betsy

But the sources I gave you were not there to prove Creationism. They were there to support the theory of ID.....remember? We're talking about Intelligent Design.....ID! Please focus. You cannot be rational in your defense if you keep straying out of the argument. This is about the theory of ID debunking the theory of Evolution. It just so happens that this argument is being presented by a Creationist (moi), but the sources/arguments/refutations etc.., have nothing to do with my personal belief. I don't know why that's so hard for you to cmprehend. Unless like a drowning man, you're grabbing at about anything to throw into the argument...because you've nothing else for defense. You seem to conveniently ignore or forget that sources gave the evidence that DARWIN and DAWKINS themselves admitted to the possibility of Design! So your rebuttal above is complete baloney!

I must admit that you seem to be very dedicated in following scientific developments...especially scientific "discoveries" that can be used to prop up the theory of evolution. I must admit that my interest in this topic is hardly anything compared to yours. But of course that's simply understandable. You need proof. Whereas I, don't. And with theory of ID, your own faith of Atheism is undeniably under siege. So you are in defense-mode. Very much in defense-mode. Desperately in defense-mode. You have to. Anyway, just to accomodate you....here's an excerpt that may or may not give the answer you are looking for. It's a long read....but since its an important matter to you, I guess that wouldn't matter. Enjoy.

I was reading all the follow-ups...and can't help but laugh. No, seriously...it's funny. Anyway, it looks like this topic's been beaten to death.

EQUALITY! EQUITY! We should even up the score! men, you can run but you can't hide! Ladies....roll up your sleeves! This is going to be bloody!

Hijacked my foot! You mean because you cannot dictate and confine the discussion to how you want it to be played. That after all your "authoritative-sounding" extrapolations....the truth about the obviously failing theory of evolution just won't stay hidden in the closet! Too bad Mapleleaf forum - unlike TalkOrigin - doesn't do any "cycle-washing" on any opinion and sources presented on this forum. Btw, who was it among you Atheists who quoted the Bible and said: "The truth will set you free?" There is a rational explanation why you can't see what the other two threads are all about....and that although they co-relate with the subject of Evolution and ID....they stand on their own merit. Because your mind is moulded only to focus on just one purpose: Defend Atheism at all cost! Anyway, if you accuse me of "hijacking" this thread by bringing up ID theory.....aren't you going to say the same if I happen to bring up all the details that were brought up on DARWIN and EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER on to this thread too???? See how muddled you sound? yada....yada...yada.... Intelligent Design = religious interpretation. That's the real answer to these resistance....why these evolutionists minds are firmly closed to the theory! Thanks for officially confirming it. Fundamentalist Evolutionists are not really after the scientific truth. It's all about defending Atheism. I'll give you "empirical, observable and measurable" evidence all right! THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS THREAD, DARWIN and EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER! All arguments, rebuttals and sources presented in favor and/or in support of ID....compared to all the kinds of arguments, rebuttals and sources given by fundamentalist Atheists! An educated objective reader will know which side is credible! Since we can't stop our school children from being fed with a stale, faulty evolution theory that's being pushed as fact - pushing for Atheist ideology- .....then, we should be able to offer the other theory that's being proven with evidences to be the one that's more convincing! Evolutionists try to stop it...because they're afraid once ID is brought up in school, their own theory can't and will not be able to stand up to the challenges....and they wouldn't be able to perpetuate their own myth of origin! There ya go. In full circle....back to what you said is the purpose of this thread! Stop flogging a dead horse already! If you don't want to accept ID...fine! Whining won't do you any good. Come up with another theory!

I seem to recall that the feminist movement was trying to get the court to recognize home-making as an important and real job.....because women were not being treated fairly in divorce settlements - the court hardly placed any value on the contributions they made as home-makers. Women were not in any position to be independent financially since they've given their time and effort in being wives and mothers, so they were dependent on their husbands. But I don't doubt you for what you remember...for it also makes sense that they would encourage women to get out and be employed - so they wouldn't be totally dependent on their husbands, to have the confidence in knowing they can be independent should they wish to. I remember the encouragements to pursue studies and adult courses, to learn to do the books or accounting in the home, the family finances, how-to chores from changing light bulbs, fixing things around the house (that men normally do)....to be self-reliant. In those days, the emphasis was to be self-reliant in the event of divorce....or widowhood. So a woman wouldn't be so helpless and lost, if her spouse is suddenlly gone. Which is only practical. And also the women who were already working out of the house....those who were employed (usually in factories, non-managerial positions)....were also not being treated as fairly as the men. But over time, the movement pursued other goals. It evolved. And the face of feminism changed. I don't recoghnize it anymore. It doesn't represent me...or speak for me.

