Albion

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It simply says that "God did it" isn't an explanation of the phenomenon you're addressing. When you look at a chromosome or a cell and say "God did it," what has that told you about the chromosome or cell that you didn't know before? Nothing. Because if you believe in a creator God, then you know he created everything, so "God did it" is simply an acknowledgement of your outlook on life, it isn't an explanation of how the chromosome or cell came to be the way it is.

Pitshade

I'm not sure how it ended up here, but it's out of place.

Doubting Didymus

hopscotch!

Jobar

To Vanderzyden-

The arguments you are using have been seen, and refuted, many times here. This forum, Existence of God(s), rather requires a firm grounding in theology if you wish to attempt to argue that God(s) does (do) exist.

I think you are in deeper waters than you realize. If you do not wish to look foolish, you need to read some of the excellent materials in our library, or to read a variety of the current threads here. Also, if you are interested in polite discourse and not just trying to preach to us, I suggest you ask questions instead of just asserting. If you want to preach, we have a specific area, Rants, Raves and Preaching, custom made.

If preaching is your desire, I suggest you read some of the RR&P threads to be sure you want to do that. RR&P is also referred to as 'The Lion's Den'.

Lastly- I am going to move this one again, to Misc. Religion.

Doubting Didymus

Can't we bloody leave this thing in one place?

This is forum number 4, can it at least stay here, please?

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Seconded, thirded and fourth-ed. I opened the bloody thing last night (here), went to bed, and have just chased all over the boards to find an open version to reply to.

Mods and Admins: please plese please, when moving a thread, say where the hell you've moved it to!

Oolon

Albion

I've responded to our friend on the BBC board, Oolon. Told him I think he was evading the question. Wonder what his reasons will be when he tells me he was doing nothing of the sort.

Oolon Colluphid

Now where was I...

Many thanks to the several with useful comments .

Now... Vanderzygote... &lt;rolls up sleeves&gt;

An accurate assessment of slippery condescension?

I do. Pot, refrigerator, black, perhaps?

That’d be ‘stopping and thinking for a moment’ then.

Aye, that’s creationists for you...

For some comments, uh-huh...

Even if true, which it isn’t, I’d rather tail between legs than head up rectum. I came back for additional thoughts before replying. I’d thought of the fallacies that were used to dodge the question; I hadn’t thought of the way it cuts both ways, that he is therefore unqualified to judge design.

Codswallop. I wasn’t wondering. CG’s statement is certainly an ad hom (attacking the person rather than the argument -- ‘you’re not qualified to comment, therefore your argument can be dismissed’, rather than addressing the argument itself). It is also changing the subject... but I don’t know exactly which logical fallacy that comes under. Hence, oddly enough, the title of this thread .

Did you actually visit the BBC boards? Did you read the threads? Do you have the slightest idea what exactly you are commenting on? It sure as shit doesn’t sound like it.

Please cite examples, lest I assume you are merely flatulent.

I always do provide some for my comments, or can on request (I do get a bit weary of repeating myself to each creationist who turns up, as indeed must regulars at seeing the same stuff go unanswered over and over). As has been noted elsewhere, your argument cuts both ways. Let’s see some “DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE” from you. Put up or shut up.

Been there, done that. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000889&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a> among several. Every passing comment is not supposed to turn into a lecture. So don’t talk about stuff you don’t know about. But I guess that’d make your conversations here somewhat limited. (That’s an insult, btw, not an ad hominem.)

Please cite some evidence for creation that is not “highly subjective and without factual basis”. In fact, please cite some evidence for creation.

Well since I wasn’t talking to you in the first place... Looks like another ad hominem. How about you try addressing some of the arguments? I’ll bump the ‘Hey Oolon’ thread again for you. Please give it, and the one above, your attention. I’d appreciate your comments.

I have no doubt that those blinkered by faith will never be persuaded by anything. Please tell us just what evidence for evolution would persuade you?

Ah, Job .

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the authority ‘quoted’. Till that is established, it is no authority at all.

TTFN, Oolon

Albion

BTW, mods, when someone starts hijacking a thread like happened here, can't you just pull the posts and leave the thread where it is?

Bialar Crais

Trying to get back on topic.
Could it be categorized as a red herring? It certainly introduces irreklevant material (you have to be a creator to judge a creation) in order to distract from the main point.