A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Oh, double standard iowahawkeyes 1986. Just goes with the crowd. It's OK for him, but not for others.

It's as if he doesn't know how many countless times the majority of scientist have been wrong on things in the past. Right now the vast majority of scientist are surely wrong on something, but they just don't know it yet. Born a few decades earlier He'd may be one of those yelling, "You can't break the sound barrier!" But that's OK. Being a scientist means you're "right" even when you're wrong."


So you are equating lay peoples opinions on things with a scientific majority made through the scientific process. Gotcha.
Perhaps you're forgetting that countless scientists are included in the group that believes there is a Creator. What a little world you live in. A typical young person mistake.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes, they have been wrong, and they have been proven wrong using the scientific method, and you know what, after they were proven wrong, the scientific community changed its mind. Which is exactly what my last post said, but you ignored that in favor of "its a double standard." There is a completely different set of methods used to arrive at each majority.

Which is proof that they may be wrong on macro evolution right this very minute. Think about it.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Which, of course, is a lousy backing of your original point that I would not change. My life is proof of change. And it is a fact Christian fundamentalists have changed. Therefore, your point was weighed in the scales and found wanting."

And my proof is your complete lack of entertaining any possibility that evolution happened, or that there could be no god as evident in this thread.

"I only accept facts as fact, that's why. I won't accept your spurious theories as facts. And the number is growing daily of the number of scientists that doubt aspects of macro evolution.

If you present me a fact, I will believe it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Therefore, get off your prophet kick. For not believing in them, you sure do emulate them in their prognostication."


Spurious theories LOL. Yeah, I mean, there really is a rumbling in the scientific community about how strong evolution is. Get a clue. There is not one iota of dissent among the majority of scientists about how strong the theory of evolution is. That is why it is basically an accepted fact. You choose to not call it a fact just because it conflicts with your own religious beliefs.

"As I said, since you won't go beyond the natural your potential for knowing truth will always be limited. You can't think outside the box.

You don't KNOW if even one of the things you listed is a fairy tale. NOT ONE. Yet, there is factual evidence for each one."


I won't go beyond the natural because the super natural is complete bunk. There is no evidence for the super natural. Your mind is the only thing creating those super natural beings and causes. Beyond that, they are not testable theories, so they are worthless to reality.

And yes, I do know Noahs Ark is a fairy tale. It is impossible for the world to flood like that for reaons I've already listed. It is impossible for a virgin to get pregnant. It is impossible for Noah to collect all the animals. It is impossible for the Earth to be that young.

But of course, I'm sure you'll come back with, "sure god can, he's god, and he will hide these things from happening all over the world, just so they happen to a select few, just to test our faith in him."
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Perhaps you're forgetting that countless scientists are included in the group that believes there is a Creator. What a little world you live in. A typical young person mistake."

And they don't believe in a creator because of science. There are no scientific conclusions that come to "god" did it.

"Which is proof that they may be wrong on macro evolution right this very minute. Think about it."

No, the overall theory of evolution is correct, only small details are wrong, and there certainly isn't any strong argument against macroevolution to entertain, or else the majority would be more skeptical. They aren't.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:27 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes you are. You are applying laymen terms to the scientific community and that is idiotic. If you didn't realize something, theories are hardly if ever totally replaced, thats why they can become fact even though there may be small details that need ot be changed.
Theories have been replaced. Scrapped. And that's why they are not called facts. Which is exactly why it is called only the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Law of Evolution."

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"No, you're a liar because you lie. Just because it is on an internet message board doesn't change the fact you are. You said you would not post in this thread anymore. You didn't. You lied. You said another time it was your last post. It wasn't. You lied. You said you would keep my quote for a sig. You didn't. You lied. I could put up with one, but you just continue."

I gave a reason why I came back and it was a legitmate one. [/B]
Legitimate? Now I know why you can call theories "facts." Your reason is a steaming pile of dung. Any objective person can see it. You're a liar.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
It really doesn't surprise me you focus on this, the rest of your argument is pretty worthless so lets not deal with the actual conversation at hand, lets change the subject.
Have I changed the subject? No, you're lying again. It's an ADDITIONAL subject you're wrong about that I've brought up.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not to mention, now you yourself are lying about what your original argument about brains, but you just spin it to "I wasn't arguing that" when it is clear you were. But again, that doesn't surprise me.
Is this another one of your theories that are facts? Same horrible standards. I know what I meant. You don't.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
And yes, your comment is still my sig, I am waiting for my sig to be enabled and I'm not going to continue to go copy and paste it again so I can add it at the end of each post, I'll just wait for it to be enabled thank you.

TRANSLATION - My statement "you can count on it" was another steaming pile of dung.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Theories have been replaced. Scrapped. And that's why they are not called facts. Which is exactly why it is called only the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Law of Evolution."

Your right that theories have been replaced, but thats very rare and that still doesn't change the fact that science still refers to it as a fact. And again, in the scientific communities, its not the theory of evolution, its scientific fact.

"Legitimate? Now I know why you can call theories "facts." Your reason is a steaming pile of dung. Any objective person can see it. You're a liar.

So pointing out how stupid you are when it comes to complex organic molecules isn't a legit reason? Whatever hounded. Keep arguing side arguments all you want.

"Have I changed the subject? No, you're lying again. It's an ADDITIONAL subject you're wrong about that I've brought up."

Yes you have. You keep focusing on typos and me saying I was leaving earlier for some reason, as if that has an relevance to the issue being discuess. You are now trying to invalidate my arguments using ad hominem attacks, not surprising.

"Is this another one of your theories that are facts? Same horrible standards. I know what I meant. You don't. "

Spin spin spin.

"TRANSLATION - My statement "you can count on it" was another steaming pile of dung."

No it wasn't. You can ask Wyatt, or any other admin for that matter, and he can tell you my sig is disabled. Again you're focusing on worthless details.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Just for you Hounded:

Macroevolution:

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[4].

