Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
50 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,509 Year: 9,257/23,288 Month: 272/1,544 Week: 547/518 Day: 43/84 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points Of View
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1 of 45 (484109)
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


This is a modification of a message of mine in the “Arrogance of Elitism” thread. After further consideration it seemed to me that this highlighted a key misunderstanding in the wider context of the whole EvC debate. I therefore thought it might be worthy of a moderated topic in its own right. Admins, as ever have, the final say on this.

THE PROBLEM
A common theme in debates between creationists/IDists and science based protagonists is the claim by creationists that theirs is just an alternative point of view that is worthy of equal consideration to the scientific consensus. They often see themselves as the champion of the equally valid, but minority, point of view. This is the cause of much frustration on both sides. Creationists are unable to see why it is that their position is not considered equally valid by the arrogant and superior science lobby. Beyond not meeting the requirement of the majority view they can see no difference between their perspective and that of the accepted majority. Meanwhile the science contingent cannot comprehend why it is that the “ignorant creationist” considers their view and “true” science to be on even remotely equal par. In short creationists see their views as equally scientifically valid but minority opinions whilst science advocates see creationist views as obviously inferior and unworthy nonsense.

So who, if anybody, is correct?

THE DIFFERENCE
The key here is the difference of approach. Whilst the creationistists/IDists see differing but potentially equal points of view the scientific contingent do not see the scientific position as just another potentially valid POV. However this is not borne of arrogance but approach. The scientific point of view is considered, by it’s advocates, to be a highly tested, highly analyzed, highly verified accumulation of evidence, observation and logical analysis developed over many years to exacting standards with continual comparison to nature as the judge of its validity. Models are not borne of any personal or philosophical point of view but are instead the accumulated result of an interweaving body of knowledge confirmed repeatedly by nature itself.
The scientific approach is to test every single conclusion against nature and to build up a model that not only explains but accurately predicts observable physical phenomena. A model that has nothing to do with how we might want nature to behave for whatever philosophical reason.

In comparison the creationist POV approach seems to be to work out how you would like nature to be and to then seek evidence to support this claim.

So when proclamations such as "it is arrogant of you to assert that your POV is superior merely because it is the majority POV" are made it misses the whole point of the scientific method. Night-time musings and bedroom brainwaves are being equated with decades of intense research by international collaborations involving some of the keenest minds on the planet.

In summary established scientific theories are not just POVs in the sense that is so often described by the advocates of creationism/IDism.

COMPETING THEORIES
In science when two theories compete they need to both equally explain all the currently observable evidence. They are then pitted head to head by means of predicting different results regarding as yet unknown phenomenon. The theory that is ultimately accepted as the scientific consensus is the theory that makes the most accurate predictions and leads to new evidence being discovered.

SCIENCE VS CREATIONISM/IDISM
Creationist/IDist models do not follow these exacting methods. That is why they lead to no discoveries. That is why they are so unreliable as conclusions. That is why they are unscientific.

ID models of cosmology and evolution fail to explain even a fraction of the observable evidence. They also make no observable predictions. And have NEVER EVER led to a single discovery

CONCLUSION
How can it honestly be claimed that creationist/ID points of view are worthy of being considered valid alternative and competing theories by any even vaguely scientific measure? It cannot. Such claims are wholly unjustified.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 10:06 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 09-27-2008 9:04 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 45 (484120)
09-26-2008 4:02 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 3 of 45 (484191)
09-26-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


Any Takers?
So can any of the creationist/ID contingent support the notion that their point of view should in any way be considered equivalent to the scientific consensus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 2:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 5:42 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 4 of 45 (484303)
09-27-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Straggler
09-26-2008 10:06 PM


Re: Any Takers?
So can any of the creationist/ID contingent support the notion that their point of view should in any way be considered equivalent to the scientific consensus?

Well it seems that none can.

Lets bear this in mind the next time it is suggested that an ID/creationist alternative POV is equally worthy of consideration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 10:06 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 5 of 45 (484317)
09-27-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).
Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 2:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:54 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 8:14 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 9:41 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2008 7:28 AM b0ilingfrog has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 6 of 45 (484320)
09-27-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


Discovery
Hi Boilingfrog
Welcome to EvC.

The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.

Is that true? Much of the evidence that we have for evolutionary theory was discovered as a direct consequence of evolutionary theory itself. Successful theories make successful predictions which lead to discoveries. Such discoveries form the basis of new evidence.

Evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology, General relativity etc. etc. These are theories that have made successful predictions which have been verified. These are theories which have resulted in the discovery of new physical phenomenon.

ID/Creationism has never ever even once made a verified prediction or resulted in a single discovery. If you know otherwise please do share this with us.

What is the point of a scientific theory that leads to no discoveries?
Can such a theory really claim to be on par with a theory that has resulted in numerous discoveries?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 11:37 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 38 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-03-2008 11:05 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 45 (484322)
09-27-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).
Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made.

You forgot to credit AnswersinGenesis and the other creationist websites. You have their talking points down pretty well.

Unfortunately they, and you, are wrong from the start.

The evidence is not all the same; it supports some interpretations (explanations) far better than others. The only way you can support the creationist viewpoint is to ignore most of the scientific evidence and misrepresent or distort the rest. That is exactly what creation "science" does best.

Your reference to the theory of evolution as "evilution" is strictly creationist propaganda. Scientific theories are value neutral. What you really meant to say is that the theory of evolution contradicts your particular minority interpretation of scripture and/or revelation or whatever it is upon which you base your beliefs.

Your statement that the bible is "a single volume that has yet to require correction" reflects your particular belief system; it does not reflect the facts as they are known in the real world. As just one example, the "global flood" about 4,350 years ago has been contradicted by scientific evidence since the early 1800s. Numerous fields of science have piled up huge mountains of evidence that that flood never happened. My own archaeological research documents that as well. You might believe it happened, but that does not make it true.

Answering another point: the evidence for the theory of evolution has only grown stronger over the years. The recent findings of genetics have solidified the case that was begun with fossils and other early evidence.

Answering another point: human evolution continues to fill in details each year. The fossils are now being supplemented and surpassed by genetic studies. The evidence still points in the same direction: Darwin was right all along.

Experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology etc. Only to creationists.

Radiometric dating etc. Only to creationists. There are a number of posters familiar with the various forms of radiometric dating here. Find one of the threads and have a go if you think you have evidence. My particular favorite is radiocarbon dating, and I have done nearly 600 dates in my archaeological career as well as written on the subject. If you have any evidence that the method is inaccurate find the appropriate thread and present it. (But if all you have is the standard creationist talking points--don't bother to waste our time. We've refuted those hundreds of times.)

The evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding etc. In creationists' dreams.

If this is the best you can do you won't be very happy here. There are a lot of educated and literate posters here who will be happy to help you understand where you are going wrong--in considerable detail. And if all you have are the standard AnswersinGenesis talking points you won't fare well at all.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 22 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 45 (484326)
09-27-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


A couple of points.

- natural selection theory is false, or an after the fact rationalization
- creationism is true, since all is based on decision not cause and effect
- lots of discoveries were, and are made through creationism, for example Mendellian genetics which was conceived in terms of the species having boundaries of variation, and I think Newton's theory of gravity which works instantaneously over distance is also basically a creationist idea from a creationist

So given that creationism is true, and evolution is false, you should then argue the merit of science eventhough it is false. Otherwise it is just more arrogance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 2:56 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:07 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM Syamsu has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 45 (484327)
09-27-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
09-27-2008 9:04 PM


Nonsense
A couple of points.
- natural selection theory is false, or an after the fact rationalization
- creationism is true, since all is based on decision not cause and effect
- lots of discoveries were, and are made through creationism, for example Mendellian genetics which was conceived in terms of the species having boundaries of variation, and I think Newton's theory of gravity which works instantaneously over distance is also basically a creationist idea from a creationist

So given that creationism is true, and evolution is false, you should then argue the merit of science eventhough it is false. Otherwise it is just more arrogance.

Nonsense.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 09-27-2008 9:04 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 45 (484328)
09-27-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


This Point of View
BOilingfrog writes:

Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).

Unless you can tell us which version of the Bible was 'officially' written by God out of the 5 versions I have at my house or the 20 I have at work or the hundreds that exist, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is 'written by God." In other words, if you have the guts, name which version of the Bible is written by God.

On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers.

To repeat, if you have the guts, please show us these "repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals (sic) used to date rock layers." My knowledge of the geosciences is a bit rusty since for monetary reasons I had to drop out of the master's program in hydrology at New Mexico Tech back in 1983. Perhaps you are aware of something I may have missed in perusing Science and Nature, namely the entire paradigm of young on top old on bottom (unless shown otherwise such as in overthrust belts) or less dense things tend to float and more dense things tend to sink (as is called isostasy).

Please feel free to enlighten us as to your superior scientific and theological knowledge. Perhaps if you are willing to engage in debate rather than pronounce the infallible truth from on high, there is the possibility you may actually learn something. After all that is what this forum is all about.

Edited by anglagard, : just add a sentence

Edited by anglagard, : add sic to improper use of English, should read principles (basic knowledge based guidelines) not principals (who are the CEO's of secondary schools in the US)


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:01 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 18 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:06 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 19 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:27 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 21 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:48 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 30 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 2:37 AM anglagard has responded
 Message 39 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 12:16 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 45 (484331)
09-27-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


It must be the new school year eh?
Hello b0ilingfrog, and welcome to the fray.

The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.

In science the first basic common interpretation is that there is a single objective reality.

The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

In science second basic common interpretation is that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality.

The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

In science third basic common interpretation is that we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy.

The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

In science the final common interpretation is that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality.

The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).

Perhaps what you have trouble with is understanding how things can be acknowledged as valid information without a belief system, with tentativity and the open-minded skepticism that allows for concepts to, not only be falsified, but to actively seek such falsification, and to discard all falsified information as invalid.

Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made.

