
You have no evidence outside your own wishful thinking and that of others to support this..no physical evidence..you cannot even "disprove" that Vishnu is not the one true living god.
It is no circus, but the most serious of matters you can imagine.
Then argue seriously rather than criticizing a debate because nobody else here seems to agree with you.
Many authors of the Bible
Hardly says anything about its validity...there are lots of authors for lots of publications
, a sea of scholarly experts
LOL! Now you plead to the authority of experts...why did a Google search tell you that they must be correct...and I have yet to see a sea of scholarly experts find any scientific merit in the bible.
and live witnesses testifying to the influence, power and authority of God support those statements.
Live witnesses are notoriously unreliable....and you will witness anything you want to believe in your state.
Well here goes for evolution, thousands of scientists from every kind of religious background finding supporting evidence. A sea of scholars supporting it. Thousands of scientists actually doing expermimental research confirming it....does not require belief...only a sound mind, education, and hard work....the antithesis of the fundamentalist who requires a weak mind, blocking of access to education, and hard work threatening all those who disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-08-2002 7:22 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-08-2002 10:24 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 55 of 106 (19371)
10-09-2002 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Wordswordsman
10-08-2002 10:24 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
[B]
quote:
Hmm..as an atheist I never found anything about the bible compelling and am not even convinced that a real individual named Jesus ever existed...thus I have prevailed....so have lots of other people.
I find that attitude quite puzzling, a common flaw in so many atheists who refuse to believe extra-biblical historical accounts that are very real and verifiable. Amazing! What is most amazing to me is the irrational denials against so much evidence. I suspect that fault carries over into atheistic presentation of science, guaranteeing suspicion from anyone more logical, reasonable, certainly those who actually taste of faith in God.
***************************************
You exclude yourself as you are neither logical nor reasonable and your posting history is the evidence to back it up. Also you show your woeful ignorance of science by claiming all scientists are athiestic as most are christians....but this is a common flaw of fundamentalists. Your definition of irrational appears to mean anyone who disagrees with you hence I think you are a megalomaniac..the definition still stands.
You don't PREVAIL with pure opinion with no substance. What you DON'T believe is even farther from legitimate debate substance.
****************************
CAPITALIZING your WORDS do not give THEM any more FORCE Your second sentence makes no sense.
Such UNBELIEF is simply subjective nonsense that can't be backed up except within your own mind. You can't project unbelief without proof against something to believe in.
*****************************
Your BELIEFS are subjective as you can provide no evidence for them physical or otherwise and cannot show that yours are better supported than those of any other religion no matter how much you denigrate them.
What do you do with extra-biblical historians evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes? Deny all who include Jesus? Is that your basis for denial? If I find time to enter the science debates, will you change the rules there to demand I not support my opinions with simple denial of what you call science?
*************************************************
Please do enter the science debates. However, when a group of people who a priori believe anything the bible says then claim that anything they see or read supports the bible while all contradictions are the work of a great conspiracy then there is no reason to take them seriously. John in his post also makes this point.
Historical verification of Jesus Christ in the same venue as found in the Bible:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/quotes.htm#James
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64)."
Josephus wasn't the only one: Runtime Error
Omit the sources obviously/possibly biased. Just look at the secular sources. Are you so biased yourself you can't believe any witness that dares mention THAT name?

******************************************
Nope, but an a priori belief that the bible is true is similar to what the ICR does in its research. It specifically states that evidence inconsistent with the bible will not be tolerated so I dismiss them entirely.
quote:
WS:My trust and wisdom is in Him.
YOU: Whatever floats your boat
Falling for Nos's tricks? You are appearing to be quite irrational, more and more, disqualifying yourself as a possible credible debater.
****************************************+
How convenient for you....you disqualified yourself long ago.
quote:
WS:You are dealing with HIM through me.
YOU: This sounds like megalomania...so far your manner and reasoning hardly seem to represent the "loving god" you claim must be forced down everyones throats.
Megalomania defined: a mental disorder marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Qualify that remark as not a direct violation of group rules, being you are a licensed physician qualified to diagnose me with the information available. Otherwise, once again you appeal to personal opinion AGAIN. No fact, just opinion based on.....what?
****************************
Running to Percy hoping I get banned there WS It is an opinion based entirely on your post. You claim that you personally speak for your god, that resistance is futile, and other chest beating low brow statements....it certainly fits the definition you posted.
Rule 3:"Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
******************************
Then you should also be on the way out soon. You are neither emotionally uncommitted, preserve detachment or maintain a coolly academic approach...on the last we can let it slide as you are clearly not an academic scholar.
MY statement, however, is BASED on biblical statements meant for BELIEVERS.
Col. 1:27
"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"
2 Cor. 5:20
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
John 17:21
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
2 Tim. 1:14
"That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."
etc., etc.

*********************************************
How convenient for you....so for the billions of people with other beliefs or no beliefs, we can all feel free to ignore this rambling. You must be really desperate...you are appealing to just about every different authority you can pull out of your hat
quote:
WS:Resistance is futile-
YOU:Resistance is magnificently successful...thus the billions of other people who have completely different beliefs from you.
Opinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong.
************************************+
However, you are the one who almost without exception makes appeals to the authority of poll results you find doing Google searches as demonstrating that what the majority thinks must be correct as you do further down in your post to me. So you can't have it both ways.
Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men.
*********************
Opinion without basis
No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies.
****************************
You sure about that...LOL!
The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society

****************************************
Every religion has its own dogma that each believes is "obviously" supported and that all others are wrong.
quote:
WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.
YOU:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.
Sure I can, if those sources are validated in more ways than the obvious biblical ones such as historical accounts etched on tables of stone and pottery, but for us Christians we know it is pointless to rely on those extra-biblical sources for our own comfort, being the sort of proofs needed for skeptics. In what was does the scientific method enter into religion?
********************************+
Sure you can you say...well, we are all waiting to see you do so even once. The scientific method does not enter into religion...the entire point of this forum is that religion (specifically a fundamentalist sub sect) is trying to claim that it is the same as the scientific method i.e. creation science.
quote:
WS:They are frustrated and desperate to find a crack into which they can thrust an arrow of deception.
YOU:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?
Can you back that up? Sounds like your OPINION omly. Got some polls to support you? ANYTHING? Besides, you atheists are losing in the education arena. I think the list is up to 31 states now allowing insertion of official creation science curriculum. Where is your majority now? The minority appears to be getting its way. Hummmmm.
*******************************
No, America is losing in the education arena...further erosion of the primary school system will lead to a nation of morons dependent on foreign talent for economic advancement...And do YOU have any support that all evolutionary biologists are athiests..You are truly ignorant.
As to backing up the statement...when do you see scientists engaging religious groups other than in cases where relgious fundamentalists try to impose their mythology on scientific principles...or are you asking a different question?
Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.

