Verdict that Demands Evidence

[Anonymous]

And I do regret that HMG and I failed so dramatically in that regards.

Indeed.

Insults, false accusations, disinformation - that is the hallmark of a desperate charlatan.

You exposed yourself and you now even your brethren see you for what you are.

[Mastermind]

And I do regret that HMG and I failed so dramatically in that regards.

Indeed.

Insults, false accusations, disinformation - that is the hallmark of a desperate charlatan.

You exposed yourself and you now even your brethren see you for what you are.

You can thank the hostile reaction to the fact that you came here acting like a jerk. What did you expect us to do, bow before you and call you king?

[Anonymous]

And I do regret that HMG and I failed so dramatically in that regards.

Indeed.

Insults, false accusations, disinformation - that is the hallmark of a desperate charlatan.

You exposed yourself and you now even your brethren see you for what you are.

You can thank the hostile reaction to the fact that you came here acting like a jerk. What did you expect us to do, bow before you and call you king?

Yes, I suppose people of your ilk would prefer to wallow in ignorance and happily spew forth falsehoods in order to make your beliefs more secure.

If correcting lies and distortions makes me a jerk, I'm a jerk.

What does that make someone that sees no problem spreading disinformation and falsehoods?

I have my own descriptors, but they are not very generous.

See my first post: http://discussions.godandscience.org/v ... ight=#7307

All I did was point out some obvious irony. And the non-jerks on here like vvart, bizzzt and pals, boy, they really showed me....

No, M, I tend to respond in kind.
Though I have been containing myself pretty well so far.

I have received a few PMs from your brethren that have apologized for you and your ilk's behavior, and their posts are striking contrasts to those of the' insult and accuse' crowd that you run with.

I know how people like you operate.

It doesn't bother me.


[/url]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

SLP, you are the blabbering idiot I fear. When Felgar apolgized for Brice, you saw it as your right to become even more of a lying luny. I fully agree with Mastermind, for once in our lives.

Insults, false accusations, disinformation - that is the hallmark of a desperate charlatan.

That is your hallmark, great poomba. And the fossil record isn't taken lightely, I just realize it's not a record of evolution, but of a flood. Out of place fossils, tress fossilized in multiple layers of the column, a lack of the "complete" column in over 99% of the world, the lack of transition fossil, the fact that the fossils of one kind of animal are the same at the bottom as the same...these cannot exist for you, oh unthinking one. You are a very close minded person-the free thinkers are those who are enslaved, and the close-minded Christians are the more open minded and truly free thinkers. (Tornado in a Junkyard has that percentage amigo loco).

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

If correcting lies and distortions makes me a jerk, I'm a jerk.

1) That wouldn't make you a jerk 2) you haven't done such a thing.

[Anonymous]

SLP, you are the blabbering idiot I fear.

Thank you. I'm sure your God is rejoicing in your witnessing.

When Felgar apolgized for Brice, you saw it as your right to become even more of a lying luny. I fully agree with Mastermind, for once in our lives.

Felgar has done nothing but attack me. Your reading comprehension is about as up to snuff as your ability to support your claims.

Insults, false accusations, disinformation - that is the hallmark of a desperate charlatan.

That is your hallmark, great poomba.

Really? Well then it will be a small effort to simply provide a few examples of me insulting, making false accusations, ands spreading disinformation.

Surely you can do this? False witness and all that.

And the fossil record isn't taken lightely, I just realize it's not a record of evolution, but of a flood.

Assertion.

Out of place fossils,

Such as?

tress fossilized in multiple layers of the column,

Such as?

a lack of the "complete" column in over 99% of the world,

And?

the lack of transition fossil,

Plase define "transitonal fossil."

the fact that the fossils of one kind of animal are the same at the bottom as the same..

What does that mean, exactly?

.these cannot exist for you, oh unthinking one.

True - made up gibberish does not exist for me.

You are a very close minded person-the free thinkers are those who are enslaved, and the close-minded Christians are the more open minded and truly free thinkers. (Tornado in a Junkyard has that percentage amigo loco).

Wow. The cleverness and astute grasp of scientific facts is truly amazing.
I guess I shall have to become born again.

Then I can join you in your insult and accuse game, and feel happy knowing that it is all being done in the Lord's good name.

Aren't you proud?

[Mastermind]

Yes, I suppose people of your ilk would prefer to wallow in ignorance and happily spew forth falsehoods in order to make your beliefs more secure.

And you wonder why people are so hostle to you. My oh my master skeptic, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If correcting lies and distortions makes me a jerk, I'm a jerk.

By all means correct. But keep the ad hominem out of your corrections, unless your only reason for correcting is to start a fight.

What does that make someone that sees no problem spreading disinformation and falsehoods?