Perhaps you would like to start a thread of just what this "careful scutuiny" involved.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Hint: you will need to form a coherent and readable post. One with line breaks between paragraphs is a usual minimum for readability.

Seeing as you use "evilution" you are obviously not a "noble objective seeker of truth," so I wonder how you, from your dirty tower of obvious bias, can know objective truth and how it is arrived at? What do you use to test concepts for validity?

Do you, for instance, really know what evolution is? Do you know what the theory of evolution is?

Sure, it's ALL point-of-view -- but in order to communicate one point-of-view to another you need to work with the same definitions as a starting point. Otherwise we are talking about two entirely different concepts while using the same words: confusion is bound to occur, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, if your interpretation is that evolution is something different from what evolutionary biologist are talking about you will not be talking about the same evolution that evolutionary biologists are talking about. Rather you will be talking about something that is in your imagination.

See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for more on this common problem with creationist propoganda.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1

Enjoy.



ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 10:35 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 40 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 12 of 45 (484334)
09-27-2008 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
09-27-2008 9:04 PM


A couple of points.

Just for the record, a "couple" is two, not three.

- natural selection theory is false, or an after the fact rationalization

Wow. I've never heard it put so convincingly. I'll just nip out and burn my copy of Origin of Species.

- creationism is true, since all is based on decision not cause and effect

You had ample opportunity to provide evidence for your "decisions" garbage in the appropriate thread. You convinced precisely no-one, including other creationists. That makes it a bit rich for you to bring it up here as a bare assertion. Were all well aware what creationism is based on and it isn't your optimistic toothbrush nonsense. I'll give you a clue; it's a big book, often leather-bound, big cross on the cover...

- lots of discoveries were, and are made through creationism, for example Mendellian genetics which was conceived in terms of the species having boundaries of variation, and I think Newton's theory of gravity which works instantaneously over distance is also basically a creationist idea from a creationist

Quite right. Newton was a creationist (also an alchemist,but I don't hear you crowing about that). As a monk, I'd be very surprised if Mendel wasn't a creationist. In fact, the great Linnaeus, arguably the most influential biologist ever (apart from Charles Darwin of course :) ) was a creationist. Very impressive.

Got anything from this century at all? You know, ongoing creationist science... Stuff being done now... Not by dead people...

So given that creationism is true, and evolution is false, you should then argue the merit of science eventhough it is false. Otherwise it is just more arrogance.

This does not even begin to make sense.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 09-27-2008 9:04 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 09-28-2008 6:03 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 13 of 45 (484335)
09-27-2008 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
09-27-2008 8:14 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
If Answers in Genesis sees it that way they can have the credit. I was on that site briefly last night for the first time, no apology.

The evidence, be it the strata or the canyon carved into it is the same to either of us. I say the strata was laid down in a catastrophic flood in about a year and the canyon was carves in a few weeks or so. That is interpreting the evidence. You might look at the same evidence and say it all took millions of years. Again an interpretation.
Evilution is something I thought I made up for a Halo Clan but you can credit whoever you like,(it was already in use on Halo). My beliefs are based on the bible and I guess you figured out the meaning on your own just fine. While I also admit being in the minority that in no way invalidates my belief system. I would be worried about being an elitist but I am not saying "I am right" but God is right.

I believe the global flood and the "evidence" against it ia all based on uninformatarianism which I rejected even before I became a God clod.

As for the theory getting stronger I can't say. I gave up on it when "punctuated equilibrium" was starting to get ink.

On genetics there is evidence that goes both ways. I admit that.

Radiometric dating is a farce and has never returned an accurate date on samples which the age is known. Carbon 14 being an exception but even that relies on uniformity (sea levels being just one of many required constants). But aside from c-14 how can you rely on methods that can't come close to accurate dating on samples of known ages to determine samples of unknown ages? Mount St. Hellens and Hawaii both had fresh samples turn out to be hundreds of thousand to millions of years old from lava flows that were decades or less in age.

As for human evolution, it was built on evidence that a few decades later would have been rejected by any self respecting scientist. Unstratified or even surface finds by paid peasants and such.

Stratigraphy and sedimentology research in the labs at Colorado State or the University of Colorado (can't remember which). Sorry I am too new to link or provide you with threads. If I ever get any good at this I will try.

On "educated" I never let school interfere with my education. I have known quite a few "educated" people that believe that 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4. That may even be true but 4 years of college for that?

Lastly, Answers in Genesis may have covered all this or maybe not.

It is nice to know I am not alone.

In place of this threadThanx for replying to my posting.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 8:14 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:54 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:58 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 14 of 45 (484336)
09-27-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 9:48 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
Hey part of my message was missing.
Please look up the Colorado thing, I think I caught it on YouTube a few months back and read forbidden archeology.

Thanx again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:57 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 15 of 45 (484337)
09-27-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 9:54 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
I am such a newb!
I just got that award thing!!! That was funny. I was sitting here thinking Hey I just got an award on my first day. LOL
I mean my arm was getting sore from patting myself on the back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:54 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020