******************************************************++
However, I find this highly unlikely as you have taught evolution as you have shown absolutely no knowledge of it....you only answered one part of the question as well...what are the tenets of the theory of evolution? What was the great synthesis? Hint: what does transmission genetics have to do with evolution....
quote:
WS:It's a delibrate rebellion against the one living, all powerful God of the Bible who will have the last word.
YOU:You have no evidence outside your own wishful thinking and that of others to support this..no physical evidence..you cannot even "disprove" that Vishnu is not the one true living god.
The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible. I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality. Note that I did not claim I sought to prove anything about Vishnu, real or unreal. However, I have yet to meet anyone believing in that claiming any personal relationship or intervention from Vishnu. Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.
**************************************+
You use it as a source in deduction of reality? So you do or do not take it literally? Just curious.
Ever meet a Hindu? There are other religions that also believe in direct interventions of their gods so your statement is not supported by fact.
quote:
WS:It is no circus, but the most serious of matters you can imagine.
YOU:Then argue seriously rather than criticizing a debate because nobody else here seems to agree with you.
I am very serious with my approach, citing sources, THEN opinions based on sources. I am directly criticizing that last post to which I respond now as not fitting to be considered any form of debate whatsoever.
*************************************
That is your opinion. You quote scripture and claim it is fact. You claim your opinion is fact including the denigration of Islam and other religions,..even other christian sects particularly catholics. So your manner is even more unfit in a forum of debate.
Here is a question for you..actually a few related questions,
If you think you are right and everyone else is a fool, why not just enjoy yourself and leave everyone else to their folly. After all you would avoid using a computer and the internet..those scientific developments by evil athiest scientists that you hate so much.
Also, if you think so highly of your god, why do you limit that same being by believing that it needs you as an intermediate? Shouldnt an all powerful being be able to stand up for itself? Otherwise, it is not very powerful. And if people chose to ignore it, it is there choice, not yours..however, you seem to disagree with this.
quote:
WS:Many authors of the Bible
YOU:Hardly says anything about its validity...there are lots of authors for lots of publications
Sure it does. That so many authors independently wrote of the same God and His message so harmoniously is evidence of divine inspiration. The statistics involved as staggering, further evidence the writings are immutable, solid references as to God's Word to man.
What body of authors have come close to that feat, another collection of works that contain no contradictions between the authors?

******************************************+
To bad that is an opinion and not supportable with physical evidence.
quote:
WS:, a sea of scholarly experts
YOU:LOL! Now you plead to the authority of experts...why did a Google search tell you that they must be correct...and I have yet to see a sea of scholarly experts find any scientific merit in the bible.
Why are atheists so insulting with their LOL's? Is it so easy to laugh at someone who is sincere? In a live debate I suspect you would be publicly derided for such behavior in the midst of actual intellectuals.
***********************************
You would of course also be derided for denigrating those of contrary opinions...but I use LOL because you make me laugh sometimes...and I just wanted to share the joy
Experts exist for the purpose for which I use their knowledge. Of course I appeal to their collective contributions, including those of creationist scientists.
*********************************+
However, you do not appeal to the collective contributions of the overwhelming number of non-creation scientists.
You labor under a misconception that the Bible itself provides the scientific data of creationists. The Bible INSPIRES men to recognize the truth of creation, opens their eyes to God's perspective, frees them of the pain of rebellion.
********************************
No, creationists 1) do not present a testable hypothesis 2) provide no data to support their claims (mostly because step one is not possible)3) mis-state the scientific method (hint: you do not prove a theory) 4) when shown to be mistaken either they build a new straw man argument or take statements out of context from abstracts of scientific papers and claim the authors said something they did not...and the evidence for this is in the thousands of posts on this and other forums debating creation and evolution.
The Bible convinces them there is a wrong way to view reality, guiding them through encouragement in other areas to pursue the truth against overwhelming odds. The results are evident these days in the many convincing books, speeches, debates, articles, technical papers, research, and other supports from esteemed scientists on the creationist side.

*************************************
Esteemed creationist scientists?
Please list them all
List their publications
Please give a citation list in peer reviewed journals (I will settle for 20 citations)
List the organizations to which they are invited as speakers
quote:
WS:and live witnesses testifying to the influence, power and authority of God support those statements.
YOU:Live witnesses are notoriously unreliable....and you will witness anything you want to believe in your state.
Should you ever find yourself needing the favorable testimony of live witnesses, I suspect you will learn to appreciate that source of support.
**************
Witness testimony in criminal cases is notoriously unreliable. If I am ever in a situation where I need favorable testimony I would rather have DNA evidence or other physical evidence to exonerate me than hope that so and so can remember if the person they saw was white, black, short, tall, etc....can you remember exactly what the first stranger who passed you by looked like this morning well enough to incriminate him or her?
Most societies place GREAT reliance on two or three witnesses testifying the same information. Actually, I can't think of a single society that doesn't. Christianity has MANY witnesses to answered prayer, miracles verified by physicians, financial miracles attested to by unexplained wealth, and a long list of other evidences of a dynamic relationship beteeen Gos and men.

****************************************************+
I have never heard of a miracle verified by a physician....and plenty of miracles have been debunked as fraudulent. The "it was great and I dont understand it so goddidit" argument is not compelling.
quote:
Well here goes for evolution, thousands of scientists from every kind of religious background finding supporting evidence. A sea of scholars supporting it. Thousands of scientists actually doing expermimental research confirming it....does not require belief...
When these Bible attacks stand exposed for what they really are, I will have time to address all that.
****************************
Hmmm, what does this mean?
The current "challenges" are my priority.
***********************
Evolution versus creation board...what are the current challenges?
********************
But I'll capture that last thought as being typical of a sterile scientist with no spirit, no life, just a "dead" observer with no convictions except denial of the spiritual with no support at all.
****************************
Ad hominem..la la la Got any evidence to back up what a typcial scientist thinks? Warning you may not find it doing a Google search
So I have no convictions...LOL! You migh want to open your eyes someday and actually meet people with other worldviews...sheesh!
Ah, the atheist scientist. Millions of Christian mothers are learning their children must approach science atheistically. Wonder how they will react? I wansn't taught that way in all my years of education. When did that become the norm?

