|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Getting ready to help at a Christian dance event tonight -- the teacher I assist is involved with this event, so she recruited me to handle the door -- so I am short on time.
The thing, candle2, is that in your Message 1785 you demanded of Tangle:
candle2 writes: You sir, must explain in detail how the first life originated. In accordance with Pharisee teachings (the Golden Rule, specifically), we must demand the same thing of you. You have repeatedly insisted that you know how life began. Therefore, you must explain to us in detail HOW the first life originated. We would assume that you will say that that happened through purely supernatural means, so you must explain how that works in detail. It's also a sure bet that your "answer" will consist of nothing other than "goddidit!", that God-of-the-Gaps smokescreen that creationists always hide behind. But everybody knows that "goddidit" provides absolutely no explanation of HOW anything happened or works. Therefore, "goddidit" is inadmissible as an answer. You must describe in detail how those supernatural forces work and how they impinge into and affect the natural universe. You must also describe in detail the objective procedure for determining just which god (AKA "supernatural entity") actually did the job. Or you could finally face the truth and admit that you do not know how life began, but rather that you only believe those things (which you have so far refused to concede). Or you could continue to lie to us (by far the most likely outcome), in which case that tells us everything about your pyramid-of-lies religion and Lord-of-Lies god that we could ever need to know. Time for you to stand and deliver! As for the rest of the bullshit that you posted in order to avoid the question, I'll address that later. Suffice to say that creationist probability arguments are among the stupidest of creationist claims. Except perhaps for "giant mud fossils" (a new low even for you).
|
|||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Sorry for the delay, but I've been occupied with many things. I'm also splitting up my reply.
Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. Either that or you are deliberately lying. Since you are a creationist, it's hard to tell which it is. It's most likely both. The basic question that you never address remains: What are you talking about? In the four decades I've been discussing "creation science", I have yet to encounter a creationist who will answer that question. Indeed, it causes most creationists to flee in terror of it. Why do you feel that you must oppose evolution? Do you think that evolution somehow conflicts with creation? Why and how? What do you think that evolution is? Or how it works? Everything you post about "evolution" demonstrates that your misunderstanding is immense. Every time you make any statement about "evolution", you're talking about something completely different from evolution. It puts you into the position of not even being wrong; id est (ie, "ie"), your statements cannot even qualify as being wrong because they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion. You are not talking about the subject.
So just what the hell are you talking about?
And with all these degrees you cannot figure out that the beliefs of Darwin are diametrically opposed to that of God and creation. What are you talking about? Whatever would the personal beliefs of Charles Darwin have to do with anything, let alone "God and creation"? You are not making any sense. If you are trying to say that evolution is "diametrically opposed" to "God and creation", then that is even more ridiculously false. Evolution is what happens naturally when life does what life does. Evolution exists because life exists. As long as life exists, it evolves. Note that evolution is not equivalent with change, even though change is also involved, but is also responsible for stasis. Because of drift, selection is needed to keep a species constant. We see the same thing in a ship at station-keeping: in order to maintain the same position, the ship must use its engines or thrusters to counter the effects of drift. We also see the same thing in any negative-feedback control loop, such as a voltage regulator: maintaining a constant output voltage requires active and constant monitoring and control, otherwise any change in input voltage or the load would change the output voltage. Maintaining zero change is not nothing. Also, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life began, nor does how life began have anything whatsoever to do with evolution. Regardless of how life began, whether through natural processes or supernatural means, as soon as life came into existence and started doing what life does (ie, survive, reproduce, rinse and repeat ad infinitum) then evolution started happening.
|
|||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
There is only two ways for life to begin. It is either by blind luck, or it is by creation. YASCFD ("Yet Another Stupid Creationist False Dichotomy"), just like the stupid, false, and deliberately-designed-to-deceive Two Model Approach that is the foundation for that deliberately crafted deception, "creation science." From that link:
quote: Creationists through their "creation science" and Two Model Approach deliberately use false dichotomies in order to deceive, as you have done here. You see, you left out the other ways for life to have begun, like natural processes, which are not "blind luck":
When water is formed by the burning of hydrogen and oxygen, is that "blind luck"? Hell no! When particles in water settle out with the larger heavier particles on the bottom of the sediment and the finer particles on top, is that "blind luck"? Hell no! When any chemical reaction or physical process occurs, is that "blind luck"? Hell no! You left out the third way for life to have begun. And the fourth way, the fifth way, etc up to and including the n'th way. By excluding all those other ways from consideration, you chose to try to deceive us. Before you try to claim a broad interpretation for "creation", please consult your dogma, the Two Model Approach (TMA), whose "creation model" is explicitly restricted to a YEC interpretation. Since the TMA divides origins into "two mutually exclusive models", it consigns to its "atheistic" "evolution model" all explanations that are not part of YEC, including (according to Dr. Henry Morris) "much of the world's religions, ancient and modern". That makes most of the supernatural explanations "atheistic evolution", about 288,000 in number, along with non-YEC Christian teachings. Congrats, you have declared the vast majority of Christians to be atheists, but then what else could we expect from a "true Christian". Obviously, your Two Model Approach and the rest of your false dichotomies are nothing but a crock of BS. Now, there is such a thing as a true dichotomy, but all the possible options must be presented and be testable so that all can be eliminated except for one. Just remember that for that one remaining option to be true through this method, absolutely ALL the possible options must be known. Your "blind luck/creation" options list fails because there are so many other options possible -- I only had to give a third one to prove that. Still, the most common uses (eg, math's Proof by contradiction) is to prove something by trying to prove its exact opposite, thus by finding that the exact opposite is false you prove the proposed thing to be true. But they must be exact opposites with no possibility of a third outcome. The best correction I can think of for your false dichotomy would be "natural vs supernatural", such that you could try to argue for the origin of life being either through natural or supernatural means. However, even there we can see at least one more option, that is was through a combination of natural and supernatural processes. And even if we find that life originated purely through natural processes, an actual believer in Creation (unlike you fake believers) would recognized that their Creator would have created those natural processes. Thus even abiogenesis through natural processes would not disprove that Creator -- indeed, science has nothing to say on the matter and most certainly does not try to "disprove God", rather just tries to learn how everything in the universe works.
