Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Grammar
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 31 of 105 (46948)
07-22-2003 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:01 PM


here's why
They're not both scientists. Only one starts with a predetermined conclusion and forces all data to comply with it, or rejects that data. Science is an open-minded search for the truth, not a desperate manipulation of whatever scraps you can find to support something you believed before you saw any evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:44 PM zephyr has replied

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


Message 32 of 105 (46949)
07-22-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mark24
07-22-2003 8:34 PM


'The point being, Mikey, my boy, is that you swept away Schrafs comments with absolutely jack shit.'
she was off topic, besides your starting to cook simmer down. She usually plants seeds but doesn't watch the growth. It's not '...t' it's a good point, why should I believe evolutionists when there are perfect explanations, thanks to people like John Mackay. Ask him about dating methods he's the expert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 8:34 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 9:06 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 38 by Asgara, posted 07-22-2003 9:43 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 49 by nator, posted 07-23-2003 6:27 PM mike the wiz has replied

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


Message 33 of 105 (46950)
07-22-2003 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by zephyr
07-22-2003 8:39 PM


Re: here's why
'not a desperate manipulation of whatever scraps you can find to support something you believed before you saw any evidence. '
But where is this desperation where I see common sense you see problems. All evo's do is start swearing and ridicule people, untill they stop this (as proved in this topic) why should I listen to these rude people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 07-22-2003 8:39 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 07-22-2003 11:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 105 (46952)
07-22-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:41 PM


Mike,
why should I believe evolutionists when there are perfect explanations, thanks to people like John Mackay. Ask him about dating methods he's the expert.
John Mackay isn't an expert on radiometric dating, & Brent Dalrymple is. So why don't you ignore Mr Mackay for a moment, & address this (by Mr Dalrymple):
What about this fantastic concordance between dating methods?
I'm beginning to think you're evading the issue. Is your role here to simply tell me to ask your favourite people my questions? No, Mike, you are here, you claimed, to learn. So why don't you adress the issues? It seems to me that you can't do a lot of "learning" when your response to any awkward question is to tell them to ask someone else. What gives?
I have answered all your questions, thus far. Now it's your turn, or are you reaching for the ejector seat handle like Buzzsaw?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:41 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 9:12 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 35 of 105 (46954)
07-22-2003 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mark24
07-22-2003 9:06 PM


'I have answered all your questions, thus far. Now it's your turn, or are you reaching for the ejector seat handle like Buzzsaw?'
No, the topic is about fossils, yes i have listened but the fact is creationist views you are not willing to learn, I'll be honest with you, I'm not interested in dating methods and know little about them. What I know about creation is laypersons level so honestly Mark ask this Buzsaw chap he probably knows more. I am not avoiding questions I completely admitt I am not able to answer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 9:06 PM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 105 (46956)
07-22-2003 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:01 PM


quote:
Well should I believe an evolution scientist over a creation one, and if so why?
1) You should believe thousands of scientists over a dozen creationists. Why? One person could screw something up. Two could screw it up. But when thousands of people run the same tests and investigate the same things, and get the same results, you should pay attention. The chances that they all screwed things up in a complementary manner are tiny. Makes sense, no?
2) In science, when some radically different idea comes along and it has merit-- ie. evidence-- scientists change their minds. Creationists have been recycling most of their arguments for a couple of hundred years. Read the pre-Darwin creationists/catastrophists. Why haven't scientists changed their minds? Because the evidence just isn't there.
3) Creation 'science' requires rewriting virtually everything we've learned in the past few hundred years. And here is the clincher... creation science doesn't provide evidence that we should do all of this rewriting, it simple postulates that IF we rewrote everything else, then creation science would have a foundation.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 9:28 PM John has replied

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


Message 37 of 105 (46958)
07-22-2003 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
07-22-2003 9:23 PM


so it's about numbers to you John. So if everybody agrees to kill but a few disagree does that make the few wrong. Ofcourse not that is bad logic. So really this is an opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 07-22-2003 9:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John, posted 07-22-2003 11:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 38 of 105 (46960)
07-22-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:41 PM


Hi Mike,
John Mackay of Creation Research is not an unbiased scientist. How can you do reliable science when you start out with a pre-determined answer to any questions? What do you do with data that doesn't fit your pre-determined answer? Creation Research, like most creationist organizations, has a Statement of Belief that makes it impossible to be objective.
Aims & Basis ( in brief )
Psalm 26:7 sums it up nicely.
"That we may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of all God's wondrous works."
Therefore:-
1. We proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ;
2. Believing the Bible is the written word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true and it is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
3. We accept the final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture.
4. And the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for research into the origin and history of life;
5. Therefore, although we research, document and promote the scientific aspects of creation they are secondary to the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ who is an equal member of the Triune Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We accept the roll of the Godhead in creation as defined in the scriptures of Genesis 1, John 1, Romans 1, Clossians 1, and Hebrews 1, ie: God the Father brought all things into existance through the Creative acts of, and for the glory of God the Son by the power of God the Holy Spirit.This defines the rights of Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, Lord and Judge.
this can be found at their website at:
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
Mike, maybe you can answer this question...if a loved one were murdered and there were no eye-witnesses and no idea of who had done it... who would you want investigating:
1. a team of expert detectives with many, many years experience and a track record of catching the right criminal?
or
2. one detective who had already made up his mind that another loved one were at fault before he ever saw or heard any of the evidence?
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:41 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 9:48 PM Asgara has replied