******************************************
What are the millions of fathers doing
Your years of education appear to have been wasted as far as science goes. You better log off...you are using a computer and "the athiest scientist" developed this evil construction ...actually why are you not Amish? They reject science completely...I guess they are closer to god than you....bum deal
quote:
only a sound mind, education, and hard work....the antithesis of the fundamentalist who requires a weak mind, blocking of access to education, and hard work threatening all those who disagree.
Support, please. Opinions AGAIN without a single shred of support from any source whatsoever!
***********************************
Your posts are a start
I can list many famous people considered the best minds of all times that subscribed to creation science in some aspect of the subject.
*****************************+
Go for it...I requested a list earlier in this post so you only need do it once.
Blocking of access of education? How? Where? When? Once again, false accusations, all opinion, no basis.
****************************
YOU yourself claimed to much education was a bad thing! Of course it is for fundamentalists! Those who expose themselves to the diversity of thinking, data, and philosphies of the world are not so easily subjugated as those who hole themselves up in their little world of self glorification.
How could ADDING creation science block education?
*********************
Because creation science is not science...please give the testable hypothesis, the experiments that could be done to obtain supporting evidence, the data from other fields of science that support it, and the predictions that could be made from the hypothesis of creation science...you cannot and that is why it is not science.
Few students even care about evolution anyway, which is a very real block of their education.
**************************
This is a very odd statement...could you elaborate?
People can SENSE there is something very wrong about the claims of evolutionists who EXCLUDE God.
************************+
Which people and why does this matter?
People are sick of that according to many polls.
**************************
Polls show that most Americans don't know anything about science at all so this is hardly compelling.
But there is a growing interest in science as students enter the DEBATE in their classrooms, studying the opposing sides.
*****************************
Please support the growing interest in science with data...
In time virtually every state will have sanctioned official inclusion of both disciplines FOR the benefit of advanced education (FACT, school boards are considering the changes all across the land, and so are education experts in charge of directing curriculum).
**************************
Ah, products of their own broken system.
FEW students in public schools are inspired to pursue any more than the required minimum of topics of science (FACT, painfull, awful, but reality).
********************************
Which is why such a large proportion of scientists in America are foreign or of foriegn decent....my graduate school was almost 50% Chinese.
Why? Because they were turned off by creation science? Hardly, for it has been excluded (FACT). All they had was evolution (FACT), which IMHO has been killing interest in science, being a depressing chain of unreal thoughts sure to put anyone into general educational apathy.
***********************
As students take the bare minimum number of science classess as YOU state it is hard to see how this issue is the defnining one for all science education...why would lack of creationism in school prevent one from becoming a chemist?....the sad truth is all sciences are very difficult subjects and only a very small subset of the population have the resources, the intelligence, the creativity , the motivation, or the opportunity to become scientists....when it comes to evolution however, every armchair weekend warrior suddenly thinks they are an expert in molecular biology.
So why the depressed state of education in the sciences and math? Think about it, then answer me.
************************
I answered you above
I would suggest first reading up on the many hundreds of current articles and statistics generated by national, state, and local education institutes and governing bodies. Those reports are right down my line, making me lament I left teaching. Ah, but all that OTHER mess teachers put up with these days, and getting worse! Nope, I'm reminded why I left.

************************************
So rather than stick to your convictions you cut and ran? Didnt you accuse nos482 of having a weak character for doing so?
Don't feel so bad though, we scientists that do remain are making wonderful new discoveries daily.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-08-2002 10:24 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 9:54 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 59 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-10-2002 7:39 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 64 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-10-2002 5:19 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 60 of 106 (19499)
10-10-2002 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wordswordsman
10-10-2002 7:39 AM


WS:I won't drop to your pack-level. You can lash out all you want, for I understand your confusion, the terror of knowing you are wrong but can't admit it. We undersand you can't handle facts. It's OK. Calm down.
------------------------------
M:
I am niether confused nor terrified and that you think I am working at a pack level suggests you have a persecution complex on top of your megalomania....and as to understanding facts...you have yet to present any...do you know what a fact is even? hypothesis? theory? Clearly not.
-----------------------------
WS:
As for most scientists being Christians, I challenge that.
Most atheists challenge that. It appears to me the average polls reveal that about 55 percent of scientists believe no god was involvd in evolution, which also matches other polls that indicate 60% believe there is no god, and others have varying concepts of what God is, most of which don't qualify as true Christian beliefs. However, 40 percent who actually believe strongly in evolution admit "God guided the process, including the creation of man", labelling them theistic evolutionists, which is an unacceptable compromise, leaving such believers outside the spectrum of Christianity. Christians believe the teachings of Christ, else one can't possibly fit the definition. Of that 40% who admit some form of possible divine intervention, few match biblical descriptions of the relationship between God and man, most placing God far away and detached, unresponsive, as though He started everything off then left it to develop.[/b]
-------------------------------------
M:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are so desperate and foolish that your only defense is to claim that they are not "real" christians..LOL!
Your faith is truly feeble. Most of the "true" christians I have talked to would not consider you a christian.
----------------------
WS:
If a person reads and believes men eventually evolved from primordal slime, is that subjective or objective thinking? Requires a little faith to believe, or is supported by empirical data? If proved beyond the realm of faith, then present your facts. Deduction laced with assumption won't cut it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M:
And a wonderful display of ignorance of the topic yet again
Know what the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is? Clearly not. Go inform youself instead of looking even more foolish.
--------------------------
WS:
I would love to get into the science part of it, but these rediculous challenges to the Bible can't be left standing unchallenged. That is all I can find time for. I still work for a living. I have lots of ideas to test out on you guys, but it'll have to wait.[/b]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M:
Lovely excuse. Did your dog eat your homework to
----------------------------------------
WS:
It is fact that millions of people are regular witnesses to the truth of the Bible in their daily lives.
-------------------------------------
M:
It is a fact that millions of people regularly witness the "truth" of other religions to...does not make it a fact or even compelling evidence.
-----------------------------
WS:
God interacts with us on a regular basis in ways outlined in the Bible.
-------------------
M:
Not with me
-------------
WS:
Of course, atheists are not part of that community and experiences of it, so can't comprehend such a possibility.
------------------------------------
M:
My comprehension skills are just fine...and you just dicounted millions of people as christians who believe in theistic evolution so your ability to comprehend the world around you is questionable.
----------------------------
WS:
There is a world of testimony stretching back through time which they regularly simply deny or object to. I can't help you with all that.
--------------------------------------
M:
Don't need your help and statements like "world of testimony" are empty appeals to authority for which you can provide no evidence.
-------------------------
WS:
You must pursue such things yourself. I personally have experienced the world of unbelief, knowing what that is about.
---------------------------------
M:
That is your BELIEF...you have no idea what my "world" is like regardless of what you think...I have personally experienced the world of belief as I was raised christian but by ten years old rejected it as pure unsupportable nonesense.
-------------------
WS:
There is no manual for living it. One is on his own there, a wanderer in time with no real place to go to in life.
----------------------------
M:
Funny, I would consider that of you and other fundamentalists. You claim other christians are not true christians and that everyone else is wrong. Therefore all religious sects are on their own guided by personal beliefs in an empty life thinking they are going in the right direction with so many others telling them they are wrong. The only thing ALL of us have in common is we each think we are right.
---------------------------
WS:
I find the Bible way quite fulfilling and matching up with the good of life.
---------------------------
M:
Good for you. I am glad you feel fulfilled by your worldview. (note: I am not being sarcastic).
---------------------
WS:
There would be no logic at all in believing things of that dark side when I know those contradict the side of the light of God.
--------------------------------
M:
Dark and light...hmmm pretty light here where I am sitting.
----------------------
WS:
ICR has an objective which leaves no time or resources for promoting antithetical agendas. Why would you expect them to carry opposing ideologies? Do atheists carry Bibles? The issue is black and white, extremely polarized.
---------------------------------------
M:
A group claiming to be a scientific institute that a priori claims that its conclusions are correct and will explicitly reject and data that contradicts its beliefs is not a scientific organization. Atheists carrying bibles is a poor analogy.
--------------------------
WS:
You need to read the rest of the story about our loving God. He is at the same time a jealous God, tolerant of nothing that opposes His Word. He already is the God of Judgment, a God of wrath against rebels. But yes, He is love, expressed in the giving of His Son Jesus on the cross for men's sins.
------------------------------------
M:
Yes, I know that your god is the Rambo of the universe in your worldview who gets a kick out of murder and headgames. But since he does not exist i.e. not "our" god but "your mythology" I don't put any stock in such descriptions.
-------------------------------
I said in a prior post:
quote:
Running to Percy hoping I get banned there WS It is an opinion based entirely on your post. You claim that you personally speak for your god, that resistance is futile, and other chest beating low brow statements....it certainly fits the definition you posted.
WS: responds:
That is a definition of fundamentalist belief in God as opposed to a quai-belief in some things about God. When I met Him, I decided to believe everything about God. I have great confidence in His abilities, His nature. He changed mine. My boast is in Him.
-------------------
M:
That definition of a fundamentalist belief in God would also apply to the supporter of a dictator.
--------------------
WS:
I'll resume a little later today...
----------------
M:
I can hardly wait.
Cheers,
M
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-10-2002 7:39 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 9:58 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 62 of 106 (19525)
10-10-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
10-10-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I'm afraid that when your post went into full bold that I again was unable to follow who said what. I found the post pretty interesting up to that point, hope you can find time to fix it.
--Percy