Much of the debate encircling the validity of macroevolution as a distinct evolutionary process involves primarily two factors: (1) species stasis (a pattern in which species show no net morphological change over millions of years) and (2) species selection (selection at the species level where the individuals experiencing differential reproduction or death are species rather than organisms as is typically the case in Neo-Darwinism). Since the discovery of Punctuated Equilibria in the fossil record, it has often been questioned whether these two processes (species stasis and species sorting) require deviation from typical explanations which adhere to Darwinian (or Synthetic) orthodoxy. Recent work on stasis by Eldredge and others has shown, however, that stasis is often the byproduct of species being broken up into several, quasi-autonomous lineages. Clearly, if these lineages (presumably discrete populations) are sufficiently autonomous, then the entire species cannot exhibit morphological change because it does not evolve as a coherent unit. In such instances where each of the populations is effectively evolutionary independent, it would be virtually impossible for the entire species to exhibit net morphological change in the absence of rampant parallelism (a very unlikely proposition since this invokes an almost orthogenetic or teleological perspective).

Species selection, on the other hand, has been a more difficult problem to evaluate empirically because it is a trickier concept to pin down. While Coyne and Orr recently discussed numerous potential and empirical cases of species selection, there has been no consensus over a working definition of species selection in spite of more than 30 years of debate. Some camps (Vrba and Lieberman) insist that selection requires emergent characters while others (Gould and Lloyd) contend that only emergent fitness differences are required for the operation of selection processes. Since Darwin chose not to differentiate between "emergent" or "reducible" characters when describing male adaptations resulting from asymmetrical polyandry where no female behaviors or preferences for such macroscopic traits were evident (a phenomenon now know as "sperm competition"), historical posterity clearly defers to Gould and Lloyd's conception that only fitness differences are important for selection processes. Also, it makes little sense to distinguish between this form of "male-male" competitive sexual selection and other types involving allegedly emergent characters, such as male antlers. Clearly, both male gametocytes and male antlers are properties of males, and to say that these are fundamentally different types of selection based on whether one trait is macroscopic while the other is microscopic (appearing only on individual sex cells) is not the conventional approach. As discussed in greater detail above, Darwin treated selection as an economic process involving evolutionary assets of individuals, regardless of whether these traits were macroscopic vs. microscopic. This conceptual distinction is a recent invention, and so it is likely that Coyne and Orr are correct in asserting that there is strong empirical evidence for the operation of species selection in nature with well over a hundred sister groups analyzed thus far."

link

Btw, you can follow the that page to its cited source(#4 on the page) for proof of its validity.
 

Dave Wyatt

HR Heisman
Jun 4, 2002
9,242
33
48
You're language has been edited Thumper, keep in mind the rules of the Board or you'll find yourself relegated to the Iowa Underground.

"Good luck recruiting these eyewitnesses to the stand."

First you try to poison the well by calling my statements BS, and then you stoop to Ignoratio Elenchi, irrelevant conclusion. Of course those eyewitnesses can't be brought to the stand, neither can the witnesses to Genghis Khan or the other historical persons/events I brought up. But the words written can be used and are direct evidence in spite of your objections. I'll set forth some reasonable arguments to prove my point and rebut your assertions.

BTW, do me a favor Thumper, I won't attack you personally or make ascerbic comments about your reasoning if you don't make such baldly useless off-hand comments such as those you began this post with.

"It is widely argued that the gospel accounts were written anonymously, and not by the "eyewitnesses" they are attributed to."

Widely argued? By whom? Individuals who have a background in Biblical studies? Scholarly experts with no particular axe to grind?

A better question to these woefully uninformed skeptics, are they willing to put up or shut up when it comes to verification of authorship if applied equally to ancient secular documents whose authenticity and authorship aren't questioned, but are "anonymous" in the same sense that they contend the Gospels are?

Do some research that reaches beyond your obvious antagonism. At least understand how historians establish their authentication process and discover how the Gospels have been verified as accurate through:

A few questions for you:

If the Gospels are, as you contend, anonymously written, why isn't there a variation of the titles that would have naturally occurred. It's preposterous to think that in such a relatively primitive society that the Gospels floated around for 60 years, people following the teachings contained and then transmitting them verbally to their offspring, and then, voila, someone assigned authorship to them. To top it off the sudden authorship would have required that the entire church that existed in the Roman Empire agree with the assignation. That's an important point since that's why the apocryphal gospels weren't included in the Canon.

Would it be reasonable for the newly emerging Christian community to honor the writings unless they attributed the authorship to someone that they recognized as knowing what they were writing about? Suffer persecution and physical harm for something they didn't consider as "fact" from a reliable source?

There's absolutely no reason to date any of the Gospels later than 70 AD except in the case of John and more recent research shows that John's Gospel may bear a date of 50-55.

"And how many times are you going to trot out that tired reference to Josephus? The Testimonium Flavium is viewed as an outright forgery even by most conservative of scholars."

Again, no matter how much bovine exrement you declare it to be or insist that "most conservative Scholars" consider the "tired" reference to Josephus to be a forgery doesn't make you right.

Here's site right back at you. Even if a concession is made regarding the "Christian" language that your author insists disqualifies it as an historically accurate writing, neither you nor the author have proven individually or by consenus, that it's a forgery. Even if you remove the "Christian"
language, it still stands as an historical and accurate document as Hounded says.

"Archaeologiical refinement: Endlessly unearthing such treasures as the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Lance."

Nice try at deflecting but I don't know any Christians who view the Shroud of Turin or the Holy Lance as integral to their faith.

"Historical refinement: Continued development of arguments to defend the dearth of historical evidence for the Slaughter of the Innocents. See also the Josephus forgery above."

Quote from your site reference:
"There is no historical evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Herod ever slaughtered the children of Bethlehem. Neither Roman nor Jewish records contain any mention of such an event; indeed, even the rest of the New Testament is silent on the topic. As Lippard notes, historians such as Flavius Josephus carefully recorded Herod's abuses; how could such a gross miscarriage of justice go unnoticed by them? This becomes even more preposterous when we note that this was a time of political unrest among the Jews, and such an event would surely have touched off a rebellion. Yet no such revolt is recorded anywhere.

Aside from being arguments from silence, Berry's paragraph, and Lippard's note, are replete with misconceptions.
...The site's author.
I really don't think you want to use Holding as an ally in your punitive attacks on Christianity.