I don't know. Ask the author of www. evilbible.com that. I think you should be more worried about correcting atheists' mistakes, because those are what turned me off your religion and make sure I stay that way.

I have my own descriptors, but they are not very generous.

All I did was point out some obvious irony. And the non-jerks on here like vvart, bizzzt and pals, boy, they really showed me....

Actually, the first few posts after that were quite civil. I looked over your posting history, and your very second post was smug and condescending. So when Vvart got fed up with you, he likely saw more than just the first post you made.

No, M, I tend to respond in kind.
Though I have been containing myself pretty well so far.

I disagree. Then again, I know few atheists who have peace as a virtue, no matter how much they have deluded themselves into thinking they are gods.

I have received a few PMs from your brethren that have apologized for you and your ilk's behavior, and their posts are striking contrasts to those of the' insult and accuse' crowd that you run with.

My behaviour? Perhaps my uninformed brethren need more experience dealing with atheists. Once you run with the wolves, you know their very soul.

I know how people like you operate.

No, you do not. I on the other hand once held a neutral position in the endless atheism vs theism debate, anv have learned that atheism is built on deceit and social engineering. You putting a kicked puppy act on may trick a few of my fellow weak minded "brethren" but it won't fool me. Atheist and Darwin Rocks have also been here for quite a bit and you took more flak in the first day then both of them put together. I highly doubt it happened simply because you were trying to have a civil conversation.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Thank you. I'm sure your God is rejoicing in your witnessing.

Calling you what you're calling us, and there is no God, remember? It's just you, me, and the computer.

Quote:


When Felgar apolgized for Brice, you saw it as your right to become even more of a lying luny. I fully agree with Mastermind, for once in our lives.


Felgar has done nothing but attack me. Your reading comprehension is about as up to snuff as your ability to support your claims.

You have been attacking Felgar and company, and at least I have something worth calling reading comprehension.

True - made up gibberish does not exist for me.

If you want this in print, Tornado in a Junkyard, should be a chapter in there.

Wow. The cleverness and astute grasp of scientific facts is truly amazing.
I guess I shall have to become born again.

Then I can join you in your insult and accuse game, and feel happy knowing that it is all being done in the Lord's good name.

Aren't you proud?

Wow, you and your astute grasp of reality and reason. SLP....believe what you want, maye pigs will fly too You started the insult and accuse game, we just joined in since you wanted us to it seems.

[kateliz]

Somebody here needs to call a halt to all this ill-natured "debating." Might I do it now, in this post? Tempers are hot, (at least so the posts appear,) and all of these back and forth accusations aren't getting us anywhere in regards to the purpose for being on this forum in the first place. Everyone wants a civil discussion, I assume, and if you can admit to yourself that you don't care to keep it civil then for pete's sake get out of here and let the rest of us try to be peacable among ourselves! Anger tends to breed hypocrisy, and there's a whole lot of that going on that nobody likes. Everybody, just take a deep breath, calm yourself down, and let's try to get ourselves back to buisness while keeping attitudes against people out of the posts. If your mad and feel like expressing it, don't express your anger but the problems you have with what you're angry about. I don't mean to lecture, but I feel it's gotten to point of being necessary. Watch every word of what you write to guard against this from happening. Please.

I'd like to continue my discussion with SLP, but if this is going to only agitate the situation more please tell me. If that is the case then I request from SLP that we continue in PMs or e-mail.

[BobSmith]

A frame shift mutation occuring in bacteria giving them the beneficial ability to digest nylon:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Also how do you think bacterial resistance evolves? It evolves through mutations. Mutations change enzymes of the bacteria to give them resistance to anti-biotics. The same for insects and pesticides, as well as plants and herbicides.

Also every human being has mutations at birth. We aren't exact copies of our parents. However most mutations have no effect.

And different dog breeds are not made by simply mixing genes. Some genes have been changed via mutation to give them their unique shapes showing that mutations can change the shape of the skeleton.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... variation/

[tootin]

Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.

Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.

august

The facts of this dispute can be found at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/clots.cfm

August either is not aware of them, or ... doesn't care about them.

[August]

The facts of this dispute can be found at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/clots.cfm

No my friend, those who oppose the facts are somewhere else. I quote from that website:

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.

Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."

There is no bias there, right, only a search for the facts, as long as they support evolution.

And if you bother to read the article, you will see that Behe was right, that Doolittle's findings supported his. Is the accusations of misrepresentation the best they can do?[/quote]

[chocloateonly]

I found this article unsubstantiated. I am starting from scratch so as not to ressurect the sometimes rancorous debate that occurred before me.

I find several quotes from that artitcle hard to swallow:

"Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts."

