Creation

[ToadBrother]

cough<chortle>cough

Betsy doesn't want to admit that the number of biologists who accept evolution so outweigh the number that don't that the number that don't is beyond insignificant. Rather than deal with that reality, she calls all science into question, except of course when she wants to co-opt it to declare "science confirms the Bible."

Frankly, I'm still not convinced Betsy has the least idea what biological evolution is.

[cybercoma]

Forget scientists. The number of Christians that believe in God and accept evolution outweigh the idiots that deny it.

[betsy]

You brought back 29 Evidences by Theobald. That was critiqued by Ashby Camp;

A Critique of Douglas Theobalds

29 Evidences for Macroevolution

by Ashby Camphttp://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Furthermore, there's also this article:

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM

Douglas Theobald published a paper in Nature purporting to demonstrate "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry."

The paper makes no official claim to be a response to scientific skeptics of universal common ancestry, but given Theobald's notoriety as the author of the widely criticized "Talk Origins Common Ancestry FAQ," his motivation is clear.

If there were no doubts about universal common ancestry ("UCA"), his paper would be unnecessary. This becomes especially clear when you see the trivially obvious point his paper actually establishes as part of his "test" of universal common ancestry.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Speaking of your favorite site, Talk Origin. Here's an article accusing it of deception.

Talk.Origins:

Deception by Omission

Jorge A. Fernandez

© 2002 by Jorge A. Fernandez. All Rights Reserved.

The Talk.Origins (TO) website (http://www.Talk.Origins.org) is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and answers to the numerous criticisms to this theory. Although TO states that it is a forum for discussionpresumably unbiasedmuch evidence testifies to the contrary. Ive been observing the TO site from the sidelines for quite some time and have until now restrained myself from responding to the materialistic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspecting. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from young people and watching those impressionable minds being manipulated through TO indoctrination.

Talk.Origins is very hard to targeta fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the fact of evolution, these people will employ a definition of evolution [Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.

But it doesnt!....

The focus of this article is on those deceptions invoked by the TO writers, which are mostly achieved by omissions, as is demonstrated in the illustrations below. It is often what the people at TO do not say that makes TO a propaganda/indoctrination site as opposed to an educational site.

The Talk.Origins FAQ page (http://www.Talk.Origins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html) gives readers a shortened version of TOs position. On February 13, 2002 this site had 24 questions, with brief answers and links to relevant files. My responses ® to selected entries (Qs & As) taken verbatim from the TO FAQ page, reveal how the TO writers have selectively omitted essential facts in their efforts in order to lend credibility to the TO perspective:

HOW DO YOU KNOW ITS TRUE?

Q: No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know its true?

A: Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.

R: Need I repeat it? Yes, if evolution is confined to saying that, biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time then TOs conclusion of it is true is an accurate statement. However, its what TO doesnt say that makes their answer deceiving, and this continuous deception makes TO an indoctrination site for advancing philosophical naturalismbuyers beware!

For the record, every informed creationist that I know of accepts changes, mutations, adaptations and even speciationthere is no dispute here. The real dispute is in the naturalists extrapolation from (observable) genetic change to (unobservable) Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution to (unobservable) cause for being. Such an extension is no longer science, it is a metaphysical transfiguration. TO does not inform its readers of this, since to do so weakens the case for their apparent true objective: Deception by omission.

Q: Then why has no one ever seen a new species occur?

A: Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.

R: This is absolutely true [speciation as science defines it has been observed] but, as I have stated already, there is no dispute here. However, TO does not get to the core of the matter and leads its readers to the notion that the origins controversy is one of science versus religionthat creationists deny the fact of speciation and are thus ignorant. Why dont they mention the critical point, namely that creationists do accept speciationbut the dispute is about the causing agent of speciation, biodiversity and, ultimately, biological origins? Why do they make false accusations against creationists, instead of facing the empirical roadblock to the arbitrary extrapolation of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from the variations observed in speciation? Deception by omission.

Q: Doesnt evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

A: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.

R: TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted. This is simply not true.

The essential information that TO is either ignorant of (or is concealing from its readers) is that when snowflakes form they do so according to thermodynamic principles that produce patterns (i.e., symmetric crystalline structures) that are far from the asymmetric, far more complex structures required for life. Whats more, symmetric structures occur naturally because thermodynamic equilibrium is a natural state. On the other hand, lifeany lifeis actually a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium; a significant departure that requires large amounts of directed energy to be sustained, according to requirements defined in advance by every organisms genetic code.

Similarly, the example of trees grow and embryos develop is again an oversimplification based on either ignorance on the part of TO, or a willful concealing of the whole truth from their readers. The point is not that organisms grow but how they are able to grow. The typical, shortsighted response is that they are receiving energy from the sunit is an open system and this energy provides the fuel for growth. Recently, Harvards own Ernst Mayr served up precisely this open system explanation in his latest book, What Evolution Is [basic Books, 2001, page 8]. True, energy is being supplied but the main point is being missed (intentionally?).

Lets take a blow torch to a tree or an embryo, thereby supplying it with plenty of energy, and then lets stand back and watch them grow. Of course, whatll happen is they will be incinerated! Energy is not the key; energy reception, utilization and storage is the key. In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management systema system that enables input, conversion, storage and outputif a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop. This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman. Why doesnt TO present the real issue and respond to it? Deception by omission.

Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.

A: And irrelevant. Scientists dont claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from primitive precursors.

R: Lets just focus on the ending words of their answer, ...from primitive precursors. Evolution advocates have always believed that it was possible for nature to begin with simple, primitive life and evolve over eons towards ever-increasing complexity. This is, after all, a major postulate of evolution. Theres just one problem with this hypothesis and its a whopper of a problem!

As science and technology advance, what we are finding is that the notion of simple, primitive life is receding at an ever-quickening pace. It is now clear that the idea of a simple gelatinous goo actually necessitates a level of complexity that cannot be explained naturally even letting the imagination run rampant. Likewise, the simple cell has been found to be anything but simple. In fact, the cell is now understood to be of a complexity that eludes all scientific attempts to quantify it and the more we study it the more complexities are being unveiled.

These are just a few of the reasons why those that want to uphold evolution while retaining naturalism (their metaphysical position) have come up with aliens or with hypothetical natural mechanisms of self-organization or with other contrivancesits the only way to explain these vast directed complexities while keeping the big G out!

Thus, when TO uses the words ...from primitive precursors, why dont they mention to their readers the fact that the concept of a primitive organism is a philosophical ideal for which there is not a single shred of empirical scientific evidence? Why dont they mention that current scientific evidence leads to but one reasonable conclusion, namely, that the simplest conceivable organism must be anything but simple or primitive if it is to be capable of carrying out any of lifes functions. Is TO ignorant of these facts? I dont believe they are. Deception by omission.

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And here's Ashby's reply to Theobald's response to his critique of 29 Evidences.

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

Copyright 2002 by Ashby L. Camp. All rights reserved.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,”[1] Douglas Theobald asserted that the hypothesis of universal common ancestry had been proven scientifically because 29 falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis had been fulfilled. I explained in my critique of his article why that is not the case. Dr. Theobald has now posted a lengthy rejoinder to the first section of my critique, accusing me of devious tactics, widespread ignorance, and a host of intellectual sins. I leave it to the reader to judge the fairness of those charges.

More...

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

[betsy]

With these rebuttals from Camp,

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

Copyright 2002 by Ashby L. Camp. All rights reserved.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

....and this scathing rebuke from Luskin....

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

And.....these two latest news....

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

29 Evidences definitely went....pffffffffft.

Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of your favorite site, Talk Origin. Here's an article accusing it of deception.