"Linguistic refinement: Finding ways to tone down the language of a wrathful god who would massacre 42 children for taunting a bald man."

Since you have already directed me to Holding's site, here's his commentary on the "children" taunting the prophet.

This post was edited on 3/7 12:24 AM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Which, of course, is a lousy backing of your original point that I would not change. My life is proof of change. And it is a fact Christian fundamentalists have changed. Therefore, your point was weighed in the scales and found wanting."

And my proof is your complete lack of entertaining any possibility that evolution happened, or that there could be no god as evident in this thread. [/B]
Your statement is factually incorrect. Not only have I entertained it, I have fully believed it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"I only accept facts as fact, that's why. I won't accept your spurious theories as facts. And the number is growing daily of the number of scientists that doubt aspects of macro evolution.

If you present me a fact, I will believe it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Therefore, get off your prophet kick. For not believing in them, you sure do emulate them in their prognostication."


Spurious theories LOL. Yeah, I mean, there really is a rumbling in the scientific community about how strong evolution is. Get a clue. There is not one iota of dissent among the majority of scientists about how strong the theory of evolution is. That is why it is basically an accepted fact. You choose to not call it a fact just because it conflicts with your own religious beliefs.[/B]
Then you do not even understand or accept your own community. The list grows.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"As I said, since you won't go beyond the natural your potential for knowing truth will always be limited. You can't think outside the box.

You don't KNOW if even one of the things you listed is a fairy tale. NOT ONE. Yet, there is factual evidence for each one."


I won't go beyond the natural because the super natural is complete bunk. There is no evidence for the super natural."[/B]
It's complete bunk to a closed mind, yes. "Evidence" to the closed mind is hidden knowledge for them.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
There is no evidence for the super natural. Your mind is the only thing creating those super natural beings and causes. Beyond that, they are not testable theories, so they are worthless to reality.
Just because something is not repeatable doesn't mean it can't happen. Or pehaps you think you can repeat the Big Bang? Again, there is evidence, but not to the closed mind.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
And yes, I do know Noahs Ark is a fairy tale. It is impossible for the world to flood like that for reaons I've already listed. It is impossible for a virgin to get pregnant. It is impossible for Noah to collect all the animals. It is impossible for the Earth to be that young.

But of course, I'm sure you'll come back with, "sure god can, he's god, and he will hide these things from happening all over the world, just so they happen to a select few, just to test our faith in him."
You are partially correct. They are impossible from your point of view because you have closed it off to at least the possibility that there is a Creator. Something, I'm glad to say most of the great scientists in history never did.

The part you're wrong about is that just because God performs a miracle on one side of the planet doesn't mean it was a test of faith for the other. It's just another little straw man from you.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Your statement is factually incorrect. Not only have I entertained it, I have fully believed it."

You don't anymore, and you won't enterain its possibility anymore. You keep trotting out worthless pseudo-science against evolution. Face it, evolution is a scientific fact, you just won't entertain that.

"Then you do not even understand or accept your own community. The list grows."

LOL ok w/e Hounded.

"It's complete bunk to a closed mind, yes. "Evidence" to the closed mind is hidden knowledge for them."

No, its complete bunk to anyone who requires strong evidence to support an assertion. There is no evidence for any of the super natural things I have mentioned in this thread to have happened. Science has thoroughly debunked all of them.

"Just because something is not repeatable doesn't mean it can't happen. Or pehaps you think you can repeat the Big Bang? Again, there is evidence, but not to the closed mind."

Uhh, I never said because it wasn't repeatable it can't happen. I said there is no evidence for those super natural occurences, which is totally different.

[/B]"You are partially correct. They are impossible from your point of view because you have closed it off to at least the possibility that there is a Creator. Something, I'm glad to say most of the great scientists in history never did.

The part you're wrong about is that just because God performs a miracle on one side of the planet doesn't mean it was a test of faith for the other. It's just another little straw man from you."[/B]

I haven't closed off my mind to the idea of a creator. Provide me with one shred of evidence that there is a creator. You don't have any. God is just a construct of the human mind.

No its not a straw man argument. It doesn't make sense for god to tell Noah its going to be a global flood so grab all these animals, and then he ony floods one small region. It doesn't make sense for god to stop the sun in its tracks and somehow to everyone else on Earth, have the sun moving.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:50 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Theories have been replaced. Scrapped. And that's why they are not called facts. Which is exactly why it is called only the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Law of Evolution."

Your right that theories have been replaced, but thats very rare and that still doesn't change the fact that science still refers to it as a fact. And again, in the scientific communities, its not the theory of evolution, its scientific fact.[/B]
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. So you're saying facts can be scrapped. LOL. No wonder you can't think outside the box.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Legitimate? Now I know why you can call theories "facts." Your reason is a steaming pile of dung. Any objective person can see it. You're a liar.

So pointing out how stupid you are when it comes to complex organic molecules isn't a legit reason? Whatever hounded. Keep arguing side arguments all you want.[/B]
First, I'm not stupid when it comes to organic molecules.

Second, it is of course not a legitimate reason. You said you were done posting in this thread. There were no caveats. You're nothing but a young punk liar. Admit it, so there can at least be a little respect from the readers.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Have I changed the subject? No, you're lying again. It's an ADDITIONAL subject you're wrong about that I've brought up."

Yes you have. You keep focusing on typos and me saying I was leaving earlier for some reason, as if that has an relevance to the issue being discuess. You are now trying to invalidate my arguments using ad hominem attacks, not surprising.[/B]
I'm focusing on ALL your errors, you little liar. And being found a liar does have some relevance. I'm sure it points out to many readers that what you say should be held suspect.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Is this another one of your theories that are facts? Same horrible standards. I know what I meant. You don't. "

Spin spin spin. [/B]
Fact fact fact.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"TRANSLATION - My statement "you can count on it" was another steaming pile of dung."

No it wasn't. You can ask Wyatt, or any other admin for that matter, and he can tell you my sig is disabled. Again you're focusing on worthless details.[/B]
You're truly a person that can't be counted on, oh "You can count on me" iowahawkeyes1986. When it gets a little tough and you have to copy and paste a little bit you fold like a wet noodle.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. So you're saying facts can be scrapped. LOL. No wonder you can't think outside the box. "

In science, yes, if it is proven wrong. For now, it is a scientific fact. This is like explaining something to a child.

"First, I'm not stupid when it comes to organic molecules.

Second, it is of course not a legitimate reason. You said you were done posting in this thread. There were no caveats. You're nothing but a young punk liar. Admit it, so there can at least be a little respect from the readers."


Yes you are stupid when it comes to them. I presented you with facts that show that complex organic molecules are EVERYWHERE in the universe. We can see them through our freaking telescopes. You then went on some tirade that they weren't organic molecules and then tried saying it was statistically impossible for them to organize and be able to self-replicate, which again, you were proven wrong.

Its not legit in your mind Hounded. You're just a douchebag who won't let some little detail go.

"I'm focusing on ALL your errors, you little liar. And being found a liar does have some relevance. I'm sure it points out to many readers that what you say should be held suspect."

Again, hounded's douchebaggery gets the best of him.

"Fact fact fact."

Like arguing with a child. Don't listen to the evidence. Just cover your ears and yell as loud as you can.

"You're truly a person that can't be counted on, oh "You can count on me" iowahawkeyes1986. When it gets a little tough and you have to copy and paste a little bit you fold like a wet noodle."

LOL seriously Hounded, you are a douchebag of monumental proportions.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:02 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Your statement is factually incorrect. Not only have I entertained it, I have fully believed it."

You don't anymore, and you won't enterain its possibility anymore. You keep trotting out worthless pseudo-science against evolution. Face it, evolution is a scientific fact, you just won't entertain that. [/B]
I will entertain it, liar. Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is not the "Law of Evolution" it is the "Theory of Evolution."

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Then you do not even understand or accept your own community. The list grows."

LOL ok w/e Hounded.

[/B]
Notice how I don't waste links on you? I'm glad I don't.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's complete bunk to a closed mind, yes. "Evidence" to the closed mind is hidden knowledge for them."

No, its complete bunk to anyone who requires strong evidence to support an assertion. There is no evidence for any of the super natural things I have mentioned in this thread to have happened. Science has thoroughly debunked all of them. [/B]
There is evidence. But I'm not going to waste my time giving it to you.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Just because something is not repeatable doesn't mean it can't happen. Or pehaps you think you can repeat the Big Bang? Again, there is evidence, but not to the closed mind."

Uhh, I never said because it wasn't repeatable it can't happen. I said there is no evidence for those super natural occurences, which is totally different. [/B]
Spinaroonie. I didn't think you would want to go there.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"You are partially correct. They are impossible from your point of view because you have closed it off to at least the possibility that there is a Creator. Something, I'm glad to say most of the great scientists in history never did.

The part you're wrong about is that just because God performs a miracle on one side of the planet doesn't mean it was a test of faith for the other. It's just another little straw man from you."


I haven't closed off my mind to the idea of a creator. Provide me with one shred of evidence that there is a creator. You don't have any. God is just a construct of the human mind.

[/B]
I have plenty, but I'm not wasting any of it on you anymore. You're really starting to bore me.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
No its not a straw man argument. It doesn't make sense for god to tell Noah its going to be a global flood so grab all these animals, and then he ony floods one small region. It doesn't make sense for god to stop the sun in its tracks and somehow to everyone else on Earth, have the sun moving.
He didn't flood one small region, O young one.

It makes perfect sense for God to stop the Sun only from the vantage point of one place on Earth. It stopped so one specific battle could continue. What good would that do for the folks in another country? Wow. That was a hard one to refute.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"I will entertain it, liar. Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is not the "Law of Evolution" it is the "Theory of Evolution.""

Yeah I mean thats why you don't listen to the science you just trumpet out any argument that can possibly count against it. Yeah, you are seriously considering it.

"Notice how I don't waste links on you? I'm glad I don't."

Notice I've provided links that show its a scientific fact. I've linked scientific organizations that are highly regarded. I'm glad you don't either.

"There is evidence. But I'm not going to waste my time giving it to you."

Yup sure there is. Keep telling yourself that.

"Spinaroonie. I didn't think you would want to go there."



What I said is it needs to be TESTABLE in order to be considered by science, I said nothing of repitition.

"I have plenty, but I'm not wasting any of it on you anymore. You're really starting to bore me."

Again, I'm sure you do. Really, I'm starting to bore you? I think thats the 2nd or 3rd time you've said that. You still reply, so apparently not. Liar.

"He didn't flood one small region, O young one.

It makes perfect sense for God to stop the Sun only from the vantage point of one place on Earth. It stopped so one specific battle could continue. What good would that do for the folks in another country? Wow. That was a hard one to refute. "


That is such bs. No one saw the sun stop. And beyond that, there is nothing in the this particular miracle that says the sun sped across the sky right after this, because thats what it would have to do to catch up with the image everyone else saw. Again, you are just creating special explanations for things because your argument holds no water.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:11 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. So you're saying facts can be scrapped. LOL. No wonder you can't think outside the box. "

In science, yes, if it is proven wrong. For now, it is a scientific fact. This is like explaining something to a child. [/B]
LOL - If only you could hear yourself.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"First, I'm not stupid when it comes to organic molecules.

Second, it is of course not a legitimate reason. You said you were done posting in this thread. There were no caveats. You're nothing but a young punk liar. Admit it, so there can at least be a little respect from the readers."


Yes you are stupid when it comes to them. I presented you with facts that show that complex organic molecules are EVERYWHERE in the universe. We can see them through our freaking telescopes. You then went on some tirade that they weren't organic molecules and then tried saying it was statistically impossible for them to organize and be able to self-replicate, which again, you were proven wrong. [/B]
And I made fun of it because it's barely more complicated than what I exhale. I know exactly what you're referring to and I believe it is bogus. Here's a sample of your type of thinking.

Spitzer Finds Life Components in Young Universe
July 28, 2005

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has found the ingredients for life all the way back to a time when the universe was a mere youngster.

