RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:35   

I'll go ahead and post this small piece again to remind everyone of the "Evil in the World" argument ...

The creation of mankind with a choice necessarily requires the possibility to evil, which by definition is "opposition to the will of the Creator."  What other definition makes sense?  What fun would it be for parents to have "robot children"?  It's a lot more fulfilling for parents to have kids that have a free will.  There is risk, to be sure.  Think about Jeffrey Dahmer's mom, but every day parents all over the world deem it worth the risk.  Why?  Because of the greater good which may result.  Their child maygrow up to be the next Louis Pasteur or Mother Teresa.  Why is this any different to visualize with God?  To me, it makes perfect sense that God would feel exactly the same way.  Does he want an earth full of zombie robots?  Of course not.  He wants people that have the ability to hate His guts, but make the conscious decision to love Him ... just like human parents do also.  And you can't escape this argument by saying "Well, it's different with God because supposedly He's all-powerful and all-knowing.  Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.  This also is just like human parents.  They intervene sometimes in the lives of their children and they choose NOT to intervene sometimes because they want the child to learn some lesson.  What is so strange about this when it comes to thinking about God?

Everyone agree with this logic?  

Can we move on to Eric's age of the earth and Flood questions now?

(What links, Faid?)

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

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,04:34   

What logic?  A string of ruminations does not constitute logic, nor a logical argument.
Evil is not generally defined as "opposition to the will of the Creator".
Amongst other problems, and they are legion, you are assuming your conclusion.  Were this logic that would disqualify your 'argument' right there.
You have yet to show that the notion of 'Creator' as you use it is meaningful and possible.
You have yet to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence.
Similarly you have yet to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence in the face of evil [in the normal sense of the term] which has nothing to do with human action or will.
You misreprsent the standard objection to your claims -- it is not the case that the argument from evil is "why doens't an all powerful and all knowing beingf stop this?", it is "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place".
I doubt you can see the distinction, although it is more obvious than the differences between French, Spanish, and Portuguese...

But by all means, please proceed with discussino of Eric's age of the earth and flood questions.  Just don't pretend that by 'moving on' anyone believes that you have settled anything you have moved past.
We really would like  to see you provide positive evidence for something, anything, at least once in this thread.
Should you do so, we might almost conclude that miracles can occur.
Since they cannot, we know a prior that you will not.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:51   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:59)
Arden said ...    
Quote
Another point: the only way Portuguese could be a mixture of Spanish and French would be if French had the opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way.


Uh ... er ... a big influence, huh ... like maybe thousands of French knights coming over to help Alfonso VI, maybe?  Did you even read my post?  Here's the part you might have missed ...
   
Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.


It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  

If you want to argue something new, go start a new thread on Martin Luther, or the Catholic church, or Hitler or something else fun.

'The mix is quite obvious'. The same way as a 6,000-year-old earth is 'obvious', eh, Dave?

Perhaps it takes the LACK of a PhD to see it.

Okay, Dave, it's like this. No linguistics article I've read by anyone who actually knows anything about linguistics says ANYTHING about Portuguese being a 'mix' of French and Spanish. No one.

But to you, with your lack of training think it's 'obvious'.

Okay, Dave. Prove it. So far all the evidence you've offered is 'if you've heard all three languages it's obvious'. That might be exactly what one needs to argue for Creationism, but linguistics holds itself to a higher standard than that, fortunately. Give us the evidence. You can do one of two things: you can either refer us to published linguistic articles by specialists in Romance languages where they explain how Portuguese is a mix of French and Spanish, or two, you can give us your own evidence. What would that be? Give us characteristics that Portuguese has it shares with French and not Spanish. And your impressionistic hunches about phonetics don't count. You have to produce lexicon and grammar -- a lot of it -- to prove this. Words and grammatical features French and Portuguese have but not Spanish. Cuz if your, uh, 'theory' is true, there should be plenty such examples.

Can you do that? Either references or raw data?

