betsy

No! If there's any explaining to do....it will have to come from you! After all the evidence that your theory is going down the toilet were provided by these men who play key roles behind that theory! You explain why Darwin, at one point capitulated and acknowledged Design....and all through his life, until the time of his death....was torn and tormented about it! Explain why Antony Flew - a long-time hard-core Atheist, known as a legend - just decided to drop Atheism and embraced deism! Not only that, he criticized Evolution and flatly concluded that the theory of ID is far more convincing! His renouncement of Atheism is very consistent with his statement! A century later after Darwin , explain why Dawkins grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design!

So what if dinosaurs walked the earth! I've strayed off-topic a while back just to satisfy one of the poster's question and brought up Genesis! The argument here is that Evolution theory has nothing solid! It's full of holes, being patched up through extrapolations by fundamentalist evolutionists who - quite understandably, being atheists - are fighting for the survival of their faith! Your fight is not for scientific truth of origin. Your fight is for the survival of Atheism! You know that the theory of ID blows Atheism to extinction! Darwin and Dawkins - both leading men of the theory of Evolution - then and now - both admitted to the possibility of Design! Philosopher long-time Atheist Flew compounded that by not only admitting to its possibility...but also dropped Atheism like a hot potato AND embraced deism! That ought to be a clear message.....there is Something out there beyond your ken! They call it "Design." But we all know what "Design" really means, don't we. Face it! You're the ones with delusions! Important men behind the theory of evolution have all but abandoned ship! I wouldn't be surprised if twenty years from now, Dawkins will "come out" and do an Antony Flew-like recant!

I'm not "hiding." As a matter of fact, I'm exposing.

Darwin was talking about and admitted and tormented about Design. Until the time of his death. Fact. Refer to thread on DARWIN. Dawkins was referring to Design in that interview. Fact. Refer to thread on DAWKINS. Flew was referring to ID, denounced atheism and embraced deism. Criticized evolution and endorsed ID theory as far more convincing. Fact. Refer to thread on REJOICE ON THIS DAY. I'm talking about Design...or ...ID. They all either embraced it and/or admitted to its possibility. An admission that knocked the legs off Atheism! Nobody's saying they believe in creationism. Your rant is irrelevant! Stick to the argument!

Why?

Forget creationism! Don't look any further. Just focus on these three men.....with key-roles in the theory of evolution. The behaviours and comments of Darwin, Dawkins and Flew speak for themselves. I've provided clear, consistent, credible evidences to support my claim. You have not. What more back-up scientific evidence do I need other than the stature and credibility of these two scientific men who both admit to the same possibility, spanning a century between them ? Darwin, torn and tormented even unto the time of his death? Not to mention the behaviour of a Philosopher who suddenly - and decisively - dropped Atheism in favor of Deism?

All these song-and-dance by evolutionists trying desperately to defend their theory is quite useless. They can quote any supposed-proofs...and extrapolate to their hearts' content. It's futile. The truth that's finally come out is that evolution does not have anything solid to stand on! Period! The direction clearly points to ID! Darwin and Dawkins, both acknowledged the possibility! What more, a hard-core Philosopher - apparently a legend among Atheists - had suddenly dropped Atheism and embraced Deism, criticized evolution and endorsed the ID theory! The evidence I've provided proved that without any doubt! That Dawkins himself, the self-proclaimed prophet of modern-day Atheism, would grudgingly admit to the possibility of Design, practically knocked the legs off Atheism! The reaction of the atheists in these discussions is quite understandable. What we see here on these threads are shell-shocked followers who are in denial!

Can you provide any other source aside from TALKORIGIN???

No. The problem is you took my statement out of context. And when I corrected you....look how you're responding. Instead of acknowledging it's just an honest mistake on your part - you try to twist your way out at MY expense! Bye-bye!

He quoted my reply to MDancer on this thread, using my statement - "whether it's true or not, is not really a big deal for me." I was referring to Hammurabi being disputed....Gosthack took it out of context to mean something else.

What are you talking about???? Are you deliberately taking my statements out of context? M Dancer and I were talking about that Hammurabi! Pay attention!

Irrelevant.

You asked me that before and I answered it already.

Note: I edited and added a few things on my last post.

You're cheatiiiiing. Of course, you know that ploy only support my argument about evolutionists' love for extrapolating when it comes to presenting supposed "proofs" for facts. They seem to be quite adept with the skill of......distortions or manipulations.

So why is science - although reluctantly - seemed to be getting "steered" and drawn towards the "invisible?" Why was Darwin so tormented by the inexplicable....until the time of his death? See DARWIN thread. Why did Dawkins - although grudgingly - accept the possibility of this Designer? See DAWKINS thread. Why did a hard-core Atheist Antony Flew - a PHILOSOPHER at that - and apparently a legend among Atheists, not only abandoned Atheism like a hot potato, not only embraced Deism....but also criticized Evolution theory, and flatly stated that the ID theory is far more convincing! See ANTONY FLEW on REJOICE thread. These men are the pillars of your belief. I wouldn't characterize these men as ignorant....would you? And yet... You are questioning the credibility of these men! Looks like we're about to go in another circular discussion with you here....so until you have something new, and substantial to say that's worth replying to, I'll be ignoring your posts. No offense intended Cybercoma but I don't care about your personal opinion. I can just as easily say you are deluded and not give anything to back that up - althoug in this instance, I need no back up to support my claim about your delusions. Your statement perfectly shows that -....but that wouldn't do in a debate. And I am here for a debate, not idle, senseless chatter.

Oh no, not claiming victory. Just saying...it's being refuted. Anyway whether it's true or not is really not a big deal (for me).

