Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 07-17-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tabula_rasa:


You are confusing the issue here. I never asked you to prove anything. I asked you for evidence that points to an intelligent agent as being the creator of DNA. Point to anything made by humans and I can find forensic evidence that would show that it was produced by a human. If ID wants to be taken seriously it needs to provide forensic evidence.

Uh, Gee like fingerprints?
This may be one of my last posts. Not that I am not open to ideas, but I may look for a site that talks about origins thats not populated primarily by atheists that think anbody who believes in God is a retard.

scigirl · 07-17-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
[This may be one of my last posts. Not that I am not open to ideas, but I may look for a site that talks about origins thats not populated primarily by atheists that think anbody who believes in God is a retard.

Geo, I don't think you are a retard for believing in God. Frankly I couldn't care less.

What I am disturbed by, however, is anyone who believes in Young Earth Creationism, for any reason, because, well, they are mistaken. And it's bad for them and for society to be wrong about an important event in human history.

Geo - I find it amusing that you rarely reply to the scientific criticisms of your theories (and theories that you link to), but frequently reply to these alleged attacks on you.

If you want to be perceived as "smart" here, than start answering some of our science questions! I have asked you several, and you have failed to reply to many of them (although you did start, I do give you credit for the ones you did answer).

scigirl

DireStraits · 07-17-2002, 09:25 PM

GeoTheo: This may be one of my last posts. Not that I am not open to ideas, but I may look for a site that talks about origins thats not populated primarily by atheists that think anbody who believes in God is a retard.

DireStraits: Nobody here think you are a retard because you believe in God.

It is the quality of your arguments that are seen as severely wanting, coupled with your knowledge of the subject matter that may cause some to think that you don't know what you are talking about, and don't know how to defend it.

Given that, I hope you don't leave. There is a possibility that you may learn how weak your arguments are - and thereby stregthen them - and increase your knowledge.

By the way, this stuff about not knowing the nature of The Designer is rather disingenuous. Your opinion is that it is the God of Genesis I, isn't it? And that opinion is strong enough to be an absolutely unshakeable one, isn't it?

Tabula_rasa · 07-18-2002, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

Uh, Gee like fingerprints?

Look. As I said in my previous post, if ID scientists want to be taken seriously as scientists, they need to start providing evidence for their claims. To date, none has been forthcoming.

Quote:

This may be one of my last posts. Not that I am not open to ideas, but I may look for a site that talks about origins thats not populated primarily by atheists that think anbody who believes in God is a retard.

FWIW, I don't recall ever refering to you or any creationist as a retard, nor do I feel that you are. I'll grant you that there are some individuals who do behave that way. If I have done so, please accept my apologies. However, if you feel that being asked for evidence to back up extraordinary (i.e., supernatural) claims is equated with being called a retard, that is a position for which I have no sympathy.

Tabula_rasa

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tabula_rasa:


I am not asking you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of a creator. No such physical evidence exists, and I believe that you would reasonably agree with that.

Tabula_rasa

Uh, right. But you think He would have left behind pubic hair or dead skin cells or somthing? What do you mean by forensic evidence?

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MOJO-JOJO:
Btw, GeoTheo, before you can posit a christian explanation of origins, you folks really need to come up with an agreed upon doctrine of what you really believe happened and why. It seems that even the "more knowledgeable" amongst you (and I use the term loosely) would argue against your position;

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/kidsspace/dinocave.html?main" target="_blank">Dr. Ross' Thoughts</a>

You use the term loosley because, Let me guess, you're way more intelligent than this Guy? Sorry but I seriously doubt you are. But, no offense I think he is smarter than I am also.

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 06:23 AM

Hey Scigirl, as far as answering questions I don't think you need to delve into scientific notation to count the number of YEC's posting on here. I will try to answer what I can.

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 07:12 AM

This theory is tentatively called "descent with modification in 6 days" No pubic hair was left on the scene of the crime. Hence no "forensic evidence" of the creator.
My first prediction is that all designs will be suboptimal compared to what an atheist would envision. This is to ensure that no creature upstages the designer.
I'll be back with more. Stay tuned.

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

So, please explain to me how you go about getting knowledge of this designer.

In another thread you seem to make a distinction (or maybe we all do) between naturalistic and non-naturalistic phenomenon.

But in my view, as soon as something becomes real to us, than it is all of a sudden real in the naturalistic sense.

For example, perhaps God is outside of science or our senses.

But I percieve him talking to me. Perception of things (anything - real or imagined) has a biological cause and explanation.

Or. . . God inspires me to write a book. That book, each word, is now a naturalistic, materialistic "thing" that we could perhaps apply scientific principles to.

How do we objectively study a creator? Please tell me how.

scigirl

First you have to begin with the assumption that there is one.

Tabula_rasa · 07-18-2002, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

Uh, right. But you think He would have left behind pubic hair or dead skin cells or somthing? What do you mean by forensic evidence?

It doesn't matter what I believe. Provide some evidence that you believe backs up your claim. Then we can talk about it.

While you're at it, chew on this. All beings that exist on this planet produce offspring by NATURAL, biological mechanisms. Not one has ever been shown to have been reproduced by supernatural means. Why, given this simple, demonstrable fact, should we then presume to believe that it has not always been that way?

Tabula_rasa

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

07-17-2002, 09:25 PM	#33
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	GeoTheo: This may be one of my last posts. Not that I am not open to ideas, but I may look for a site that talks about origins thats not populated primarily by atheists that think anbody who believes in God is a retard. DireStraits: Nobody here think you are a retard because you believe in God. It is the quality of your arguments that are seen as severely wanting, coupled with your knowledge of the subject matter that may cause some to think that you don't know what you are talking about, and don't know how to defend it. Given that, I hope you don't leave. There is a possibility that you may learn how weak your arguments are - and thereby stregthen them - and increase your knowledge. By the way, this stuff about not knowing the nature of The Designer is rather disingenuous. Your opinion is that it is the God of Genesis I, isn't it? And that opinion is strong enough to be an absolutely unshakeable one, isn't it?

07-18-2002, 06:23 AM	#37
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Hey Scigirl, as far as answering questions I don't think you need to delve into scientific notation to count the number of YEC's posting on here. I will try to answer what I can.

07-18-2002, 07:12 AM	#38
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	This theory is tentatively called "descent with modification in 6 days" No pubic hair was left on the scene of the crime. Hence no "forensic evidence" of the creator. My first prediction is that all designs will be suboptimal compared to what an atheist would envision. This is to ensure that no creature upstages the designer. I'll be back with more. Stay tuned.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.