The burden of proof is on you, Dave. Cuz here's how it stacks up:

ONE SIDE: Dave

OTHER SIDE: Everyone else, including all linguists.

This isn't religious apologetics, Dave. You can't just make shit up and have it become true.

--------------
"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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
...evil, which by definition is "opposition to the will of the Creator."

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.

Quote
What other definition makes sense?


How about a more humanist definition of "good" and "evil"? What is good is what promotes human happiness and co-operation. What is evil is that which disrupts human happiness and co-operation.

Quote
To me, it makes perfect sense that God would feel exactly the same way.


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

Quote
Everyone agree with this logic?  


Absolutely NOT!

That was the logic of delusion, Dave.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,08:28)
Lewis obviously goes farther than is necessary to establish another piece of evidence for the existence of God, and I do to.

That was a very interesting read and brought home the fact that human psyche in relation to cognition and behaviour was not Lewis' forte. The apologetic argument and appeals. I think when it comes to understanding what propels and/or compels a human, then Lawrence Kohlberg (Professor of Psychology) book "The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development" as well as Jean Piaget (Professor of Psychology) book "Insights and Illusions of Epistemology" as well as "The Moral Judgement of the Child". Lewis was an obvious reductionist (from reading his model of Laws pertaining to mankind) and wrongly classified humans (which you'll understand reading Kohlberg and Piaget). In a nutshell, Lewis should of stayed with Children Books and kept out of the realm of philosophy and psychology.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:28   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.  This also is just like human parents.  They intervene sometimes in the lives of their children and they choose NOT to intervene sometimes because they want the child to learn some lesson.  What is so strange about this when it comes to thinking about God?

Well that was a great refutation to an omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscience God. The other alternative to that, which can be logically asserted it - there is no God.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:35   

Just had to comment on this:

   
Quote
Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.


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.

Only in religious apologetics do things that DIDN'T happen qualify as 'evidence'.

And only in religious apologetics does this DISPROVE the ideas that (a) God simply doesn't exist or (b) if God exists, he simply has no effect on earthly events.

It's no wonder that he thinks Young Earth Creationism is 'obvious'.

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10714
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:38   

he's very close. YEC is oblivious.

   
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:47   

AFDave said
Quote
the possibility to evil, which by definition is "opposition to the will of the Creator."


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.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
(What links, Faid?)

Here we go again Dave.

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

Also posted in the "prove evolution" thread, in case you miss them here.
And I, um, removed the accursed wiki link...

--------------
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."

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:47   

Yikes C.S.Lewis ??
What are you trying to do half a Dave give the guy a bad name? He wrote children's stories and was not much of an expert at anything else including morality and the universe, as if there were such a thing. Next 1/2 a D will be saying eating vegitables and invading 3rd world countries to steal their oil is immoral and against God's will because the universe sets the rules...sheesh
Yeah 1/2 a D manifest destiny is written in the stars....... in Portuguese French perhaps?
By the way there are more French words in the English language than in the Portuguese language and the 'official' French Language of today  originally came from the Germanic Frankish court/legal system and it was only widely spoken all over France displacing regional dialects around a 100 years ago so are you going to say that Portuguese is a Germanic language perhaps half a Dave?
Oh thats right you don't even understand English.
Have you even studied another language?Oh yeah
Special English

its for special people half a Dave.

All this stuff just re-enforces half a Dave's martyr complex.
"See how badly they treat me God and I still believe in you , you can count on me. When I'm done here I just know you are going to send all these bad , nasty, horrible devils disciples down, down ,down into a Nietzchian 
abyss ** and raise good old me up to be your right hand man dishing out morality to all the angels"



**(The  underworld described in Greek and Egyptian mythology was Nietzsche's  and Dante's (oh and half a Dave's) abyss. Those stories described with easily decoded metaphors commonly understood in their day, something largely lost today unless through scholarship, recognizable milestones for ones progress through and hopefully out of the abyss. Fairy tales for adults . A sort of journey through the psyche, the inner journey as Campbell and Jung described, not unlike tempory schizophrenia i.e. rearranging the brain to function in the real world. The journey through the underworld AS STORY was the treatment in those ancient times. Campbell's take on the  The Egyptian book of the dead (and schizophrenia) is a very interesting read if anyone is game)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:55   

I think it would be true to say in 1/2 a D's case that his brain is frozen in a state not unlike schizophrenia i.e. unable to determine what is real and what is not.
The horse in his case  bolted years ago.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:22   

Just for KE:

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/halfabee.mp3

I don't think half-Dave would even be equivalent to eric, as i believe half-Dave is only the ass-end.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:26   

Quote
Well, I see that not everyone agrees with C.S. Lewis ... what a surprise!


LOL.

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

complete shocker!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:30   

Quote


It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  


*sigh*  Why doesn't it surprise me that right after i said Dave would be popping in soon to "correct" Arden, he does attempt to do just that?

see, BWE, i told you Dave was completely oblivious.

feel free to set your trap.  he won't see it, even if we discuss the details.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10714
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:32   

I once had a creationist (a creationist with an engineering degree--big surprise) tell me, in a little coffeeshop across from NCSU, that I should read Mere Christianity and that if I could refute Lewis's arguments I'd be world famous. I had a good laugh at that.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:33   

@fractatious:

Do you have a background in clinical psych?

if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?

@steve:

Quote
that I should read Mere Christianity and that if I could refute Lewis's arguments I'd be world famous. I had a good laugh at that.


did you point him to the already world famous folks that stood in line to do just that, years ago?

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,12:47   

Quote
see, BWE, i told you Dave was completely oblivious.

feel free to set your trap.  he won't see it, even if we discuss the details.


He is too stupid to take the bait anyway. He hasn't answered a single question from anyone because he can't.

Psychosis, severe head trauma and low self esteem from his poor performance in evangelizing are my diagnosis.

My prescription: Taking up the cloth and living on a mountain. Preferrably one 6000 years old.

--------------
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 21 2006,13:15   

Let's recap.
1) AFDave says that Lewis' argument where people "feel" a sense of what is right and wrong is proof of god.
2) Others object, pointing out that Lewis deliberately overlooked the most basic counterarguments to his assertion

3) AFDave overlooks those objections and concentrates maniacally on the origins of Portuguese
4) AFDave is shown wrong in his claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French

5) The original objections to Lewis' assertions remain unrefuted by AFDave

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,14:26   

Dave, why is it that whenever I ask you when you're going to provide affirmative evidence for an earth less than a million years old or evidence that the Bible is correct in its description of the history of the world, you just ignore me? After all, this is the "AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" thread, isn't it? Amusing as it was seeing your French + Spanish = Portuguese theory getting beaten to death with a shovel, I think it's probably time to get back to the matter at hand.

So: why do you think the earth is less than a million years old, Dave? And please, for the love of god, make your answer more interesting than, "Why, it says right here in the Bible…"

I was over my brother's place a couple of years ago—I think it was about the time the Residents' "Wormwood" CD came out—and we were talking about how arbitrary and irrational the Bible was. My brother had a copy of Marquis de Sade's autobiography on his couch at the time, and he laid a hand on top of it and said, "You might as well have based a religion on this book."

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:24   

Quote
My prescription: Taking up the cloth and living on a mountain. Preferrably one 6000 years old.


er, i don't know of any EXACTLY 6000 years old, but would it be ok if it were younger than that?

If so, I have a suggestion for Dave:

go study on top of Space Mountain at Disneyland.

-It's intelligently designed
-Is less than 6000 years old
-the creator of the Eden it's in shared a lot of your senses of morality
-It has fun things to do when you get bored of being a hermit

sounds perfect!

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:56   

Folks,

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Afdave, which is NOT my purpose at all, I am animated to make (yet again) the following point:

The impression that the God of the Old testament (OT) is a mean, vengeful and vicious God could not be further from the truth. It is based on the grotesuely distorted Christian interpretation and translation of the original Hebrew, the real and authentic Bible.

