FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-09-2003, 09:30 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
Also, whatever our Founding Fathers' religious beliefs had been, they had no intention of creating a state church, some official Church of God the American. (as in the belief that god is an American)
As if I believed that. I never said any such thing. I said most of them felt Protestant morals were essential to a healthy society, and I agree. We all agree a "state church" is totally unacceptable, and we all said so, so stop misrepresenting me with these mindless, chicken$#@*comments.

Rad
Radorth is offline  
Old 02-09-2003, 09:46 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
As if I believed that. I never said any such thing. I said most of them felt Protestant morals were essential to a healthy society, and I agree. We all agree a "state church" is totally unacceptable, and we all said so, so stop misrepresenting me with these mindless, chicken$#@*comments.

Rad

Rad you posted alot of crap, the response was pointing out that it was just that crap. strawmen and lies, ignoring everyone else's points.
beyelzu is offline  
Old 02-09-2003, 10:33 AM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
Sure because nobody wanted to admit what Darwin was admitting. The two theories are totally contradictory, but hey, we all have to explain some things with faith.
Darwin admitted no such thing. In fact, I challenge you to prove me wrong, and to point to Darwin's alleged "admission".
lpetrich is offline  
Old 02-09-2003, 10:34 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,872
Default

I already did. He said several places what discoveries, or lack thereof would be "fatal to my theory." I then posted the exact evidence found which he said would prove fatal. Then the atheists started saying "Well nobody said Darwin was right about everything." And "well OK there were some bugs to work out."

It's as laughable as the JMer' theories that change weekly. What's the latest? Is it that Paul wrote Acts in 150 AD, and Luke was really a female named James? It's the same Mars Hill bull- all kinds of "new" theories based on nothing, or even contradictory evidence.

Rad
Radorth is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 03:59 AM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deployed to Kosovo
Posts: 4,314
Default

Good grief, the dishonesty continues.

First of all, your entire point, Radorth, was based on quotes of Darwin taken out of context.

Secondly, as has been pointed out numerous times, the theory of evolution doesn't dogmatically require that Darwin be right about everything. (What's remarkable, though, given how much we didn't know 150 years ago, is how much Darwin did get right.) But then again, you've proven you know jack-shit about science too many times to count already on these forums, so it's not surprising that you don't understand this.

So every time you repeat your ramblings about what Darwin said, you make yourself look that much more of a fool - or a liar.

(The question is, is Radorth Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? I think we can rule out 'Lord'. )
Daggah is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 04:09 AM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deployed to Kosovo
Posts: 4,314
Default

I say we let the gentle reader decide, eh? Here. The reader can see for himself how Radorth's every post in that thread was summarily dismantled. The reader can see for himself how Radorth tucked tail and ran.
Daggah is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 06:16 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,759
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
I already did. He said several places what discoveries, or lack thereof would be "fatal to my theory." I then posted the exact evidence found which he said would prove fatal. Then the atheists started saying "Well nobody said Darwin was right about everything." And "well OK there were some bugs to work out."

It's as laughable as the JMer' theories that change weekly. What's the latest? Is it that Paul wrote Acts in 150 AD, and Luke was really a female named James? It's the same Mars Hill bull- all kinds of "new" theories based on nothing, or even contradictory evidence.

Rad
Gee, all the evolutionary biologists in the world missed Darwin's comments on possible weaknesses in his theory but our creationist friends of questionable scientific background caught the errors(lies) and have proof that Darwin was wrong. No scientist set out to be the one to find and correct an error in a theory as important as evolution. See, the scientists never challenge their own or their colleagues’ theories and hypotheses. Once the scientific community accepts something as theory it is set in stone and shall not be challenged. Any who challenge the dominant paradigm are heretics and are expelled from the inner circle, no longer welcome as members of the Anti-Bible Atheist Conspiracy League (ABACL). The Bible, on the other hand, has a built in error correcting mechanism whereby theologians can analyze prior predictions and decide whether or not they hold true. If not, the biblical theories will be corrected or dismissed.
scombrid is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 08:07 AM   #28
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Void
Posts: 396
Default

Sheesh. Some people.

You know, Einstein's Theory of Relativity has parts of it that have been demonstrated to be incorrect in their ability to describe some aspects of spacetime and the nature of the universe.

Does that mean that all of the Theory of Relativity is completely incorrect?

Does that mean that "E" does not necessarily equal mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light?

Does that mean that Physics, as a field, is wholly and utterly incorrect simply because one groundbreaking member of that field was found to have been mistaken about a number of things?

Huh. There are a lot of engineers out there that are running reactors right now that need to have some stuff explained to them then, because by Radorth's "logic", none of those cores should function at all...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Melkor is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 03:06 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Madison WI USA
Posts: 3,508
Default

Hey Radorth, it also says in the Bible, and I quote verbatim:

Quote:
....there is no God...
Gooch's dad is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 09:24 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 4,666
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gooch's dad
Hey Radorth, it also says in the Bible, and I quote verbatim:



Niiiiice. I never thought of showing out-of-context in quite that manner.

May I plaigerize? Pretty please?
Dark Jedi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:17 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.