Evolutionists saying categorically wrong things

[pantsman52]

You could maybe explain why Dell wants $300 for the video board on my sons computer and you can buy a whole new system for that amount of money.

You can probably buy a 5 year old system for $300. You get what you pay for.

 

[JohnR7]

You can probably buy a 5 year old system for $300. You get what you pay for.

The entry level computer from dell starts at $299. I am sure you would need more memory, otherwise it could get the job done.

 

[Willtor]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

Haha! I don't say this very often (because I think it's juvenile), but: LOL!!1!

Don't tell the Chair of my thesis committee he's only one step ahead of his students. He considers himself more of an engineer than a scientist, but that's only because he has a philosophy of applied theory. Seriously, John, you might consider not speaking on such things.

 

[Jet Black]

Which one of these men have a degree in science? Michael Dell? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

Galileo didn't have a PhD therefore astronomy is not science

 

[random_guy]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

I think this falls under Creationists categorically say the wrong thing. As a CS student, I can guarentee that all my Professor know a lot about computers, even the ones that work in purely theoretical fields. Every CS major is required to take Computer Architecture classes as well as an intro Systems class.

But hey, don't take my word for it, even though I'm actually in the major, I actually go to a university, and I actually know the professors. We should take your anecdotal evidence over me, and every other person that actually goes to school.

 

[KittyPryde]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

Better to be one step ahead of the curve than one hundred steps behind. Like most cutting edge technology, it is hard enough to keep pace.

Computer hardware and the long strings of electrical impulses providing you with the image you are currently viewing are products of science (not a two to five thousand year old transcribed document). Arguing the point of whether Computer Science is truly a science is splitting hairs.

(not necessarily directed at at you JohnR) I am dumbfounded by some of the deliberate, self-imposed ignorant statements that are made regarding science in these forums.
Without the advances made in the sciences, we would be living shorter, far less pleasant lives.

Every now and then, it might be a good idea to close your Bibles and appreciate the gift of science. Many people have put a great deal of sweat and tears into improving your quality of life through the trial and error of science.

 

[KittyPryde]

But hey, don't take my word for it, even though I'm actually in the major, I actually go to a university, and I actually know the professors. We should take your anecdotal evidence over me, and every other person that actually goes to school.

I am in total agreement. I was amazed at the level of knowledge some of my professors posessed in computer architecture, software development, and programming theory.
Perhaps, JohnR's sister is teaching 'Computer Science 101'. In which case, as I have seen at many colleges, is the basic use of computers and software (i.e. Microsoft Office).

 

[Nathan Poe]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

Well, that's hardly an indictment of the Computer Science department, although it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of your sister's teaching ability or knowledge in the subject.

 

[Caphi]

Better to be one step ahead of the curve than one hundred steps behind. Like most cutting edge technology, it is hard enough to keep pace.

Computer hardware and the long strings of electrical impulses providing you with the image you are currently viewing are products of science (not a two to five thousand year old transcribed document). Arguing the point of whether Computer Science is truly a science is splitting hairs.

(not necessarily directed at at you JohnR) I am dumbfounded by some of the deliberate, self-imposed ignorant statements that are made regarding science in these forums.
Without the advances made in the sciences, we would be living shorter, far less pleasant lives.

Every now and then, it might be a good idea to close your Bibles and appreciate the gift of science. Many people have put a great deal of sweat and tears into improving your quality of life through the trial and error of science.

Thank you. With all the rabid Creationists in C+E, it's nice to know that once in a while they can hear some common sense without instantly tuning that common sense out because of a little grey head below your username.

 

[And-U-Say]

Which one of these men have a degree in science? Michael Dell? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

These people sell computers, not design them. Pick better examples next time.

 

[rjw]

The point is as long as we have the other thread, then we are going to have this one also. To be consistant with the title, then we should be talking about how evos are "categorically" wrong.

Gidday JohnR7,


Your initial post seemed to be about evolutionists once using the term “tree of life” and now arguing that it is wrong and that rather it should be described as a “bush of life”.

You then state that this is all about evos being “categorically wrong”.

Well given that both “tree” and “bush” are metaphors, and given that both terms are still used, depending on context, in what way does the use of such metaphor mean that evos are “wrong” or confused?

