to the atheists on the board

Funny.... why dont you be consistent and nick pick every tiny
detail scientists used to come up with this date and then
reject it outright, because the bible certainly doesnt support
a number so big.

Clearly theologans far higher up the ranks than you would not
support the scientific position of such a date :D

peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I believe the earth is 4.25 billion years old...
More...
 
I am willing to dialogue about strengths and weaknesses of the creationist and evolutionary models. But you guys will not even allow a dialogue to occur.

That's fine - you can all pat each other on the butt on the way into your neo-darwinist huddle and pretend that there are no issues to discuss if you want.

As always, when I try to discuss subjective issues regarding science, you try to force me into saying that I am trying to prove God/creation/ID.

I can only say that I am thankful for the evolutionists who are willing to discuss the problems w/o feeling so insecure that they're somehow admitting defeat.
 
Have you guys noticed what you do?

In general, I bring up science-related issues that I think are evidence for or ID/theism, etc.

In variably, you guys respond with one of the following three knee-jerk responses:

1. This doesn't prove God.
2. Cussing swearing, etc.
3. Character assination

All three are nothing but smoke screens for avoiding talking about scientific issues...
 
Nonsense.

We just get frustrated because you post nonsense and try
to pawn it off as evidence.

Notice that to date you STILL HAVE NOT provided anything
to support the ID hypothesis.

You sit there and attack evolution and science instead.
This does not support your case.

This is why in the past I have said... lets just assume evolution
is completely FALSE, so we can focus on the ID hypothesis.

But clearly... you seem INCAPABLE of even attempting to
support your hypothesis.


The ONLY thing you have posted as support of ID was not
even evidence concerning ID! It was yet another attack
on science and evolution, along with one non-seqtuitur where
you claimed that life exploding 70 million years ago somehow
was linked to ID. You cant just say:

Life spawning 70 millions years ago **THEREFORE** ID.

THAT is a non-sequitur.

So we STILL AWAIT your very first tiny itty bitty shred of evidence
for the id hypothesis.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Have you guys noticed what you do?

In general, I bring up science-related issues that I think are evidence for or ID/theism, etc.

In variably, you guys respond with one of the following three knee-jerk responses:

1. This doesn't prove God.
2. Cussing swearing, etc.
3. Character assination

All three are nothing but smoke screens for avoiding talking about scientific issues...
More...
 
>This is why in the past I have said... lets just assume
>evolution is completely FALSE, so we can focus on
>the ID hypothesis.

I'm more than happy to start from that assumption.

You're up Shoe.

JB
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Right, guys! 70 - animal phyla springing into exitence in less than 10 million years is no big deal. Gimme a break...

And you guys wonder why layman don't trust science? It's because the garden variety science pundits will not make the most simple of admissions...
More...

So you think that a mythical man in the sky creating the universe on a whim is more believable?

It boggles the mind.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I am willing to dialogue about strengths and weaknesses of the creationist and evolutionary models. But you guys will not even allow a dialogue to occur.

That's fine - you can all pat each other on the butt on the way into your neo-darwinist huddle and pretend that there are no issues to discuss if you want.

As always, when I try to discuss subjective issues regarding science, you try to force me into saying that I am trying to prove God/creation/ID.

I can only say that I am thankful for the evolutionists who are willing to discuss the problems w/o feeling so insecure that they're somehow admitting defeat.
More...

Classic ad hominem. You can't refute the arguments so you attack the opposition's character. Fine but I don't plan on continuing the discussion if that's the case.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Have you guys noticed what you do?

In general, I bring up science-related issues that I think are evidence for or ID/theism, etc.

In variably, you guys respond with one of the following three knee-jerk responses:

1. This doesn't prove God.
2. Cussing swearing, etc.
3. Character assination

All three are nothing but smoke screens for avoiding talking about scientific issues...
More...

Wrong. I refuted your arguments on a rational basis. You have ignored them. Now you resort to ad hominem... again. Weak.
 
Let's take a deck of cards. Do you shuffle the cards in order to get the deck to a predetermined set of hands? Of course not.

We shuffle to introduce randomness.

The more we shuffle, the more our deck will move away from anything meaningul. That's the whole purpose of shuffling!

Now why am I supposed to accept the idea that genetic shuffling will produce ever inreasing complexity and less randomness? It doesn't make sense mathematically.

Common sense tells the layman and a lot of genetists that something else is going on. What is so hard to admit about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top