****************************
Hi Percy,
I think I fixed it.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 9:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 10-13-2002 11:32 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 65 of 106 (19614)
10-11-2002 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wordswordsman
10-10-2002 5:19 PM


Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WSpinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong.
M:However, you are the one who almost without exception makes appeals to the authority of poll results you find doing Google searches as demonstrating that what the majority thinks must be correct as you do further down in your post to me. So you can't have it both ways.
WS:
I think you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means in this style dialog. I refer to bonifide, statistical data that stands up under the test of mathematical statisticians. Polls do provide valuable data as to what people think. A very small sample size yields extremely accurate data with high confidence.
M: Well WS, what a surprise...you think a small samples size leads to accurate data with high confidence...I see you are not well versed in statistics...ever wonder why people try to gather LARGE sample sizes when they can?
WS:
You only demonstrate ignorance in those two points.
M: You win on this count I only scored two points...you have demonstrated ignorance on every point you have brought up.
WS:
Please catch up.
M: Please inform youself before embarrassing yourself.
WS:
Let's add yet another point in which you express ignorance. Google is a powerful search engine that helps me find websites. Some of the websites I quote from are official government sites, and I go directly to the pollsters. You may do so likewise, but will need a credit card to access the data other than obtain a short summary of the polls by subject.
M: So you never read books? Why are not all the sites you quote from official government sites. And do you really go directly to the pollsters? Considering I can find easily polls that claim exactly the opposite of what you find I find it highly unlikely.
WS:
I think I am on far better foundation than you who simply deny, deny, deny. You seem to be saying you don't intend to try to understand a fundamentalist Christian position. Save me the time of responding if that is your agenda.
M: I don't think you have any foundation at all WS. When I pointed out to you that most scientists are christians you claimed they are not "real christians". You thus undermine your own statements when you appeal to the large numbers of christians who believe in the bible, god, etc etc as you claim that a large swathe of them are not christian by your personal twisted definition. If pushed you would probably have to conclude you are the only christian in the world as nobody is as true a christian as you i.e. megalomania induced belief that you are in a position to judge anybody. You are in denial..not me...and YOUR fundamentalist position is clear.
I know very well what Google is. However, next time I publish a paper I will not be referencing websites I found there.
WS:Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men.
Mpinion without basis
No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies.
****************************[/quote]
I'm searching for an archeological article about some inscriptions that are considered written or dictated by a neighboring king in Syria (Assyria). There are several such testimonies, but too many articles to search through. I got there by verifying the decree of Darius. It is too easy for you deny, usually ignoring the truth when it is proven.
M: Your inability to provide compelling arguments or supporting evidence for your claims makes it easy for my to deny.
WS:
Should I bother? Will you say yu could care less after my spending many hours relocating evidence? At what point might I think you are aware much of what you've posted so far is unfounded denial?
M: Show supporting evidence that my posts are unfounded denial...I have been waiting for that all along. Your insults and protestations that I am denying your illigitimate "proof" do nothing to support your agenda...I would also say you should not bother since if you read my question this is not what I was asking for. You would actually have to find out about OTHER religions to answer my statement.
previous post, WS:The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society[/b]
****************************************
M:Every religion has its own dogma that each believes is "obviously" supported and that all others are wrong.[/quote]
You are not aware of the fact that most archeologists verify biblical events, names, claims, though sometimes reluctantly? Even secular historians marvel over the accuracy of the Bible, and its efficacy is undeniable among all but determined skeptics like you.
M: List them with the organizations they work for and cite their publications. Your claims are not supported otherwise.
WS:
Your statement lacks the support it needs to make all other religious claims equal to those of the Bible. A quick review of world religions, ancient-modern, reveals most of them offer no personal god whatsoever, therefore make no claims as to exclusivity.
M: Which clearly shows you know nothing about most world religions...
WS:
Islam claims exclusivity, but has no personal god interested in interacting with men. There is no comparison between any world religion, their claims, or any other feature, to that of the Bible. The religion of the Bible is unique, alone, independent of all the others, self-subjected to many tests of its claims.
M: LOL! self subjected to tests of its claims....figures you would make such a statment...WS is great because WS asked himself if he is great and the answer was yes because WS said so thus WS is great..LOL!
previous post, WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.
M:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.
Illogical. One cannot be a fundamentalist Christian and a liar both.
M: Seems to work for lots of you guys
previous post, M...the entire point of this forum is that religion (specifically a fundamentalist sub sect) is trying to claim that it is the same as the scientific method i.e. creation science.
WS:
I disagree that is the point of this forum. If it is, the existence of it is pointless, for fundamentalists are making no such claim. One here or there might, but overall, that is a misconception. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific journal, nor do most creationists believe their religion = scientific method. I believe your approach is a classic "red herring" fallacy. It might be true that many fundamentalists, and most other groups, couldn't define "scietific method", but I've not seen any equate religion with that. Where might I observe that claim?
M: I would suggest you read posts in some of the other threads and forums on this very board to see that your statement is falsified in part. The only thing that has been shown on this board is that not a single creationist knows what science is. It is not a red herring either. YECs claim that do to the inerrancy of the bible in their opinion, science may not contradict it...and when science demonstrates that a literal interpretation of the bible is not consitent with reality, creationists reject the data....therefore inerrancy of the bible and science is an appropriate topic in this forum.
previos post, M:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?
WS: I have another thought in answer to that. I've been in on the reviews of the proposed new science textbooks, even though not under contract lately. I like what I see.
M: That is tragic for whoever is subjected to the science classes that get the textbooks. Since you do not even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution that is a generation of students that will be deprived of acurate scientific materials.
WS:
There isn't a scripture in any textbook, no doctrine whatsoever. Only references to divinity or the possibility of a god that created, but not by name. The science topics are essentially unchanged, though with updates, some not so kind toward evolutionists, logging some of the frauds in recent history. The main thing I remember is there were no direct statements of cause through evolution without some discussion of alternative theories of explanation. The phrase "the horse evolved from...." is gone, and all like it. Now an example would be "some believe the horse evolved from....while other scientists believe many original species of horse simply became extinct reducing the original numbers...". None of it teaches religion. They simply leave open the fact there is deep divide among scientists, leaving it up to the student to arrive at his own conclusion about origins and where the various species came from. However, the lesson plans still require them to learn (well, to be taught) all of the former state-required elements. I don't recall seeing any indication any student would be required to show proficiency in anything religious. The emphasis is on awareness, not on dogma. I didn't follow up on which texts were selected or when they will be offered. It is just a matter of a little time when most if not all states will have set that in motion, and you will be able to borrow some textbooks, see for yourself there is no religious teachngs, just general references to possible divine intervention. Any person could insert the name of their god in those references.
