ollkiller Posted October 19, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2012 I just find it hard to swallow anything you say D-9, you killed it for me when you admitted to acting as someone else when you thought an atheist was being arrogant - so to put him in his place you were deceitful. I'm sorry but it makes me not trust what you say. D-9 has posted here for ages in a calm and respectful manner. If a christian went on a site an an athiest to get the view from the other side i would call that getting to know the issue from both sides. And i do trust D-9 and what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ByFaithAlone Posted October 19, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 730 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/19/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/13/1993 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I just find it hard to swallow anything you say D-9, you killed it for me when you admitted to acting as someone else when you thought an atheist was being arrogant - so to put him in his place you were deceitful. I'm sorry but it makes me not trust what you say. D-9 has posted here for ages in a calm and respectful manner. If a christian went on a site an an athiest to get the view from the other side i would call that getting to know the issue from both sides. And i do trust D-9 and what he says. Exactly ollkiller well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HisG Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I just find it hard to swallow anything you say D-9, you killed it for me when you admitted to acting as someone else when you thought an atheist was being arrogant - so to put him in his place you were deceitful. I'm sorry but it makes me not trust what you say. D-9 has posted here for ages in a calm and respectful manner. If a christian went on a site an an athiest to get the view from the other side i would call that getting to know the issue from both sides. And i do trust D-9 and what he says. You are misled. Again. Didn't you read his original post concerning that? He said he pretended to be a Christian because there were arrogant atheists on the atheist forum - he actually wanted to bring them down a few pegs - for his own satisfaction. It had nothing to do with seeing how a Christian feels. I'm certain some posters here wear blinkers deliberately when they read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HisG Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Viole Waldoz, I might be completely wrong on this (and I apologize if I am), but a little gizmo in my head tells me that you are a (strong) atheist poking at us. Ciao - viole D-9: I second that, he shows little glimmers of light (as well as his overall tone of knowledgeable yet ignorant and outlandish) like I did on another forum where I pretended to be creationist and snuff up a few arrogant atheists. It was actually quite fun while it lasted, and I made a few atheists' head spin while I was at it, priceless. Like Viole I apologize if I'm wrong, but I picked up more than one or two cues. : (from Faith and Science together thread) HisG: That above in red is what was said....do you get it now? Nothing to do with the concern of Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HisG Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 D-9: I second that, he shows little glimmers of light (as well as his overall tone of knowledgeable yet ignorant and outlandish) like I did on another forum where I pretended to be creationist and snuff up a few arrogant atheists. It was actually quite fun while it lasted, and I made a few atheists' head spin while I was at it, priceless. Like Viole I apologize if I'm wrong, but I picked up more than one or two cues. : (from Faith and Science together thread) HisG: I haven't misunderstood at all. I'm just reading what YOU wrote. You said you pretended to be a creationist. Highlighted in red is what YOU said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HisG Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Now that's a deflection if I ever saw one D-9 !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowpoke55 Posted October 21, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 110 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2012 I take it the Catholic Church is atheist too. They accept evolution as a fact. Biological evolution is fact--Darwinian mythology is just that--mythology. Many Catholics reject Darwinian myth. Ah, the same old tired old canards, evolution is a religion and atheism is a religion. Same old tired fallacies with a side dish of an appeal to authority. You just can’t stop the fallacies now can you? You’re like a bull in a China shop. By the way, I find it curious that you would use the word religion as a pejorative. Regarding the Darwnian evolution…. Waldoz states chimps and man are not genetically related. They were created independently. His support The bible states that God created man and woman Fallacy: Circular reasoning Circular reasoning is not an acceptable type of argument because it’s logically invalid. The evidence for common ancestry http://www.nature.co...nature10842.pdf The introduction… and the science follows the intro. Gorillas are humans’ closest living relatives after chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla, and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human–chimpanzee and human–chimpanzee–gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago. In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression. A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing. We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species, estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange and a population bottleneck in the eastern species. The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution. Waldoz supports independent creation by the same methods as before. Support: the bible says God created creatures according to their own kind. What science says… In Douglas L. Theobald’s research, “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry” published in Nature, http://theobald.bran..._Nature_all.pdf ..universal common ancestor is at least 10 2,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis. Notably, UCA is the most accurate and the most parsimonious hypothesis. Compared to the multiple-ancestry hypotheses, UCA provides a much better fit to the data (as seen from its higher likelihood), and it is also the least complex (as judged by the number of parameters). And a supporting article http://132.181.26.35/~m.steel/Non_UC/files/research/steel_penny_nature.pdf Notice the differences in approach? One clearly states their findings and uses material that can be duplicated and/or retested. One offers no scientific insight about their conclusion. One is open to being falsified by contradicting evidence. One states that any data that doesn’t support it is wrong. One doesn’t ask you to accept the results blindly. One approach says it is this way, because it says so. One has no opinion in the way or another in regards to god or no god. One states that God exists. With one, you can refuse to accept its findings as true and not be threatened with eternal punishment. With the other, you can refuse to accept its findings but you will be threatened with eternal punishment. With one, you can refuse to accept its findings as true and won’t be refused the medical and technological advances that it brings. With the other, you can refuse to accept its findings but you will still be threatened with eternal punishment. With one, you can be of any faith to participate. With the other, you must accept the specifics of that faith to participate. Now, how is evolution a religion and a myth again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 22, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think Ray Comfort said it best when he stated that a painting must have a painter, a building must have a builder, and creation must have a creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowpoke55 Posted October 23, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 110 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 23, 2012 The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution. Biological evolution (science) recognizes the fact that man and chimp are genetically similar – this truth is what we would expect to see with a common designer who would use successful design methods over and over. Darwinian mythology states that man and chimp share a common ancestor—a notion that has never been proven via the scientific method. Stating "the truth is" doesn't make it the truth. What you grossly miss is that our traits are inherited and what the scientific data that I posted shows is that a common ancestry is 10 2,860 moreprobable than the closest competing hypothesis. Your special multiple origins (each according to its kind) would have to show a unique point of origin that was unable to come about through inheritance. Did you even read either of the articles? Now, how is evolution a religion and a myth again? Again, you remain confused - biological evolution is science, Darwinism is promoted by its practitioners as a religion... ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ----Michael Ruse, atheist, Darwinist, former professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada Quote mine. By it's practitioners is the key element here... He's taking about his view of the New Atheists... See his article http://www.aeonmagaz...anism-religion/ The New Atheists believe that science replaces the claims about the world that religion makes — and therefore makes religion redundant. Some of them think that a whole new moral system should be based on science. That’s sounding more and more like religion itself to me. Let us agree that science itself is not a religion. But Humanism is a different matter, and in its most virulent form, it does try to make science into a religion. What’s more, I think that religion has done and continues to do much harm to society. In the blog I write for the Chronicle of Higher Education I have taken on the Catholics, the Calvinists, the Mormons, and even the Quakers (perhaps a bit Oedipal, because I was raised a Quaker). What you have to show, instead of an appeal to authority quotemine, is how the methods that are used to discover life's past are different than the methods used to discover the universe's past, the methods to discover quantum mechanics, or any scientific endeavor. A challenge for you: the papers I posted are about evolution, where is the religion in those papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 23, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think Ray Comfort said it best when he stated that a painting must have a painter, a building must have a builder, and creation must have a creator. You might want to re-think that line of reasoning...for one, it leads to an infinite regress: if everything has to have a creator, then a creator must have a creator, recurse as needed. Well, no. Regress requires the dimension of time, since God is outside of time (being it's creator) He is thus timeless - eternal. Cosmologists state that time itself was created at the Big Bang event, so even secular science confirms that time had a beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts