RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:01   

Quote
While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?

Quote
and how the information was added to organisms  to add new gross morphological features.
Which particular gross morphological features require all this new information as opposed to rearragement or duplication and divergence of old information?

Quote
IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"
Well it depends on what the Amalekites did.

Quote
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.
Which is?

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:22   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 22 2006,03:15)
Air Farce Dave,
When you were in the Air Force did anyone ever send you on the typical newby search for slip stream, pneumatic fluid, flight line, or prop wash?  More to the point how long did you spend looking for said items.  

He couldn't have found a wing-nut even if you loaned him the mirror.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:25   

Quote
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.


'Transitory'? I think this person meant to say 'transitional'.

Anyway, this is the ironic thing, in that one could kinda sorta maybe make a case that CATALAN is "Spanish + French". But it's still closer to Spanish.

Quote
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.


Dave, the vast majority of geologists -- people FAR better informed than you, including many Christians -- agree that the Global Flood NEVER HAPPENED. Why do they disagree with you? They know more than you, and yet they do not share your opinion. Why is this? Because they're all wicked?

Do you think geologists who don't believe in the Flood are all going to he11?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:25   

Ah.  And once again, Dave demonstrates ignorance of another topic.  In this case, one that he should understand: theology.  Apparently, he doesn't.

[quote]I do understand the claim ... I know it is that "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place"?  And the answer is "the same way parents can permit their children to experience evil."[/quote] Unfortunately for Dave's case, this analogy is invalid, parents are not God. (Much as I'm sure Dave would like his children to THINK that they are.)  [quote]Obviously parents are not all-powerful, but the analogy works because parents do indeed have the power to keep their children from evil.[/quote] No, actually they don't.  Otherwise the instances of child murder would not occur.

But having an invalid analogy hasn't ever stopped Dave before.
[quote]How?  By not having them, or by going to Radio Shack and buying robot "children" instead of having natural children with CHOICE.[/quote] Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave.  You really need to learn some logic, my child:

A person X cannot prevent person Y from doing Z by preventing the existence of person Y.  If person Y doesn't exist then they cannot be prevented.

[quote]God also had the power to keep us from experiencing evil, but chose not to because of the greater good that would result in the big scheme of things.[/quote] Unsupported assertion and fatuous nonsense.  Prove it.

[quote]He could have either not created us, or created us like little robots.  That would be no fun though, just as it would be no fun for human parents.[/quote] And this demonstrates how little Dave understands theology.

God could have created beings who freely and of their own volition choose the right.  In other words, God (being God) could create beings who freely chose not to sin.  We know that such a condition can exist (based on Christian scripture) since heaven exists.

In other words, Dave is reduced to denying the truth of his own sacred scriptures in order to avoid the embarrassment of demonstrating his ignorance of those self-same scriptures.  Like Uncommon Descent, you simply can't buy this kind of entertainment value.

[quote]Omniscience and omnipotence are separate issues.[/quote] Wow!  What a dazzling observation!  What a pity that folks have been making it for a couple of thousand years or more.

[quote]We obviously cannot comprehend this type of thing because we have never experienced it.[/quote] Certainly Dave hasn't.
[quote]Why is this a proof that it is a wrong idea?[/quote] It's not.  But we've demonstrated that Dave doesn't understand 'proof'.
[quote]To say it is wrong as you do would be equivalent to a jungle native who had never seen an airplane fly saying that "airplanes are impossible."  Both are denials based upon ignorance.  Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."[/quote] And only a moron would make such an argument.  Therefore Dave is a moron.  QED.
Quote
The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe.
Factually incorrect statement, based on your personal ignorance.
Quote
I (with Paley) have given intuitive arguments.
Actually, you have given no arguments at all.  To give an argument would imply that you have given evidence.  To give evidence would imply that you have pointed out facts about the universe.

You have not done so.

You have offered your personal opinions as unsupported assertions and stated that they are facts.

Poor Dave.

Quote
Bill Dembski is all about giving those intuitive arguments rigorous mathematical proofs, based on our recently acquired knowledge that life is essentially INFORMATION which assembles raw materials.
 ANd has conspicuously failed to do so.  Dembski's 'filter' is a joke that has never been applied.  Never.

Quote
While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place, and how the information was added to organisms  to add new gross morphological features.
So speaks the man ignorant of such simple counter-arguments as Avida.
Quote
The answer is Intelligent Design and this in turn supports Theism quite nicely.
Oddly enough, it doesn't.  ID is worse theology than it is science.