M: If it spreads then scientific education in America is dead. We can forget about any meaningful progress until this stupidity fades. Since you have to include non scientific crap like divine intervention in a SCIENCE class you might as well teach the kids astrology, alchemy, and the sad fact that it is not known how gravity works..after all it is only a theory...why not let each kid believe that monkeys in their butts cause speciation? If you want to push religion into science class then why not just end scientific education in America and go back to being..Amish.
previous post, M:No, America is losing in the education arena...further erosion of the primary school system will lead to a nation of morons dependent on foreign talent for economic advancement...And do YOU have any support that all evolutionary biologists are athiests..You are truly ignorant.
As to backing up the statement...when do you see scientists engaging religious groups other than in cases where relgious fundamentalists try to impose their mythology on scientific principles...or are you asking a different question?
WS:
Until Christians arose in reaction to the tide of atheism in the schools, education WAS deteriorating quickly. Apathy was rampant among students AND teachers. Education seemed to be of no use anymore, and people just couldn't seem to figureout why. But now the statistics are showing some signs of slow improvement. Time will tell.
M: Funny, the greatest acceleration in discoveries in the biological science occurred AFTER the Scopes monkey trial and when religion was taken out of the classroom. Your unsupported statement above pure pitiful wishful thinking.
WS:
I find it amusing that you think our education system will result in a nation of morons. You are burdened with many lies.
M: If students get a "fundie christian" education, those students will be blatantly uninformed and incapable of doing science since rather than using critical thinking when confronted with unknown phenomenon they will just assume divine intervention and stop questioning. You are a prime example.
WS:
Biology teachers associations are admittedly mostly atheist or agnostic, all supporting national evolution-only creeds with wording that would repel any true Christian.
M: Yeah, doesnt it suck when a group has actual science and supporting data for their science rather than the ignorant spoutings of fundies...that must really be painful for you.
WS:
I dropped out of all those associations years ago. The newsletters sometimes were alarming, as though a national call for the eradication of Christians who oppose evolution.
M: Your posts sound like you would be gassing all the none-fundamentalists if you had half a chance. It goes to the issue that religion has no place in a science class....I think it is less surprising that you dropped out of those associations than that you were in them in the first place.
WS:
Comments by pastors against evolution were the headlines, causing the editors to rage against fundamentalists. The simple answer for most science teachers was to just buckle and avoid any public acknowledgment of their faith to keep in good standing. I'm not made that way.
M: ...and you were free to disassociate from the organization.
previous post, WS:Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.
M:However, I find this highly unlikely as you have taught evolution as you have shown absolutely no knowledge of it....you only answered one part of the question as well...what are the tenets of the theory of evolution? What was the great synthesis? Hint: what does transmission genetics have to do with evolution
WS: My avoidance of talk of evolution is purposeful, not wishing to leave the topic. You are trying to distract, avoiding the real issues.
M: It is because you cannot talk of it because you don't understand it...opposition for the sake of opposition on your part.
WS:
If I wanted to discuss your stuff, I'd be "over there". I am quite aware of the theory, which is laced throughout most high school science topics. You apepar to have a narrow view of the issue, failing to distinguish between evolution in general and I presume biological evolution based on the next question asked.
M: Interesting statement from you...so distinguish evolution in "general" and biological evolution preferably in less general terms.
WS:
Biological evolution is defined loosely as change of a population over a longer time span than the lifetime of any one individual organism, the changes effected by inherited genetic materials, detected by observation of the alelle frequency of genes within a population. There are many mechanics involved, but modern genetics concentrates on the characteristics of DNA.
M: If you taught it for 17 years I would expect you could define it precisely and not loosely. I would also expect you to see where in your definition you have made mistakes. You really should know what you are opposing before you oppose it....by the way modern genetics concentrates on many things beyond the characteristics of DNA.
WS:
So what does that have to do with this topic?
M: You claim that evolution is false because it is inconsistent with a bible that is inerrant. Educated people claim that your position is not supportable.
Previous post, M:You use it as a source in deduction of reality? So you do or do not take it literally? Just curious.
Ever meet a Hindu? There are other religions that also believe in direct interventions of their gods so your statement is not supported by fact.
WS: I do take the Bible literally where its contents are obviously to be taken literally. I don't take the obviously figurative as literal.
M: Where do you make the distinctions? Is it the same as other christians? Is it the same as other members of your sect? Is it obvious to everyone with a similar worldview as yourself? Is it specifically supported by the bible itself?
WS:
I already announced here that a former Hindu high caste man from India will be here in my home Tuesday for the third time in as many years. You can engage him some then, getting some interesting perspective only a Hindu would know. His English is not good. If there is someone here who understands his particular dialect and written code, maybe it would be better for an interpreter to step in. Otherwise, you can ask some peculiar questions and let him tell me what to type.
M: Out of curiousity, what is this "Hindu high caste man" who does not speak much English meeting you for? I don't have to ask him about Hinduism...I have plenty of colleagues from India (Hindu and christian) to talk to for comparative purposes...interesting religion.
previous post, M: You quote scripture and claim it is fact. You claim your opinion is fact including the denigration of Islam and other religions,..even other christian sects particularly catholics. So your manner is even more unfit in a forum of debate.
WS: You would have me abandon the tenets of my faith, while you hold out your own tenets of the pagan religion of evolution? Evolutionists claim those are facts, though not proven.
M: When did I claim you had to abandon your faith WS?
Your second sentence demonstrates your ignorance of science that hopefully was overcome by the students you claim to have taught for 17 years.
WS:
I have supportive evidences for my religion, you have claimed supportive evidences for evolution. Counterclaims galore.
M: I can do experiments to support my hypothesis and add support for the theory of evolution...you have merely expressed unsubstantiated opinion.
WS:
While you swim in liquid sulphur or whatever it is down there, you can meditate upon who was right.
M:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's actually an endless cruise on the Love Boat but Isaac makes really crappy martinis
LOL!!!!
Sulfur...no wonder my belly button was itching this morning and my breath was stinky.
WS:
Of course I denigrate Islam and all the others, because the God of the Bible leaves no room for tolerance of them. None. Zilch.
M: And that is why like all philosophies based on dictatorship, you will ultimately fail.
WS:
You seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of this topic thread. I am not debating evolution at this time. I am interested in the Bible inerrancy issue.
M: You and your ilk use this issue to claim evolution is false and therefore it is not off topic....you cannot get away so easily
WS:
Such a long post, and too many interruptions. I have work to do. I'll return here later.
M: It must be tiring for you to be wrong so often.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-10-2002 5:19 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 67 by nos482, posted 10-13-2002 9:54 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 69 of 106 (19781)
10-13-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wordswordsman
10-13-2002 9:18 AM


