Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All science is methodologically naturalistic. If you don't like science, what method would you propose to replace it?mark kennedy said:I am not convinced that either element of evoltutionary biology is warranted by the evidence. I am of course aware that their is evidence and its based on naturalistic assumptions as well.
What? YOU made a proposition, I falsifiied it, it is up to you to show the flaw in my falsification. You seem unable to do this.mark kennedy said:How very Darwinian, you don't define you're central term or the premise you want to defend as an antithesis and yet claim to refute mine.
Hey, it was YOUR proposal, not mine. I just falsified it. Just explain the flaw in the falsification.mark kennedy said:Saying it does not make it so and you're argument is at best pedantic oversimplifications of the issues. .
Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.mark kennedy said:That's an interesting claim, who are they and how do they figure? Presently you're statement is suspended by my ability to take you're word for it, surely you have something a little more substantive..
No, the Creationist model is not rejected by Christians on theological or philosophical grounds, but on evidentiary grounds combined with literary analysis of the text. You can talk to an entire group and say, "no, that is NOT what you believe, and that is NOT why you believe it!" Unless, of course, you want to call us all liars.mark kennedy said:The same holds true for the rejection of the creationist model in the dialectic of materialistic humanism, aka liberal theology. They claim to believe in God but just redefine Him so that he fits their philosophy. You are quite right that this is philosophical and theological based concepts, where you fail the burden of proof is that this is true of evolutionary biology as well..
Oh, I understood what you have been saying all right, as my last paragraph above points out. WE are the threat to your whole deck of cards, and you must dismiss the theistic evolutionist in order for what you say to make any sense at all.mark kennedy said:Sounds like you have understood what I am saying dispite yourself. That is precisely what natural selection is, but you missed the heart of the issue. It's not common descent that is at issue since most creationist would agree with that, it's descent from a single common ancestor. This is readily disproven both from natural science, theology, and most importantly, it's flawed premise as a philosophy of science.
Vance said:What? YOU made a proposition, I falsifiied it, it is up to you to show the flaw in my falsification. You seem unable to do this.
My alternate thesis is very simple, and I have already stated it: belief in evolution, common descent, or even common descent from a single ancestor, is NOT inexplicably intertwined with naturalistic assumptions (as you propose). This is proven by those many Christians who do not hold these assumptions, but do accept the scientific principles named above.
Hey, it was YOUR proposal, not mine. I just falsified it. Just explain the flaw in the falsification.
Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.
As for common descent, you still have refused to tell us EXACTLY where you believe this level of common descent began. At what level was the "kinds"? You keep talking about a model that works, but have yet to propose it.
And you can talk all you want about the proposals of evolutionary science being contrary to the evidence of natural science, but you have yet to bring the goods. How can you expect us to take this comment seriously when you just state it, and never back it up?
There is also no theological issue or philosophical issue that you have established, either.
Its much worse than that. My best estimate is that you guys number over 100 million in the United States alone.Vance said:Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.
Of course, even ONE would falsify your proposition, but tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands even more so.
Aron-Ra said:That means just the Christian collective of theistic evolutionists accounts for 40% of the total 294,424,462 people (at the moment I looked this up) and taken on a global scale, that's about a billion proofs that Mark Kennedy is wrong about this too.
mark kennedy said:I can quote biology textbooks, essays, books, websites and all this without ever quoting a single creationist that insists on naturalistic assumptions at the heart of the emphasis. The God of the Bible as the supernatural, omnipotent creator of life is completly rejected.
unfortunately for you, every extant organism fits on the phylogenetic treeIt's not common descent that is at issue since most creationist would agree with that, it's descent from a single common ancestor. This is readily disproven both from natural science, theology, and most importantly, it's flawed premise as a philosophy of science.
and the very same natural selection is invoked by creationists, because of its undeniable truth
My original proposal is that natural selection is the elimination of inferior individules, random variations, gradual accumulation of changes and non-random selection is exclusivly naturalistic
and yet to deliver the world from ignorance, would it not be worth it?Mekkala said:I would consider it a very distinct possibility -- but I would also consider it a great cruelty to bring such a hybrid child into the world. The child would be neither chimp nor human, yet most likely intelligent enough to be aware of this and feel not without a community, or without a social life, or without a nation, but without even a species to call his own. For less intelligent creatures who don't really understand this, it's not so bad. But for a half-chimp, half-human child, I think it could very well be horribly damaging.
