|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 31 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hugh Ross | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Why are people who say that the evidence of the universe, including its synchronicity, its fine-tunedness, its ability to create such diverse and wondrous life forms, or even just the ability of the universe to create a being that wonders-fundamentally dishonest.
What an absurd lie that is. Because they disagree with you, they must be lying? You have proof for the existence of this universe, that the "liars" are denying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Specifically, what "evidence" are all creationists ignoring, that constitutes lying?
That's a pretty strong charge, so you must be able to provide some very specific examples of what evidence you are referring to. You are not saying that a few examples of bacterial mutations must be enough to convince everybody on the planet that Darwinian evolution must be correct or they are liars are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, it is YOU, who has made the accusation that people are ignoring, thosands as you say, so it is incumbent on you to give a few of these examples.
You are pulling the same stunt that so many do on this forum, claiming evidence abounds, and then shucking off that responsibility to show any, by saying it is in some book, or others have already provided it. So since you are claiming the evidence is so overwhelming as to be obvious to anyone who isn't "lying" as you charge, then you must back up that statement with evidence, or it is you who is doing the lying. Are you just throwing about baseless accusations are not? Don't just talk out your ass. Back up your claims. I thought that was a fundamental rule of this forum-if you make outrageous claims, you should be able to support it with evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
That is a link to a discussion about common descent, which is not what the question is. The question is what mechanism was used to create the common descent. How can we know it wasn't intelligently planned that way?
Secondly, if all you can do is throw out a link, you are going to have to explain where in that link it provides the answers you are suggesting it does. For instance, one paragraph says: "One of the oldest, most basic, and most frequently used methods for character resolution is the maximum parsimony (MP) criterion (Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza 1963; Kitching et al. 1998). The parsimony criterion mandates that the best tree describing the data is the tree that minimizes the amount of character conflict...." Now, how would one know if THIS is the evidence you are citing to claim that it is overwhelming, if none of you are even able to state for yourself what evidence is overwhelming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Is it asking too much for you to actually read the link that YOU posted?
The name of the article is QUOTE: "29+ Evidences for MacroevolutionThe Scientific Case for Common Descent" Did you catch the line that says-'The Scientific Case for Common Descent"? Well, there's a clue there. It's talking about the case for common descent!!!!! Geez, and you wonder why creationists can't believe what you say? As a whole, I don't think the evolutionist side of the argument on this forum, although clearly the great majority of posters, can be very proud of their abilities to communicate intellectually. You all would probably just be better off saying "Well, I can't answer any of your questions, but I know it is in a book. Someone told me" No, wait, that IS what your side always says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
If wikipedia is anything to go by: It most definitely isn't. At least when it comes to writing objectively about worldviews. In fact, I would say it is downright propaganda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I am sorry to be so blunt, but now you are sounding downright silly.
Go back and read what you just wrote. No wait, let me just show it to you right here so you don't get lost on the way:
That is a link to a discussion about common descent (me talking!) No, it's a link to "29+ evidences for evolution." You're supposed to follow the outline. (you talking!) I repeat, its a discussion about common descent! Thus the title. Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. Did you accidentally recall hearing that? I think you have convinced me of one thing however. It is fundamentally useless to discuss evolution on this website. I have already seen how ineffectively the rules of discussion are enforced, I have seen how un-opened minded, and incapable of reflection most of the posters are, and now lately I am seeing just how plain uninformed the evolutionists here are about their own dam theory. They believe in something they don't even have the darndest clue about, so they certainly aren't going to be able to articulate why they believe it. And yet they rave on and on about how dumb and misguided creationists are. I am not referencing you in particular, but the wealth of mindless blind faith and ignorance on this website is astounding. And quite a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I don't necessarily have an opinion about their particular beliefs, but I think it would have been difficult during their time to speak out as a complete atheist.
And sure, I think it would be great to discuss scientific believes and the validity of arguments without first assigning one's religious faith as a criteria for credence; but since every non-evolutionist is swathed by evolutionists with the dismissive cloth of religious faith, I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent.
No surprise there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
WTF???
The religious beliefs about the Lyell and Hutton are MORE on topic than a discussion about a the validity of the evolutionary argument, when the entire topic is about trying to disprove this one man's argument against evolution? Are you out of your mind, or just exceedingly rude and shameless to consider me off topic when you are writing reams and reams of paragraphs that are so far off topic that I had to go back and check why you were writing what you were to begin with? Are you just pulling my leg?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Correction: The topic was about asking people to refute Hugh Ross's argument about the time necessary for abiogenesis to take place.
The topic is NOT at all about religion, or about people's literal take on the bible. Plus point me to the post where you have addressed this issue and attempted to refute his argument? Secondly, I was RESPONDING to another poster who claimed that by definition, any creationist who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in fact lying (whom you didn't choose to say was off topic)-which is much more pertinent to the topic then ANYTHING you have written about so far. Respectfully. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
My question to you is, WHY with all of the paragraphs and paragraphs being written talking about the bible, and about Peter and Luther and Calvin, and original sin, and oh my, how far does it go...why did you choose to say that it is ME who is off topic.
I suspect that your bias towards seeing me as the one who derailed a topic is not intentional, but simply more evidence of how evolutionists are blinded by their own worldview. I was simply pointing out the fact that if there are arguments, such as Ross's!, that take issue with the status quo arguments about evolution, those people are NOT in fact liars! Frankly, I think it has only been NWR and kbertsche who have tried to answer the topic most directly. EVERYTHING else has been a tangent. I joined this topic because I am waiting to see more people attempt to refute his arguments-other than calling him a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
It took you that many paragraphs to say something so fundamentally incorrect??
Just because you can point to some specific creationist that you feel lied, you think that equates to all creationists lie? Gee, I can point to a number of evolutionists who have lied, Granny Magda, Dr. A certainly, Huntard..., so I guess evolutionists always lie. Wow, its easy to draw such a conclusion, much easier than I thought. Or perhaps you lie; because you are an evolutionist and we now know that evolutionists lie. Or just don't realize how incorrect you are. But let's get back to the topic for the good of others, ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Gee I thought on this forum you just get to accuse people of lying and you don't have to prove anything. Or else you can just say someone is lying, and if they aren't lying, it must just mean they are badly mistaken.
But can you prove you don't lie, ever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I can, because the only person I have ever had sex with is your mother, and she can't be a ....
well wait, no actually I can't prove it for certain. Ok, sorry, just joking. Come on let's let this thread get back on topic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024