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

I think there is ample evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is misused by creationists, p[probably because most creationists missed that class.

[betsy]

I think there is ample evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is misused by creationists, p[probably because most creationists missed that class.

Kicking and screaming....as you reach the end....

Face it! You guys have gotten yourself in a corner with nowhere to go! You've boxed yourself in and making a valiant - yet futile - effort at last stand!

[DogOnPorch]

Kicking and screaming....as you reach the end....

Face it! You guys have gotten yourself in a corner with nowhere to go! You've boxed yourself in and making a valiant - yet futile - effort at last stand!

More like: most of us have had our fun and are willing to just let you rant away like a crazy person.

[Shakeyhands]

so after 28 pages of mostly nonsense, will the Ceationism thread now go away?

[cybercoma]

Not until betsy cuts and pastes every last online article about it here.

[betsy]

so after 28 pages of mostly nonsense, will the Ceationism thread now go away?

NO!

Oh-ho-ho....of course evolutionists would want the Creation thread to go away....far, far away....

Understandable.

Like Count Drac would want the sun to go away....far, far away...

Edited June 30, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Face it! You guys have gotten yourself in a corner with nowhere to go! You've boxed yourself in and making a valiant - yet futile - effort at last stand!

And just so you'd understand what I mean by that statement above:

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010

In March 2010, Douglas Theobald published a paper in Nature purporting to demonstrate "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry."

The paper makes no official claim to be a response to scientific skeptics of universal common ancestry, but given Theobald's notoriety as the author of the widely criticized "Talk Origins Common Ancestry FAQ," his motivation is clear. If there were no doubts about universal common ancestry ("UCA"), his paper would be unnecessary. This becomes especially clear when you see the trivially obvious point his paper actually establishes as part of his "test" of universal common ancestry.

Before going any further, I must make it clear that intelligent design (ID) is certainly not incompatible with common ancestry. ID refers to the mechanism of change, and does not claim that species are necessarily unrelated. So ID grants that it's possible that all living species shared a common ancestor, but ID doesn't require it. In fact, ID leaves multiple options open, which will be discussed in my next post.

In contrast, neo-Darwinism is inextricably wedded to common ancestry and requires a common ancestor (or common gene pool) for all living organisms. That's why neo-Darwinists must defend UCA at all costs. Testing UCA allows us to evaluate neo-Darwinian predictions, and understand what the evidence shows.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Neo-Darwinists, you guys are toast!

Edited June 30, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Not until betsy cuts and pastes every last online article about it here.

In 600pt font and with an army of smileys.

[Oleg Bach]

Why are you laughing? This writer is correct - because with the all mighty God there is no time...only us mere mortals are limited to the concepts of time. It is a device that we invented. It would make no sense for God to deal in days - "on the sixth day God said"............a person made this up...not God....creation and evolution took place in a millionth of a second - or a billion years - there is no difference in these measurements of so-called time.

[g_bambino]

It would make no sense for God to deal in days - "on the sixth day God said"............a person made this up...not God....

I see; rather like human years and dog years. What, then, is the precise difference between God days and human days? Approximately one to 365 billion?

[punct]

Edited June 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

I see; rather like human years and dog years. What, then, is the precise difference between God days and human days? Approximately one to 365 billion?

[punct]

No - I would estimate with my limited mortal mind that the difference would not be 365 billion...it would be more like 367 and one half billion. Your example of dog years hits the mark. Actually it might not be "approximately one to 365 billion" It might be and I say might because I am only using theory here....hummmmm Okay - approximately 365 billion to one - in favour of man. OR we can switch them back to the other now reversed set of figures.

It`s like my theory on heaven being earth - we are here for an eternity if you wish or imagine.

[Oleg Bach]

DOG years are exactly like GOD years. It is all about imagination - It seems to be exceptable that if a dog is really 7 years old in real time - we find it plausable to believe that it is actually really 49 years old in `dog years` . So why do humans do this - twist time....lawyers like to fool around with chronos also - It`s a form of deception in order gain some sort of advantage. What is the advantage to say the earth was created in 6 days as compared to 60 billion years................ question mark.