Nearly 100% of all archealogical finds support biblical accounts? If we say that archeology supports that certain peoples existed or that certain places existence, this may be true. But if it is referring to intelligent design, for example, this would appear to be false. I dislike the idea of interlligent design, becuase it appears to start with a hypothesis (God created the world/us/eveything) and then tries to find evidence to support it. Evolution (regardless of whether you agree) is an attempt to take facts and events and make sense of them by establishing a theory that will support them. Which leads me to....

"Instead, from the start, evolution 'has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work.'"

Seeing as there is a constant debate, this seems fairly disingenous. It doesn't seem to me that the original ideas were dreamed up to run the church out. I find this an odd interpretation that is really just being inflamatory. All that evolutionery theory tries to do is explain why and how certain developments did or did not occur.

"The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive..."

If it were so persuassive, I think scientists, regardless of their beliefs would adopt it. That's what scientists do. They question everything. From my point of view, the evidence has been lacking and is not something we should teach in the science classroom. Rather, it appears to me that many simply want to somehow discredit evolution, whatever that may take, as it runs counter to what they believe.

In general, I don't think this article provides the best starting point for a discussion as it simply inflames both sides. A discussion of the issues may be interesting, but then they need to be extracted and discussed without the packaging.

[August]

Hi chocloateonly, welcome to the site.

I don't think this article was meant to reflect a submission to a scientific journal, it was an information piece written in a magazine, and therefore the substantiation is equally as bad as you would see in a newspaper, for example.

Nearly 100% of all archealogical finds support biblical accounts? If we say that archeology supports that certain peoples existed or that certain places existence, this may be true. But if it is referring to intelligent design, for example, this would appear to be false.

I think you may have turned around the words here. All the writer is saying is that historical Biblical accounts are confirmed by archaeological discoveries. I don't think the wroter meant to imply ID in any sense.

I dislike the idea of interlligent design, becuase it appears to start with a hypothesis (God created the world/us/eveything) and then tries to find evidence to support it. Evolution (regardless of whether you agree) is an attempt to take facts and events and make sense of them by establishing a theory that will support them.

I'm glad you say "appears to", since you seem to have a misunderstanding of ID theory. ID as a science is the search for evidence of design, and has no hypothesis relating to God or any other designer as a starting point, i.e. before looking at any evidence. If you believe that to be true of ID, then I could argue that neo-Darwinian scientists do the same, they seek to prove that life is caused by natural unguided processes, and look for, and custom-fit, evidence to support that theory.

(http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixE.html) describes the scientific method. ID follows this method too.

ID starts with the observation of complex specified information (CSI). These are found in man-made instances, known to be caused by an intelligent agent or agents. Some things in nature display the same high levels of CSI. The hypothesis is that if we observe high CSI in man-made objects, then high levels of CSI in nature would indicate a likelyhood of design, and causality through an intelligent agent too. Through examniation and experimentation, biological structures can be tested for high CSI. I can elaborate on this quite a bit if needed, but suffice to say that we can reverse engineer and remove parts from biological structures to see if function is maintained.

Seeing as there is a constant debate, this seems fairly disingenous. It doesn't seem to me that the original ideas were dreamed up to run the church out. I find this an odd interpretation that is really just being inflamatory.

I agree with you here. It constantly seems as if one or both of the parties to the debate wish to create animosity between religion and science, and it simply does not relate in that way. For me as a Christian, science is the way that we describe God's creation, and there should be no battle lines drawn between the two.

All that evolutionery theory tries to do is explain why and how certain developments did or did not occur.

In the strictest sense, you are correct. However, just as certain parts of the church has been whipped into an anti-science frenzy, many scientists have taken atheist positions. Those positions are based on the mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, like natural selection, gene drift, gene selection etc, which they claim accounts for all traits, functions and species, and therefore no creator is needed.

If it were so persuassive, I think scientists, regardless of their beliefs would adopt it. That's what scientists do. They question everything.

For a list of scientists who have alternative thinking, see: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=443

From my point of view, the evidence has been lacking and is not something we should teach in the science classroom. Rather, it appears to me that many simply want to somehow discredit evolution, whatever that may take, as it runs counter to what they believe.

That seems to be the common response to the ID-Evo debate. I would encourage you to study the evidence for ID, and not to assume that ID is merely religion without any scientific basis. The evidence for evolution is not nearly as overwhelming as you may think, and I think it merits your time to investigate both sides of the argument without assuming that ID is religion in disguise.

In general, I don't think this article provides the best starting point for a discussion as it simply inflames both sides. A discussion of the issues may be interesting, but then they need to be extracted and discussed without the packaging.

You are right that it's always better to discuss the issues.

[tootin]

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.

Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."

August

Compare with this board's own unbiased purpose:

"This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people. Therefore, this message board is intended to reflect that spirit--serving as a place where sincere seekers can ask questions, and where faithful Christians can receive encouragement and instruction. This board is not for those who have already decisively made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to debate and argue against Christianity, ignoring any and all reasons presented. Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged."