ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,18:07) | Eric ... | Quote | | So why do you think it is, Dave, that seemingly everyone here agreed with me, and no one agreed with you? |
1) Because I'm the enemy |
Don't flatter yourself, Dave.
| Quote | | 2) Because people like Hubert Yockey also confused the definition and he's famous ... even if they harbor some doubts they'll they'll throw their hat in the ring with their ideological brethren as long as they don't have to stand totally alone. |
So why have they corrected me about other things, Dave? They'll only correct me on the little things, but not the big things? And why would anyone else even be interested in my question? Everyone leapt to my "defense" why, exactly?
I'm not an "evolutionist," Dave. I'm not even a scientist. I'm just smart enough to realize that your young-earth creationism is about the dumbest "hypothesis" about the origin of the universe and of life ever proposed in the last five hundred years.
| Quote | | They are basically saying ... OK, we got Schneider and AFDave (creo lunatic) on one side, and we got Yockey and our buddy Eric (ToE guy) on the other ... done deal. |
You don't have Schneider on your side, Dave. Schneider doesn't agree with you. You just think he does.
| Quote | | I learned a long time ago that you people believe the strange things you do primarily because "all the other scientists do" ... not because you have independently analyzed them and think they are true. |
Dave, no one ever told me that a digital recording of white noise has more information than a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech. I didn't read it somewhere in a book. I've never even heard of Yockey. I just have a layman's understanding of information theory that allowed me to deduce it. I'm not just regurgitating stuff I read in a book somewhere, which is exactly what you're doing. The only coherent reason you've ever been able to give for believing in your young-earth creationism is because you read it in a book somewhere. Are you claiming you've done independent research into the matter? Because if you have, you're keeping the results of that research to yourself. You've never presented a single piece of evidence for anything you've ever claimed that you didn't get either from the Bible or from a creationist website.
So even if it were true that the people on this website believe what they believe because they read it in a book somewhere (which is demonstrably not true, because many of the posters here have done original research in their fields), how is that different from what you yourself do?
| Quote | | Has anyone here written publicly on something you felt was true, but you were in the extreme minority? I'm real curious to know this. |
Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.
| Quote | All of which I would be quite fine with me ... because of course IF Toe were true, then that would be the smartest thing I could think of to do.
(But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.) |
…and this is all the evidence we need, Dave, that you were (and are) lying when you say you could be convinced of the truth of the Theory of Evolution. There is simply no way someone with no ideological axe to grind could possibly remain unconvinced of the great age of the earth and the reality of evolution just from the information posted here, and nowhere else.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