To answer that it appears that mankind puts GOD years in to man years...maybe it is an attempt to make man more like God or God more like man - I would surmise that to put creation into the realm of the 6 day mark...would be a form of pitiful rebellion which would in eccense make the creation story a lie....Holy cow...could it be that the use of man years regarding creation could be the begining of some sort of satanic rebellion.........question mark.

Man must create imaginary boundries in order to not panic in the void of endless eternity. People should stop fearing the unknown..the term God fearing is not and never was helpful - as if God would expect to gain some advantage in instilling fear and perhaps loathing in us ant like creatures. It makes no sense - sounds like some human beings are lieing in order to gain advantage over those that are more gulable....Perhaps the tree of knowledge is actually the tree of human imagination - One must have an imagination in order to believe in a lie.

[dre]

And just so you'd understand what I mean by that statement above:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Neo-Darwinists, you guys are toast!

Youre like the Iraqi Information Minister. People like you are on the run, and even most religious people in the industrial world believe in evolution to some degree. Meanwhile bible thumpers are in decline in virtually every modern nation.

In a few decades the debate over creation will be viewed the same way as the churches stance on heliocentrism. Just subsitute Darwin with Galileo.

The game is almost up betsy, and youre a freak even amongst most of your fellow Christians. You cant even convince THEM.

Edited June 30, 2011 by dre

[betsy]

Youre like the Iraqi Information Minister. People like you are on the run, and even most religious people in the industrial world believe in evolution to some degree. Meanwhile bible thumpers are in decline in virtually every modern nation.

In a few decades the debate over creation will be viewed the same way as the churches stance on heliocentrism. Just subsitute Darwin with Galileo.

The game is almost up betsy, and youre a freak even amongst most of your fellow Christians. You cant even convince THEM.

I'm just the messenger delivering the news. Blame Science!

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

Blame Camp and Luskin!

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin

You're just going through the stages of shellshock. Denial, anger, spitting and spewing.

It'll pass. Give it time.

[betsy]

Youre like the Iraqi Information Minister. People like you are on the run, and even most religious people in the industrial world believe in evolution to some degree. Meanwhile bible thumpers are in decline in virtually every modern nation.

In a few decades the debate over creation will be viewed the same way as the churches stance on heliocentrism. Just subsitute Darwin with Galileo.

The game is almost up betsy, and youre a freak even amongst most of your fellow Christians. You cant even convince THEM.

Speaking of convincing anyone... how can you even think to convince any thinking minds to take any of your rant seriously, SHELLSHOCKED DRE?

How can you make us think you know what you talk about....after showing us what you know about the history of western civilization, and how you butchered it thoroughly?

Just to refresh your memory, here's what's been immortalized on the web: your argument and my rebuttal from the other segment (Moral), under the topic, Teachers Brainwashing Our Children.

Its obvious. Youre proposing creationism be taught in a subject that it has nothing to do with. Science. Creationism would be just as out of place in a science class as biology is in a hockey school.

No these are STRENGHTS of the system, and every single prosperous first world nation has taken similar measures separate religious authority from civil society. The ones that havent are hellholes. The people who set our civilization up this way had actually LIVED in a time when the line between civil authority and the church was blurry or didnt exist at all, and under those conditions we saw extreme tyranny. Booting the church out of our government and schools is probably the single most important and enabling thing that western civilization have ever done. Its what sets us apart.

Even most religious people understand why its necessary for public schools to be secular. The very worst thing we could teach kids in school is doctrinal knowledge, whether its your doctrine or somebody elses.

No sorry this really is just a baseless rant. In science class we teach the scientific method, and body of evidence and knowledge produced by that method. The theory of evolution as it is today is our best attempt at using the scientific method to explain what we see in nature, and theres thousands of people doing millions of hours of work to keep improving it.