WS:
After spending valuable time reading several of the posts of the fellow in Germany, I've concluded I'm dealing with a reprobate mind there, a classic "Christian-baiter" atheist. Since those posts were allowed here without critique, with all the personal insults and castigations, what I have to say here is allowable and proper for this list.
M:
This paragraph is a testament to the paucity of the intellect which you possess. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a reprobate reflects on your lack of character. Your behaviour on this forum according to its rules has been far less tolerable than mine and in cases where someone has gone to far they have been chastised i.e. nos482 so you cannot plead persecution either.
WS:
It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative.
M: It's a riot that you are obtuse enough to indicate that I ever claimed to be an anthropologist. As for a wannabe, I am a successful molecular biologist with an appointment at a very famous museum which is more than you will ever be able to claim in your life. Your questioning my intelligence after making unsubstantiated claims about your speaking for god casts a dark curtain over the little sect of christianity you so desperately cling to.
WS:
I am confident that there would be no way of carrying on further dialog with such a person that rejects practically everything I might say, denying sources, requiring proofs while not supporting his own statements. It's all pointless, useless, vanity and vexation of spirit.
M: I am confident that you say this because you have failed to provide any substantive arguments for your position and would rather run like a dog with his tail between his legs than confront me...you called nos482 a coward for this behavior but you have been nothing but hypocritical in your posts so I am not surprised.
WS:
One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc. It's inexcusable. Small samples are sufficient for large populations, whereas relatively large samples are needed for very small populations. The larger the sample, the more sure you can be, but the relationship isn't linear. For instance, 500 people polled scientifically can yield a 95% confidence with a very narrow confidence interval (+/- 5% extreme), representing 15 million people. A properly conducted poll of 20,000 Americans can easily represent the entire population of the US with high confidence and accuracy. If the sample size is increased for a large population, the improvement on confidence isn't significally improved enough to warrant the expense of taking larger samples than are customarily taken in polls, except in results of nearly 50-50 opinions from samples of only 5,000. It would be for a small population, such as polling this group. It would be feasible to poll every member here, assuring a very highly reliable opinion survey, but only of this population. This group isn't a fair representation of the nation, being limited to people who use the internet, who are interested in opinions, discussions, who are probably opinionated, who are trying to keep abreast of the issues. That narrows the field to a very small percentage of the population, so concensus here doesn't mean much.
M: Interesting paragraph considering this is NOT what you stated previously and is not what I was responding to. So your cut and paste of statistics 101 is meaningless in this context. There is nothing in your paragraph that I did not learn in high school.
WS: Skeptics cite the possibility of people polled could be lying to pollsters. That has been studied much, and the factor isn't great enough to change the results of polls significantly. The questions can be phrased in ways that false answers can be detected, presente to the population rapidly enough that a person wouldn't be able to carry through an agenda of consitently lying.
M: Skeptics cite the demonstrated fact that poll results are influenced by the way the questions are asked and by those with an agenda polling a specific way to achieve a predetermined result i.e. a racist could easily claim that African Americans are less intelligent by sampling only high school drop outs in poor areas and comparing their scores on standardized tests to those of other ethnic groups who studied at elite private schools. And as to bias, you yourself have claimed that any poll coming from what you deem a liberal organization is illegitimate so you will always look for the groups that support you agenda.
WS:
There are obvious misuses of the process, such as taking a poll from only viewers of a politically left/liberal, or a right/conservative radio talk show, television program or interest group, claiming the results represent the entire population. That's offset by pollsters that sample randomly using computer generated phone numbers and calling people at hours that will catch both the working class and home-bodies, weekdays and week-end days, across all the factors of race, gender, career, religion, etc. Such polls will of course differ significantly from special interest group polls. Someone in this forum recently cited such a poll that of course defies all scientifically conducted polls, yielding opposite results, a predictable outcome, usefull only to groups intent on brainwashing its constituents.
M: agreed...imagine that
WS:
Pick any book on statistical analysis, or any online tutorial. They all repeat what I'm saying. Your problem is that you dislike what the nationally recognized, mathematician-supported polls have to say about what you believe, so you castigate them as useless unless one of your preferred special interest groups matches your belief. That proves you are not a scientist, or it proves you are too biased to be useful as one. In any event, your overall bias proves you are not fit to be regarded as scientifically minded, abandoning the science method, ignoring factors that are significant. REAL scientists use statistics, the same processes used in polling.
M: Actually my claim is that scientific truth is not a consensus process of what people want to be taught. You don't poll people to decide how quantum mechanics works. It is you who has no idea what science or the scientific method are thta makes your opinion useless. If people decide to teach a fairy tale in school they should not call it science regardless of what a poll says. And I have stated before that I don't disagree with everything you polls state. That people, you particularly, in the US have some of the poorest education in science in the industrialized world is supported by such statistical studies that you quote. Put religion in the classroom and watch the ignorance soar to new heights.
WS:
I'm not interested in searching manually through textbooks for you. That takes time, choosing a textbook, going through the index, finding excerpts, typing them out only for you to continue your pattern of denial. You won't find me wasting time on you in the future. It's a ridiculous waste.
M: So you are too lazy to actually read through primary literature to back up your claims? This puts into serious doubt your prior claims that you actually follow up the questions and methodology of the polls you trust...and by the way, you should not be looking this stuff up for me...you should be doing it for you. You are the one with the unsupportable claims you wish to argue.
WS:
I'd suggest that you face up to your ignornace. Go study the issue of polls, learn for yourself the scientifically sound, mathematically supported field of polling statistics. Realize you don't know much about life, or science for that matter. You rely on brainwashing. You hate God, rebel against Him, predictably acting like you do.
M: If you had demonstrated that I am actually ignorant on a subject I would learn about it and thus face up to it. Thus far you have only demonstrated time and time again your own lack of background preparation. You are in very little position to claim I don't know much about life. Considering your comments I have seen and interacted with much more of the world than you have. Show how I don't know much about science then by anwering my question in the last post...what are is a fact, hypothesis, and theory in scientific terms. What is the PRECISE definition of evolution? What does genetics have to do with it? A scientist (fill in the blank) a theory? You have dodged this repeatedly. As for god...how can I rebel against something that does not exist?
WS:
I also realize your aversion to online search engines must be accepted as something real with you, so I'll accept that you won't believe whatever I present from there. That ends our dialog. It's illogical, moronic thinking to reject the use of it, but hey, you have a problem that appears irreconcilable. The whole idea of using online sources is to save time looking up subjects and typing. Often the information obtained that way is more current than ten year old textbooks.
M: LOL!!! You assume I am talking about 10 year old textbooks when I suggest something other than the internet? You truly live in a tiny world. What you call saving time I call being too lazy to access primary literature for yourself and relying on websites that may or may not have an agenda you can identify.
WS:
You apparently fear etherspace and the knowledge it can lead people to concerning exposure of your beliefs, not venturing much past these discussion groups, certainly not into areas not familiar to you.
M: "fear etherspace"? This sentence makes no sense and actually sounds like a line out of an L.Ron Hubbard book.
WS:
In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.
M: Since you don't know what evolution is in the first place or science for that matter your Don King-esque erudition is highly irrelevant
WS:
Considering the risk of laying before your tender eyes some results of a Google search, I've decided to list them anyway as a parting gesture. Deal with it the best way you can.
M: "tender eyes"? You coming on to me there WS?
Polling, statistics, etc:
404 - Page Not Found.
404 - Page Not Found.
Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems
USA TODAY
"2001: Gallup Poll
(Evolution Challenged) (Reconciliation)