Or do you believe that if natural processes are found to have done it, then that disproves your god? Seriously, do you really think that Nature disproves God? That belief comes right out of God of the Gaps thinking.
You mention that Darwin has contributed much to the scientific community. No, he has not. A belief in evolution contributes nothingto science. What the hell is "a belief in evolution" supposed to have to do with anything? Or even mean? You're talking total nonsense! OTOH, an understanding of evolution does indeed contribute much to science. Indeed, except through an understanding of evolution, all the disparate little facts, factoids, and observations in biology make no sense. I've related Dr. Eugenie Scott's story of biology seniors with no training in evolution taking her physical anthropology class which, unlike their biology classes, did teach about evolution and she would watch as one by one they would suddenly start to understand what their biology classes had tried to teach them. Darwin has indeed contributed much to the scientific community. You should try to learn something about it.
Darwinianism is the evolutionary science (it isn't really a science) of the gaps. What the hell is that supposed to be? Do you even know, or are you just mindlessly repeating a bit of creationist nonsense that you thought sounded cute? Since none of your creationists will tell us what it's supposed to be (so what else is new?), I have to offer what I think it might be. If you wish to excoriate me for guess wrong, then you must give us the correct definition. It appears to be an attempt at creating a false equivalence with your practice of "God of the Gaps". In "God of the Gaps", you use gaps in human knowledge as "proof" of "God"; basically, "goddidit" becomes an excuse for your ignorance. Resorting to "goddidit" not only puts an end to any and all further attempts to solve that mystery (and hence perpetuating your ignorance) but it also gives you justification for attacking anyone who does continue to try to solve that mystery on the grounds that "You're trying to disprove God!" For example, in J. Richard Wakefield's article about his research into Robert Gentry's radiohalos in "Genesis rock" (actually in an igneous intrusion within metamorphic rock, so far from "Genesis rock"; turned out that Gentry didn't know what he was looking at), "Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" (Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32), Wakefield concluded with:
quote: So creationists' "Science of the Gaps" appears to be an accusation that scientists confronted with not knowing the answer "stubbornly refuse to accept that God is the obvious answer" and insist that there must be a natural explanation instead of resorting to "goddidit". But what you criticize as a fault is actually a virtue. By continuing to seek an answer, we still have a chance to find the answer, and to decrease our ignorance and learn something new. If instead we were to do as you demand of us and resort to your "God of the Gaps", then we will remain in the perpetual darkness of ignorance. This example is from Sherlock Holmes (The Hound of the Baskervilles):
quote: So just what the hell are you talking about?
... (remember that Darwin is the father of the "jelly-like substance-I get a good laugh out of this) ... I bet that you also laughed all through Titanic at those idiot passengers who took a boat instead of a jet airliner. What did you just say? That jet airliners didn't exist back then? Well, when Darwin had written that (if indeed that was the case) all anyone could see in a cell's cytoplasm was a lack of any distinct features. Staining microscope specimens dates from the late 1800's, decades after Darwin would have written that. So just what is it about that questionable quote that you find so funny? Or are you still nothing but a fucking idiot?
|
|||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
There are no intermediary or transitional fossils. None. Anyone that says so is lying through their teeth. No, the liars are the ones who falsely claim "There are no intermediary or transitional fossils. None." You are following those liars. Here is my response to this same false creationist claim in Message 186, 11-Mar-2009 11:41 AM:
dwise1 writes:
Kelly writes: Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist. . . . If transitional fossils don't exist, then why are there so many of them? From a reply I had posted on CompuServe back on 08 July 1989:
quote: I had given you a link to that court decision. Have you read it yet? What about Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker? Also on that same forum on CompuServe, though a few years later in 1993, I met a remarkable creationist, Merle Hertzler. He was the first honest creationist I had encountered -- and I think the only one. He would honestly try to respond to questions and honestly engage in discussion. He was one of "creation science's" better and more coherent advocates. But honesty can have its price. He found his position to be indefensible and within a year went over to the side of evolution. This appears to be why we find so few honest creationists, because they eventually find that they cannot defend something as dishonest as "creation science". Merle's site is at The Mind Set Free-- Merle Hertzler. He's no longer a Christian, but it's far more the fault of "creation science" than of evolution. On his "Did We Evolve?" page at Did We Evolve?, he describes how his creationist position kept evaporating as he actually examined the evidence. In much abridged form, so as to not create a massive post, here's what he wrote about transitional fossils:
quote: Kelly, "creation science" is lying to you about transitional fossils. In many testimonials given by atheists, I found the most common reason for their having become atheists was discovering that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. It's not evolution that turns people into atheists; for many it's the teachings of "creation science".
Your groundless creationist assertion is clearly yet another creationist lie. When will you ever learn?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024