Hello Wyly...welcome to the Forum. I see that it's your first time on this thread, so if I may be so bold enough to give you a piece of advice: READ ALL THE WAY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD...and also the other related threads, DARWIN and EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER. You can't reduce or criticize Gosthack's opinion if you don't understand why he came to that conclusion. Know what the fight is all about before you jump in the fray. Ask yourself: am I coming in with an open-mind....or with my blinders on? True search for truth....or for Atheism? We're waaaaay past this type of juvenile reasoning. Read up so you can catch up..... Btw, you don't make any sense. You criticize religion....yet you feed your own daughter with nonsense about the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. And you want Benny to prove him wrong???? If you know and believe they're lies.... then you're knowingly feeding your own child these lies! So, what does that makes you??? Remember...only in ignorance can "authoritative-sounding" one-liners or long-winded messages become.....rubbish. Cheers!

That's an interesting point. Maturity comes into play. I surely am different when I was a whole lot younger. Priorities were not quite the same. It must be tougher for younger women these days to set up priorities and realistic goals....commercialism has gone rampant...relentlessly abetted and promoted by the media. The definition of "success" and "achievements" has taken on a whole new meaning. Of course, a lot of women are also not content with their physical looks. My butt too big? My boobs too small? My nose needs to be lessened. Need botox! Lips puffed-up. Need uplift. Facelift. Eyelift. Tummy tuck. Lipo. Then....got to have that nice toned body! I mean....if you're a working woman, not mention a mom to boot....where do you get the extra time??? The one area where most women would've excelled (since it's in most everyone of us) is making a home for the family. It's a big responsibility and it's a real job! Isn't that what Feminist Movement fought for when it got started??? The sad irony....nowadays, a lot of women think that to be a stay-at-home mom is not only degrading...but some think of it as a "failure."

Let's just be clear on this: I am not trying to convert ardent atheist-evolutionists to creationism. I kept telling you....my personal belief is irrelevant. I have shown that the ID theory is far more convincing! All I'm saying is that, you see the theory of evolution isn't going anywhere....well, why don't you find an alternative? Come up with another theory. Don't keep flogging a dead horse!

Yooo-hooo...where are you? Hmmmm...probably ran to TalkOrigin.

Yeah...yeah...yeah...Never mind the ending! I want to hear your explanation about the BEGINNING! WHERE DID IT ALL START?

My....my.....my....all these lines that mean squat. Talk about freakin' out! Again, this kind of reaction only supports the opinion of the author of the article, THE ANGRY SCIENTIST..... http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/the-angry-scientist/ ....and probably inspired the title of the book, The IRRATIONAL ATHEIST! It doesn't seem to take much to get them going.....stressful topic, is it?

All I've stated in this thread is the fact that's emerged: ID theory is far more convincing. And the evidences I've provided supported that. The big problem is that some people don't seem to understand that my personal belief is irrelevant...and they keep bringing up Creationism. It's a way to deflect, you see....through bypassing the real argument. But it does prove though that Evolution is more about Atheism....for some. I know the thread's title is Creationism/Evolution....so I don't know.....maybe I should create another thread? A thread solely devoted to ID vs Evolution?

Do you really think Antony Flew never used any antibiotics at all? Do you think this same argument you're using did not come up at all in any of Antony Flew's researches and study - preparing for those debates? Do you really think that a man like Antony Flew did not exhaust all possibilities in order to win in those debates - keeping in mind that while he was involved in those debates, he was on your side. His reputation at stake. And just like you, he was fighting for his Atheistic faith! I don't think anyone would give up their faith without a darn good fight, would you? Especially when you're someone like Flew's calibre and stature. Why would anyone of his reputation do a sudden 180 degree - from believing ardently and publicly debating to prove that there's no god ....to believing and publicly announcing that God exists! Of course, you bet he read about that antibiotic argument...and read the refutation too! He had to. And obviously he agreed with it. Otherwise, he would've used that antibiotc argument as a weapon....and it would've bolstered and strengthened his belief in no-god and Evolution! Well, Antony Flew dropped Atheism in ...2007, I think. And he threw the bombshell on Evolution following that. Therefore he concluded,...."pfffft....baloney!" And threw that same antibiotic argument out, along with Atheism!

So some of you guys keep harping about antibiotics....and I was just going to keep on ignoring it....but might as well reply or I'll never hear the end of it. It's being R E F U T E D. Excerpts from... Furthermore, an evolutionary biologists admits to this fact!

My faith is irrelevant! Instead of using my belief - which I've never denied anyway - as an argument - which is rather silly since it implies the point of this discussion flies over your head - why don't you come up with something relevant as a rebuttal? Just re-read your statement above. Tit-for tat! I can say exactly the same thing to you! Substitute the word "creationist" for "atheist-evolutionists". This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. So, who's really being hypocritical? Eh? Awww c'mon....Why would I care if the scientist who created or came up with antibiotic be either ID or Evolution believer? Are you kidding? That's descrimination! Blackmail! or....arm-twisting! Good! You got plus point for venturing out of TalkOrigin! See my next post.

Note: Edited #525 to add a few things. I wasn't able to edit a while back. Sorry for the inconvenience.

After all is said....the fact is: ID theory vs the theory of Evolution, both present their own arguments and rebuttals. Each one trying to refute the other. It's a matter similar to.... HE SAID - SHE SAID. Some of you said "oh betsy you're a creationist, so therefore you'll refuse to acknowledge and see what we're saying." Well, I can say the same thing to you: You are Atheists, or more Atheists-than Agnostics....your belief lie solely on the premise that there is no God. So of course you'll refuse to acknowledge and see what ID theory is saying. More so, acknowledgement of ID means KABOOM to your faith! Face it, you've got more....or should I say everything to lose.....by acknowledging the existence of Design. You're fighting for the survival of your faith! So let's not kid around. Be mature enough to at least acknowledge that using my belief as an argument smacks of....desperation....lack of any sensible rebuttals....and so childish. Anyway, just so to accomodate your silly argument that since I'm a believer of God therefore I cannot be objective about it.....I gave you the view of one who could be really objective about the whole thing regarding this: A PPHILOSOPHER (of course he'll use reason, logic and rational thinking)....and he's an ATHEIST to boot! An Atheist who after embarking on a lengthy debate (imagine the amount of research this fellow did preparing for those debates), ended up abandoning Atheism and embracing Deism. Not only that, he criticized Evolution and supports ID! No wonder you want to exclude his testimony! You know....we all know...what the testimony of Antony Flew means! And we know why he's much more credible than Dawkins. Dawkins can't....and won't be objective ...or open to anything that might suggest...or hint that there is a God. And that bias manifested itself in his book God Delusion, which Flew criticized. Remember, Flew was on the side of Atheism when he embarked on these lengthy debates over decades. A Philosopher with quite a reputation to uphold! He wouldn't just go on these discussion without being armed to the teeth! Needless to say, he studied and researched the arguments and rebuttals of the other side as well as Evolution's side. He wouldn't put his reputation at stake by being irresponsible and negligent! Or worse, by being ignorant! Besides, and most important of all....his own faith in Atheism depended on it! I bet his main purpose was to debunk the "myth" of God when he got into these debates. He was an Atheist after all. Not one of you guys debating here truly knows a lot about what you're talking about! Yours are just embellished mish-mash....lifted from here and there...arrogant claims of having had college or university training by one or two (which actually is irrelevant, and really looks like just mere delusions on the part of these one or two - since just digesting the way their arguments are presented give one terrible heartburn). We could tell who really among the posters here went to College or University. And it ain't the one who keeps saying he did! Anyway, that's the sum of it. Bottom line: Theory of ID is far more convincing.

Jerry has a very good point. Females are "hard-wired" to be nurturers. I wonder how many working moms are racked by guilt ...or feelings of "loss," for not having enough time to spend with their family, especially their children? One thing I noticed when I'm around women....they tend to always whine or complain about their lot. Definitely, it is more stressful for women these days than in the past. Juggling two roles...and let's face it, most of them still do most of the house chores! Let's be honest, the quality of life for the child and family suffers. I suspect one of the reasons why we have a high percentage of obese children is due to the fact that most of them ends up eating unhealthy foods. Who has the time to really do home-made cooking these days? Just go for ready-to-serve commercially-packed dinners, or fastfood outlets. Of course, materialism reign supreme these days....so the pressure is really high. If you want those extras in life, I guess you just have to get out there and work. I don't see what "freedom" the feminists are on about?

The article says: What exactly do they mean by "religious affiliation?" No religion? Non-member of any religious congregation? I'll use myself as an example: I no longer consider myself a Catholic. And I am not a member of any congregation. But I consider myself very much a Christian, in fact stronger than ever in my belief than when I was a member of a congregation. Could it be that a lot of people got disgusted with those sex-scandals that started streaming steadily in past two decades involving preachers/priests from various ministries, hence a big drop in percentage? But does that mean they no longer consider themselves as Christians? I'm just sking....because that could be quite possible. They might be just like me.

Wow! This is good! I've noticed lately that there seems to be some sort of change in the climate....a subtle shifting. Believe it or not: I've viewed several movies now that have some positive implications or message on God, religion, faith. I've seen on Tyra Banks show segments that shows moral values of young people (some teens) swinging to the "right." Even those assortment of "Judges" show. bravely invoke God and display Christian values. Judge Mathis' most-memorable cases over the years (special show due to his 10th anniversay) tracked down two litigants of two separate cases....one found God, and the other a woman who suffered so many illnesses (survived Cancer of uterus - and had a baby - only to be diagnosed later on with MS), still clings to faith. The amazing thing for me is that these stories have been highlighted. CTV newsnet recently mentioned that a poll among the teens show that their values are more "conservative" compared to their parents. Teens and young people advocating and promoting abstinence (bravely on tv)....not only to combat STD, but unwanted pregnancy. On a talkshow just recently, the heartwarming story of a very young couple who've been married for 2 years and had not been able to consummate the marriage due to some psychological and/or physiological problems by the wife....putting emphasis on commitment and love. The husband saying: "For better or for worse, in sickness and in health." And it turned out, they were not the only ones who's got the same kind of problem....and the same kind of values. I don't know if I'm just hoping too much that I "see" and make so much of these little things....

Hah! For a sec I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me! I was certain a thread exists about a Reader's Digest survey that gave a very positive result about Harper. So this thread is just a prank by a kid..... Much as the tolerant side of me says be merciful....I must say this child is getting to be quite irritating - not the prank, mind you for I enjoy a good laugh - but being the evil Conservative that I am, I insist that children shouldn't be allowed to join adult discussions!

No matter the numbers of years you spent sitting in biology classes, no matter the amount of books you've read from cover to cover, no matter the resources - most notable TalkOrigin - you wield about as your answer to everything.....you have not - I repeat - have not, really given any sensible rebuttals to most of the arguments I've presented! All you did was to use various forms of contortions - a lot of extrapolations.... various attempts to derail the flow of arguments by persistently bringing in irrelevant matters that were already addressed in the past.....irrelevant demands....self-acclaimed "authorities" on the science of biology and therefore, "experts" on the topic of evolution.....unfair demands in usage of resources....distortions.....dishonesty by deliberately taking my statement out of context....etc.., Then there's this ridiculous notion PHILOSOPHERS don't count! It gives me the impression that there is this negative feeling towards rational thinkers. Rational thinkers who present rational arguments and/or criticisms, like FLEW! I guess they need reminding that Spinoza was a Philosopher! And if I'm not mistaken, not only did he inspire Einstein....but also Darwin. Dawkins thinks he's cool! But the biggest kicker of all time is the narrow-minded and ridiculous demand to omit other sciences and just confine ourselves to BIOLOGY! If you think that paleontology, genetics, geology et al, are not a part of the study of life forms, then there’s a huge gap in your understanding. In fact, Darwinism relies on these sciences to verify Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately for evolutionists, they’ve let him down. You call this a discussion???? All you did was prove what Antony Flew said in his scathing review of Dawkins: And you proved what I've said: Dawkins is more into his Atheistic religion, burning with fervor to demolish the faith of others in a god or God. He preaches the word of No-God. Discredit opposition by any means. Disciples and Followers mimic Dawkins! Talk about a real charismatic Preacher! In other words, all you did was prove the point of this thread! Demonstrated your burning fervor in your faith. Fundamentalist attitudes. In fact, you were so caught up in your frenzy that you forgot what this thread is supposed to be about!! See the title of this thread? EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER So, there's nothing more to discuss....or I might say argue about! You've provided the undeniable conclusion I rest my case. CASE CLOSED! The End. So I will say bye-bye.. But before I go, let me give you a little meaningful present. Here's an excerpt from....

Ha-ha-ha, coming from someone who relied heavily on...TALKORIGIN! I bet most of your spoutings are still coming from TalkOrigin! Speaking of TalkOrigin, you never did get back to me about that observation I mentioned about that site. Strange......you disappeared from the radar screen when I questioned you about it. Out of context quoting....hmmm....someone from your side of the fence here can better explain to you about that ploy. Not true!!! I posted from an Atheist site! You know, the Atheist who reviewed the book, The Irrational Atheist (Dissecting The Unholy Trinity Of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens). Remember? The atheist who said he found it "painful" reading the book because it really tore apart the arguments of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens! You must've missed that. That guy (Rasmussen) implored the Unholy Trinity to come up with a good rebutt. Here, check this! http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727 Anyway, you fed from TalkOrigin ! So why should it be different for you? I can't and you can???? That must mean you are losing! Btw, feel free to go to Apologetics and Creationist sites.....you're invited. Ciao. I won't be replying until there's something worth responding to.

You think that's the reason I posted that???? Read again and maybe you'll get it! Hint: Bold