And whats hilarious is that in response to your worry about things being "passed off as facts", you would have us teach a doctrine created by the roman government thousands of years ago

Because all of the various different religions are the doctrines of private clubs. Its up to those private clubs to spread their own doctrines. The purpose of public schools is to teach people skills that they are going to need in the real world, to be productive. Schools are not there to teach the doctrines of private organizations.

Teach them yourself. For the government to endorse a specific body of religious knowledge is nothing short of tyranny. Even most religious people would be outraged, and rightfully so.

I must admit I'd be impressed by anyone who could describe the history of Western civilization in a single paragraph. However, you managed to get everything wrong (even the little you said).

First, you, like most people, don't understand the historical concept of separation of Church and State. The point was to prevent the interference of either in the other’s affairs and areas of jurisdiction, not to "boot" the church out. Although developed in the West, the concept is expressed, first as far as I know, in the Bible. When tempted by synagogue officials as to whether He believed He should pay taxes to the Roman authorities, Jesus said "...render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Is there nothing new!

A relatively recent example in Canada demonstrates the wisdom of such separation. In the early 1960s, the Duplessis government and the powerful RC Church in Quebec tried together to restrict the rights of a particular business by disallowing a business licence. The real reason for the restriction was the fact that the business owner was a Jehovah's Witness. The court found Duplessis and the involved church people guilty of whatever they were charged with.

The church in fact has always been the major and essential social influence in the West, both in our day-to-day lives and in our institutions. All our major universities are the product of the church - in most of Europe, the Roman Church and since the mid-sixteenth century, Protestant denominations, and in England, the Church of England. Come to think of it, where would all the atheist professors like Dawkins make a living if it wasn't for their ill-gained tenure.

Our legal systems also are based on Biblical law and teachings. The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the Judeo-Christian Gospels are the basis of the law of all Western societies. Our Common Law in Canada (Quebec's civil law is based on Roman Law, but its criminal law is based on the Common Law) and most if not all the U.S. was imported directly from England, which was there developed based on Christian moral standards and the process of precedent.

The booting out of the church started later. Napoleon, Marxism, Stalin and the U.S.S.R., Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler are some examples of the benefits of secular thinking. You may not see them as tyrannies in the severe sense such as Cromwell, or the Pope, or Louis XVI, but still...

However, the "booting out" that you so enthusiastically praise is somewhat different but every bit as insidious. It is the legislation preventing the teaching in public of Christian doctrine and is much newer and differently motivated, although it is equally based on the desire for power and control.

Even in the middle of the 20th century, the idea that the church was not, let alone should not be, a major influence on society, was considered ludicrous. And it still is ludicrous. That's why it has been necessary to propagandize, lie, legislate, and coerce poor children and mindless adults into believing what they know to be ludicrous.

Like most of those poor souls, you too have become a victim of the indoctrination of a secularist tyrant who has spent the last 60 or 70 years manipulating the population with the collusion of a large portion of the scientific community. And the indoctrination is not into a doctrine of science - a doctrine of science could live comfortably and happily alongside any other - it is an indoctrination into an ideology whose proponents intent to control, dictate and regulate. They understand the importance and power of Christianity and are intent on seeing it gone. They understand that those who believe in God don't see secularists (or scientists) as important or authoritative. So they will restrict your freedom of speech and expression until they are meaningless; they will restrict your right of access to information to only what they want you to believe. They already are. Maybe you imagine going along with it will protect you. It won't. Maybe these are the people you refer to.

...the people who set our civilization up this way...

and maybe you're okay with them. Poor you.

Okay, what does this mean?

the worst thing we can teach kids in school is doctrinal knowledge, whether it’s your doctrine or somebody elses.

I can accept "knowledge" in a loose sense to mean something like information being passed along that the teacher hopes will become the opinion of the kids (its truth believed or not by the teacher), but what about "doctrinal"?