Using Spitzer, scientists have detected organic molecules in galaxies when our universe was one-fourth of its current age of about 14 billion years. These large molecules, known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are comprised of carbon and hydrogen. The molecules are considered to be among the building blocks of life.

These complex molecules are very common on Earth. They form any time carbon-based materials are not burned completely. They can be found in sooty exhaust from cars and airplanes, and in charcoal broiled hamburgers and burnt toast.

It's embarassing to read such stuff with its conclusions. What leaps of logic to think this stuff could organize itself. It's truly ridiculous.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Its not legit in your mind Hounded. You're just a douchebag who won't let some little detail go.
I'll let it go when you man up and admit what you've done. Until then I will keep it in the long list.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"I'm focusing on ALL your errors, you little liar. And being found a liar does have some relevance. I'm sure it points out to many readers that what you say should be held suspect."

Again, hounded's douchebaggery gets the best of him.

[/B]
Says you. Hey, I think we're back to where we started.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Fact fact fact."

Like arguing with a child. Don't listen to the evidence. Just cover your ears and yell as loud as you can.[/B]
I don't remember any exclammation points. Plus, you can say, "Spin spin spin," but I can't respond, "Fact fact fact."? Hey, you're no fun.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"You're truly a person that can't be counted on, oh "You can count on me" iowahawkeyes1986. When it gets a little tough and you have to copy and paste a little bit you fold like a wet noodle."

LOL seriously Hounded, you are a douchebag of monumental proportions.[/B]
What was that about ad hominem, again?
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"He didn't flood one small region, O young one.

It makes perfect sense for God to stop the Sun only from the vantage point of one place on Earth. It stopped so one specific battle could continue. What good would that do for the folks in another country? Wow. That was a hard one to refute. "


That is such bs. No one saw the sun stop. And beyond that, there is nothing in the this particular miracle that says the sun sped across the sky right after this, because thats what it would have to do to catch up with the image everyone else saw. Again, you are just creating special explanations for things because your argument holds no water.[/B]
No one saw the sun stop? And you were there to prove this statement?

Sure, and I bet that was just an insurmountable problem for God. There's no way He could handle that time stuff. I'm sure you can explain to Him someday how He couldn't do it.

What was that you said about how it was like speaking to a child? I know what you mean.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Notice how I don't waste links on you? I'm glad I don't."

Notice I've provided links that show its a scientific fact. I've linked scientific organizations that are highly regarded. I'm glad you don't either.[/B]
For someone who won't even consider another point of view, I can also see why you're glad I don't.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"LOL - If only you could hear yourself."

Hounded, I've linked sites that explain what a scientific theory is and what it means to prove one. Go ahead and continue to play dumb.

"And I made fun of it because it's barely more complicated than what I exhale. I know exactly what you're referring to and I believe it is bogus. Here's a sample of your type of thinking."

No, it is not barely more complicated than when you exhale. The process these things follow after being made is more far more complicated than you are making it out to be by saying "when I exhale CO2 its reproduction."

Then you go on to call this science a leap of logic, yet I provided a link earlier in this thread that shows its not a leap of logic for these molecules to organize and self replicate. But continue to ignore it.

"I'll let it go when you man up and admit what you've done. Until then I will keep it in the long list."[/B]

You can keep little things like that on your list all you want. It really isn't a big deal, but you are making it out to be one.

"I don't remember any exclammation points. Plus, you can say, "Spin spin spin," but I can't respond, "Fact fact fact."? Hey, you're no fun."

I presented you with your own posts and presented you with what the argument was. You spun it to make it sound like you weren't aguring for something, but in reality you were by default, you choose not to recognize that complex conscious=complex brain.

"What was that about ad hominem, again?"

I must have missed where I didn't attack your arguments.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:35 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"I will entertain it, liar. Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is not the "Law of Evolution" it is the "Theory of Evolution.""

Yeah I mean thats why you don't listen to the science you just trumpet out any argument that can possibly count against it. Yeah, you are seriously considering it.
NEWSFLASH - Yes, to have been one means that you seriously consider it.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"No one saw the sun stop? And you were there to prove this statement?"

No other civilization in the world saw it stopped and bothered to record such an event, and most of them were pretty good at astronomy and keeping track of the seasons and such, they needed to for their survival.

"Sure, and I bet that was just an insurmountable problem for God. There's no way He could handle that time stuff. I'm sure you can explain to Him someday how He couldn't do it."

Another special explanation for god and his sloppy work.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"NEWSFLASH - Yes, to have been one means that you seriously consider it."

Newsflash, you are no longer one and you no longer consider it seriously. Good for you that you seriously considered it at one time 20+ years ago, since then, evolution has made huge advancements. You refuse to recognize those advancements now as basically proving the theory true overall.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:32 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"LOL - If only you could hear yourself."

Hounded, I've linked sites that explain what a scientific theory is and what it means to prove one. Go ahead and continue to play dumb. [/B]
I'm not playing dumb. It truly sounds ridiculous. I can't believe I used to spout the same nonsense.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And I made fun of it because it's barely more complicated than what I exhale. I know exactly what you're referring to and I believe it is bogus. Here's a sample of your type of thinking."

No, it is not barely more complicated than when you exhale. The process these things follow after being made is more far more complicated than you are making it out to be by saying "when I exhale CO2 its reproduction."

[/B]
It's not that far off.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Then you go on to call this science a leap of logic, yet I provided a link earlier in this thread that shows its not a leap of logic for these molecules to organize and self replicate. But continue to ignore it.
That's because it's truly not that big of a deal and in no way forms a basis to think they could eventually form themselves into you and I talking back and forth on computer.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"I'll let it go when you man up and admit what you've done. Until then I will keep it in the long list."

You can keep little things like that on your list all you want. It really isn't a big deal, but you are making it out to be one.[/B]
Then the only conclusion one can draw is that multiples lies to you is indeed just a little thing.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"I don't remember any exclammation points. Plus, you can say, "Spin spin spin," but I can't respond, "Fact fact fact."? Hey, you're no fun."

I presented you with your own posts and presented you with what the argument was. You spun it to make it sound like you weren't aguring for something, but in reality you were by default, you choose not to recognize that complex conscious=complex brain. [/B]
It's not a spin, but a fact. I don't fail to recognize that. I just fail to acknowledge that's what I meant. I was going to go there but you stole my thunder.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"What was that about ad hominem, again?"

I must have missed where I didn't attack your arguments.
To quote you, "Playing dumb?"
This post was edited on 3/7 12:53 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"No one saw the sun stop? And you were there to prove this statement?"

No other civilization in the world saw it stopped and bothered to record such an event, and most of them were pretty good at astronomy and keeping track of the seasons and such, they needed to for their survival.

"Sure, and I bet that was just an insurmountable problem for God. There's no way He could handle that time stuff. I'm sure you can explain to Him someday how He couldn't do it."

Another special explanation for god and his sloppy work.

Sounds like it worked great to me. Got the job done and didn't affect the rest of the planet. Perfection.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"NEWSFLASH - Yes, to have been one means that you seriously consider it."

Newsflash, you are no longer one and you no longer consider it seriously.
Another newsflash. I know what I seriously consider. Not you. You haven't even yet brought anything new for me to consider. That's why I'm getting bored.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You refuse to recognize those advancements now as basically proving the theory true overall.
And I would say there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists that would agree with me.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"
I'm not playing dumb. It truly sounds ridiculous. I can't believe I used to spout the same nonsense.
"


Well, thats why your not a scientist.

"It's not that far off."

Again, science will beg to differ.

"That's because it's truly not that big of a deal and in no way forms a basis to think they could eventually form themselves into you and I talking back and forth on computer."

Yes it is, because that process of organizing themselves and being able to produce copies of themselves is necessary for evolution. Evolution is proven beyond a doubt. You tried to argue it is statistically impossible for them to organize and self replicate. I provided links that show you are wrong and they are backed by scientific evidence. Now you seem to be arguing that even if that process can happen, it can't lead to us, which is basically saying evolution can never lead to us, but it clearly can.

"Then the only conclusion one can draw is that multiples lies to you is indeed just a little thing."

Hmm still can't see where I lied multiple times. I only see your one point of contention on me saying I'm leaving. The rest you are stretching for.

"It's not a spin, but a fact. I don't fail to recognize that. I just fail to acknowledge that's what I meant. I was going to go there but you stole my thunder."

While that may not be what you meant, complex conscious requires a complex brain and thats why I interpreted it the way I did.

"To quote you, "Playing dumb?"

And, BTW - what's up with the highlighted "go"?"


An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the messenger, but not the message. I cleary attacked your message.

And btw, I don't know, I thought you were doing it.
This post was edited on 3/7 1:10 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Sounds like it worked great to me. Got the job done and didn't affect the rest of the planet. Perfection."

Actually it would effect the rest of the planet. There is no way that could possibly occur without being noticed.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:56 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Another newsflash. I know what I seriously consider. Not you. You haven't even yet brought anything new for me to consider. That's why I'm getting bored."

I've link sites that show that organic molecules are everywhere, I've linked sites that show it's statisically possible for complex organic molecules to organize and self replicate, I've also provided links that support macroevolution and evolution itself, and I've also provided links to explanations of what terms mean in science. You dismissed it all.

"And I would say there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists that would agree with me.

Must have missed their presentation of evidence to the scientific community. Must be something wrong with their evidence, no repudable scientific journal has been mentioning any break throughs against evolution.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"
I'm not playing dumb. It truly sounds ridiculous. I can't believe I used to spout the same nonsense.
"


Well, thats why your not a scientist.
And your last sentence proves why you're not an author. ;)

And there are paid, practicing, wonderful, contributing scientists today that think it sounds ridiculous, too.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's not that far off."

Again, science will beg to differ. [/B]
Some science will beg to differ.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"That's because it's truly not that big of a deal and in no way forms a basis to think they could eventually form themselves into you and I talking back and forth on computer."

Yes it is, because that process of organizing themselves and being able to produce copies of themselves is necessary for evolution. Evolution is proven beyond a doubt.[/B]
Your last sentence only verifies you have a closed mind. And if you call what those compounds do as "organizing and reproducing" then you believe a big rock falling on another rock is reproducing. It has no real resemblance to what happens in real living organisms.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You tried to argue it is statistically impossible for them to organize and self replicate. I provided links that show you are wrong and they are backed by scientific evidence. Now you seem to be arguing that even if that process can happen, it can't lead to us, which is basically saying evolution can never lead to us, but it clearly can.
No, you misunderstand. I don't interpret what they do as organizing and reproducing in any way that real life does.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Then the only conclusion one can draw is that multiples lies to you is indeed just a little thing."

Hmm still can't see where I lied multiple times. I only see your one point of contention on me saying I'm leaving. The rest you are stretching for.[/B]
Well, this sounds like an admission the first one isn't a stretch. I don't see how anyone on Earth could conclude other than you lied. The second line in my sig shows your next lie. And you lied about having my statement in your posts. And you lied when you said I could count on you. I certainly could not, especially when I like that quote.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's not a spin, but a fact. I don't fail to recognize that. I just fail to acknowledge that's what I meant. I was going to go there but you stole my thunder."

While that may not be what you meant, complex conscious requires a complex brain and thats why I interpreted it the way I did.[/B]
Well, we're finally getting somewhere. At least you admitted it is only your interpretation. And interpretations aren't always accurate. And in this case it wasn't. It's a marvel and impossible evolution to come up with whether there is sentient consciousness or not.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"To quote you, "Playing dumb?"



An ad hominem argument is one that attacks soley the messenger, but not the message. I cleary attacked your message.

And btw, I don't know, I thought you were doing it.[/B]
Well, you accused me of it and I definitely attacked your message too. And you're not right about ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments can simultaneously attack the messenger and the message. That's usually their point/goal. The attack on the messenger is an attempted attack on the message, albeit an ineffectual one.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Sounds like it worked great to me. Got the job done and didn't affect the rest of the planet. Perfection."

Actually it would effect the rest of the planet. There is no way that could possibly occur without being noticed.
In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time.