Time out! Time out! I thought Benny was put on the ignore-list....and Gosthack was waved bye-bye???? And I've waved au revoir to Cybercoma...after he told me he was "dumping" me! And here we are back on the bickering again.....like kids. I must confess I overdid it with my jokes on poor Molly.....Hey Moll, listen up. I'm sorry.

WHOA! Hold your horses! It's being R E F U T E D! (again). "The implications of all this, false as I believe, dating, is that the famous Hammurabic Code, which - as we shall find - has likenesses to the Torah of Moses, is considered to have been the inspiration for the presumably later Mosaïc Law of the Hebrews. According to the Hickman-based reconstruction, however, Hammurabi came on the scene about half a millennium after Moses. Thus in reality, if Hickman is right, it would have been Moses who had influenced the Hammurabic Code. By the same token, Hammurabi can no longer be the biblical Amraphel of Shinar (Genesis 14:1), contemporary of Moses' predecessor Abram, as was thought for so long. {I concur with David Rohl (The Lost Testament, pp. 119, 132-133) that this Amraphel was the same king as Amar-Sin of the Ur III dynasty}. But what may still hold good is the long-held view that the names 'Hammurabi' and 'Amraphel' may be equated, as here explained by Knight (op. cit.): Schrader proposed, in 1887, to identify this prince [Hammurabi] with Amraphel, King of Sennaar, mentioned in Genesis 14. That Senmar (Hebr. Shin'ar) corresponds to Shaanhaar, an Assyrian name for Babylonia, is beyond dispute; that the two names Hammurabi and Amraphel are phonetically identical, most scholars readily admit … the identification of Hammurabi and Amraphel is, to say the least, very probable [sic]. If the name, 'Hammurabi', is the same as the name, Amraphel, then it would be of very Hebrew-like meaning, "The Mouth of God [El] has spoken" (amra-pi-el) (cf. Exodus 19:8); a name perhaps being Solomon's justification for ruling (especially when confronted by the rebellion of his brother, Adonijah. 1 Kings 1:5-53; 2:13-25). Compare this to Hammurabi's Epilogue: "Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I"; as well as Hammurabi's Preface: "…then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land …". http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.html Read on....long read though but very much explained! Hammurabi may be in fact, King Solomon!

Any way here's an excerpt from The California Institute for Ancient Studies: "There has been a great deal of divergence of opinion over the years as to the date to be assigned to Hammurabi, so much so that Courville, who radically revised Hammurabi down to c. 1400 BC, wrote in 1971 of Hammurabi as "floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea" [20]. According to Kevin Knight in his New Advent offline article, entitled "Hammurabi".[25]: The King-lists would suggest 2342 B.C. as the date of [Hammurabi's] accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to be interpreted, for from the "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings", published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and second Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon, but on "the Sea-country". Other indications furnished by Nabonidus, Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin and Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 B.C.; Tofteen adopts the dates 2121-2066 B.C.; King suggests 1990-1950 B.C.; Father Scheil, O.P., says 2056 B.C. is the probable date of the king's accession, which Father Dhorme places in 2041. [End of quote] In other words, the conventional chronologists have really had no idea in which era to place the great Hammurabi." http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.html Anyway, back to the topic.

Hey Moll, cheer up! Your lure is working. See? Right on cue.... Victim # 3 just stumbled around the corner. Btw, how many do you want for a chorus?

So I was curious to know who this god of Hamurabi is: "Shamash was the common Akkadian name of the sun god and god of justice in Babylonia and Assyria, corresponding to Sumerian Utu. The Sumerians practiced a polytheistic religion, with anthropomorphic gods or goddesses representing forces or presences in the world, in much the same way as later Greek mythology. According to said mythology, the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves but freed them when they became too much to handle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamash Well....well.....this is intriguing! Sounds more like another type of Creationism! Involving not one...or two....but several gods and goddesses! Let me try my hand at extrapolation....ala-evolutionist scientist: Cybercoma gave HAMURABI as a one-word answer. Twice, in fact. According to their "scriptures" Hamurabi worshipped the god Shamash. Shamash corresponds to the Sumerians' belief in gods, and that gods originally created humans. Therefore, it is very likely...and it seems like....that after all the twisting and shoutings, Cybercoma is just another type of Creationist. Of course, I'm advancing that as a fact!

Not tricky. It's just that you still don't get it. You don't even recognize why your last question regarding reminiscence of biology classes is irrelevant. See what happens when you fool around with that catchy tune? Check your past posts! Read from the start of this thread. And other threads. If you can't take the same medicine, then don't dish it out! Btw, how many "others" do you need to come to a conclusion that this is credible?" Doing a "survey" now, are we? Start a poll thread if that's your thingy....although I don't think it will give you a credible conclusion. What is this? Twice in a row! All of a sudden the word "extrapolate" is popular with you. I wonder if you even knew that word existed before this? Speaking of the word....and speaking of relevancy.....keep going, don't give up. It may take a while but you'll eventually get there. You'll finally catch on.

Remind me of an old pop sex question among women that refers to orgasm. EEEEEK! Get away from me! YOU'RE CONTAGIOUS!!!! See? You gave it to Rad!!!! Now you're doing duets....going on with your idle and senseless humming! Mind you, you do seem to be in perfect harmony - not a plug for on-line dating, but there's a thought. A good match I must say! Meeting of the "minds".....whatever that is. I don't know if it's politically correct to say "soul-mates." I guess not. Twilight Zone soundtrack to what seems like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers! Or Mind-Snatchers. The Board's vcitim #1 and #2. Where did it all originate? But you two go ahead enjoy yourselves. Keep humming together! I don't want to be the #3. Get another Atheist! Bwa-ha-ha-ha