Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 03-10-2002, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"Are you a christian? If so, have you read the part about "turning the other cheek"?"

Have you read the part, "Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits."

"Dave, I think you should reconsider what you're
doing Dave. I think you take another stress pill
Dave.... Dave... Please.....Don't"

phlebas · 03-11-2002, 02:18 AM

Just a gentle reminder, randman -- answer the challenge in here, and maybe you can post in this forum again.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-11-2002, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Second! All in favor?

Aye!

HRG · 03-11-2002, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]"As it is, what we see is exactly what we should expect to see if evolution occured; it's therefore the best explanation for the facts. Actually, it's the only one that even makes any sense. Steven Stanly, whoever he is, doesn't know what circular reasoning is."

Steven Stanley, whoever he is???
LOL.
Look, the simple fact is all of this stuff is completely in agreement with creationist models too.

The problem, however, is that the absence of a nested hierarchy is also in agreement with creationist models, since they can be summarized as "X because God did X".

Quote:

Of course, it is unscientific to consider God due to living things only coming from other living things. ROTFLOL.
But it is OK in one instance, a pretty important one I might add, the beginning of all life and design of living beings and eco-systems from inanimate objects.
Never mind that God is a living Being,

The god of creationists is not a living being. He neither metabolizes nor reproduces.

IOW, your equivocation is just too transparent.

Quote:

oh well, it doesn't matter does it as long as the evolution myth can be perpetuated.
If science rules out considering a Creator automatically as you state, then science should no be tackling problems that are beyond it's scope. First of all, as far as science, God is just another part of the universe. So the idea of God should not be ruled out just because we don't yet have instruments to measure and quantify God.

As soon as God will be measured and quantified, we can build a God theory - which will bring him under the wings of naturalism. This will probably blasphemy from a theological PoV.

But until then, the God hypothesis is as unscientific as the IPU hypothesis (the IPU cannot be measured and quantified either) or Last Thursdayism.

HRG.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]

HRG · 03-11-2002, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

ALL THE WHILE MOST HAVE STEADFASTLY DENIED AND IGNORED THE REALITY OF EVOLUTIONIST MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE FOSSIL RECORD.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

The fossil record has not been misrepresented. Only the opinions of Gould et al. about the fossil record have been misrepresented by creationist quote-miners - as Gould himself has said on many occasions.

HRG.

Queen of Swords · 03-11-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"Are you a christian? If so, have you read the part about "turning the other cheek"?"

Have you read the part, "Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits."

I'm curious, randman. Which of these did Jesus command you to do?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2002, 02:18 AM	#72
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	Just a gentle reminder, randman -- answer the challenge in here, and maybe you can post in this forum again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.