mark kennedy said:No, it makes the claim that life emerged from a single common ancestor (unicellular) that itself emerged from a 'warm little pond'. What he was saying is that God had nothing to do with it. Check out my signiture, the part in blue was written by his grandfather, a famous atheistic intellectual. Darwin went into the family buisness by attacking the concept of God creating life and replacing it with natural selection. Just read his introduction and he lays out his whole premise.
mark kennedy said:Evolution on the other hand was a common view amoung the creationists of his time, but they maintained that it was multiple common ancestors that were fully formed in history as God's 'special creation'.
gluadys said:Erasmus Darwin may have been an athiest, but that doesn't show up in these lines of poetry. They are perfectly consistent with a theistic world-view.
Oh, and I have read the whole poem too.
And genetics confirm taxonomy.mark kennedy said:It is dialectic by definiton and the genetics are the only way it can go.
You have already several times agreed with the Darwinian model; Natural selection, sexual selection, mass-procreation, inheritance, (a Darwinian concept which Mendel confirmed) so you've already stated that the Darwinian model does work. The only thing you pretend not to accept is common ancestry. But you keep forgetting that I'm not arguing for a single universal common ancestor, but for varying stages of common ancestry, such as you have already admitted to, betraying even your concept of Biblical "kinds".The Darwinian model does not work, it never did. The only real science here is the reasoning that is gleaned from what we can learn from existing living systems.
I take the third option. Since everything I believe is tentative, and based strictly on evidence and reason, then I will be forced to consider your magic invisible ghost, (whether I want to or not) the instant you show me some reason to. What have you got? Why should I believe in a god?There are only two possible alternatives, you are forced to choose between them. If you go with you're naturalistic assumptions then any theistic explaination of our origins is rejected. If you let God, the omnipotent primary first cause in, even just a little, then the naturalistic assumptions are at risk.
I don't think you were dealt a full deck.I did not make the two mutually exclusive I am just playing the cards that are handed to me.
I know for certain that I am not. You forget, I've read them, and I've read what you have to say about them. You demonstrate clearly that you don't even understand the meanings of the quotes you insist on using to speak for you.I realize that you are not aware of the premise but I have showed it to you repeatedly, you are not argueing against me when you say this is not a philisophical premise, you are arguing against Mayr and the modern systhesis, and I think you know that.
Not on the scale I would like to yet, which only awaits your proper response. But both of us have demonstrated the same mechanisms, including the Mendelian laws of genetic inheritance, punctuated equilibrium, natural and artificial selective processes, etc., all of which you stated you already agreed with. I have a heckuva lot more I could show you, and will once you conjure the courage or the capacity to show some accountability, and properly address my points and queries as you said you would. The one thing you said you didn't agree with was mutation, and you tried to argue against that with more quotes you either didn't read or didn't understand. Remember how I disproved your Pubmed comment with another quote from the very same page? Remember when I challenged you to explain how you thought your Smithsonian quotes were supposed to challenge my position? You couldn't even answer that!I know that evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time and that you have no demonstrated mechanism for evolution on the scale you presume.
Got a mirror, Mark? My position is not rhetoric, but yours is, and I think you have already realized both of these things. That's why you're squirming so defensibly now.It is pure rhethoric and I am supprised that you haven't realized that, or just don't want to admitt it.
As you've just seen from yet another of your own references, as with the last ones too, it does handle the burden of proof. But its not subjective, as you would have realized by now if you had the courage and faith in your convictions enough to answer the simple questions I posed to you, the ones you're obviously too frightened to answer. What is a monkey, Mark? What is an ape? C'mon, Mark. You said "words mean things", so what does "ape" mean, exactly? Describe for me how we could recognize a species as a monkey or ape if we ever found a new one. Give me your supposedly subjective definition of that, and we'll see how well that handles the burden of scientific proof. Let's see how these are determined by presumption and afterthought, Mark. Let's test how subjective they are.I understand how those terms are established and the emphasis is subjective. That is not how natural science is supposed to work and taxonomy is based on presumption and after thought, that is why it is in a constant state of flux, it can't handle the burden of proof.