Lk 4:5-6 - And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. - (NASB)[/B]
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Another newsflash. I know what I seriously consider. Not you. You haven't even yet brought anything new for me to consider. That's why I'm getting bored."

I've link sites that show that organic molecules are everywhere, I've linked sites that show it's statisically possible for complex organic molecules to organize and self replicate, I've also provided links that support macroevolution and evolution itself, and I've also provided links to explanations of what terms mean in science. You dismissed it all. [/B]
That's because I've already heard it, and already dismissed it, because I found flaws in all of it. Those statistics were irrelevant. What those molecules do has virtually nothing to do with what a real cell does. And your terms and how many modern scientists use them are bogus to me and countless others. It's like reading an ad hoc dictionary.
 

Scott Plate

HR MVP
Dec 17, 2005
1,138
0
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Sounds like it worked great to me. Got the job done and didn't affect the rest of the planet. Perfection."

Actually it would effect the rest of the planet. There is no way that could possibly occur without being noticed.
In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time.

Lk 4:5-6 - And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. - (NASB)

"Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."

Game...set....match.

Iowahawkeyes1986- why do you even bother? Seriously?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"And your last sentence proves why you're not an author. ;)

And there are paid, practicing, wonderful, contributing scientists today that think it sounds ridiculous, too. "


I know, I missed the "you're" part of it. Good thing I'm not focusing on it.

I never said there wasn't. They aren't very reputable when it comes to evolution, but w/e.

"Some science will beg to differ."

Key word in there is some. If those scientist have a good contention against evolution, perhaps they should present it to the scientific communit. Somehow, I doubt they do.

"Your last sentence only verifies you have a closed mind. And if you call what those compounds do as "organizing and reproducing" then you believe a big rock falling on another rock is reproducing. It has no real resemblance to what happens in real living organisms."


No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific fact, only details need to be altered. It is so highly unlikely that evolution is replaced with another theory, which is why science refers to it as a fact.

It isn't reproduction, its replication. This is just genetic material making copies of itself. I never said anything of reproduction.

"No, you misunderstand. I don't interpret what they do as organizing and reproducing in any way that real life does."

Because they aren't reproducing. They are replicating. Reproduction happens farther down the evolutionary chain. Self-replication is a big part of getting to that point.

"Well, this sounds like an admission the first one isn't a stretch. I don't see how anyone on Earth could conclude other than you lied. The second line in my sig shows your next lie. And you lied about having my statement in your posts. And you lied when you said I could count on you. I certainly could not, especially when I like that quote."

No, its not an admission. I said I can see why you count that as a lie, I don't because its not anything to be freaking out about, like you are.

No I didn't lie about your statement in my posts. Dave needs to turn my sig on, and when he or another admin does, it will be there. It's already saved into my message board options for safe keeping.

Well, we're finally getting somewhere. At least you admitted it is only your interpretation. And interpretations aren't always accurate. And in this case it wasn't. It's a marvel and impossible evolution to come up with whether there is sentient consciousness or not."

Well, my interpretation is correct considering complex consciousness requires comples brain. You didn't make that connection as I did.

No it isn't impossible. But keep telling yourself that contrary to all evidence.

"Well, you accused me of it and I definitely attacked your message too. And you're not right about ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments can simultaneously attack the messenger and the message. That's usually their point/goal. The attack on the messenger is an attempted attack on the message, albeit an ineffectual one."

You attacked my message to the point of providing debunked arguments against them, you dismissed it after evidence was presented against your argument. You went from focusing on the message for a short period of time, to attacking the messenger with no continued rebuttal other than "well I don't think its possible and neither do a few other scientists." I don't count that as a viable argument.

After looking up the defintion of ad hominem, you are correct it can be simultaneously made with an argument. So while you are correct that I did some myself, I still was making an argument, you
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."

I'll buy that argument when it has some evidence to back it up. Until then, its a worthless argument.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."

I'll buy that argument when there is evidence presented in its favor. Until then, its as worthless as saying fire breathing dragons exist and can suddenly change reality for anyone they want anytime they want.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And I would say there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists that would agree with me.

Must have missed their presentation of evidence to the scientific community. Must be something wrong with their evidence, no repudable scientific journal has been mentioning any break throughs against evolution.[/B]
Repudable. Is that some sort of hybrid Freudian slip? If it only that was a real word I would have agreed. :)

Perhaps your world at this time is a little small. There has always been a voice against macro evolution. There is a growing list of scientists who have serious doubts about evolution. With hesitancy I provide this link.



Link
 

UIowaHawks17

Team MVP
Aug 12, 2005
155
0
16
"In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."

I'll buy that argument when there is evidence presented in its favor. Until then, its as worthless as saying fire breathing dragons exist and can suddenly change reality for anyone they want anytime they want.
 

UIowaHawks17

Team MVP
Aug 12, 2005
155
0
16
'In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."

I'll buy that argument when there is evidence to back it up, otherwise its as worthless as saying a fire breathing dragon can change your reality anytime it wants.

Btw, my other handle won't post so trying this one.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"In your self-imposed (I know you're smart) little limited world of thinking, I can see why you think that. But that's because you won't even consider what a Creator/God could do. God can change realities for each individual person. Heck, even the Devil can disrupt linear time."


I'll buy that argument when there is evidence to back it up, otherwise its as worthless as saying a fire breathing dragon can change your reality anytime it wants.

Btw, my other handle won't post so trying this one.
 

UIowaHawks17

Team MVP
Aug 12, 2005
155
0
16
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And I would say there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists that would agree with me.

Must have missed their presentation of evidence to the scientific community. Must be something wrong with their evidence, no repudable scientific journal has been mentioning any break throughs against evolution.
Repudable. Is that some sort of hybrid Freudian slip? If it only that was a real word I would have agreed. :)

Perhaps your world at this time is a little small. There has always been a voice against macro evolution. There is a growing list of scientists who have serious doubts about evolution. With hesitancy I provide this link.

