The plank in the materialist's eye

[randman]

Jerry, when I see evolutionist resort to claims that quotes of them are taken out of context, but the reality is the quotes accurately reflect their original meaning, which is 90% of the time, I basically know it is the wacko religionist crowd of evolutionists with blinders on, and I don't listen to them. Duck is used by TalkOrigins for a rebuttal of Wallce, and is reflective of their thinking. I can't respect that kind of garbage, and attempt to obscure the facts.

I have read other, better sources for evolution, and related data. I also want to state that I hope you can see the whole attempt to try and denigrate creationists for quoting evolutionist authorities is a false tactic designed to obscure the reality of the data, and what it actually is.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have read other, better sources for evolution, and related data. I also want to state that I hope you can see the whole attempt to try and denigrate creationists for quoting evolutionist authorities is a false tactic designed to obscure the reality of the data, and what it actually is.

Of course. Also evolutionists sneak into libraries at night and burn all the copies of the science journals they find.

Shame on them for wanting their words not to be twisted by people out to destroy the science they work so hard on!

 

[randman]

Science journals are better quality. One thing you don't seem to realize jerry is that I haven't decided on what I beleive in terms of how it happened just that God had a hand in it regardless of what happened. I just don't like the propoganda and mind control stuff evolutionists use because they infiltrate that thinking into the educational system. The phrases and principles used are just bogus. Even the Occam's Razor thing is bogus. First, God creating is simpler to me than evolution. Secondly, I could juts as easily cite truth is often stranger than fiction as a principle. Occam's razor means nothing, nor the bogus appeal from authroity argument in the sense evolutionists use it. They often actually do make false appeals to authority and claim almost all scientists agree with them.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Science journals are better quality.

I know! That's why we sneaky, mind-controlling evolutionists are creeping around libraries in the middle of the night looking for bon-fire material in the reference section.

One thing you don't seem to realize jerry is that I haven't decided on what I beleive in terms of how it happened just that God had a hand in it regardless of what happened.

So you aren't an evolution denier then - you are evolution-agnostic? I could respect that. Your posts on these boards, though don't give that impression.

I just don't like the propoganda and mind control stuff evolutionists use because they infiltrate that thinking into the educational system. The phrases and principles used are just bogus.

I think you are way off in your thinking.

Even the Occam's Razor thing is bogus. First, God creating is simpler to me than evolution.

Occam's Razor only applies when two theories fit the data equally well, and since it assumes that the research has been done properly, so it should never be applied in an evolution/creation debate. However, if it did come down to that, the proper application would be to eliminate the option that required more unobserved mechanisms and rested on more untestable assumptions.

Secondly, I could juts as easily cite truth is often stranger than fiction as a principle.

How do you quantify "strangeness"?

Occam's razor means nothing, nor the bogus appeal from authroity argument in the sense evolutionists use it. They often actually do make false appeals to authority and claim almost all scientists agree with them.

Those aren't false appeals to authority. They are merely appeals to authority. Unless a large number of scientists disagree, then their appeal is a correct one. However, it is rarely made in the literature, only in debates with people trying to knock the theory down.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
this is a strawman argument, arguing at your level of understanding of sequence homology

No straw man there. It's called common sense. If evolutionists applied it once in a while they wouldn't have to use their imagination so much.

 

[Jerry Smith]

If evolutionists applied it once in a while they wouldn't have to use their imagination so much.

Nick, don't waste our time with any more of this garbage, please. You've been called out on it and failed to show up to the challenge. When the hard questions get asked you are nowhere to be found. When you see an opportunity to pop your head around the corner and call insults, you invariably do... If this is all you care about doing, please do it somewhere else. Others here are at least attempting a substantive discussion.

You have a thread.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Nick, don't waste our time with any more of this garbage, please. You've been called out on it and failed to show up to the challenge. When the hard questions get asked you are nowhere to be found. When you see an opportunity to pop your head around the corner and call insults, you invariably do... If this is all you care about doing, please do it somewhere else. Others here are at least attempting a substantive discussion.

You have a thread.

Jerry, you focus on people and not on ideas or issues. That's why I ignore your personal threads.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Oh. I thought it was because you knew that you couldn't back up any of this silly rhetoric you spew about evolution being "imagination" and "fantasy".

You live and learn.

 

[TheBear]

Civility, gentlemen. Civility!

Let's stay on topic, and not resort to personal attacks.

Forum rules apply in all forums and discussions.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.



Thank you,
John