Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 316 (90034)
03-03-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kendemyer
03-02-2004 8:19 PM


Re: TO: ADMINASGARA
quote:
2. I see further evidence of a hostile attitude towards creationist in that there seems to be a 3 to 1 ratio of creationist/evolutionist banned if memory serves.
I think you are correct that more creationists get banned than evolutionists.
Religious furvor and productive debate are generally incompatible.
The truth is, most creationists who come here end up running away when asked to back up their assertions or adhere to the forum guidelines.
quote:
True the sample size is small, but given #1 above I did not find it surprising. I cannot say with any certainty regarding the banning and I must admit I have not been banned yet so perhaps they did misbehave.
Very, very few members have ever been banned from EvC.
Several have had their posting privileges suspended, for short or long term lengths, through repeated violation of the forum guidelines. There are many warnings before any such action is taken.
You can read the threads leading up to individual members' posting privileges being suspended by going to the member list and clicking on the names that have asterisks next to them.
Considering you have never "witnessed" a banning or suspension, it's a bit premature for you to be passing any judgement on the culture of this place, don't you think?
quote:
3. I did not find the lack of creationist moderators as surprising either.
Percy has had a very hard time finding Creationists who consistently abide by the forum guidelines enough to let them moderate.
quote:
5. As far as not wanting to give evidence or defend my views I would say it was not me who closed the thread.
Um, wasn't it closed precisely because you didn't defend your views, therefore there was nothing to debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kendemyer, posted 03-02-2004 8:19 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 316 (90225)
03-04-2004 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by kendemyer
03-03-2004 1:10 PM


Re: To: Schrafinator
Ken, for goodness sake, will you PLEASE use the small reply button at the bottom of the original message you are replying to and NOT the large reply button at the top and bottom of the page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kendemyer, posted 03-03-2004 1:10 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 316 (90226)
03-04-2004 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by kendemyer
03-03-2004 1:10 PM


Re: To: Schrafinator
quote:
I have read that emotion and the more dispassionate brain faculties actually improve decision making. It helps us set priorities, for example. People who have had the emotional regulators damaged in their brains make very poor decisions from what I have studied.
On the other hand, some people have such poor emotion control that they allow hate and other emotions to have too much sway. There are militant atheist and militant religionist. In short, I think there are problems on both sides of the fence. I would say, however, that God can give patience to those who desire it.
Well, at any rate, the people who get banned and suspended ere are usually the ones who say thing like "You are going to hell!!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kendemyer, posted 03-03-2004 1:10 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 316 (90235)
03-04-2004 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by kendemyer
03-03-2004 3:22 PM


Re: To: Rock Hound
quote:
The materialists wish to push God out of the picture
But God is "out of the picture" in all of science, ken.
Science ignores God and all other supernatural ideas. It has no opinion whatsoever upon the existence of god, because there is no way to measure God's existence.
Will you please explain how scientific inquiry would benefit from letting supernatural explanations in? Be specific.
How would our understanding of antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis be benefitted by letting "Godidit" be an explanation for how they became resistant, for example?
quote:
and I would say they have been very unsuccessful. Without credible evidence for the abiogenesis hypothesis I would say the materialist are not even at first base.
Evolution began once the first life form appeared on earth. HOW that life got here has no bearing on IF it evolved. Therefore, the ToE is a wholly separate theory from Abiogenesis.
God could have made the first life and Evolution would still be correct, because that is where the evidence has led us.
What evidence for evolution do you believe is lacking, or do you believe is in error?
Be specific.

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kendemyer, posted 03-03-2004 3:22 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 316 (90237)
03-04-2004 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kendemyer
03-03-2004 4:03 PM


Re: To: Melchoir
quote:
re: second law and macroevolutionary hypothesis
A man died in Texas and he had an unusual will. He left his house and all his possessions to the devil. The judge did not know what to do. The judge deliberated for a week. Finally, the judge thought of the perfect answer to honor the will of the departed. The judge built a very high fence around the property and posted guards around it. Why? The judge knew that things left to themselves go to the devil. I think this analogy applies to the second law and the macroevolutionary hypothesis.
I would also say that the macroevolutionary hypothesis in regards to the second law of thermodynamics can be likened to a salmon trying to swim up Niagara Falls. The salmon just will not be able to do it.
I further believe that Behe has thrown an additional large wrench into the philosophy of materialism.
Ken, do you admit that your site lied to you about the 2LoT, and that the solar system is not a closed system?
Yes or no?

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kendemyer, posted 03-03-2004 4:03 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by kendemyer, posted 03-04-2004 2:37 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 316 (90361)
03-04-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by kendemyer
03-04-2004 2:37 PM


Re: To: schrafinator
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No.
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Answer; "yes" or "no".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by kendemyer, posted 03-04-2004 2:37 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 316 (90399)
03-04-2004 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by kendemyer
03-04-2004 7:21 PM


Re: to: schrafinator
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..
Yes or no?
Pick one.

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by kendemyer, posted 03-04-2004 7:21 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 316 (90813)
03-06-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Materialism, weighed in the balance and found lacking
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..
Yes or no?
Pick one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 4:49 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 316 (90814)
03-06-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 5:28 PM


Re: no escape
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..
Yes or no?
Pick one.

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:28 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 316 (90904)
03-07-2004 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by kendemyer
03-07-2004 2:00 AM


Re: The fossil record is great evidence for ToE
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..
Yes or no?
Pick one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kendemyer, posted 03-07-2004 2:00 AM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by kendemyer, posted 03-07-2004 2:14 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 135 of 316 (90966)
03-07-2004 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by kendemyer
03-07-2004 2:14 PM


Re: second law and earth being a open system
Oops!
You posted a link.
I do not want a ink.
I want a simple answer to a simple question.
Your reply should be ONE WORD.
Choose from YES or NO.
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..
Yes or no?
Pick one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by kendemyer, posted 03-07-2004 2:14 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by kendemyer, posted 03-07-2004 4:56 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 316 (90998)
03-07-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by kendemyer
03-07-2004 4:56 PM


Re: second law and the earth being a open system
Oops!
You posted a link.
I do not want a link.
I want a simple answer to a simple question.
Your reply should be ONE WORD.
Choose from YES or NO.
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION.
Yes or no?
Pick one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by kendemyer, posted 03-07-2004 4:56 PM kendemyer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 316 (91677)
03-10-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by kendemyer
03-10-2004 10:04 PM


Re: to: WI
Your reply should be ONE WORD.
Choose from YES or NO.
Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.
Do not preach a sermon to me.
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION.
Yes or no?
Pick one.

I want to date, and shop, and hang out, and go to school, and save the world from unspeakable demons. You know...girly things." -Buffy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by kendemyer, posted 03-10-2004 10:04 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by kendemyer, posted 03-10-2004 10:53 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 316 (92058)
03-12-2004 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by kendemyer
03-11-2004 5:51 PM


Re: To: Schrafinator
quote:
I would say the type of very complex order I see is incongruent with the second law of thermodynamics exerting significant influence.
Huh?
What does "very complex" order mean? That's not part of the 2LoT.
quote:
For example, the irreducible complexity of the first cell(s) (being a creationist I would say many cells could have been created simultaneously).In short, I believe the materialist will always fail in regards to the abiogenesis issue.
It's a good thing that your beliefs do not drive scientific inquiry, eh?
It's also a good thing that the ToE and Abiogenesis theories are wholly seperate theories and not dependent upon each other in the least, too!
quote:
I also think Behe and his like minded colleagues will continue to be a thorn in the side of those who espouse evolutionary ideas.
You DO realize that Behe is 9/10ths Evolutionist, and would disagree with pretty much everything you posted here so far, don't you?
Behe and his God of the Gaps bretheren are a thorn in the side of those of us who wish to keep religion out of the public school science classtoom, but he is hardly a thorn in the side of professional Evolutionary Biologists.
That's because his ideas are not scientific. There is no testable, empirical theory. It is merely a restatement, albeit in microbiological terms, of the God of the Gaps fallacy.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kendemyer, posted 03-11-2004 5:51 PM kendemyer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024