his position is essentially "scared shitless'..
that about sums it up
tick tick tick
ps
is the crue great or what?
Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
his position is essentially "scared shitless'..
that about sums it up
tick tick tick
ps
is the crue great or what?
Dear Stu, Merry Xmas,
From an earlier post of what Biology textbooks teach:
"It is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected (Biology, Miller and Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p.658).
One of the great wonders of our existence and of life itself is that it has all arisen through a combination of evolutionary processes and chance events (Biology Concepts and Connections, Campbell, Mitchell, and Reece, Benjamin Cummings, 1994, p.390).
Evolution works without either plan or purpose! (p.658) Evolution is random and undirected (p.658) (Biology, Miller and Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995).
Life's building blocks can form spontaneouslyâ¦. Soon after the Earth's surface cooled life arose in the ancient seas. The first organisms to appear on the planet were bacteria, which are single-celled prokaryotes. These early bacteria are the ancestors of modern bacteria and of all the many different kinds of organisms living today, including you (Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994, pp.200, 203).
________
Also from some of your posts I have the idea you think That Intelligent Design scientists don't believe in evolution at all?
In fact all the ones I read do, it is the reduction of life to solely physical processes conjured up by chance reactions that is where the debate is centered.
You asked my opinion on how man appeared on earth, I gave it.
Then you asked if my "version of creation" was essentially Biblical Genesis....and I responded with a question:
"Is that what you think?"
I don't understand the hostility of your response now at all.
You didn't ask me to explain my position, you asked if my opinion was essentially Biblical Genesis.
I don't know what Biblical Genesis essentially is, so I asked you what you think. I am not an exert in Biblical Genesis, I don't ever recall even reading it. Something about Adam and Eve I think, but I am not a Christian or a Jew, so I really don't know.
Again, I don't understand your response.
Then you asked if my "version of creation" was essentially Biblical Genesis....and I responded with a question:
"Is that what you think?"
I don't understand the hostility of your response now at all.
You didn't ask me to explain my position, you asked if my opinion was essentially Biblical Genesis.
I don't know what Biblical Genesis essentially is, so I asked you what you think. I am not an exert in Biblical Genesis, I don't ever recall even reading it. Something about Adam and Eve I think, but I am not a Christian or a Jew, so I really don't know.
Again, I don't understand your response.
Is something unclear to you?
Your response is quite "creepy" to me.
Your response is quite "creepy" to me.
I know, I know. And don't you find that the hardest questions to answer are the really insipid ones? I mean, how people can have the nerve to ask difficult questions....I really don't know.
No, I don't find insipid questions like the one you asked hard to answer at all. I simply don't have an inerest in answering insipid questions if I am not required to.
I didn't find your question hard or difficult, just insipid.
By the way... let's see if you have any grasp on your own arguments. When you say you thought my question was insipid, which one were you talking about?
Here is one you asked:
"Are you a Christian?"
Here is another:
"Have you ever read any Stephen Jay Gould? "
Both questions are insipid in my opinion.
That's insipid?
But actually... yes, I can see it. You aren't interested in anything that tends to reflect badly on your faith. So I guess discussing SJG would be insipid to you.
Magistrates being manifested out of pure potentiality....wow!! Sounds neat. Kind of like... science fiction. Wasn't that what you called my suggestion that genetic engineering could result in radical changes in human lifespan in the next 5-10,000 years? Ah, but you're not interested in those time frames, are you? Why not? Because discussing them would force you to face some uncomfortable truths about your assertions re: the proof of ID, to wit, that the current lifespans of biological entities constitute such a proof.
And as we have seen, any challenge to your views that you are unable to meet are sidestepped with statements like
"I don't like that question"
"The question doesn't make any sense"
"I can believe it if I want"
"You have no proof that God does not exist"
"I find that question insipid, so I won't answer it"
"That's a red herring"
and still my fav from Z10
"I don't consider that question worth responding to"
finally, this howler
"If a theory is advanced of non God, it is atheism in practice".
Don't you wish that were true. Life for you would be so easy if it was. This might be the most misguided thing that has been stated on this thread so far. How on earth you ever got this idea is beyond me.
And no, I am not going to spend one second explaining to you why it's wrong, because if we have proved one thing on this thread, your faith is immune to logical, dialectical, moral, ethical and even at times personal challenge. You are a rock, and as I have said in all honesty, I envy you your faith.
I will, though, in the spirit of the season, provide you with this.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism
Pay special attention to definition # 2 on that page.
Wow, amazingly convenient. You make assertions, those assertions are challenged, you classify the challenges as insipid if you don't like them, and then you are 'not required' to answer them!!
All neat and tidy, like a Christmas present with a bow on it.
Thread closed?
I didn't suggest any assertions were insipid, just certain questions that are not a factor in the logical framework of this discussion.
Questions as to the specific my religious belief are ad hominem and irrelevant, as I am not using my specific religious beliefs as the foundation of my argument against ignorant chance theory.
Questions if I have read so and so are also insipid as well in my opinion, as logical arguments are not dependent on the opinions of Jay Gould.
Try to make logical arguments if possible, or logical responses at least.
If anything your emotionalism is betraying there there is a lack of logical impersonal involvment in this thread by you.
Questions as to the specific my religious belief are ad hominem and irrelevant, as I am not using my specific religious beliefs as the foundation of my argument against ignorant chance theory.
Questions if I have read so and so are also insipid as well in my opinion, as logical arguments are not dependent on the opinions of Jay Gould.
Try to make logical arguments if possible, or logical responses at least.
If anything your emotionalism is betraying there there is a lack of logical impersonal involvment in this thread by you.
Nearly esclusively an ad hominem attack.
Go to the argument please, not the man....
Go to the argument please, not the man....