But since Dave, like every other scientifically illiterate fundie we deal with can't even define his terms (such as 'information';), it's unlikely that he can actually try to argue his point.
Quote
And Theism has no difficulties explaining the 'omnipotence and omnibenevolence problem' as I have shown.
Gosh - and when are you going to 'show' that?  So far, you haven't.  The POE remains insoluable.

Norm:
Quote
So, if God's will is that the worshippers of the golden calf must be killed by melting down their calf and making them drink it, that's not evil because it's God's will?  If God's will is that Muslim hijackers crash planes into our skyscrapers, that's not evil because it's God's will?  So, if you get  ebola and die a  horrible death, that's obviously God's will since no man decided you should get that disease? The problem with assuming you have to do God's will is figuring out what God's will is.

Dave pontificated thusly:
Quote
You are correct that figuring out God's will is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly.  We also have the question of "Why is it OK for states to execute a convicted murderer?" and the like.  And the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question.  And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator?  Or is there not?"  Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions.  Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"  Now of course, you do have the problem of determining if it was really the Creator who created the Amalekites who is now saying go destroy them.  Maybe the Jewish prophet is just a religious scheister and he's just pretending to speak for the Creator.  And this should not be determined lightly.  And it was not.  God went to great lengths to make checks and balances with the Jewish people to make certain that the prophets were validated before they were trusted to give guidance on weighty matters such as destroying entire people groups.  Contrast this with the modern claims of Jihadists.  They have no authority from anywhere that has been rigorously validated by anyone.  
Excellent!  So whatever God says, goes.  And if tomorrow God ordered you to murder your children, sell your wife into slavery, and castrate yourself, you'd do it, because that's what God wants.  And when God orders Muslims to burn every copy of the Bible as pure blasphemy, that's what God wants too.

Sadistic little bastard you worship, Dave.

Quote
Now regarding the obvious question of "How can God ordering the killing of people groups be considered good" the fact is that IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups.  In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off.  Killing people is a good thing under certain conditions and if done with the proper authority -- i.e. with government sanction in today's world (God has given life and death authority to governments--see Romans 13).  Did it not do the Americans good to kill off those British soldiers?  Look at all the good that has come to America as a result of killing those Brits and founding an independent nation.  Ditto for Hitler and the Nazis (yes, I know ... Godwin ... OK fine).  As for getting ebola and dying a horrible death, this too can be good if you are looking at it from God's perspective.  Remember, this life is only a small portion of our total life.  Humans will live forever somewhere and this short life within a physical body is nothing in the big scheme of things.
Ah!  And another piece of creationist boilerplate gets trotted out:

If something good happens, that's what God wants.

If something awful happens, that's what God wants.

I'm too stupid to understand that God is violating the moral rules She laid down for humans to follow; I'm too stupid to see the logical contradictions in the concept of God; so I'm just going to worship God no matter what horrible things (tsunami, anyone) God does.

Quote
So, God must feel the same way about things that you do? Could it  be that you have made God in your own image?

Dave opined:
Quote
It's logically possible, yes, but you cannot escape the empirical evidence for a real Creator God, so no, when all things are considered it makes more sense to believe that WE were created in His image, rather than vice versa.
Since Dave has not offered any empirical evidence for God, his argument is moot.

Quote
So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future.


Dave sputtered:
Quote
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.  As for the future event which I cannot verify, I believe in this after I have established the authority of the Bible as a whole from a rigorous examination of the claims I can verify.
There is no good evidence for the flood, Dave.  None whatsoever.  And all of the other evidence from geology and paleontology and history and a few other fields contradict it.

The Bible is a tissue of lies, distortions, and dull stories.  And some really good smut.  Come to think of it, maybe there is some reason to read it!


Quote
He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy.

Dave made another meaningless rejoinder:
Quote
Actually parents in a way do subject their kids to inescapable pain and torment by not always intervening.
I see.  Parents subject their children to eternal torment for finite transgressions?  Parents murder their children for no known reason?
Quote
Parents all the time choose not to intervene in the lives of kids who make bad life decisions.  These kids end up in pain and torment all their lives because of their own decisions, not because the parents consigned them to this pain.
So, Dave: if your child decided to drink acid and bleach mixed together, you would let him?  If your child chose to take a blowtorch to your wife, you'd let him?  If your child chose to cut his hands off with an axe, you'd let him?

You're one nasty dude, my child.

Quote
Why should God be any different?
Why, indeed.  We see from the Bible that God does things like that all the time.  He kills innocents; he murders just and good men; he lies; he punishes unjustly.

Everything you'd want an omnipotent being to do.

Quote
He offers eternal life to anyone, but He does not force himself on anyone.  If people want to choose to reject Him, it is they who are choosing their destiny, not Him.
Proof?


Quote
yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science.

Dave again:
Quote
Do you all not realize that the children's novels are allegories of Lewis' Christian faith?  He is primarily a Christian philosopher.  His brilliance is shown in his children's novels because he not only writes exciting kid stuff, but also weaves in essentials of the Christian faith in a hidden sort of way.
Hidden?  How oblivious are you?  Lewis is blatant in his Christian symbolism.

Are you really that dense?

I repeat: you can't buy entertainment like this.  It's a pity though that Dave can't come up with an original attempted argument.  I'd pay good money to see one.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:49   

So, in a nutshell, Dave tells us that:

a) All humans know what's moral and what's not, because of a Universal Moral Law, derived from an Eternal Source of Pure Good, and

b) When this Eternal Source of Pure Good tells us we should do something blatantly against the Universal Moral Law, well, it's OK, because we humans can't really know what's moral and what's not... Only the Source can.


...Did you hear that muffled cry? It was poor Mr. C.S.Lewis going down the pipes, as Davey flushed the toilet.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:52   

This quote is just brilliantly funny. Look at these two sentences together. Thanks for making my morning, Dave!
 
Quote (afdave @ , )
Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."  The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe.[emphasis Dave's]

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:09   

Quote
Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"


Yeah!  And if I want to kill my children, and I was the one who created my children, then how can you say, "No, that's wrong?"

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:25   

And if I want to marry a goat because god tells me to, then who am I to criticize?

Are you taking my bet 1/2 a Dave? I just looked and saw that you are logged in so I know you are reading.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:58   

I just saw AFDave's cognitive dissonance brought to a boil. It burst under his insanity.

If the bible were true, then God ordered the deaths of innocents and Dave says:

 "In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off. "  This is predestination. You lose.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:20   

And Dave, we're not mean to you because you're ignorant. We help ignorant people, and we like to do so, and we like when people help us when we're ignorant about something. We're mean to you because you're extremely ignorant and yet you think you know better than us. Just FYI.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:46   

I don't like hurting people, Dave. I don't need a god to tell me about ethics or morals. I feel bad that you are wrong. I feel bad that you think the way you do.

(Deuteronomy 24:16) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(II Chronicles 25:4) But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

(Ezek. 18:19) The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I am sorry you feel otherwise.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:17   

Quote
And if I want to marry a goat because god tells me to, then who am I to criticize?


I thought you said god was into sheep?  something about him going off with a sheep for 30 years or sumat?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:27   

@fractatious:

thanks.  that was exactly what i was looking for.  Much to think about.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:32   

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 22 2006,12:46)
I don't like hurting people, Dave. I don't need a god to tell me about ethics or morals. I feel bad that you are wrong. I feel bad that you think the way you do.

(Deuteronomy 24:16) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(II Chronicles 25:4) But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

(Ezek. 18:19) The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I am sorry you feel otherwise.

More importantly, those verses demolish the entire 'Curse' thing that Dave was blaming all that nasty evolution on.  After all, God isn't going to punish Adam's children for their father's sin?

Or is God simply an immoral agent?

Something to think about.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:35   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 22 2006,14:17)
Quote
And if I want to marry a goat because god tells me to, then who am I to criticize?


I thought you said god was into sheep?  something about him going off with a sheep for 30 years or sumat?

'Sumat'? Are you from northern England originally? 'Cause the only other person I've known who used that term was from West Yorkshire...

(Tho I think he usually spells it 'summat'.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:39   

Quote
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?


you're kidding, right?  Dave doesn't even know what he means by 'information'.

I thought we conclusively established his overwhelming ignorance weeks ago.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:43   

Quote
'Sumat'? Are you from northern England originally? 'Cause the only other person I've known who used that term was from West Yorkshire...

(Tho I think he usually spells it 'summat'.)


must be 'genetic memory' :)

Truly, I haven't a clue why i used that word.

Maybe it has to do with the references to sheep sparking something in my subconscious from my Irish/English ancestors?

I wonder if further discussions of relationships with sheep will spawn more instances of northern UK dialect...

somewhere, deep in the recesses of my subconscious, I feel a joke coming on...

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:28   

Quote
I thought you said god was into sheep?  something about him going off with a sheep for 30 years or sumat?
And I get left with the darn goat. Rrrgh.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:29   

Quote
... and we like when people help us when we're ignorant about something.
Yes. So you should be very happy right now since I've helped you so much :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:48   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,15:29)
Quote
... and we like when people help us when we're ignorant about something.
Yes. So you should be very happy right now since I've helped you so much :-)

Oh, Dave?  You might try addressing the Portuguese issue.  I'm afraid you continue to be mistaken.

Just for you, my child, since I know you wouldn't want to fail to address something:

Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.  (Naughty, that: Jesus is weeping for you right now).  So I'll repeat this for your benefit.

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblige: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:52   

This is a guy who holds simultaneously that Wikipedia's not a good enough source to refute him, and that Wikipedia proves him right.

So Rilke, it's not that he likes looking dumb, it's that he doesn't have the brains to see that he looks dumb.

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:55   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 22 2006,14:39)
Quote
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?


you're kidding, right?  Dave doesn't even know what he means by 'information'.

I thought we conclusively established his overwhelming ignorance weeks ago.

True.  I'm divided in my mind, though.  Who is funnier: Dave Scot?  Or  2nd Lt. Dave?

Right now, my money is on Dave Scot (he's smarter, which means his jokes are more... oblivious).

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,11:47   

AFDave writes:

 
Quote
It should be science.  Theology was once known as the Queen of Sciences, and it should be reinstated as such.  


Amen and amen. Stupid and immoral evolutionists think they can ignore theology, but evolutionism is nothing but theology. It is the religion of self-worship where any man can crown himself a diety. True, the average evolutionist, having a God-given void in his head, fails to live out the implications of his amoral ontology, and often will act as moral as any Christian. However, I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity, such as  this guy, this guy, or this guy.

However, although I hate to agree with the evolutionists; I have to admit C. S. Lewis is pretty pathetic as a theologian and apologist. Lewis, not unlike McDowell, and other popular Jesus feaks, mistakenly assume the Socratic position and try to argue Christian truth on the basis of "evidence" as defined by the enemies of the gospel using their own autonomous reasoning.

Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything. Mankind, being affected by sin, can only reason from the implications of his presuppositions; he can only reason in a circle. Hence, the truth of the Bible must be pre-supposed, and not argued for in order to ground any knowledge claims at all. You might want to study the theology of Cornelius Van Til for more enlightenment.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,11:50   

Quote
I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity
And they are the leaders of the evolutionist movement how?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,11:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 22 2006,16:47)
Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about mankin[d]. Mankind, being affected by sin, can only reason from the implications of his presuppositions; he can only reason in a circle.

I don't know, Bill. It seems to me that an inevitable consequence of this belief is a belief that science is a waste of time, and scientists should take up needlepoint.

So, Bill—is science a waste of time?

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,12:03   

Quote

Amen and amen. Stupid and immoral evolutionists think they can ignore theology, but evolutionism is nothing but theology. It is the religion of self-worship where any man can crown himself a diety. True, the average evolutionist, having a God-given void in his head, fails to live out the implications of his amoral ontology, and often will act as moral as any Christian. However, I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity, such as  this guy, this guy, or this guy.


GOP, this is gross self-parody even for you. Are you hung over today, or something? Or just given up on the whole 'objective scientist' thing? You're talking like some idiot at Uncommon Descent, and I thought you were a tad smarter than that.

Oh, BTW, as an 'average evolutionist', I'm sorry I disappoint you by "failing to live out the implications of my amoral ontology". Would it make you happier if I went out and committed some crimes, to vindicate your cartoonish preconceptions? You know, to prove that your preconceptions aren't, you know, full of shit?

PS: Castro, Chomsky and Kim Jong Il have all "wrought abominable consequences upon humanity"? Dare I ask who Chomsky has killed? And why Castro and Kim Jong-Il are representatives of evolution?

Really, whatever you're on, cut the dose, Paley.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,12:37   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 22 2006,16:50)
Quote
I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity
And they are the leaders of the evolutionist movement how?

Are you kidding?  Kim Jong-il gets published in Science practically every other month.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,12:47   

Oh yeah, who do you think figured out DNA methylation? Dear Leader, that's who.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:36   

Quote (paley @ ,)
Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything.

Ehhhhhhhhh, whatta you know?  :p  :p  :p

  
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:50   

Quote
Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything.


dang.

   
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]