Faith Blogs about EVC

Maybe others knew about this, but it seems Faith blogs about some the conversations here.The posts are classic Faith. Faith's Blog

quote:

---

Now the EvC Nasties are onto the thread, though, and the whole thing is degenerating into mean-spirited accusations of the Christians. I think I'll call them the EvC Orcs, since I happened to watch the Fellowship of the Ring yesterday.

---

Oh, bless her heart!

She also has

• an evolution blog: http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/ with a recent post about the Grand Canyon;
• Faith's Corner http://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/

and a bunch of others listed at Faith's Corner.The posting rate seems low. I have added the two that I listed to my RSS reader, so that I will be alerted when there is a post.It is unlikely (but not impossible) that I will post comments at those blogs. I respect Faith as a person, while I disagree with much of what she posts at evcforum.Edited by nwr, : add back missing link

I did a google search for my name on Faith's blog. I had 4 hits. I guess she thinks i am an Orc. I don't think she likes me.

LOL. Who could dislike you Theodoric, the master of jeer buttons? (I don't really know you, internetwise, to be fair. I think you challenge me at times and annoy me, but I don't hate you yet! )But I mean, some folks here hate on Christians. I mean, just look at your quote. I agree that Biblical Creationism is intellectual laziness and/or willful ignorance. I won't rule out the idea that God could do it in a way that humans don't understand. I have concluded, however, that Ken Hamm(of AnswersInGenesis) just isn't scientific. The only other conclusion one could possibly reach is that scientists and intellectual humanity in general are either too confidant/arrogant or are somehow supernaturally deluded. And I won't go there.I will state, however, that I have seen enough more than coincidence type stuff---personally---that I don't doubt the existence of God nor of a supernatural realm and some sort of spiritual war. My critics will say that I am a victim of conformation bias. I'll even agree with them that they are right. Quite frankly, humanity needs God. We are too vulnerable without Him.Edited by Phat, : spelling

Quit posting, proposing and promoting crap. Don't care. Classic Christian persecution syndrome. Why do you think I pick on Christian more than anyone else? I make fun of everyone. Why would I hate christians? Projecting much? "More than coinicidence"? That is mumbo jumbo. It is a coincidence or it isn't. You are. It is that simple. This is what drive me crazy about you. Your need to preach. This forum is not a place to preach. if you want to preach fond a place to preach or start a church.Oh yeah way to go to make things personal. Again. Nice to see you have the qualities needed to be a good moderator.Edited by Theodoric, : good not god
subliminal slip maybe

Diversity is the spice of life. I post stuff others wont. You are an audience of one. The world does not revolve around you. Not consciously. But I'll take responsibility for that. So what? Thats not your call. If Percy allows free speech, thats on him and the other mods. Not Theodoric. If being a good moderator means promoting stuff you disagree with, I've done my job well if it gets you to reply.

Good to know that you are here to preach. Explains the quality of your arguments. LOL. Classic. Bring up free speech. No one, especially me, is trying to infringe on your free speech(wooooo, censorship bogey man called out, we need an internet law for that).Preaching is a waste of bandwidth on this forum, But hey if thta is what you feel is your "calling" go for it. But lets just make sure we all acknowledge that it is preaching not anything based on evidence. You think maybe there is a reason others won't post it? It is unseemly and not a good basis for an argument. But good of you to acknowledge. Shows where you are ultimately coming from. You might want to look at and deal with these feelings. I can honestly state I don't hate anyone here. Seems you cannot say the same. Another logical failing. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.

In what capacity do you feel we need god? You're point is too vague. What does "we need god" mean?- Oni

Phat did a whole thread on it at one point: Do We NEED God?Not sure if he's trying to reference that, or if his thoughts have evolved since then... but it's a starting point, if you're interested.Edited by Stile, : Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Thanks. And there was me learning big words for no reason, such as, heterozygosity or blastocyst. Or superbabafragalisticexpialadocious.Personally your above quote strikes me intellectually as a limited-choice fallacy, you vermicious knid.. (You should know, as a clearly hard-working thinker, that even if the limited choice was sound, brain-laziness nor ignorance would make evolution true, nor would the opposite courses lead to an acceptance of the aforementioned theory or it's "proposed truth". Facts are truths but truths are not necessarily relevant to science. The "truth" is defined OUT of science.The problem is as follows;Person X does not find joke P to be funny,
ERGO person Y says that person X does not get the joke.1. Even if he does not get the joke, that does not mean it is funny.
2. Some people get the joke but are not amused by it.
3. A full study of the joke will not lead to it being funny.You see, it's what THEY haven't studied Phat, mate. The problem is, you don't read people like Dr Jonathan Sarfati PHD/chess expert. You're under the delusion that Creationists are only creatards. Or even, confirmation bias. But even if they did, confirmation bias can't be applied to some types of prayer, because there are too many variables, such as God saying, "no" to your request. Logically it is impossible to apply any standard of investigation to an inherently subjective individual's life. A vague study will only yield vague results.But then, you don't want to listen to an intellectually lazy person. Here's my two-pence. I like Phat very much, misguided as he is by his peers into the donkey pulling the tractor, syndrome. If he asked the Lord for wisdom, He would surely oblige - but until then, he will forever go in circles!My BLOG:
Creation and evolution viewsmikey......out. (see you next year guys...........maybe...BUT - yeah, got better things to do, and it gets boring being a Sherlock Holmes because the problem is that nobody is as clever, so they don't know what you are talking about anyway.)

Thanks, Stile. If this is what he means:

quote:

---

I personally believe that we humans need a Creator/mentor all wise guide that encourages and inspires humanity to fulfill our best aspirations.

---

Then I believe he's just given us a word salad.Phat, this is for you:"Guide and encourage" how?
"Inspire humanity" how?
"Fulfill our best aspirations" how?And does any of this apply to people in the third world?- Oni

You're right...See you next year.- Oni

We all will not likely agree on anything. You like to think that intellectualism and critical thinking will lead to an agreement over who is the most persuasive or correct but the fact is that believers have subjective evidence...which you guys call fairytales. I hate no human. I do hate the demonic spirits that run your intellect around, but lets not go there. To you, it would be another one of Aesops Fables. It is my belief that humanity needs and in fact was mean't to have communion with the Higher Power. Again, it is my belief, as it is Faiths. My critics would say that I want to never grow up and be responsible, and that my belief in God is perhaps a projection of a need for a parental figure. Meh. Thanks Stile. Im aware of Sarfati. Creation Science is still very much a minority consensus. I am still a Cosmological Creationist, Mikie. I just don't buy into a literal Gensis...yet. nor is 6000 years logical in any stretch..... Good questions, Oni. I need to think about an answer...if I can. I'll get back to that. Remind me.Now lets get back to Faith------->

Shall I then equally assume that you meant I was "right" in the entirety of my previous message, since you did not refute, partly, any of it? This is sure becoming the lazy way to debate, although I presume it holds great credence to your mind at least, if perhaps not mine.I am going to conclude that because of my beliefs, you are going to dismiss any information I provide, carte blanche.Or did you have nothing more to say, other than, "you are lazy intellectually?" If that is the sum of your reasoning then it is only fair that a qualified and intellectual refutation is; "No I am not."Boy, that was hard. In your speed to respond, you didn't, it seems, stop to think that your own post was an example of intellectual laziness, despite your unnecessary and unproven allusion to me being intellectually lazy.