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


Message 39 of 105 (46961)
07-22-2003 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Asgara
07-22-2003 9:43 PM


'who would you want investigating:'
As I do not seek justice on earth I do not care, I know God will provide justice as he would know who done the crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Asgara, posted 07-22-2003 9:43 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Asgara, posted 07-22-2003 10:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 40 of 105 (46964)
07-22-2003 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 9:48 PM


Come on Mike, be serious
Are you telling me that you would let an innocent loved one go to prison for the murder of another loved one because of a corrupt cop?
I guess this explains your total inability to even consider any alternative ideas or evidence shown to you. If you are as apathetic towards the truth as you come off, why are you on this forum?
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 9:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:06 PM Asgara has not replied

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


Message 41 of 105 (46965)
07-22-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Asgara
07-22-2003 10:02 PM


'Are you telling me that you would let an innocent loved one go to prison for the murder of another loved one because of a corrupt cop?'
Thats not what I said, the law on earth is unjust, therefore even with evidence I could not be certain the man arrested was guilty that is why I totally disagree with the death penalty.That is why I would never be on a jury and that is why I trust in God, as I said I would look to God for justice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Asgara, posted 07-22-2003 10:02 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by zephyr, posted 07-22-2003 11:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 42 of 105 (46976)
07-22-2003 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:44 PM


Re: here's why
quote:
'not a desperate manipulation of whatever scraps you can find to support something you believed before you saw any evidence. '
But where is this desperation where I see common sense you see problems. All evo's do is start swearing and ridicule people, untill they stop this (as proved in this topic) why should I listen to these rude people?
The rudeness is unfortunate. I hope you don't think what I just said was rude - but it does sound somewhat harsh, and I only feel justified in saying it for one reason: in retrospect, it is the best way to describe what I myself did for many years. I wanted my parents and pastors to be right, wanted all those dinosaur books to be wrong (even though I always loved dinosaurs) and I was thrilled to be able to hand-wave away mountains of well-supported evidence with the aid of a couple of "creation science" books and a sermon or two. I now realize I was unnecessarily fed a load of half-truths and bad science in the name of preserving my faith, and I am not happy about it. When I see it happening to other people, it brings out my frustration with the whole experience, and I think that the same is true of others here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 105 (46977)
07-22-2003 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 9:28 PM


quote:
so it's about numbers to you John.
Ever wonder why important legal documents require two signatures? Every wonder why missle launches require two people, two keys, launch codes and external authorization? The reason is that two people are less likely to screw up or lie than one lone individual.
Have you seen the movie "Apollo 13"? If not, rent it and watch. When they need to calculate an engine burn, they all whip out their slide rules. Why? Why should they all perform the calculations when one could do it? The answer? One person could make a mistake. Any one of the engineers in the control room could make a mistake. Several could screw it up. But could the whole room screw it up? Of course. The chances of that are much less than the chances that one individual will screw it up. Now, what do you suppose would happen if one guy got a fantastically different answer than everyone else in the room? hmmm... they'd probably all do the math again. If the same results came in a second time, do you think it reasonable to toss the majority in favor of the one guy? Suppose that the one guy refuses to show everyone else his notebook? Suppose that the one guy finally gives a few pages to the other folk and they find numerous basic mistakes in the math? Do you think it reasonable to accept the one guy over the rest of the room? I hope you do think it reasonable, because this is exactly what you are arguing we do-- accept the few creationists over the thousands of other people in the room.
quote:
So if everybody agrees to kill but a few disagree does that make the few wrong.
You might have noticed that I did not say 'ask a bunch of people about subjective values.' This is a red herring, mike. It doesn't apply. Try this little experiment. It does apply.
Get a piece of poster-board and write a sentence on it. Now place it just out of comfortable reading range, but not quite out of reading range altogether. Invite some friends over and have them read the board. Write down the results.
Now which do you think is more likely to be the write answer?
1) Randomly choose one friend and accept that reading. Throw out all the other readings.
2) Gather all of the readings together, compare them, and debate the possible readings. When the group comes to an agreement, based on a majority of 95%, accept that answer.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 9:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 44 of 105 (46978)
07-22-2003 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 10:06 PM


quote:
Thats not what I said, the law on earth is unjust, therefore even with evidence I could not be certain the man arrested was guilty that is why I totally disagree with the death penalty.That is why I would never be on a jury and that is why I trust in God, as I said I would look to God for justice.
But the death penalty is part of the OT law. Are you saying it's wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John, posted 07-22-2003 11:38 PM zephyr has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 105 (46985)
07-22-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by zephyr
07-22-2003 11:10 PM


Yes, indeed-ie! Good point. Those OT folk had a grand old time killing people for all manner of infractions-- like cursing your mom, giving your seed to Molech, committing adultery, slipping it to the live-stock, having 'familiar spirits', having the misfortune of being a priest's daughter AND a whore, cursing and blaspheming while arguing...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by zephyr, posted 07-22-2003 11:10 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 1:17 PM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024