I take it from your context, and your nature, that you mean by doctrine, religious belief, and therefore don't see scientific doctrine, as doctrine. But of course, you're wrong. Scientific theories and methodology are doctrinal if anything is.

So what you must mean is that it's really unacceptable to teach something in school,

whether it's your doctrine or somebody elses

but it's okay if it's your doctrine. That of course, doesn't really mean your doctrine; it is "your" doctrine only in the sense that it is what you learned in school, or on the net, or wherever.

Btw, what do you mean

Dre

teach a doctrine created by the roman government thousands of years ago

Do you mean the doctrine of Christ? Jesus was crucified by the Romans. They killed thousands of Christians in the 300 hundred years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Quite apart from the fact that it is decidedly not a doctrine of the Roman government, what does the age of a doctrine have to do with its validity?

One last point. If you teach scientific methodology in science class in the public system, things have certainly changed. We were taught science - told what science had "proved". That certainty is still the case today when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Anyway, to suggest that the theory of evolution explains what we see in nature is, to say the least, a contradiction. "What we see in nature" is now and observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain what we don't see in nature. And come to think of it, what we don't see in the fossil record either.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18125&st=255

Teachers brainwashing our children p 18.

Dre:

People like you are on the run, and even most religious people in the industrial world believe in evolution to some degree.

The game is almost up betsy, and youre a freak even amongst most of your fellow Christians. You cant even convince THEM.

And why is that? What's the biggest reason why?

Teachers brainwashing our children!

Chances are those "religious people in the industrial world" who believe the apes and the chimps are our poor relations got brainwashed as children too!

They got fed with that mythological fairy tale about The Frog Prince!

And its fairy tale sequel: The Emperor Chimp!

That's the most effective propaganda tool of our secularist society!

Furthermore, all Creationists believe in evolution to some degree! That's all been explained, numerous time! So you're getting all frothy for nothing.

I guess I'll have to patiently endure you as you go through your stages, praying that eventually you'd come to your senses.

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You still don't get it, do you betsy?

Disproving evolution does nothing to prove Intelligent Design.

[betsy]

You still don't get it, do you betsy?

Disproving evolution does nothing to prove Intelligent Design.

Huge Fonts don't work. Not bold print either. Several signs posted throughout to show the way didn't help at all. Detailed explanations, to no avail! Because he doesn't read!

On top of that he relies on MR CONFUSION!

This one is hopeless!

[betsy]

Not until betsy cuts and pastes every last online article about it here.

In 600pt font and with an army of smileys.

So here they are - The Blues Brothers - doing their duet, whining about the same old story.

Both wear the required dark glasses, that's why I have to do HUGE FONTS - in bold - to help them out. Together, they are formidable....a mighty and noisy gale of gas to be reckoned with, like the hot air balloon on a sultry July noon.

Separately, they're meanly tenacious (perhaps because mostly everything fly over their heads?), and at least we know one doesn't read!

Such tenacity deserves some recognition. So let me explain how by their own mouths they have earned their titles. Let's start with......

tadaaaa.....

PROVEN NO-READ MAN

If only the Creator can know this information, but it's science - proven... does that make science the Creator?

Betsy:

You might like to re-phrase that since your statement implies you don't know the difference between the meaning of created and proven.

Your rational thinking goes like this:

If the killer stabbed his victim (therefore he knew how the victim died), but it's forensic technicians who proved that the victim died from getting stabbed....does that make the forensic techs the murderer?

And you expect me to take your opinion seriously???

And you want me to believe that you know what you're on about talking about scientific methods with seeming "authority" on the subject.....when you offer this empirical evidence for all to see that you don't even grasp the simple statement you've quoted!

Now I see why you don't want anything cut-and-paste.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=525

I can cut and paste too!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=180

Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted.

I confess.

And, I'm sorry.

