Anonymous Posted May 4, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,550 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/15/1943 Share Posted May 4, 2004 """""""""""it's a hippopotamus... """""""""" A Hippo? with a tail like a cedar????? Hmm, why not a hippo? ... (Maybe earlier one's tails have changed from what we see now.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 4, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTriez Posted May 5, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,478 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1972 Share Posted May 5, 2004 You are admitting evolution, then!!?? That would be micro-evolution...also called adaptation - NOT evolution ( there are 5 types of evolution & adaptation was conveniently lumped into the generalized definition of evolution in an attempt to deny creation )....I find evolutionist to be very ignorant of scientific facts when trying to debate their religion of evolution.....evolution is NOT science - Webster's definition of science - Main Entry: sci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 5, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 5, 2004 BobTriez Good to meet you. I find evolutionist to be very ignorant of scientific facts when trying to debate their religion of evolution I do hope you won't find me so. evolution is NOT science - That's an odd assertion, let's see where that is going. 1. Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Right, good definition of science. Evolution does not fit in the definition...sorry, try again..... How exactly does evolution not fit into the scientific method? You highlighted the words "obtained and tested through the scientific method", as if they were very important - perhaps you believe that evolution is not obtained and tested through the scientific method? Now you've asserted that evolutionists you talk to are ignorant of scientific facts - I wonder then if you'd do me the honour of defining, in your own words, what the scientific method is please? Perhaps you could educate me since I am an evolutionist, and probably ignorant of such things, and also you could help clarify your statement that evolution does not use the scientific method. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTriez Posted May 5, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,478 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1972 Share Posted May 5, 2004 BobTriez Good to meet you. I find evolutionist to be very ignorant of scientific facts when trying to debate their religion of evolution I do hope you won't find me so. evolution is NOT science - That's an odd assertion, let's see where that is going. 1. Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Right, good definition of science. Evolution does not fit in the definition...sorry, try again..... How exactly does evolution not fit into the scientific method? You highlighted the words "obtained and tested through the scientific method", as if they were very important - perhaps you believe that evolution is not obtained and tested through the scientific method? Now you've asserted that evolutionists you talk to are ignorant of scientific facts - I wonder then if you'd do me the honour of defining, in your own words, what the scientific method is please? Perhaps you could educate me since I am an evolutionist, and probably ignorant of such things, and also you could help clarify your statement that evolution does not use the scientific method. Thanks. Greetings! First, a clarification...Ignorant and stupid ( I know you didn't say "stupid", but I need to make my intent clear here ) are totally different....ignorant, in the way I used it ( and by it's very definition ) means without adequate knowledge - or unlearned....that is not meant to be derogatory....if you felt so, please accept my apologies along with this clarification....I simply mean that most I've dealt with simply don't have all the facts. I will attempt to change that. All this being said, I will take some time to put together a thread to defend my point of view. I'm not a "cut & paste" kinda guy, so be patient as I put something together. Fair enough ? In His service, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mscoville Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Yo Atheist, The acceptance of Evolution in an Atheistic framework doesn't contribute to the mindset of no moral right or wrong? Do you believe that? QUOTE The problem with this discussion as it goes on is that you have to admit you think you are correct about your assumption that morals are neither correct or incorrect. I am correct about it, it's a provable fact. QUOTE That is contradictory No, there is no contradiction. If you're right that right and wrong don't exist, you don't see a contradiction there? Or are you going to say that there is right and wrong concerning physical facts and your assertion about there being no right morally is based on them? Still the "right" part of your argument exists outside of the physical facts and is a moral stand. You're saying morals do not actually exist, that's a moral stand against morals. Pardon my redundancy. ~ Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 5, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 5, 2004 You are admitting evolution, then!!?? Evolution does not fit in the definition...sorry, try again..... Hey, Bob - I was being a smart-alec. You know - teasing, being playfully ornery. Is that OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mscoville Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Nebula, Will you take a look at my posts on page 4 of the thread and tell me where to stick it? Ha. Just kidding, seriously though, if you would, take a look and respond before we move on to far. Love you sis, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 5, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Nebula, Will you take a look at my posts on page 4 of the thread and tell me where to stick it? Sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mscoville Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 HAHahAHAHahHAHAHaHahha. You should thank me, I gave you that opening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts