Some Evidence Against Evolution

Wow what a difference a few minutes make.Welcome back.

Actually, I used to be a born-again Baptist, and I resisted the loss of my faith very strongly. I prayed to God to perserve my faith and tried very hard to maintain my beliefs. In the end, my faith evaporated despite all that I could do.It would seem to have been in God's power to help me preserve my faith, seeing that was what I desparately (literally desparately!) wanted. So, if my present atheism is a punishment from God it certainly isn't a punishment bacause of prior unbelief. Funny that the dude couldn't throw me a life-line when I was begging for it.

You smug little know-it-all I am not on trial with you. You've continually insulted my intelligence by inundating me with your pandemic and above knowledge of scientific terms. I have tolerated this ego trip because the entire room has had to limp along with my slow speed in responding.The context of this topic sits in the the context of the website - which is "evolution v. creationism". Post #1 and post #112 and post#136 is the framework of my evidence. Your inability to participate in context of the topic I created cannot be shrugged off by your one line dismissals. You are admitting that the evidence I posted is over your head - fine.The issue is the refusal of evolutionists to fulfill the dual requirement of acknowledging the Creator and being thankful.
This refusal taints every claim of certainty that is offered in the larger context that evolution exists - which is that God is not the Creator. Your insults of my intelligence is a two way street. I could do the same but what is to be gained. Any response to your previous posts is now delayed because of your attitude and your mental midget mindset toward the true creationist objections.

I became aware of these words from the teaching of Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D. Stanford University} Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official Site

Gilgamesh, I think you may be right.

quote:

---

He states that is still at school (?), but responds like my old wizzened church elders used to: which makes me very suspicious. I remember the feigned air of tolerance to questions, total avoidance (or appeals to faith) of difficult ones, constant descent into intellectually useless apologetics, and extraoridanry evasiveness. I still remember the uncomfortable smiles, the condescending tones and I especially remember how quick they were to anger, being "men of God" as they were.

---

You have attacked me - fine, but about the content of what I said.Post #1 , Post #112 , Post #136 is the context. You are feigning ignorance to avoid even giving creedance to my posts. Your reply is irrational and common closed minded fundementalism on the other side of the street, but like I said before no matter what I say you will act like I have said nothing. Your mind is made up why are you even at this website ?

To equate the fundamentatlist cult with true Christianity is a mistake. Don't let those who lie distort the real message. Instead of being disillusioned, combat them to stop others from being subjected to the same stresses on their beliefs that you have been. You have more reason to want to do that than I do and may have a more convincing story to tell to those who are trapped in the morass.I'm not a believer but I can distinguish between the different views of "real" Christians and the literalists.

and more of the same from WT....The thread which you started is about evidence against evolution. This has nothing to do with atheism or God. Could you try harder to stay on topic? There are other fora if you wish to discuss theology.

quote:

---

The issue is the refusal of evolutionists to fulfill the dual requirement of acknowledging the Creator and being thankful.
This refusal taints every claim of certainty that is offered in the larger context that evolution exists - which is that God is not the Creator.

---

Hmm. I acknowledge the Creator and I'm thankful. And yet I still think creationism is a load of garbage and evolution is great science. What could possibly be my problem?I also see that you haven't actually posted any evidence against evolution yet -- real evidence, that is, not a journalist's opinion. Could you please get back on track?[This message has been edited by sfs, 12-10-2003]

So what? If he made a mistake and used non-existant words that is no reason for you to continue to use them when the mistake is pointed out. As has been noted, some people are not as good at communicating as others. You need to also understand that some of the ideas are, in fact, very complex. They are not something you understand by reading a comic book. It is hard work. Many of us may simply not have the intellectual capacity for understanding in detail.You have repeated this claim a lot: that atheism is intermingled. Would you please back up this assertion? In fact, it is time that you backed up any assertion.

DT does, most certainly NOT know it all. It just looks that way because he knows so much more. The website covers a great deal of material. We all try (more or less well) to keep it in nice neat packages as a service to new people coming along so they can find a particular topic. Thus staying on topic is a politeness. It is also good form in a debate or discussion. It also shows some clarity of thought.Why is it that you can't tell with the topic you originally picked?

There is precious little evidence in those posts. A lot of assertions with not back up. Each of the posts has been responded to a number of times. You have yet to respond to those rebuttals. Instead of talking about you so called evidence against evolution you talk about atheism, bias and the difficulty of the lay person understanding the sciences.Why not get down to the actual evidence?By now you are probably thinking I'm getting a little agressive in my posting to you. Good! If you choose to leave instead of continuing in the vein you have been in then it wouldn't be a great loss. You're starting to get very repetitious.

Willowtree.It appears that the thorn in your ass happens to be that people do not acknowledge and worship yourconception of God. You obviously consider us to be cretins just because we do not share your beliefs. Why are you such a hard ass about this and what gives you the right to judge our motives when we defend the evidence that stands available?You have a problem with the level of "jargon" that is used by evolutionists and no doubt you are justified to some degree yet the world cannot simply stop to make every nuance acceptable to your needs. Do you complain as loudly when doctors speak of conditions of the body that are obscure? Do you fret that your mechanic could twist your mind in to a pretzel babbling about all the technical terms at their command? In the mind numbingly simple trade I work in [waterproofing] we have items that we use that would leave you scratching your head but are simple to me because I deal with them on a day to day basis.The only reason you are pissed off is because you percieve a threat to your world view.Well that is your problem.Perhaps you should question a world view that is so easily attacked by science. As I am slowly learning [to my immense regret] science is not hard but it is subtle and it quite often fun. Again you are assuming that we are closed minded. This is most certainly not the case but it will take a lot more than you merely dropping names to bolster your position. PH.D's are not what decides the issue it is the quality of the arguement put forth to explain the evidence and more importantly the evidence itself. If you think it harsh that we do not simply drop to our knees in supplication to God because it is your belief that we are simply in denial shows that you know less about you fellow man and the people at this site than you do about science in general and evolution in particular.I do hope you can bring more to the table than simply names.------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-10-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-10-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-10-2003]

---

Source of theology knowledge: Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D.Stanford University}

---

http://www.drgenescott.com/DOC-PAGE.htm
http://www.edifyingspectacle.org/gullibility/blog/...
{Shortened display form of above URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - Apologetics research resources on Gene Scott
Error 404 - Page Cannot Be Found[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-11-2003]

Aaaaah, I get it. Willowtree is a troll masquerading as a creationist. This explains his repeated references to Milton and Scott as sources of scientific and theological authority.