Gallup poll shows U.S. still split over evolution. The results of the most recent survey reveal a nation still torn over the issue of human evolution. A majority (57 percent) of Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which term best describes human origins. Yet many people who select "creationism" might not call themselves "creationists." A great number of them do not rule out the possibility of human evolution altogether. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents say that humans evolved over millions of years, yet guided by God. In the 20 years that Gallup has run the same survey, public opinion has changed little."
"2000: Science Standards
(Battle in the Schools) (Reconciliation)
Science standards called "reprehensible." A nationwide study sponsored by The Fordham Foundation laments that 19 U.S. states do "a weak-to-reprehensible job of handling evolution in their science standards." Twelve states shun the word "evolution," and four avoid topics in evolution completely. The study stresses that creationist views have no place in the science classroom, yet also sounds a conciliatory note: "Scientists and science teachers do well to keep in mind that a large majority of Americans believes that faith in God is the surest way to appreciate the wonder and grandeur of life itself. Schools need to recognize and honor that faith."
Evolution: Religion: Evolution Revolution
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN polled its readers, finding the trend revealed in 1914 that showed only 40% of scientists believe in God remains the same today. For a good comment on that:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.html
M: I did not deny that many people believe in god or in creationism for that matter. I claim it is irrelevant and science has no reason to take religious views into consideration. Science is driven by observation, generation of TESTABLE hypothesis, accumulation of data, constantly attemping to find flaws in ALL theories, reproducing of results, and importantly performing experiments and gathering supporting data. This is not done by asking people what they want the theory to be or what would be nice to believe in or accepting every stupid idea that comes along unquestioningly. That is the purview of religion. And I do question you surveys. What was education level breakdown for the polls? Demographics? North? South? etc. If, as I have seen in gallup polls, that belief in creationism is correlated with lack of education then "mob rule" should not prevail..and argument you have used youself.
WS:
Your assertion that a majority of scientists believe in God is totally false, again representing your overall ignorance. There are many more references that support the 60% atheist cound among modern scientists. It is also interesting that there is a reformation going on that could turn that ratio 180 degrees in the next decade, especially as the old school retires and dies off.
M: You can delude youself all you want about this issue. Fact is, you don't know any scientists. Scientific talent is drawn from the same population as every other endeavor. And if you believe this stupid statement, why are you not protesting and fighting against chemistry, astronomy, and physics as well?
WS:
As I go through your post comments, one by one I see a pattern of blind denial of fact. I can imagine what a discussion about evolution would be like with you- chaotic at best.
M: As I go through you posts I see blind denial of what I or anyone else says. Your evading discussing evolution with me is your own cowardice and is your own burden to bear.
WS:
A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.
M: List names, institutes, citations for at least 50 cases...you have dodged this repeatedly.
WS:
I'm not going to play this game with you. I already realize that no matter what information I post, you will deny either the truth of it, or the validity of the author, if that information neutralizes your beliefs. You will only accept information that supports your tenets, fitting the profile of the average online evolution supporter.
M: Then what is you point for being on this forum if that is your a priori conclusion? You have been belly aching for the last week about how little time you have. If you want to find a place where everyone agrees with you I am sure you can.
WS:
This is characteristic of discussion groups dominated by atheists. They are not accountable to anyone since they have no incentive to be honest, objective participants. Morality is necessarily meaningless to them, having no reason to follow any rules or societal manners, prefering such concepts as "relative moralism" or "situation ethics" in the classrooms.
M: Actually people like you are the moral relativists. You use your twisted malicious megalomaniacal view of the bible to justifiy every horrible thing you do in life. You can insult, kill, and behave worse than anybody else in the world and justify it by saying you have the backing of your god. Considering how many different sects of each major religion exist and how often they kill one another, I hardly see any "moral" advantage to religiousity.
WS:
Hence the alarm growing among Americans over what impact atheist teachers of evolution are doing to the current generation of developing minds.
M: America is a diverse place..you don't speak for America any more than you do for all christians. And spare us the crap about atheist teachers or are you now claiming all teachers are atheists as well as all scientists?
WS:
Education is being taken back by people who have learned the value of biblical morality and the advantage of a person approaching science from God's perspective. They are the ones that will benefit mankind practically, while the atheists entertain atheists.
M: Those who learn science in the manner you "value" will not become scientists at all. You again have failed to list the scientists sharing your views who have made contributions of any magnitude to science. If they are so great it should be easy for you to list them or even a subset of them, their institutes, and publications....sound of crickets chirping.
WS:
You are far from being objective or reasonable.
M: LOL! It is an honor to raise the ire of a fundie...it surly means I am doing something right
WS:
You said I "cut and ran" from the teaching field.
Many teachers do that, abandoning the career when they realize the retirement can't support them, that a salary of $30,000 isn't enough to maintain decent vehicles, home, or provide our children a good college education. It make beggars of teachers. Coupled with the oppressive policies of the past 8 years of government interference, the field is impractical for anyone trying to raise a family. It has become a place for retirees whose living is already set. My teacher retirement so far will be $350 a month, to which SS would be added ($1,200). Not enough.
M: I will not argue that teaching is a very unattactive field for just about everybody as you are penalized financially for doing what in principle should be a top priority for any country that wants to stay ahead.
WS:
In my last year I flunked several 11th grade boys that rarely attended class, couldn't pass tests, never turned in homework, were insolent, disobeying rules, defiant. The NAACP defended them. Admin awarded them C's across the board in a compromise. The following summer I spent over $2,500 in insurance deductable payments for five events of vandalism to my vehicles, yard, and home. Other teachers had similar problems, some more than mine. The school suffered over $30,000 in cumulated vandalism, most of that from a vehicle doing damage to the football field, the landscape, signs, and painted brick walls, all swept under the rug, nobody caught or punished that we know of. One boy was witnessed shooting my home with paintballs, but we couldn't get anything done about it. The girls' P.E. teacher was struck in the abdomen by a teenage boy when she ordered him out of an all-girl class (he popped in to show out), rupturing her spleen, in class, in session. Nobody would testify against the boy out of fear of his threats. We moved out of that school district, and I went into private business to begin rebuilding net worth out of necessity, reassessing the balance of my working years. Teachers are not supported the way they should be.
M: This story makes me sick and I am sorry you and your colleagues had to go through that. In the end, everybody loses. The teachers are demoralized (or worse physically injured) or quit and the students who think they got away with something don't learn anything.
WS:
The biology textbooks have not covered the intense topics found on the debate forums. Evolution is referred to here and there, not actually emphasized, with no more than three pages on DNA/RNA, modern genetics in one chapter. But I taught every bit of what was there, and covered the minimum requirements in the approved lesson plans. I wasn't at all enthusiatic about pressing it, not believing in it, though not well acquainted with creationist views. I did what was required concerning evolution information.
M: Glad to hear it. If the debate on these forums is more intense it is because those on the evolution side for the most part are well versed in it or work on it as a profession...it is not a bunch of high school students learning.
WS:
Enough of you.
M:
I am surprised that you gave up so easily? You boasted earlier that you would face all us evil atheists down
Actually, I find it a pity that you wish to end debate but that is your choice.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 10-13-2002 8:18 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 74 of 106 (19828)
10-14-2002 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Admin
10-13-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:
You guys are having a very interesting discussion, but could I request that you tone down the personal comments? Thanks!
---------------
EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-13-2002]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry about that...I will try to tone it down on my side.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 10-13-2002 12:41 PM Admin has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 104 of 106 (20679)
10-24-2002 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Wordswordsman
10-23-2002 9:54 PM