I have already debated this matter with many posters here (such as Jonboy and BWE and others) and yet the same canard keeps surfacing again and again. The reality is that the God of the OT is a merciful, forgiving, indulgent and loving God.

All you need do is read what Afdave writes and you can readily see the massive nature of Christian distortions of the Hebrew text. For example, he says that many prophesies in the OT all lead to and were fulfilled by ("converge" in his terminology) none other than Jesus. Well, if there were a iota of truth to that would you not suppose that the Jews would gladly have accepted Jesus? After all, he was one of their own! The fact is that there is not a shred of support for that statement.

The drinking of the molten golden calf (mentioned above) was a God sanctioned technique to allow Moses to ascertain who was guilty and who was innocent of the murders, rapes and robberies that occured in the chaos of his disappearance. Those who were guilty were punished, those who were innocent were not only unharmed by the potion but came out ahead. Now you may not believe this Biblical story but then you don't know that any of it occured at all. Either way, God comes out just right.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,16:09   

Quote
which is NOT my purpose at all,


yes, yes, Carol.  We all know what your purpose here is.

I think now would be a good time to espouse your new "why Landa's book sits so low in the Amazon book rankings" theory.

well, maybe when your done preaching, eh?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,16:40   

STJM,

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the value or merit or correctness of a book (or paper) is to be judged by its popularity in the mass market?

By that standard, are we to put evolution to a vote and decide its merit by whether it is popularly supported? The polls have already spoken then and evolution has lost (unfortunately).

By the way, the fortunes of Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF on Amazon rise and fall with ads that periodically appear, as to most products. Jay El's main sales are to schools and institutions, however, and the book is doing quite well. But thank you for your concern.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:00   

LOL.

yes, thanks Carol.

You define the word "predictable" almost as well as AFDave.

Done yet, or do you want to taunt us a second time?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:14   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 21 2006,20:56)
Folks,

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Afdave, which is NOT my purpose at all, I am animated to make (yet again) the following point:

The impression that the God of the Old testament (OT) is a mean, vengeful and vicious God could not be further from the truth. It is based on the grotesuely distorted Christian interpretation and translation of the original Hebrew, the real and authentic Bible.

Hmm…a (fictional) distorted interpretation of a (fictional) account. Is this something we should care about?

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:29   

Quote
Is this something we should care about?


surely you mean that rhetorically.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,18:52   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 21 2006,22:29)
surely you mean that rhetorically.

God, I should hope so. The last thing I need is a lecture on how my godless ways will lead to an eternity of punishment.

But at least Carol, evidently being Jewish, seems not to believe in a vengeful god.

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

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:28   

Sir Toejam.

Quote
Do you have a background in clinical psych?


Yes. I have worked in that department. I have 4 straight consecutive years in Human Development/Developmental Psychology (Social Science).

Quote
if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?


Technically I would not answer something like this publically. However, I'll just sketch over it. Socially we try and maintain a form of consonance, or cognitive consonance. Even if they are opposed in paradigm or some ideology, there can still be achieved, consonance. Dissonant cognition of course is the opposite of this and Festinger (father of cognitive dissonance) ascribed this to drive like abilities, a thirst to or drive to create an atmosphere of dissonance. An example I'll use is Kent Hovind, regardless of his credibility under fire as an authority in the field of evolutionary biology, and the many refutations to his outlandish claims, he is driven to go further, with such comments as "if a car is going at the speed of light and turns on its headlights, then the headlights are going twice the speed of light". That is an outlandish claim, and totally incorrect, but he will support it heaping more outlandish claims ontop. It also is not hard for anyone (whether they have a background in psychology or not) to see via interaction with another individual, how far their dissonance goes.

I hope that helped.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:31   

Quote
But at least Carol, evidently being Jewish, seems not to believe in a vengeful god.


best to again specify that you mean that rhetorically, as I'm sure none of us here care to hear Carol expound upon whether Landa's translation of the OT defines whether the refered to deity is in fact vengeful or not.

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

Pages: (202) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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