I thought I was setting the record straight with this pathetic gem. LOL
Oh the indiscretions of youth! Actually having read your link yours is not too bad. As part of this trip down memory lane I also looked up my first topic proposal. This does kinda make me wince with embarrassment. Ouch. Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
I came here because I was writing some blogs on creationist and the issues with ID in schools.
I came here because I randomly ended up debating a bunch of guys on a general chat/discussion site about evolution. Just as I was patting myself on the back, basking in the self congratulatory glow of victory and "impressing" them with my subtle wit they revealed to me that they were high school kids. I felt pretty silly.
I had chanced across this site whilst searching for material on evolution and decided to see if I could debate people who were not still learning how to tie their shoe laces. I came in expecting the same sort of level of argument I had just encountered and was put right pretty quickly.
But what I found was some of the smartest people I've ever had a chance to talk to.
Discussions on topics that most people don't bother looking into.
It's been a lot of fun and hopefully I'll make a few friends in the process (which I have).
This thread isn't about debating the issues raised in linked to first posts. This thread is about people not points and as such is intended to be fairly uncontentious
This was my first post. It was a little pedantic, and I seem to have thought I was being more insightful than I really was.
Well there was no messin with your first contribution. Straight in there with the hard science! I think many (including myself) probably started with a toe dipping shorty of a post to test the waters. But having looked at yours I would never have guessed it was the work of an EvC virgin.
I guess that is the difference between those who actually know what they are talking about and those of us who are just pretending most of the time.
I would imagine there is no point in making people believers before they die if you were a god who will get your attention in the end any way, but if you were a priest greedy for converts to fill his coffers or provide man power, then it make perfect sense.
that sounds like a good message to put out if you are such a priest (or any other preacher type etc)
I was a bit more angry back then but I still pretty much feel the same way about religious belief; I'm just less inclined to bang on about it with fundies.
I am pretty gutted about my grammar and punctuation, however.
The message you found from me *is* the oldest surviving message here at EvC Forum, it's from December 24, 2000, at 6:23 PM Eastern Time US: Message 1
There were earlier messages during the testing phase, but they were deleted.
The predecessor site was over at Yahoo. I see it still exists, and I'm still the owner though I no longer haver anything to do with it. Today was the first time I've visited over there in at least a few years.
I'm not positive exactly how this factors in, but it's well established in the oilfield industry that pressure can have a very dramatic influence on "permeability" (approximately rate of diffusion) of gases in whole rocks. Measured perms in "tight gas sands" are frequently lower by a factor of 1000 at realistic native confining pressures than at atmospheric pressure. I would think that there should be some sort of analogy between this inter-grain permeability and the diffusivity along crystal defects that would control helium flow out of zircons. I'm not too sure I have the perseverance to look for documentation, though.
I got here from 1) a local letter-to-the-editor debate with a YEC physician, which led to 2) a search for online resources 3) then to Internet Infidels and on to 4) here.
That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists. Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.
I'm curious to know which claims? Pasteur showed that germs cause things to rot/sour (as opposed to souring and rotting causing germs), and Mendel discovered the idea of dominant genes and heredity...an essential element of evolution. Which claims did these scientists make?
And more importantly, what experiments have "actually proved [macroevolution] wrong"? I'd like to see these experiments, they seem to have been underplayed considerably which would be a tragedy for science.
In conclusion, you have succesfully shown that life has been designed. You have yet to demonstrate how it was designed intelligently. Evolutionary theory proposes a mechanism for both the design and the creation of new creatures, and uses the same evidence. I'm fascinated by the field of ID, but I've only ever seen the 'D' part really discussed. Now, about this 'I' component...how to detect intelligence? That's the golden egg for IDists. Several thousand years later and we aren't massively closer to an answer. Evolutionary theory is less than two centuries old.
I think some posters here will get kicks out of my first encounter with the IPU in Message 233
Besides how do you know if souls exist and if they do that invisible pink (or purple) unicorns aren't and integral part of them?
...If unicorns of any variety (can something which light passes through, reflect light at a certain wavelength?), were somehow of fundamental importance to souls, I'm sure Christ, or one of the prophets would have mentioned it.
Then again, you raise a valid theological issue, perhaps the transubstantiation of the invisible unicorn to a unicorn of specific colour is intertwined in the nature of that which is soul. Perhaps this trinity (invisible, purple, unicorn) is on a strictly need to know basis, and we simply don't need to know.
I lurked for a long time before 'getting stuck in' - but once I broke silence it proved difficult to keep my quiet for the next four and a half years.
The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy
on 10-06-2007 11:06 PM
The point is why scientific evidences are referred to as theories, since there is a possibility or possibilities that other factors may occur to change the possible outcome. This defines science and states the reason why there is a constant attempt to find the correct answer to any proposed hypothesis and even when accepted there will still be attempts to refine the theory.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix typo (I thought I hit "preview").
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
Hi Doinker. I am a Christian who has been into Biblical prophecy, archeology and history for about 57 years (since a kid)on my own and having only a year and a half of college, I am not highly "ejucated" so I rely on truth to be able to prevail in debate in this environment of folks, many of whom are more soooofisssssticatedly educated than I. I come here as a nubie, confident that truth shall prevail and that the "foolishness" of truth (in the eyes of the world) shall confound the ever learned looser "garbauge" of the worldly wise. So dear friend, please don't run off. Americans have a fascination with folks like you who are interested enough to cross the language barrier to communicate.
Edited by Buzsaw, : wrong message came up with link
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. The previous link was to 1 message later.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)
I grew up as a Christian and trusted God implicitly as our church taught. As I got older and actually read more of what was preached I had questions they couldn't answer reasonably.
Anyway over the past 3 years I have been digging deeper into the Bible to see the truth that is there. I found a lot more questions.
I did a prayer test of my own. I had grown up praying and some prayers were answered and some not. Over the past year I have prayed to the ancesters and some prayers were answered and some were not. I have also stopped myself from praying to see how the situation would pan out and sometimes things went well and sometimes not. I don't feel that one method was any better than the others.
Prayers I considered answered did not always come in the form I requested. I just thought to myself "OK not what I asked for but that will work."
Now I did not keep track of the statistics, this was for my own purposes only. I don't expect anyone to trust my results. Just thought I would share my own prayer experiences.
I also feel that a supernatural being would have no problem making its existence known clearly to an individual if it truly wants our trust. Trust is earned.
I do like one passage that says roughly "You will know them by their fruit." I feel the same goes for a god.
A rather benign post that got no response, but still in line with my path of growth and discovery.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
My first post isn't anything spectacular, something about measuring the speed of the propogation of gravity. However looking at my earlier posts I cringe at how poor my ability to explain things used to be. I really have to credit this site and some of its members with improving my ability to communicate physics to others.
I've notice the improvement it has made to lectures and talks I've had to give. So if I ever manage to write my dream book of quantum mechanics for interested non-physicists there will be a few acknowledgements.