Daevans
Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010
|
| Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:27) | | Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46) | | Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? |
You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this:
Step 1. Hi! I am just trying to understand evolution! Can you help me?
Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]? I am confused about how evolution explains that.
Step 3. The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2. They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is.
Step 4. The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.
Step 5. The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.
Step 6. These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance. Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.
Step 7. LOLCats!
Step 8. The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out.
So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2. And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague.
So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet. And maybe you won't. But you would be the first.
|
http://homebuyersadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2008....4&h=374
I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant.
We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.
Step 1. Hi! I am just trying to understand evolution! Can you help me?
(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)
Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]? I am confused about how evolution explains that.
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
Step 3. The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2. They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is
( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here from the adolescent attacks, the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).
Step 4. The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.
( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer, your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)
Step 5. The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.
( First let's be honest you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)
( I would further state Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)
Step 6. These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance. Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.
( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.
Step 7. LOLCats!
(I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??)
--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker
|