M: Let's set the record straight here...
WS:
I returned the insults back about word for word collectively, not accepting their gifts. It's the language they understand. They relate to those words, Administrator.Those words are very high on their vocabulary, common on almost all evolutionist-dominated forums, emerging when they are faced down, frustrated.
M: Actually Mister Pamboli was EXTREMELY patient and polite in his posts whereas WS was immediately insulting. John was also very patient and was rewarded by WS with equally hostile and unprovoked attacks. So WS's statement is untrue.
WS:
I note that you again passed on comment on THEIR name-calling and overt personal insults.
M: I was warned, nos482 was warned when we used insults directed towards you so this statement is a lie.
WS:
It isn't proper to just let it go by then jump on me, AGAIN chastised for dropping to their pack level. Is it because you expect more of me? They can't help themselves, being poor sinners? Whatever your agenda is, I won't be part of it.
M: This is the second time I have heard the accusation that WS was attacked by a pack. However, most interactions were between him and one or two individuals. Of course he reduced this to 0 in my case and Mister Pamboli's as soon as he was unable to refute our claims by claiming it was a sin for him to communicate with us further.
WS:
I've made as much comment here in this website as I intended, finding the whole thing quite fruitless past this point. I didn't come here hoping to change minds. I came to point out their reprobate thinking that other Christians will know to avoid their ideas.
M: Interesting...originally he state he was here to demonstrate the truth. Also that it was cowardly not to stand for your principles.
WS:
Now they can see the truth about people who will accept ANYTHING except Jesus Christ, be it atheism, or polytheism, mythology, ANYTHING but the very widely held truth of the gospel of Christ. A sane person should ask why. Why the concerted opposition to the Son of God, excluding NO other religious claim? It's pages of the Bible being re-lived over and over. Amazing. Bye.
M: I will miss you and the many hours of humorous posts you provided me with

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-23-2002 9:54 PM Wordswordsman 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