I feel ashamed of myself.

Betsy:

By the looks of it, that's not the only thing you failed to read. You also didn't read the article I posted, "William Craig on Krauss."

Didn't even read the topic title of the debate between Craig and Krauss.

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?

Otherwise you wouldn't use this as your sorry excuse for Dawkins.

I think this is the single most overlooked fact by devotees when they discuss Dawkins and other "Atheists", such as Krauss here. Earlier in the thread I made this very point that Richard Dawkins does not argue that God does not exist. He argues about the evidence for God's existence.

betsy:

So what's the point in talking to you? You don't read! Period.

Not even with your own cut-and-paste!

Therefore you don't even know what you're talking about! This is like talking to a toddler!

Come back to me when you've got something!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=195

As opposed to empirical sciences (natural, social), formal sciences presuppose no knowledge of contingent fact, they do not describe the real world and do not involve empirical procedures. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.

Although formal sciences are conceptual systems with no empirical content, this does not mean that they have no relation to the real world. But this relation is such that their formal statements hold in all possible worlds – whereas, statements based on empirical theories, such as, say, General Relativity or Evolutionary Biology, do not hold in all possible worlds, and may even turn out not to hold in this world.

That is why formal sciences are applicable in all domains and useful in all empirical sciences.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Even social science comes up with testable observable hypotheses and has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. I'm not sure if you actually read what you copy and paste, but it had absolutely nothing to do with supernatural "science".

Betsy:

Come again?

As opposed to empirical sciences

(natural, social),

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=240

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

and next....

MR CONFUSION *note: MR stands for "Major."

Ah, so at least you've read our words, finally. (Do you have some vision issues that require fonts to be huge?)

I do support my claim, dear. Archaeology has uncovered no evidence of human civilization and life around the planet being wiped out all at once.

Even some sane Christians accept this:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=660

And he did give a source. But...

Yes. That's from where I drew the quote. How did you not know that?

Yes. That's why I said "Even some sane Christians accept this."

Are you six years old? Perhaps it's your nap time.

[+]

Betsy:

Yoo-hoo, Oh Bambino.....where are yooouuuu?

I'm still waiting for your annnsweeeerr.

Where's the contradiction?

Kindly explain it to me, hon.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=705

You asked two questions, I answered both of them, as quoted in your post above. This one about a contradiction is new, and I've no clue what contradiction you're talking about.

I take it, though, that you're now forced to accept that there are claims in the Bible that have been proven by archaeology (and other scientific fields) to be false. I'm glad we could help.

betsy:

I thought the reason you posted that article was to show an archeological contradiction to a Biblical reference. That article however, only supported my own previous assertion!

Furthermore, it also supported another posted FACT!

Are you on my side?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=720

---------

A reputable archaeologist who was also a rabbi. A reputable archaeologist who's career peaked in the 1950s. A reputable archaeologist who asserted he didn't take the Bible literally. What meaning does his claim about no archaeological discovery disproving a Biblical passage have, then, to anyone but himself? Once we stray from the literal words of the Bible into personal interpretation, everything's subjective. So no archaeological discovery up to the 1950s disproved the Bible as Glueck interpreted it away from the literal. Who cares? To date, archaeology has proven quite a few parts of the Bible, as written, to be wrong. Science, broadly, has proven almost all the Bible to be mythical and impossible. That's precisely why the devout are forced to either stick to the literal and dismiss the science as a conspiracy, or move away from the literal and dilute it with added interpretation that fits the science.

[sp]

Betsy:

So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." Just for the record, here's the complete statement:

He didn't want to confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion!

Can you read that now? Is that any clearer?

Of all people, aren't you supposed to approve what he said???

Boy, you're truly confused. No wonder you're like a flea-bag doggie biting its tail (no offense to DOP)...on and on and on and on and on....going circular.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=810

Priceless!

That also explains their phobia of cut-and-paste.

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy