Creation

[cybercoma]

All of that... still not evidence for a creator.

[betsy]

All of that... still not evidence for a creator.

Pssst. Remember the forensic tech analogy?

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?

Uh... by proving someone was stabbed, the forensic techs haven't actually found the killer.

Betsy:

Of course not....yet. It's just the start. But eventually, most murders end up getting solved....the killers getting caught.

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

I bet you still don't get it.

Bye-bye.

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[BC_chick]

I remember in my second year of university I came across my first creationist (and thankfully the last). I didn't even know such people exist and I thought she was joking when she asked if I believe in evolution.

Our discussion went on and I thought she's actually very intelligent and well-spoken. And by that I mean crazy as a bat and quite deluded about her convictions.

I've never been one to debate unicorns and the tooth-fairy so I excused myself to leave.

As I was at the door about to leave she said she's sorry for getting so worked up but she just can't believe so many people are willing to just blindly follow what one man believed.

I asked if she's talking about Darwin or Jesus and that's pretty much where the discussion ended. I never saw her again.

K, I shared my story, now can someone give me the Coles Notes to what those last three posts from Betsy are about? I'm not particularly up for 28 pages of ramble to find out.

[cybercoma]

K, I shared my story, now can someone give me the Coles Notes to what those last three posts from Betsy are about? I'm not particularly up for 28 pages of ramble to find out.

Evolution is false, thus Creationism is true. Filled with "an army of smiley faces" [bambino's words not mine] and enormous bold font.

[Oleg Bach]

Who cares how we got here? What's important is what are we going to do to sustain this wonderful place now that we are here!

[betsy]

I remember in my second year of university I came across my first creationist (and thankfully the last). I didn't even know such people exist and I thought she was joking when she asked if I believe in evolution.

Our discussion went on and I thought she's actually very intelligent and well-spoken. And by that I mean crazy as a bat and quite deluded about her convictions.

I've never been one to debate unicorns and the tooth-fairy so I excused myself to leave.

As I was at the door about to leave she said she's sorry for getting so worked up but she just can't believe so many people are willing to just blindly follow what one man believed.

I asked if she's talking about Darwin or Jesus and that's pretty much where the discussion ended. I never saw her again.

K, I shared my story, now can someone give me the Coles Notes to what those last three posts from Betsy are about? I'm not particularly up for 28 pages of ramble to find out.

Try reading from page 26. That should give you an accurate idea where we're at now.

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

Try reading from page 26. That should give you an accurate idea where we're at now.

Dont do it BC... This thread isnt even worth 30 seconds of your time.

[Oleg Bach]

Dont do it BC... This thread isnt even worth 30 seconds of your time.

Here is 10 seconds that I can lend you - use it well - oppps times up!

[betsy]

Dont do it BC... This thread isnt even worth 30 seconds of your time.

Shellshocked Dre couldn't keep away.....and as you can see, she's still here!

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Shellshocked Dre couldn't keep away.....and as you can see, she's still here!

Glad you are having fun....now off I go for some cheap and tastey asian take out - I can`t spell Chiness food - are you still allowed to call it that.....

[betsy]

Dont do it BC... This thread isnt even worth 30 seconds of your time.

You remind me of a Die Hard movie! A battered guy standing in the middle of an airport runway, frantically waving flags to steer landing planes away from an area!

[Saipan]

Disproving evolution does nothing to prove Intelligent Design.

True. And vice versa.

[Saipan]

I've never been one to debate unicorns and the tooth-fairy

Did anyone?

[cybercoma]

True. And vice versa.

You're right. A century of scientific investigation and evidence prove evolution.

[Saipan]

HOW?

There's only evidence of species appearing and disappearing.

Skeletons of phesant, partridge, chicken and ruffed grouse is not a prove of evolution. Except to believers.

[betsy]

A century AND STILL COUNTING.

So-called evidence that were and are refuted. Nothing solid. Not a single one. NONE.

On top of that, science itself had just recently made this finding.

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

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

I'm still waiting for any articles/sources refuting that latest posted article. If the best argument that evolution offers is squashed like a bug, just like all the other so-called evidence(s) of the past....what there is left?

Compare with Intelligent Design:

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

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

Evolution should've been looked at critically decades ago and thrown out......except that science didn't want to deal with the idea of a god. Neo-Darwinism is very close-minded. Boxed in. It survives simply because of secularism.

Edited July 4, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

After all that's been said in this topic, and in the topics The Bible, Video Debates, and The Church of the Non-believers, I ask:

Why do you dismiss Intelligent Design and yet fully embrace evolution?

[Oleg Bach]

After all that's been said in this topic, and in the topics The Bible, Video Debates, and The Church of the Non-believers, I ask:

Why do you dismiss Intelligent Design and yet fully embrace evolution?

When a burr - that pricly seed attatches itself to your pant cuff and travels for a couple of kilometers using YOUR energy and ablity to move - as a tool to spread out it self - then that plant has an intelligence. Intelligence is found though out all of nature. Is this intelligence a design? Of course it is - to be intelligent it must have a design and to have a design it can only be generated through an intelligence.

What is NOT intelligent are two human beings debating supposedly with intelligence if intelligence (GOD} exists or not! This defys logic that we continue NOT to come to some sort of agreement_ that there are always two camps in regards to creation and our existance being some sort of strange accident. It's such a waste of time - but does make for a lot of fun - maybe God created this question in order that we have a game of amusement?

[cybercoma]

Why do you dismiss Intelligent Design and yet fully embrace evolution?

Because even if you debunked every last detail about evolution (you haven't), you still would not have proven Intelligent Design.

[GostHacked]

Villagers demand BIGGER FONTS !!!!!!

At least this thread now provides some entertainment.

[Oleg Bach]

Villagers demand BIGGER FONTS !!!!!!

At least this thread now provides some entertainment.

Wish I knew how to make bigger font....no really - the big font always looks like someone yelling in your face. When someone uses volume it signifys an inner violence...I don't appreciate violence or coersive attempts at changing my thinking.

[Saipan]

When a burr - that pricly seed attatches itself to your pant cuff and travels for a couple of kilometers using YOUR energy and ablity to move - as a tool to spread out it self - then that plant has an intelligence.

Where did it get that intelligence?

[Oleg Bach]

Where did it get that intelligence?

From only one source...Intelligence generates it self - That intelligence did not "evolve" from sludge. No matter how adaptable that pre-mordial slime is. It's logic that dictates that design took place - Why are people so averse to the idea that the universe is conscious and it thinks? We are but specks on a speck of blue dust in an endless void...yet we think...and are aware...surely intelligence exists at all levels...................much like my idea of the big bang - It was if the theory is correct an act of intelligence...If there was a great nothing to begin with - that NOTHING - could have stayed a NOTHING - but that nothing decided on being a something...that is an intelligent decision...it took a thought....

Back to the clever burr...no matter how simple the living entity is...it had a thought that was perhaps collective and took a million years to formulate but it had designs on my pant cuff...It waited for me to pass and it attatched itself and took a ride in order to ensure the survival of itself....It is quite remarkable - and a stunningly well designed piece of work!

[Saipan]

So the Great Itself did it.

Was Mother Nature there or did she came later?

[dre]

You remind me of a Die Hard movie! A battered guy standing in the middle of an airport runway, frantically waving flags to steer landing planes away from an area!

Actually I wrote one post in response to someone that asked, warning them that this is a very low quality thread thats pretty much devoid of any substance. And that to you = "frantically waving flags to steer people away".

I thought I performed a valuable public service! At no charge.