I'm disappointed that I have so many volumes of evidence I can't begin to show if you're still too scared to answer my simple questions when and how they were asked.I am disappointed that you drew me into the circular reasoning of cladisitics. You have had a big time of it pretending to offer proof but offering nothing of substance that supports the single common ancestor model.
By your own admission, I have already answered that multiple times, both in our debate, and a couple of times in this thread. Yes, I do know the difference, Mark. Now do you know the difference between them and the tenets of the Christian Identity, a strictly creationist group which includes nazis?You don't know the substantive difference between Hitler's political philosophy and Darwin's natural selection do you?
I don't think you ever asked me for the difference between Mayr and Darwin. What are you talking about? And the name-calling was your job, along with all the instigative attempts at emotional pleas and negative associations. All playground-level tactics, Mark. And I already told you, they don't work on me.How about the substantive difference between Mayr and Darwin, you don't have an answer for that either. So you resort to name calling. Very disappointing, very disappointing indeed.
By virtue of the fact that you couldn't conduct any discussion of that, it would seem that you can't handle what it does prove. Of course you could prove me wrong, if you could answer the questions as you agreed you would.You just couldn't handle it when you cladistics were not proof positive could you?
But you never did focus on it, Mark. You ran your merry circles alright, but you usually refused to answer my simple straight-forward questions on anything relevant. I did define all my terms, sir, where you (still) refuse to do the same dispite repeated requests. And when you rejected my definition, I asked you for yours, specifically to demonstrate these relationships in the most effective way possible. But if all you do is cower away from all my simplest queries, then what can I do?I got tired of you're labyrinth of undefined and undemonstrated relationships, you were trying to run me in circles but I know where the heart of the emphasis is and you didn't like it when I focused on it.
I'll never run out of ammo in this discussion; there is too much available. But you never had anything to offer in the first place. That's why you resorted to name-calling early on, with all your negative associations, calling me a neo-Darwinian, and associating that with communists and nazis, etc. You even admitted that you had behaved inappropriately in doing so. I did no more than call you a hypocrite, which you still are, by your own choice of tactics.You are the one who resorted to name nalling when you had nothing else to offer.
In our debate, I provided every definition you should have needed. Then I even asked if there was anything else you needed me to define. You never answered that question either. But you bellyached quite a bit when I suggested you could look up some of the unfamiliar words easily enough from any independent source you liked, rather than having to get them all from me. This was so that you could see that my position was objective, and supported by mainstream science. But you were outraged, and just railed against me personally, again, as you have from the start, and have continue to do consistently, while trying to project your faults onto me. The worst thing I ever did was to ask you to provide your own definitions, so that I could prove to you that we weren't just arguing semantics, or "floating definitions", like you kept trying to assert. You still refuse to offer your own definitions, but you said you rejected the ones I provided, and now pretend I never even gave any. Did you forget that we have all this archived in writing?All you arguments were based on a free floating definitions that you never provided.
But you didn't understand any of the sources you cited, Mark. For example:I supported my arguments from actual science and authoritive sources, you response was to start call me names.
I think you'd better take another look at your PubMed site, Mark. because they do actually study genetics and medical science, but when you type "common ancestor" in their search window, you'll see that they repeatedly state that all of that evidence demands evolutionary common ancestry.yossarian said:find the antitheistic philosophy in a pubmed article mark, its simplemark kennedy said:They actually study genetics and medical science they don't waste their time on mythical evolutionary aancestors. That requires a philosopher like Darwin.
Yes we do, Mark. Are you now going to argue that the Earth was once the only thing in the entire universe? That the billions of other stars in our galaxy, as well as all the billions of other galaxies, -were all created after our puny little planet? Or that there were plants on Earth before the sun, or any of the other celestial bodies even existed? Can snakes talk, Mark? Do you really intend to argue for a giant crystal firmament with windows in it? Yes, for these and many many other reasons, we do know for absolutely certain that Genesis cannot be literally true.What it does is to refute a literal interpretation of what can only be either a parable or a myth, but that we all know can't possibly be literally true.We know nothing of the sort,
I do, thank you. It was like turning on a light and being able to see at last. I discovered that faith was naught but a means of deliberate self-deception, and that anything that was really real, wouldn't need my faith to stay that way. I also realized that nothing in the universe really requires faith except a bad liar. So I gave it up. And I am indeed a whole lot healthier because of it.what do you know of faith in God, you tossed you're faith and went after modern mythology. You took the broad road and I hope you enjoy the ride.
If the forum's suggestions were to supercede our rules, then there could have been no debate, because it was (and still is) imperative to deal with every point and every query, even though you still refuse to do so. Had I known how you would conduct yourself, I would have demanded you select three Christian moderators to force you to adhere to the rules of properly addressing each point and query, and to concede the many points you've clearly lost already.The terms of the debate should have been negotiated and had I known that you were going to post the endless rationalizations you did I would have made sure you understood the rules of the forum.
Its all substantive, or would be if I didn't have to waste so much time countering your paranoid and sensationalist misrepresentations. You've avoided the substance every time it was presented.You post these endless rants and it takes two posts to get to anything of substance.
I properly addressed every one of your arguments without exception, where you have dodged most of mine.One of the first rules was that if you didn't like the argument you address the argument, you instead started you name nalling.
Yes, and I alone have met that challenge. When will you?Go ahead and pretend to have a real argument, but try to find one that works, that's the challenge.
As has already been pointed out, you're still using these terms incorrectly. And every time you say "superficial similarities" you're talking about fundamental ones. Again, I could only prove this to you if you had what it takes to answer my questions honestly without being so defensive and evasive.Yea right, any superficial simularity is a homology and any difference is a morphology.
Really? Then by all means, demonstrate that for me, Mark. How do you determine the clades for monkeys or apes?You made it clear that you neither understand the rationale or the substantive reasoning that goes into creating clads.
But taxonomy doesn't use these. I could see a taxonomic argument for language, but paleoanthropologists have concluded that Homo habilis, (whom you say is related to us) wasn't capable of modern human language anyway. Nor is there any evidence they made fire. All they did was to make tools which were just slightly more sophistocated than those of the Australopiths, which were just slightly better than those of chimpanzees.It's an organizational system, nothing more, get over it. Men are not apes and this is obvious when you actually compare them using the same criteria that modern taxonomy uses. Language, fire, and tools.
But I don't ignore them! Look, there are important distinctions between penguins and other birds too, right? I mean no other bird lives like a penguin, or swims like a penguin, or has wings like a penguin. So according to you, penguins can't be birds unless you ignore all these important distinctions. This proves that it is you who has not a clue how clades are constructed. Penguins are different from any other bird, just as we are different from other apes. But penguins are still birds and men are still apes, both according to their fundamental (as opposed to superficial) structure.You have no real answer for this which is why you ignore these all important distinctions.
I didn't realize you were talking about the philosophy of science. How could I, when you said you accepted the philosophy of science yourself? Remember when you said that Mendel and PubMed both did "real" science, and that you supported that, even though both of them supported Darwin? You're so inconsistent and self-contradictory, its hard to tell what you're talking about. But the various points I'm trying to make still aren't philosophical.The most obvious fallacy here is that you don't realize that there is such a thing as a philosophy of science, that are you are not going to admit it.
No, the truth is that you're determined to distort this discussion by misrepresenting everything you can, and that intent is obviously deliberate. I am not determined to deny anything. Atheism is a resignation, not a resolve. I gave up believing in God because I couldn't find anything to imply that such a thing was really real. Instead, I found a wealth of indications that it wasn't real, and never was. I didn't decide not to believe, and I wouldn't have made that choice if I had the choice to make. Did you choose not to believe in Santa Clause? Or were you faced with the same scenario I was? That there was absolutely no reason to believe in him, and a whole lot of reasons not to? Could you have chosen to believe in him anyway? Are you determined to deny that Santa exists? I just couldn't force myself to believe in your particular Santa-God anymore.Now the truth is that you don't know who I worship because you are determined to deny that God even exists.
I know. I disproved your flood myth a couple of times, but you refused to comment on it either time.I have yet to even discuss the Bible,
I wish we had. But you refused to do that.we spent all of our time argueing the validity of these charts and graphs.
If you don't like being called a hypocrite, stop acting like one. I have tried to defend/explain how this is done, and to do so with specific examples, which is why I asked you to define what a monkey or an ape is. When you get up the gumption to answer that one, we can continue.You never have tried to defend how this is done and resort to name calling as a matter of course. Don't blame me if you're arguments are unconvincing.
Your questions were all too easy to counter, and I have answered absolutely every one you ever asked, where you have repeatedly and deliberately ignored most of mine. I have also demonstrated some of the mechanisms, and have plenty more to show once you uphold your end of the agreement.We have been on topic you just can't handle real questions. You have a big time of it when you throw around terms you do not have any intention of defining but you have no demonstrated mechanism. This is obvious, this is unavoidable.
1. Each of the "Darwinian" principles of evolution via natural selection.You agreed with every major point I made, admitting that you already believed most of them yourself.What major points?
As I said before, my emotions aren't involved at all. Need I remind that I have repeatedly asked you to stop the paranoid, instigative quips, and stay on-topic as you promised you would? Everyone who discusses these topics with you has the same complaint; that we can all solidly prove our various points. But you can't counter that even well enough to show that you comprehend the argument, and automatically retort with an unthinking reflex denial. "Did not", "Says you", and "Nu-Uhh" sound like a pretty good summation of the best of your debate skills in the common opinion on this board of atheists and Christians alike.You keep doing this, pretending to prove what you never bothered to qualified. This is nothing more then a lot of hot air, intensity is not veracity and I don't care how much emotion you pour into this, you failed the burden of proof.
I did admit it when I said that I never strayed from the philosophy of science. But the subjects I'm trying to discuss are not a matter of philosophy, nor are they semantics. You would understand that if you were capable of debating me point-by-point as I do you. This really could be a great debate if you could only do that.It doesn't matter how many times you say that it is not true. There is such a thing as a philosophy of science whether you want to admit it or not.
Define "real science". Consider this another flat-out challenge which I expect you'll just ignore, as you've done with almost all the others.Real science does but you like the myth better.
I've answered every question you've asked, without exception, to the best of my ability. The very few questions you did eventually answer (three posts late) were all wrong answers even by your standards.You didn't answer a critical question that pointed out the substantive element evident in Darwin, Mayr and Hitler.
What was? Maybe you should go back and read the answer you say I didn't give in message #14 of our debate, and compare that to message #296 of this thread, when I answered that again. Then if you would please, tell me exactly how fascist ignorance of evolution or ethnocentric British society has anything at all to do with the natural selection processes in biology. While you're at it, maybe you can tell me how the violently racist tenets of the Christian Identity are a real problem for divine creation?You just resort to name calling, did it ever occur to you that this was a real problem with natural selection and the survival of the fittest?
Your only consistency is in being dead-wrong on every point, every time.He would not have went into the ridicule of Christian conviction had that been true. Christian's don't treat one another that way and a humanist is just someone who puts their philosophy in theological terms while removing the real meaning. It's a lot like taxonomy in that regards.
Who feeds you all this misinformation?This is the only country in the world that has not totally betrayed it's Christian heritage.
Just wait ''til we get started. I am the last person you'll ever want to discuss religion with, that's for sure.I really don't want to talk religion with you, it makes me ill.
I have already won. Its not even possible for me to lose. And I think I understand everything you've tried to say, while you've tried to distort everything I say.You missed the whole point of my statement in the debate and you are playing a game you can't win.
No presumption necessary. You only knew one thing about her theology. She realized that the Bible was written by men, and that these stories were not reliable eyewitness accounts, therefore they were not the final authority. And as you have already expressed several times, your "theology" [idolatry] demands that the words of the Biblical authors be elevated over and above even the evidence provided in creation by the work of God himself. Even the Biblical authors warned against doing this.Notice the question of what I don't like about her theology didn't come up. That's the problem with presumption, it gets to be a nasty habit.
But one of the volumes that support my definition is the Bible itself. Where did you get your definition from?Idolatry is worshiping and serving the creature more then the creator. What you don't know about idolatry could fill volumns.