For example, Jesus is referred to as “the light”, “the lamb”, “the son of man”. Does this mean that Christians are categorically wrong or confused when they come to talk of Jesus in such a way?

IOW, in order to show how wrong evos. are, is this what you dream up? As someone said, pretty “petty” of you.



Regards, Roland

 

[JohnR7]

Your initial post seemed to be about evolutionists once using the term “tree of life” and now arguing that it is wrong and that rather it should be described as a “bush of life”.

This was an EXAMPLE of how the theory changes over time. If it was just a question of change it would not be so bad. The biggest problem is outright fraud and a lot of creative writting. The line between science and fiction can get pretty thin sometimes. Evos need to be a lot more honest and say: It could have happened this way but we do not know for sure with the limited amount of information we have. If you only have 10% of the information on something, then it is a pretty sure bet that your going to get it wrong. I have nothing against the imagination, but the Bible says that God does: "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21) It is clear that we need to be careful when we use our imagination. Even if the intent of evos is good.

 

[Asimov]

My kingdom for an original Creationist idea -- even a bad one at this point would be refreshing, as long as it was original.

There are three types of Creationist arguments:

1. Conspiracy.
2. Logical Fallacy of some sort.
3. Misunderstanding of Science.

Under these three headings, there ARE no new ideas.

 

[Asimov]

This was an EXAMPLE of how the theory changes over time. If it was just a question of change it would not be so bad. The biggest problem is outright fraud and a lot of creative writting. The line between science and fiction can get pretty thin sometimes. Evos need to be a lot more honest and say: It could have happened this way but we do not know for sure with the limited amount of information we have. If you only have 10% of the information on something, then it is a pretty sure bet that your going to get it wrong. I have nothing against the imagination, but the Bible says that God does: "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21) It is clear that we need to be careful when we use our imagination. Even if the intent of evos is good.

Interesting John. You see, scientists can be categorically wrong in their conclusions. The difference is they are categorically wrong with the intent of learning new things. You are categorically wrong because you choose not to listen.

Where is the creative writing in Evolution? Again, all we see are your accusations with no merit to them whatsoever. Your continued deceptions point more towards compulsive lying than an inability to learn.

 

[JohnR7]

You are categorically wrong because you choose not to listen.

I choose not to listen to lies, I choose to abide in the truth. What is your choice, what do you choose?

 

[Asimov]

I choose not to listen to lies, I choose to abide in the truth. What is your choice, what do you choose?

Yet you espouse them and try to spread them.

How many more times are you going to yammer on about how you choose not to listen to lies yet still adhere to the very thing you dislike.

 

[JohnR7]

Where is the creative writing in Evolution?

The field of evolutionary study is fraught with scandal and deception. Unfortunately, those who question evolution are subjected to criticism and censorship. Thus, evolution, disguised as science, is forced upon students by means that intimidates questioning and stifles reasoning. In effect, students are brainwashed to accept evolution without question.http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/fraud.htm

 

[JohnR7]

How many more times are you going to yammer on

It is up to you if you want to have a real discussion or if you want to "yammer on". I do not have a problem accepting the truth, it is the evos that are deceived with their false teachings on the "origin" of man. I do not question their "evidence" the fossils and the things they have found. I just question their understanding of them and their interpretion.

 

[Asimov]

The field of evolutionary study is fraught with scandal and deception. Unfortunately, those who question evolution are subjected to criticism and censorship. Thus, evolution, disguised as science, is forced upon students by means that intimidates questioning and stifles reasoning. In effect, students are brainwashed to accept evolution without question.http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/fraud.htm

So, basically someone like you saying the same thing you are saying without providing anything to back it up.

Great John, way to dodge my question.

WHERE IS THE CREATIVE WRITING IN EVOLUTION?

 

[Asimov]

It is up to you if you want to have a real discussion or if you want to "yammer on". I do not have a problem accepting the truth, it is the evos that are deceived with their false teachings on the "origin" of man. I do not question their "evidence" the fossils and the things they have found. I just question their understanding of them and their interpretion.

No you don't, you repeatedly posit lies and misinformation. Not only that, but it's willful. I have not once seen you actually formulate a single argument. You just make claim after claim after claim, I don't see anything of merit in what you say, John.