mark wrote:
You will continue to get non-answers to non-questions. You don't like it, ask real questions.
I did. Repeatedly. Here they are again, in a short list. Each of these is asking: what support do you have for that?
********************
1. Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germ line invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown. Posts #104, 107, others.
2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.
3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.
4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?
Update - on new thread, (
http://www.christianforums.com/t7843390/), on post #3, you admitted that the atheistic numbers are going up.
5. Sounds like a new claim. Can you show where the experts have lied almost constantly?
#6. Mark's new claim that it's impossible that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions.
#7. Also waiting on whether or not you deny that impact craters are from impacts, since you didn't answer that either.
#8. Also waiting to find out you deny that that ERVs are previously viral DNA?.
9. Waiting for support for your claim that mendelian genetics doesn't support common descent.
10. Waiting for mark to supply support as to how he knows that what the experts believe has nothing to do with the facts.
************************
**************************
All sciences give us information about the past.
Define science.
Again, mark, you seem to be dictionary-challenged. You have as much access to dictionaries as I do. Would you like me to take the time to look up and post the definition for you, or do you think you are capable of looking it up yourself?
I know the definition and you know the definition, I just want you to honestly admit to it.
OK, so you aren't capable of looking it up yourself. Here:
sci·ence
noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
See? Knowlege gained by science includes knowlege about the past, in field after field. I guess we are back to asking you if those craters on the moon were caused by meteor impacts.
Newsflash, mark - this is a "discussion board". If you want to just post random words instead of having a discussion, you may want to look into posting on a thing called a "blog".
Don't you get dizzy arguing in circles?
Sad to see you still go to a discussion board and refuse to have a discussion.
So now you are saying that natural selection, mendelian genetics, and common descent are somehow in disagreement with each other? Again and again it seems that you never made it past 1930.
They are in disagreement otherwise there would have been no need for a synthesis.
They seemed to be in 1930, but clearly are not. Welcome to the 21st century, mark!
I'll wait for some support that the leading academics were atheists. I'm sure some were and some weren't, just like any other group of real humans, but of course they weren't all atheists. There were Christians among them as well, as shown by examples like Fisher and others.
If your waiting for me to chase your arguments in circles I suggest you don't hold your breath.
I'm just waiting for you to support your claims.
No mark, I'm talking about creationism such as your creationism - the denial of evidence out of a position of ignorance, interspersed with obviously false statements (howlers, pointed out above) as well as repeated fallacies.
You are the one who equivocates science with supposition and spend all your time on here making the same tired, empty fallacious ad hominem arguments. You got a nerve calling someone else fallacious.
I've asked repeatedly for you to show me an example of myself using an ad hom, and you refuse every time. Here you make the same claim again. Feel free to also back up your claim of me using a fallacy of any kind. As for equivocation - I've pointed out your equivocation again and again - would you like a link to some of those?
Well, it's good to see you agreed with me (and the survey data) that a significant number of Christians are leaving due to the conflict caused by creationism. I (still) find it sad that you encourage that conflict.
There is no conflict caused by Creationism, it's just an interesting intellectual sidebar. People are leaving the faith because they have made the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that make them atheistic materialists.
mark, these same people say again and again that many of them still believe in God, so obviously they aren't athiestic materialists. They say themselves that they are leaving due to the conflict caused by the creationism - as shown by the barna poll.
In Christ -
Papias