I told you, you can't intimidate me, and you certainly can't rile me. So why do you try?Me thinks thou dose protest too much
I've learned not to expect anything of substance from you. But if you want something more substantive, then you've got one more post to make to our debate before I can post my reply. Answer the questions about the definition of monkeys and apes, show me how to "discover" the definition of species in the various interrelated skulls I showed you, so that the word "species" can be precisely defined in paleofauna. Explain how you determined two of those hominines to be related, and how you decided that the third one was not. Tell me what evidence you would accept that could convince you if my position is true. Then you can look at all the points you've lost, (and snipped from your reply) and concede them honorably as you agreed to do at the onset. You might also take a stab at providing the other answers and citations I asked for, and explain why you ever believed the Bible to be a reliable authority on anything. These are all direct questions which you agreed to answer to the best of your ability, but have instead only repeatedly ignored.That's enough of this nonsense. I was expecting something a lot more substantive. I keep waiting for it. I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath or be supprised.
why the incesant disconnect between theism and nature?mark kennedy said:Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.
nursed?mark kennedy said:Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.
It can be interpreted theistically whether you're a Deist, theistic evolutionist, Intelligent Design Theorist, or even a Biblical literalist creationist reading Genesis 1. Even polytheists can accept that line as theistic. Remember, in Enuma Elish, Tiamat was the biological mother of all the other gods, and she was the spirit of the ocean. So even in the oldest creationist myths, all life came from the sea.mark kennedy said:Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.
Aron-Ra said:If the forum's suggestions were to supercede our rules, then there could have been no debate, because it was (and still is) imperative to deal with every point and every query, even though you still refuse to do so. Had I known how you would conduct yourself, I would have demanded you select three Christian moderators to force you to adhere to the rules of properly addressing each point and query, and to concede the many points you've clearly lost already.
Its all substantive, or would be if I didn't have to waste so much time countering your paranoid and sensationalist misrepresentations. You've avoided the substance every time it was presented.
I properly addressed every one of your arguments without exception, where you have dodged most of mine.
"superficial similarities" you're talking about fundamental ones. Again, I could only prove this to you if you had what it takes to answer my questions honestly without being so defensive and evasive.
Really? Then by all means, demonstrate that for me, Mark. How do you determine the clades for monkeys or apes?
But taxonomy doesn't use these. I could see a taxonomic argument for language, but paleoanthropologists have concluded that Homo habilis, (whom you say is related to us) wasn't capable of modern human language anyway. Nor is there any evidence they made fire. All they did was to make tools which were just slightly more sophistocated than those of the Australopiths, which were just slightly better than those of chimpanzees.
But I don't ignore them! Look, there are important distinctions between penguins and other birds too, right? I mean no other bird lives like a penguin, or swims like a penguin, or has wings like a penguin. So according to you, penguins can't be birds unless you ignore all these important distinctions. This proves that it is you who has not a clue how clades are constructed. Penguins are different from any other bird, just as we are different from other apes. But penguins are still birds and men are still apes, both according to their fundamental (as opposed to superficial) structure.
I didn't realize you were talking about the philosophy of science. How could I, when you said you accepted the philosophy of science yourself? Remember when you said that Mendel and PubMed both did "real" science, and that you supported that, even though both of them supported Darwin? You're so inconsistent and self-contradictory, its hard to tell what you're talking about. But the various points I'm trying to make still aren't philosophical.
No, the truth is that you're determined to distort this discussion by misrepresenting everything you can, and that intent is obviously deliberate. I am not determined to deny anything. Atheism is a resignation, not a resolve. I gave up believing in God because I couldn't find anything to imply that such a thing was really real. Instead, I found a wealth of indications that it wasn't real, and never was. I didn't decide not to believe, and I wouldn't have made that choice if I had the choice to make. Did you choose not to believe in Santa Clause? Or were you faced with the same scenario I was? That there was absolutely no reason to believe in him, and a whole lot of reasons not to? Could you have chosen to believe in him anyway? Are you determined to deny that Santa exists? I just couldn't force myself to believe in your particular Santa-God anymore.
I know. I disproved your
flood myth a couple of times, but you refused to comment on it either time.
I wish we had. But you refused to do that.
If you don't like being called a hypocrite, stop acting like one. I have tried to defend/explain how this is done, and to do so with specific examples, which is why I asked you to define what a monkey or an ape is. When you get up the gumption to answer that one, we can continue.
Your questions were all too easy to counter, and I have answered absolutely every one you ever asked, where you have repeatedly and deliberately ignored most of mine. I have also demonstrated some of the mechanisms, and have plenty more to show once you uphold your end of the agreement.
1. Each of the "Darwinian" principles of evolution via natural selection.
2. Varying stages of common ancestry for homoines, anthropoids, eurypterids, varanoids, felids, cattle, and who knows what else, if you would just answer the questions out of common courtesy and rationale.
3. That our species evolved from another, less derived one, as opposed to being specially-created in our current form, as is the normally universal creationist position.
As I said before, my emotions aren't involved at all. Need I remind that I have repeatedly asked you to stop the paranoid, instigative quips, and stay on-topic as you promised you would? Everyone who discusses these topics with you has the same complaint; that we can all solidly prove our various points. But you can't counter that even well enough to show that you comprehend the argument, and automatically retort with an unthinking reflex denial. "Did not", "Says you", and "Nu-Uhh" sound like a pretty good summation of the best of your debate skills in the common opinion on this board of atheists and Christians alike.
I did admit it when I said that I never strayed from the philosophy of science. But the subjects I'm trying to discuss are not a matter of philosophy, nor are they semantics. You would understand that if you were capable of debating me point-by-point as I do you. This really could be a great debate if you could only do that.
Define "real science". Consider this another flat-out challenge which I expect you'll just ignore, as you've done with almost all the others.
I've answered every question you've asked, without exception, to the best of my ability. The very few questions you did eventually answer (three posts late) were all wrong answers even by your standards.
What was? Maybe you should go back and read the answer you say I didn't give in message #14 of our debate, and compare that to message #296 of this thread, when I answered that again. Then if you would please, tell me exactly how fascist ignorance of evolution or ethnocentric British society has anything at all to do with the natural selection processes in biology. While you're at it, maybe you can tell me how the violently racist tenets of the Christian Identity are a real problem for divine creation?
Your only consistency is in being dead-wrong on every point, every time.
(1.) Christians do treat other Christians that way. You treat other Christians that way. I've seen you do it several times right here on this board, even in this very thread. Other Christians do things like referring to Catholics as "Mary-worshipping pagans" or they say other denominations are "deceived by Satan", or they ban Mormons from posting to the Christians-only boards, or they ridicule other Christian's perspectives by calling them humanists, and making up bogus definitions to do it.
(2.) It seems we were both wrong about what a humanist is. A Christian humanist is one who's philosophy is based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort. ReligiousToleranc.org lists many definitions of different types of humanists, but your definition doesn't appear there, nor did it show up on any of the specifically humanist sites I went to. The only definition I ever knew, that of a rational atheist, was listed in most of these. Where did you get your woefully inaccurate definition?
I know you won't answer this question, because you can't, because you just made up a definition you knew was wrong just because it was inflammatory, just like your stupid quip about it being like taxonomy. But I have to ask the question anyway.
Who feeds you all this misinformation?
(1.) This country was founded by Deists, not Christians. Most of the names on the Declaration of Independence, and the first half-dozen presidents were Deists. Not even Lincoln was Christian! The treaty of Tripoli even denies that the U.S. is a Christian nation in any way. We didn't start to become one until the Great Reformation of the 1830s.
(2.) Look at a globe and find the United States. Now look at everything south of our border all the way passed the equator, down to the Antarctic circle. All those nations are at least as Christian as we are, or ever were.
Just wait ''til we get started. I am the last person you'll ever want to discuss religion with, that's for sure.
I have already won. Its not even possible for me to lose. And I think I understand everything you've tried to say, while you've tried to distort everything I say.
No presumption necessary. You only knew one thing about her theology. She realized that the Bible was written by men, and that these stories were not reliable eyewitness accounts, therefore they were not the final authority. And as you have already expressed several times, your "theology" [idolatry] demands that the words of the Biblical authors be elevated over and above even the evidence provided in creation by the work of God himself. Even the Biblical authors warned against doing this.
But one of the volumes that support my definition is the Bible itself. Where did you get your definition from?
I told you, you can't intimidate me, and you certainly can't rile me. So why do you try?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?