[/B]

Intelligent Design site? Give me a freaking break, anything that is arguing for intelligent design doesn't even count as science. Its pseudo-science, so good try.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And your last sentence proves why you're not an author. ;)

And there are paid, practicing, wonderful, contributing scientists today that think it sounds ridiculous, too. "


I know, I missed the "you're" part of it. Good thing I'm not focusing on it.

[/B]
And don't forget the "thats" in the same sentence that should have been "that's." Do I have to point everything out to you? ;)

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I never said there wasn't. They aren't very reputable when it comes to evolution, but w/e.
But, that's OK.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Some science will beg to differ."

Key word in there is some. If those scientist have a good contention against evolution, perhaps they should present it to the scientific communit. Somehow, I doubt they do.
There's more of it than you know.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Your last sentence only verifies you have a closed mind. And if you call what those compounds do as "organizing and reproducing" then you believe a big rock falling on another rock is reproducing. It has no real resemblance to what happens in real living organisms."


No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific fact, only details need to be altered. It is so highly unlikely that evolution is replaced with another theory, which is why science refers to it as a fact. [/B]
It is a well known fact that it is still the "Theory of Evolution" vs. the "Law of Evolution." And it's still that way for very good reasons. There are many scientists with grave doubts about it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
It isn't reproduction, its replication. This is just genetic material making copies of itself. I never said anything of reproduction.
Now you're calling it genetic material? Wow. Hydrocarbons are genetic material?

OK, I want you to explain to me what YOU believe this process to be. Give me your explanation of this self-replicating process.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Well, this sounds like an admission the first one isn't a stretch. I don't see how anyone on Earth could conclude other than you lied. The second line in my sig shows your next lie. And you lied about having my statement in your posts. And you lied when you said I could count on you. I certainly could not, especially when I like that quote."

No, its not an admission. I said I can see why you count that as a lie, I don't because its not anything to be freaking out about, like you are.[/B]
So now lies are only lies when you interpret the situation to be where someone else shouldn't be "freaking out"?

I'm not freaking out. I'm just not letting you off the hook until you count it as a lie.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


No I didn't lie about your statement in my posts. Dave needs to turn my sig on, and when he or another admin does, it will be there. It's already saved into my message board options for safe keeping.
It's still possible for you to put it there. You're just not willing to keep your word on it. It's a couple clicks away, but "you can count on me" is not really doing it for me right now.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Well, we're finally getting somewhere. At least you admitted it is only your interpretation. And interpretations aren't always accurate. And in this case it wasn't. It's a marvel and impossible evolution to come up with whether there is sentient consciousness or not."

Well, my interpretation is correct considering complex consciousness requires comples brain. You didn't make that connection as I did. [/B]
But the point is that it's not up to you to determine my argument. It's MY argument, not yours. I don't have to make YOUR connection. You have to connect to what I AM saying when it is MY argument. You don't get to jump to the next logical step and claim I'm using it already.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Well, you accused me of it and I definitely attacked your message too. And you're not right about ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments can simultaneously attack the messenger and the message. That's usually their point/goal. The attack on the messenger is an attempted attack on the message, albeit an ineffectual one."

You attacked my message to the point of providing debunked arguments against them, you dismissed it after evidence was presented against your argument. You went from focusing on the message for a short period of time, to attacking the messenger with no continued rebuttal other than "well I don't think its possible and neither do a few other scientists." I don't count that as a viable argument.[/B]
Well, you can guess how viable I thought your arguments were. And I still had rebuttal as I do now. The point is that you accused me of ad hominem, but you later did more of it than me. I can provide one of the many douchebag quotes for you if you want. Or I can go to the ones that deal with my intelligence, etc. There's plenty to choose from. At least I've admitted your intelligent.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
After looking up the defintion of ad hominem, you are correct it can be simultaneously made with an argument. So while you are correct that I did some myself, I still was making an argument, you
Lost part of a sentence here?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"But, that's OK."

No it isn't. If you are going to make a case against evolution, you better understand it yourself.

"There's more of it than you know."

Oh yes, blame it on something else. "Those scientist are just brainwashed and won't let any new ideas in."

It is a well known fact that it is still the "Theory of Evolution" vs. the "Law of Evolution." And it's still that way for very good reasons. There are many scientists with grave doubts about it.

I'm glad you have it down that its a theory to lay people, but to a majority of scientist with knowledge in this field, it isn't. It's a fact.

"Now you're calling it genetic material? Wow. Hydrocarbons are genetic material?

OK, I want you to explain to me what YOU believe this process to be. Give me your explanation of this self-replicating process."


Once it begins to self replicate, that is genetic material, its passing instructions onto its copies.

Hydrocarbons are not genetic material. They need to organize and begin to self replicate first. In order to do this, they need certain conditions around them and a spark.

I am not expert on the process itself. As I have told you, I deal mostly with cosmology. I have linked sites in my post however that detail the process.

"So now lies are only lies when you interpret the situation to be where someone else shouldn't be "freaking out"?

I'm not freaking out. I'm just not letting you off the hook until you count it as a lie."


No, its not a lie beause it's meaningless and, just because I changed my mind after you made another stupid post doesn't quite equal what you are pursuing.

"It's still possible for you to put it there. You're just not willing to keep your word on it. It's a couple clicks away, but "you can count on me" is not really doing it for me right now."

Yes it is, but I'm not going to go out of my way to put it in every post. I'd just assume not having a quote in my sig. Mr. Hawk stalkerish feeling to me.

"But the point is that it's not up to you to determine my argument. It's MY argument, not yours. I don't have to make YOUR connection. You have to connect to what I AM saying when it is MY argument. You don't get to jump to the next logical step and claim I'm using it already."

The argument that the brain is too complex to have formed through evolution is exactly the same as the argument against consciousness. So I'm not in error in my interpretation. That was a logical jump. They are one in the same.

"Lost part of a sentence here?"

Yeah I don't know what happened there.

I was going to say that you were no longer focusing on my argument, you were dismissing it without contradictory evidence and attacking me. But thats meaningless anyway.


Plus here is a here is a link that shows Carl Sagan's success in forming amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation, something he is highly regarded for.
This post was edited on 3/7 2:54 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Status
Not open for further replies.