Search results

An educated person would instantly recognize what I meant, and would not require an extended discussion about the possibly simple mindedness of my definition. So, to be clear, then: Power is the rate of change of energy in a system over time. Now, then, do you have a point, or did you...

Energy is merely the release of power. Your description does nothing to rebut my analysis. I have no disagreement with you as to the possibility that God "plays dice with the universe," in the probabilistic sense. But, you are interjecting the "maybe" there's some other power that we don't...

Nice try, but it doesn't matter whether God is everywhere or nowhere. Even if he is everywhere and in everything, even if the universe is the embodiment of what God is, change in this universe requires power, and change that occurs without power in this universe is magic. Period. E = m*c^2...

Yeah, it's just business. I'm bored, and Z is exactly like so many real world witnesses who think that they can avoid the truth by evading direct questioning. But, the more that he evades, the more he destroys his own credibility. Not arguing the merits of one's position on the facts, is, in...

The logical understandings are not mine -- they are God's, assuming that God is God. I didn't create the rules under which the universe operates. If God chooses to break his own rules, then he does so by the application of magic, because he set up the conditions of what is and is not...

No, sorry, you're now displaying your ignorance. It doesn't matter what X-Rays would have been viewed as 500 years ago. X-Rays require a power source. If those X-Rays must travel across some fantastic distance then they will require a huge power source to be focused when they reach Lenski's lab...

First, let's get Z out of the way -- you can't pin down gas -- you can only contain the odor. Now then... Gallup polls conducted in Sep-Oct 05 show that the majority of Americans endorse a "purely creationist view." As for God backing himself into a corner, that's a convenient out, but it...

The only person who has used the term "Darwinism" in this thread is you. It isn't used in the article that you post, and I don't use that term. You speak of Darwinism as if it were an acknowledged sect. But, let's assume that it is for a moment. Apparently you define Darwinists as those who...

God could have easily set evolution in motion and then just sat back and watched -- just as a programmer can write software and then set it in motion and watch the program continue on its own. Furthermore, God could have expressly intended randomness to be a part of the process, i.e., He...

LOL! Great line. This is a quote I can actually use in real life.

You have the central issue well defined: The debate is not now, nor has it ever been over whether there is or isn't a universal designer. The debate, though very few are willing to admit it openly, is whether or not the story Genesis is literally true. Evolution (and cosmology for that...

You seem to have captured the spirit of things rather well, thanks.

I think you're missing the point, despite your extremely thoughtful analysis. I'm not arguing the substance of evolution, Darwinism or any particular Theism. I am arguing about what I view as extremely disingenuous argumentation, that benefits no one and annoys everyone. The originator of...

So, what you mean is: you said it, but you didn't say it word for word as you have now restated it here, and so if I can't quote you exactly as you restate above, then I lose the bet. I won't take that bet. But, I'll demonstrate that what you said in a prior post is substantially the same as...

OK, cool, thank you for permission to piss...so, open wide, now, Mr. Wind, and I'll repeat the substantive issue, that you are oh so unable to avoid. Your first line from this thread states: "This story, posted online at Yahoo.com illustrates the lunacy of the Darwinists, and those who follow...

LOL! Great image!

I note, once again, the total hypocrisy of your debating technique, i.e., in the first sentence above, you state that you are trying to keep the debate civil, and in the second, you deride me personally for my prior alleged self promotion and claims of shallow empty victory. Once again, an...

Your comments imply, not that some Darwinists are lunatics, but rather that Darwinists, as a group are lunatic. Don't try to change your definition to make your premise seem rational. In my view, you have suggested that others are insulting and argumentative without merit, and that this is a...

Posting a thread entitled "The lunacy of the Darwinists," seems pretty "insulting and argumentative," "without merit," to me. Not even the Roman Catholic Church regards evolutionary theory as "lunacy," so it would seem that your position on the subject is rather fringe. Maybe you ought to...