15 Answers to Evolutionist Nonsense

[AV1611VET]

Yes. And the sad truth you don't seem to see is that he was pwning you guys.

Kinda backfired, didn't it?

Sorta like you guys, who think your pwning something, only to find out you made a rookie error.

 

[AV1611VET]

Step 10.
AV profits from increased post count.

See?

I can think of better ways to 'profit from an increased post count'.

In fact, I can list several ways to increase my post count; thanks to you guys, who ironically complain that I'm boosting my post count:

1. counting threads
2. constant qv's
3. begging for answers
4. repeating myself over and over
5. defending against false accusations

I have you guys to thank for my post count, too.

But you don't see that, do you?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Kinda backfired, didn't it?

Sorta like you guys, who think your pwning something, only to find out you made a rookie error.

It is real clear to all of us who made the rookie error here? AV the necro king has necroed a troll without even knowing he was being scammed.

 

[Split Rock]

Kinda backfired, didn't it?

Sorta like you guys, who think your pwning something, only to find out you made a rookie error.

Look who's talking.... you read the first line of Genesis and claim you have pwned us with it. If that is what you consider "pwning" then we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm going to break this down for ya'll.

Step 1.
AV resses a thread from 2003.

Step 2.
Someone reads the first post, thinks it's new, and replies with something angry and indignant.

Step 3.
AV now has something to respond to, argument ensues.

Step 4.
Same three people make same three rebuttals.

Steps 5-9.
AV has something to do while he and others go back and forth over a dead thread on a dead subject.

Step 10.
AV profits from increased post count.

See?

There's one preparatory step before he actually resurrects a thread. He finds one with a relatively low reply count. He doesn't pick one with, say, 400 replies and over a thousand views; he picks one with maybe a few dozen replies. I suspect two reasons for this. First, people are less likely to get involved in a thread that is several pages long, as there would be too much to catch up on. Second, regulars who visit on a daily or semi-daily basis will see a thread title they don't recognize and has a low reply count, and assume that it's a new thread. It's the old bait-and-switch that wouldn't work using an old thread with a lot of replies.

Now, I expect that AV will say he does it because long threads have already run their course while shorter threads have more to be said (or something along those lines) but I find this pattern of his to be far too regular for it to be anything other than a deliberate attempt to catch people unawares.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, I expect that AV will say he does it because long threads have already run their course while shorter threads have more to be said (or something along those lines) but I find this pattern of his to be far too regular for it to be anything other than a deliberate attempt to catch people unawares.

Nah

If I wanted to 'catch you guys unawares', all I would do is either quote the Bible, or espouse a basic doctrine, then sit back and let you guys start talking in tongues.

 

[Split Rock]

Nah

If I wanted to 'catch you guys unawares', all I would do is either quote the Bible, or espouse a basic doctrine, then sit back and let you guys start talking in tongues.

Ahhh, yes... "Talking in tongues." AVET-speak for looking at the original language used by the bible writers to determine what they actually intended to convey. We cannot have that now, can we? We may overrule AVET-centered theology...

 

[bobear24]

wow... really good points. People get so offended when we say God Created us all, they check our intelligence.

 

[bobear24]

Can you have it both ways?

 

[AV1611VET]

wow... really good points. People get so offended when we say God Created us all, they check our intelligence.

They think they do, but fact of the matter is, they aren't qualified to check our -- (or anyone else's) -- intelligence.

Just like they 'psychoanalyze' us and call us everything but what we are.

 

[Nostromo]

Not offended, merely disappointed. I think people are justified in questioning someone's intelligence if that someone does not or will not acknowledge that their ideas and beliefs about God are merely opinions.

 

[wensdee]

wow... really good points. People get so offended when we say God Created us all, they check our intelligence.

I beg to differ, you can say whatever you like and it means about as much as me saying Walt Disney made us all, they are just words, also someone saying 'I am a creationist' negates the need to check their intelligence, it's taken as read, like someone saying 'I believe in the tooth fairy' you know exactly what they are.

 

[NoBama2012]

>
>

15 Answers to Evolutionist Nonsense

Extremism leads to ignorance. I consider atheistic evolution to be extremist, but I also consider fundamentalist Bible interpretaion to be equally extreme and ignorant.

The Catechism Of The Catholics Church correctly states:

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. the humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (LINK)

Ceratain evolution pricinples are valid and acceptable. The only thing that Genesis 1 & 2 in the Bible actually teaches is that God created the heavens and the earh, that he created man, that at some point he infused man with an immortal spirit, that man disobeyed God, and that ever since then God set about the business or reconciling man to Himself. Anything else in Genesis 1 & 2, such as the tree, the garden, snake, fruit, etc. etc., are merely ancient Semitic styles of writings that are meant to convey these fundamental truths. The Bible, while it is true, is not a science book, and should not be treated as such.

 

[Nostromo]

Extremism leads to ignorance. I consider atheistic evolution to be extremist..

Does the same apply to atheistic civil engineering or atheistic germ theory?

 

[badtim]

>Anything else in Genesis 1 & 2, such as the tree, the garden, snake, fruit, etc. etc., are merely ancient Semitic styles of writings that are meant to convey these fundamental truths. The Bible, while it is true, is not a science book, and should not be treated as such.

well, i would disagree with this from a strictly historical viewpoint. there was no concept of anything except "book" in those days -- no such thing as history or fiction or any of that, at least how we know it. i would think, that in the absence of truly rational explanations (like we have today) that the bulk of the people living in the 1st century BC DID believe some of that as actual truth / fact, though it would have most likely changed over time.

and since of course that did change, from the earliest creation story in J, to the embellishments from P, to the total lack of a creation story in E. if, of course, you accept the documentary hypothesis (which you being a catholic, probably don't have a problem with).