How to repsond to the creationists on here..
Jingo
post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
something like this:
Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
reply with something different than this post.
Jingo.
Bigdakine
>From: "Jingo" Jingo...@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/5/03 5:08 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
Could be the makings of an infinite loop.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Hiero5ant
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20031205230053...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >Subject: How to repsond to the creationists on here..
> >From: "Jingo" Jingo...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 12/5/03 5:08 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
> >
> >From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
simply
> >post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> >something like this:
> >
> >Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> >reply with something different than this post.
>
>
> Could be the makings of an infinite loop.
I make it a rule to post to all and only those threads that loop
themselves.
Ross Langerak
"Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
Don't think of it as responding to a creationist, but as countering
their arguments and providing information for the lurkers. Every time
a creationist posts the same old argument, view it as an opportunity
to post a link to the archive. Or to another appropriate site.
raven1
As long as we add "Now pay gen2rev the $150" or something to that
effect... ;-)
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
Roadrunner
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7ddAb.1100$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is not
religious?
Roadrunner
Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with their
babble?
Any suggestions? (lots of options as their adopted theory has quite some
fallacies)
Dale
Where's the sport in that? The purpose of arguing with creationists is not
to win arguments, but to argue. The journey is the reward! I've learned a
lot from reading the responses of some of the more erudite science
supporters to some of the more intelligent creationists. Incidentally, of
the latter there have been approximately _ZERO_ for the past several weeks.
What's up with that?
Also, some of the creationist questions have given me motivation that I
might not otherwise have had, to learn about certain questions in deeper
detail. For example, I now know that DNA ... does ... something .... Dang, I
forgot!
Anyway, for every yin, there's gotta be a yang, good and evil are flip sides
of the same coin, enjoy the struggle and frustration becomes impetus to
grow.
----
There are known knowns; these are things we know that we know.
We also know there are known unkowns; that is to say, there are some things
we know we do not know.
But, there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't
know.
-- Donald Rumsfeld
Pip R. Lagenta
O.K.
>Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is not
>religious?
See for yourself:
<http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
<http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
<http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
<http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
<http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
<http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
<http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evo_science.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Jingo
> religious?
Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
Jingo.
Roadrunner
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6o03tvgtiru209f1t...@4ax.com...
And more bibles....
Roadrunner
If you say that you have not understood.
us...@example.com
>
>"Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>> From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
>simply
>> post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
>> something like this:
>>
>> Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
>> reply with something different than this post.
>
>Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with their
>babble?
Well, you could shut them up with a scientific theory of creation.
I mean, if you wanted to.
Mike Dworetsky
"raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> wrote in message
news:89u2tvoul1kn6lgvo...@4ax.com...
That could be the "Amen."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Mike Dworetsky
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:bqrv62$3...@library2.airnews.net...
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
snip
> There are known knowns; these are things we know that we know.
> We also know there are known unkowns; that is to say, there are some
things
> we know we do not know.
> But, there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't
> know.
> -- Donald Rumsfeld
>
If properly punctuated, with the right meter, this could make an interesting
non-existential poem.
Roadrunner
"tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
news:r153tvs2lkcik69f9...@news.supernews.com...
Who needs a theory of creationism if you simply observe and draw your
conclusions without any bias of predeterminations.
Ross Langerak
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:N6fAb.36909$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
should
> simply
> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could
read
> > something like this:
> >
> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that,
we'll
> > reply with something different than this post.
>
> Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with
their
> babble?
You could present evidence supporting creation, but every time I ask,
I get no response other than "Yes I did!"
Ross Langerak
A theory is an explanation for the evidence. Your theory of
creationism should be your conclusions without any bias of
predeterminations. Then you need to test your theory by making
predictions and performing experiments.
Ross Langerak
The Talk.Origins Archive is a convenient reference where much of the
information relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate has been
collected. Virtually all of that information originates from sources
outside the archive. If any of that outside information were to
change, the archive would change with it. In science, the ultimate
authority is the evidence, whether it is the fossils themselves or the
results of experiments published in journals. This is very different
from a religious text like the Bible, where any contradictory evidence
must be explained away rather than alter the holy book.
So, do you have any evidence that you think should cause us to alter
the archive?
Pip R. Lagenta
<peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
How do you type while holding fingers in both ears?
Dale
[...]
> Who needs a theory of creationism if you simply observe and draw your
> conclusions without any bias of predeterminations.
I nominate this for a Chez Watt.
Tom
not
> religious?
Tom: What bible? Do you not understand the English language? It is clear
that you don't understand what makes a religion.
us...@example.com
Who needs a theory? Science does. Them's the rules. If you don't want to
follow them, that's okay. But unless you can frame divine creation
within the rules of science, you don't have a counter to evolution. All
you have is a non-sequitor.
R Brown
> > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is
> not
> > > religious?
> >
> > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
>
> If you say that you have not understood.
>
do. Since his world view is based upon a religion, he mistakenly construes
that everyone else's is too. This is the basis of the "equal time" argument.
Since he doesn't understand the nature of science, and for that matter he
doesn't want to, he fails to make any distinction. Such distinctions would
be counterproductive to his argumentive purpose. For so long as he can
insist that the theory of evolution is "just another religion" he maintains
the hope that his religious interpretations will be superior.
He feels his religion is under threat and the only way he can combat this
threat is to treat the theory of evolution as "false" religion. He knows
that he has no capacity to wage this war in the fields of science. That is
why you will NEVER hear a scientific argument from Roadrunner - he simply
doesn't have any. His pseudo-scientific nonsense from Hovind et al is easily
dealt with and has been done so countless times, but since he's trapped in a
religious paradigm, it has no cumulative effect, as you can see.
Roadrunner, like all creationists, faces two possible futures. He will
either die in ignorance and frustration as he sees his world view not
supported in the science classroom. Or, he will begin a journey of discovery
as to how science actually works and in so doing learn so much more about
himself and his spirituality. The Talk Origins archive has several stories
of such journeys. They were all wrenching and show huge courage at great
personal cost. Some are not up to it. Roadrunner might not be.
Roadrunner
Good question, I wonder about that too!
Roadrunner
First of all the intro to the site, evolution is pronounced 'A' fact.
Roadrunner
The problem is that it works both ways. You can also make up a theory and
adjust the 'evidence' to that, this I find is the general use of a theory.
Roadrunner
The question is do you follow my reasoning? It's far easier to think up a
theory as suits us well according to our predeterminations and ideas. And
then just shuffle around with the observed facts till they fit in. Do you
see any danger of that possibly happening?
Roadrunner
I simply don't want to repeat our earlier discussions a while back. I think
it is obvious (for now anyway) that we are not going to convice eachother.
I am not clear myself about a lot of things, with this I mean to say that I
reconsider old views in let's say a new dimension of time. Also the main
issue for me is not evolution/creation, it's rather how people came to
believe and accept their convictions.
AC
There's no such thing as evolutionism, and evolutionary theory is not
religious.
Not that you know what religion is, or science for that matter.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
I challenge you to actually read them RR.
AC
You actually have no idea what "evidence" is, do you? My word, but you have
to be one of the most ignorant human beings I have ever encountered. It
explains your anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. You're a complete moron.
AC
Didn't you admit that allele frequency in a population changes over time?
You've already admitted evolution happens. So it is a fact. You admitted
it yourself, when you finally bothered to even ask what an allele was.
AC
Roadrunner <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>> From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
> simply
>> post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
>> something like this:
>>
>> Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
>> reply with something different than this post.
>
> babble?
>
> fallacies)
Really. Point them out. Let's see some substance from you. And while
you're at it, you can tell us how many Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
Lenny Flank
Don't waste your time on Mouth Runner. If you want to talk to him,
ask him first to tell you all about the Galactic Emperor Xenu and the
body-snatching space aliens that can be detected using a blood
pressure machine (if you're willing to cough up enough money for it).
Or, you could just ask him to tell you what the scientificv theory of
creation is and how it can be tested using the scientific method, then
sit back and watch him dance.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
Lenny Flank
Hey Mouth Runner --- why is it that NO ONE ever seems to "understand"
you. Is it because you're so much more brilliant and perceptive than
all of us mere mortals? Or is it just because you're an incoherent
idiot?
Lenny Flank
> From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should simply
> post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> something like this:
>
> Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> reply with something different than this post.
>
In the entire creation/evolution 'debate", there are only two
questions that matter, and I ask them of each and every creationist I
meet. They are:
(1) what is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design, and
how can we test that theory using the sicentific method
and
(2) why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular
religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neigbbor's,
my car mechanic's, the kid's who delivers my pizza, or my sister's
dog's former owner's?
Until creationists/IDerts answer those two simple questions, they
aren't saying anything worth listening to, and are simply hand-waving
and evading.
Roadrunner
"AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnbt4896.2l8....@alder.alberni.net...
You have bad memory don't you. That allele frequency would be explained with
micro evolution. And....I did not ask anything about allele as far as I
recall.
Roadrunner
If you don't stop your anti-Semitism and holocaust denial nonsense, I will
simply address you as a Nazi Doctrine Lover (true anyway), it's up to
you......
We have different opinions about what 'evidence' is, can't be helped.
Roadrunner
I advice you to stop doing that, Nazi Doctrine Lover!
(BigDiscusser)
---unbelievable chutzpah. This scenario you have laid out as a logical
solution --is idiotic to a committed Christian who does see all of this
life in Christian terms. It is like asking them to kill the essence of
their being, and slink over to your meaningless world of "shifting
sands" and empty ideas. God bless, Jo Jean.
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
Pip R. Lagenta
<peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ubc3tvglq6cc887vg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:49:53 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
>> <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>> >"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:6o03tvgtiru209f1t...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>> >And more bibles....
>>
>> How do you type while holding fingers in both ears?
>
>Good question, I wonder about that too!
As you may know, the Theory of Evolution stands or falls on the
evidence. Here is a link to some of that evidence:
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
Since you seem so sure that there are problems with the theory, then
you should have no problems pointing out to us how the evidence is
faulty.
Padraic Brown
context. Especially if you're going to throw around words like idiotic
et r.; I'd like to see his idiocy laid out.
Regards.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
Lenny Flank
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
> simply
> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> > something like this:
> >
> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> > reply with something different than this post.
>
> Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with their
> babble?
>
> Any suggestions? (lots of options as their adopted theory has quite some
> fallacies)
I have two suggestions as to how you should respond to evolutionists,
either one of which will kill evolutionists dead.
(1) tell 'em what the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design
is, and then demonstrate to them how to test that scientific theory
using the scientific method.
and
(2) demonstrate to 'em why they should pay more attention to YOUR
particular religious opinions than they should to me or my next door
neighbor or my car mechanic or the counter girl at the local health
food store.
Care to give it a go, Mouth Runner? Or don't you have the ping-pongs
for it. . . .
Roadrunner
"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<TUfAb.30340$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is
not
> > > religious?
> >
> > Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
> > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> >
>
>
>
> Don't waste your time on Mouth Runner. If you want to talk to him,
> ask him first to tell you all about the Galactic Emperor Xenu and the
> body-snatching space aliens that can be detected using a blood
> pressure machine (if you're willing to cough up enough money for it).
Is it not past your bedtime Herr Nazi Doctrine Lover?
Roadrunner
news:<o7gAb.36927$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net>...
> > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:TUfAb.30340$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism
is
> > not
> > > > religious?
> > >
> > > Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
> > > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> >
> > If you say that you have not understood.
>
>
>
> Hey Mouth Runner --- why is it that NO ONE ever seems to "understand"
> you. Is it because you're so much more brilliant and perceptive than
> all of us mere mortals? Or is it just because you're an incoherent
> idiot?
No idea, Herr Nazi Doctrine Lover!
Roadrunner
Believe your dreams.
Roadrunner
"R Brown" <br...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fWnAb.582952$9l5.109801@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
> news:o7gAb.36927$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:TUfAb.30340$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism
is
> > not
> > > > religious?
> > >
> > > Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
> > > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> >
> > If you say that you have not understood.
> >
> Roadrunner suffers from the same perceptual problem that all creationists
> do. Since his world view is based upon a religion, he mistakenly construes
> that everyone else's is too. This is the basis of the "equal time"
argument.
> Since he doesn't understand the nature of science, and for that matter he
> doesn't want to, he fails to make any distinction. Such distinctions would
> be counterproductive to his argumentive purpose. For so long as he can
> insist that the theory of evolution is "just another religion" he
maintains
> the hope that his religious interpretations will be superior.
Hihi, it's the evolutionists who do acquire the hoping!
Tom
Tom: Look you dishonest fool, you're the Holocaust denier.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Roadrunner"
<peg...@privat.utfors.se>:
<snip>
>Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with their
>babble?
>
>Any suggestions? (lots of options as their adopted theory has quite some
>fallacies)
List them.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
>
>"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6o03tvgtiru209f1t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:56:17 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
>> <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:7ddAb.1100$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>> >> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
>> >> simply
>> >> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could
>> >> read
>> >> > something like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that,
>> >> we'll
>> >> > reply with something different than this post.
>> >>
>> >> Don't think of it as responding to a creationist, but as countering
>> >> their arguments and providing information for the lurkers. Every time
>> >> a creationist posts the same old argument, view it as an opportunity
>> >> to post a link to the archive. Or to another appropriate site.
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>> >Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is
>not
>> >religious?
>>
>> See for yourself:
>> <http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
>> <http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
>> <http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
>> <http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
>> <http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
>> <http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
>> <http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
>> <http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
>> <http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
>> <http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
>> <http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
>> <http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evo_science.html>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
>
>And more bibles....
Aha! So you consider any compilation of knowledge, arrived
at through observation, test and experiment, to be a
"bible", right? Or is that only true if you don't, and don't
want to, understand the contents?
Bob Casanova
<snip>
>First of all the intro to the site, evolution is pronounced 'A' fact.
Yeah, that's the common term for anything directly observed
to have occurred, as evolution has been on numerous
occasions. Do you have a better term for such an event?
R Brown
> > > > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that
evolutionism
> is
> > > not
> > > > > religious?
> > > >
"I
> > > > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> > >
> > > If you say that you have not understood.
> > >
creationists
> > do. Since his world view is based upon a religion, he mistakenly
construes
> > that everyone else's is too. This is the basis of the "equal time"
> argument.
> > Since he doesn't understand the nature of science, and for that matter
he
> > doesn't want to, he fails to make any distinction. Such distinctions
would
> > be counterproductive to his argumentive purpose. For so long as he can
> > insist that the theory of evolution is "just another religion" he
> maintains
> > the hope that his religious interpretations will be superior.
>
> Hihi, it's the evolutionists who do acquire the hoping!
>
inflow of new information and observations only seems to enhance it. I would
hold on to your jeering until science teachers, such as myself, are forced
to teach Genisis.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Padraic Brown
<elemtila...@yahoo.com>:
>What are you refering to? It is most helpful if you leave some
>context. Especially if you're going to throw around words like idiotic
>et r.; I'd like to see his idiocy laid out.
This was the post by R. Brown she was referring to. After
you read it you'll understand why she snipped it, since her
attack is quite far off-base (but then, she's a demonstrated
"liar for Christ", and a religious bigot):
[begin quote]
Roadrunner suffers from the same perceptual problem that all
creationists do. Since his world view is based upon a
religion, he mistakenly construes that everyone else's is
too. This is the basis of the "equal time" argument.
Since he doesn't understand the nature of science, and for
that matter he doesn't want to, he fails to make any
distinction. Such distinctions would be counterproductive to
his argumentive purpose. For so long as he can insist that
the theory of evolution is "just another religion" he
maintains the hope that his religious interpretations will
be superior. He feels his religion is under threat and the
only way he can combat this threat is to treat the theory of
evolution as "false" religion. He knows that he has no
capacity to wage this war in the fields of science. That is
why you will NEVER hear a scientific argument from
Roadrunner - he simply doesn't have any. His
pseudo-scientific nonsense from Hovind et al is easily
dealt with and has been done so countless times, but since
he's trapped in a religious paradigm, it has no cumulative
effect, as you can see. Roadrunner, like all creationists,
faces two possible futures. He will either die in ignorance
and frustration as he sees his world view not supported in
the science classroom. Or, he will begin a journey of
discovery as to how science actually works and in so doing
learn so much more about himself and his spirituality. The
Talk Origins archive has several stories of such journeys.
They were all wrenching and show huge courage at great
personal cost. Some are not up to it. Roadrunner might not
be.
[end quote]
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), JOJ...@webtv.net
>(\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>
>>R. Brown, Wow, do you ever think you have got it all figured out!!!
>>---unbelievable chutzpah. This scenario you have laid out as a logical
>>solution --is idiotic to a committed Christian who does see all of this
>>life in Christian terms. It is like asking them to kill the essence of
>>their being, and slink over to your meaningless world of "shifting
>>sands" and empty ideas. God bless, Jo Jean.
>>
>>I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
>>topics and am a retired RN.
>>
>>http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
>>Jesus loves you.
>>John Chap 1 v 3
>>Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
>>who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
>>classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
>>MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
>>of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
>
>la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
>ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
--
R Brown
"(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29130-3F...@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> R. Brown, Wow, do you ever think you have got it all figured out!!!
> ---unbelievable chutzpah. This scenario you have laid out as a logical
> solution --is idiotic to a committed Christian who does see all of this
> life in Christian terms. It is like asking them to kill the essence of
> their being, and slink over to your meaningless world of "shifting
> sands" and empty ideas. God bless, Jo Jean.
>
I doubt that you embody the true ideal of a christian - although I agree,
you probably should be committed.
The behaviour of creationists is quite transparent to the observer. You, for
a variety of personal reasons, are not able to acknowledge this as you are
"stuck inside the box" so to speak. No doubt you've invested considerable
time and energy into your belief system and change is highly unlikely.
Persons, such as myself, who have explored a range of alternatives over the
years have a different perspective than you do and tend to view persons such
as yourself as mired in a spiritual backwater.
It is ageless wisdom that tells us that we have to give up something of what
we are in order to gain new awareness and become what we might be. You've
simply stopped too soon is all. I understand the cloaking comfort you are
wrapped up in, believe me, but it doesn't answer all of your questions as
witnessed by your antagonism in this N.G. You are not able to harmonize your
personal world view with the reality of science and so you have to bury
yourself deeper in that "cloaking comfort" that you call your religion. You
don't understand science and so you fear it.
Have you tried Taoism?
Lenny Flank
Great answer, Mouth Runner.
PLEASE keep posting so that all the newbies can see how utterly inane,
vapid, and silly creationists really are.
And make sure you tell them about Xenu and the body-snatching space
aliens, so they'll know you're nuts, on top of it.
Ross Langerak
> > >
> > > "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:7ddAb.1100$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble,
we
> > should
> > > > simply
> > > > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
> > could
> > > > read
> > > > > something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
> > that,
> > > > we'll
> > > > > reply with something different than this post.
> > > >
> > countering
> > > > their arguments and providing information for the lurkers.
Every
> > time
> > > > a creationist posts the same old argument, view it as an
> > opportunity
> > > > to post a link to the archive. Or to another appropriate
site.
> > >
evolutionism
> > is not
> > > religious?
> >
the
> > information relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate has been
> > collected. Virtually all of that information originates from
sources
> > outside the archive. If any of that outside information were to
> > change, the archive would change with it. In science, the ultimate
> > authority is the evidence, whether it is the fossils themselves or
the
> > results of experiments published in journals. This is very
different
> > from a religious text like the Bible, where any contradictory evid
ence
> > must be explained away rather than alter the holy book.
> >
> > So, do you have any evidence that you think should cause us to
alter
> > the archive?
>
fact.
So what! Does that mean the archive doesn't contain evidence?
Whether or not you agree that evolution is a fact, the archive still
contains evidence. Your objection to something that is not related to
the subject at hand is irrelevant.
As for the evidence, all you have to do is look at the archive. The
evidence has already been collected there for you. You don't have to
go searching through textbooks and journals and websites to find this
information. That work has already been done for you. Shouldn't you
at least be willing to look at the evidence that has been provided for
you?
Ross Langerak
> > >
> > > "tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
> > > news:r153tvs2lkcik69f9...@news.supernews.com...
> > > > "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > >> From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble,
we
> > should
> > > > >simply
> > > > >> post the same response each time, with no elaboration,
which
> > could read
> > > > >> something like this:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
> > that, we'll
> > > > >> reply with something different than this post.
> > > > >
start
> > with their
> > > > >babble?
> > > >
creation.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, if you wanted to.
> > >
> > > Who needs a theory of creationism if you simply observe and draw
> > your
> > > conclusions without any bias of predeterminations.
> >
> > A theory is an explanation for the evidence. Your theory of
> > creationism should be your conclusions without any bias of
> > predeterminations. Then you need to test your theory by making
> > predictions and performing experiments.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You can also make up a
theory and
> adjust the 'evidence' to that, this I find is the general use of a
theory.
As far as I know, this is never done in science. Can you give an
example? As far as I know, every theory in science attempts to
explain a set of data. I'm not sure how anyone could even do the
reverse. How do you provide an explanation when there is nothing to
explain?
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>> > > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
>> should
>> > > simply
>> > > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
>> could
>> > > read
>> > > > something like this:
>> > > >
>> > > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
>> that,
>> > > we'll
>> > > > reply with something different than this post.
>> > >
>> countering
>> > > their arguments and providing information for the lurkers. Every
>> time
>> > > a creationist posts the same old argument, view it as an
>> opportunity
>> > > to post a link to the archive. Or to another appropriate site.
>> >
>> > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism
>> is not
>> > religious?
>>
>> The Talk.Origins Archive is a convenient reference where much of the
>> information relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate has been
>> collected. Virtually all of that information originates from sources
>> outside the archive. If any of that outside information were to
>> change, the archive would change with it. In science, the ultimate
>> authority is the evidence, whether it is the fossils themselves or the
>> results of experiments published in journals. This is very different
>> from a religious text like the Bible, where any contradictory evidence
>> must be explained away rather than alter the holy book.
>>
>> So, do you have any evidence that you think should cause us to alter
>> the archive?
>
> First of all the intro to the site, evolution is pronounced 'A' fact.
Evolution _is_ a fact. You wouldn't want them to lie, would you?
Of course you didn't answer the question he asked. Do you have any
*EVIDENCE* that you think should cause us to alter the archive?
Mark
Ross Langerak
> > "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
> >
> > >"tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
> > >news:r153tvs2lkcik69f9...@news.supernews.com...
> > >> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
> > >> >Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start
with
> their
> > >> >babble?
> > >>
> > >> Well, you could shut them up with a scientific theory of
creation.
> > >>
> > >> I mean, if you wanted to.
> > >
> > >Who needs a theory of creationism if you simply observe and draw
your
> > >conclusions without any bias of predeterminations.
> >
want to
> > follow them, that's okay. But unless you can frame divine creation
> > within the rules of science, you don't have a counter to
evolution. All
> > you have is a non-sequitor.
>
> The question is do you follow my reasoning? It's far easier to
think up a
> theory as suits us well according to our predeterminations and
ideas. And
> then just shuffle around with the observed facts till they fit in.
Do you
> see any danger of that possibly happening?
Yes. Believing in creationism. Scientists don't do what you suggest.
First comes the data, then comes the theory to explain it. Darwin
proposed evolution to explain things he saw in nature: first came the
evidence, then came the theory. Then predictions are formed based
upon the theory, which are then tested with experiments, resulting in
more data.
Suppose someone did propose a theory without looking at any evidence.
What are the chances that the theory would actually fit the existing
evidence? Wouldn't it be easier to look at the data first, and then
propose an explanation? Humans are actually rather good at forming
generalities.
J McCoy
> From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should simply
> post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> something like this:
>
> Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> reply with something different than this post.
>
"Jingo was his name-o".
Creationism is a scientific theory. It purports that the earth is
fairly young. That is a testable statement. When you understand that,
we'll reply with something different than this post.
JM
Boikat
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
simply
> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> > something like this:
> >
> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> > reply with something different than this post.
> >
> > Jingo.
>
> "Jingo was his name-o".
>
> Creationism is a scientific theory.
Not really.
> It purports that the earth is
> fairly young. That is a testable statement.
That was tested several hundred years ago. Guess what? They found out that
the earth was much older than "fairly young".
> When you understand that,
> we'll reply with something different than this post.
Like what? A concession speach form you or some other YEC? You are not
honest enough.
Boikat
David Horn
> "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>
>>From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should simply
>>post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
>>something like this:
>>
>>Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
>>reply with something different than this post.
>>
>>Jingo.
>
> "Jingo was his name-o".
I suppose this is a bit more catchy than "Nameless is a mo-ron."
> Creationism is a scientific theory.
Interesting that no one has yet been able to state this theory in
scientific terms.
> It purports that the earth is fairly young.
"Fairly young" is a bit vague; and the age of the Earth can vary from
creationist to creationist. Some believe it to be on the order of
6,000-10,000 years old. Others will allow millions of years. There is
no concensus among creationist about the age of the Earth, though some
would tell you that it doesn't matter. Still, creationism isn't just
about the age of the Earth.
> That is a testable statement.
Indeed it is; and it has failed all tests. If we select from the
various creationist claims about the age of the Earth--whether it is
thousands or millions of years old--that "testable statement" of
creationism fails. The Earth is not "fairly young" (understanding that
"fairly young" is a phrase used as a challenge to the assertions of
conventional science that the Earth is billions of years old); but that
is not the only reason that creationism is not science.
> When you understand that,we'll reply with something different than
> this post.
Watching Nameless presume to use "we" as if he is speaking for others is
amusing, but pointless. Since Nameless cannot even honor his
obligations outside of the scope of the creationism/evolution debate,
how can he be expected to be honest about that debate?
AC
Roadrunner <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>
> "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:53:18 +0000 (UTC),
>> >
>> > "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:smhAb.1815$rP6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:7ddAb.1100$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>> >> > > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
>> >> should
>> >> > > simply
>> >> > > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
>> >> could
>> >> > > read
>> >> > > > something like this:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
>> >> that,
>> >> > > we'll
>> >> > > > reply with something different than this post.
>> >> > >
>> >> countering
>> >> > > their arguments and providing information for the lurkers. Every
>> >> time
>> >> > > a creationist posts the same old argument, view it as an
>> >> opportunity
>> >> > > to post a link to the archive. Or to another appropriate site.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism
>> >> is not
>> >> > religious?
>> >>
>> >> The Talk.Origins Archive is a convenient reference where much of the
>> >> information relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate has been
>> >> collected. Virtually all of that information originates from sources
>> >> outside the archive. If any of that outside information were to
>> >> change, the archive would change with it. In science, the ultimate
>> >> authority is the evidence, whether it is the fossils themselves or the
>> >> results of experiments published in journals. This is very different
>> >> from a religious text like the Bible, where any contradictory evidence
>> >> must be explained away rather than alter the holy book.
>> >>
>> >> So, do you have any evidence that you think should cause us to alter
>> >> the archive?
>> >
>> > First of all the intro to the site, evolution is pronounced 'A' fact.
>>
>> You've already admitted evolution happens. So it is a fact. You admitted
>> it yourself, when you finally bothered to even ask what an allele was.
>
> You have bad memory don't you. That allele frequency would be explained with
> micro evolution. And....I did not ask anything about allele as far as I
> recall.
Do you really want me to fetch up that whole lovely thread where you
revealed you had no idea what evolution was? Isn't it bad enough that you
have revealed yourself as an anti-semitic Holocaust denier?
AC
Please specifically state which Nazi doctrines Lenny advocates. If you
cannot, then you have again demonstrated that you are a liar.
Oh, and how many Jews were murdered by the Nazis, RR? Why won't you answer?
Afraid to?
Daniel Harper
>
> We have different opinions about what 'evidence' is, can't be helped.
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Roadrunner
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vt4o33h...@corp.supernews.com...
Error, you ar just another Nazi Doctrine Lover!!!!!
Roadrunner
You as being a Nazi Doctrine Lover should know, don't you?
Roadrunner
You should know better than anyone else, Herr Nazi Doctrine Lover........
Roadrunner
Just consider that having a theory makes human beings want to find evidence
for it to prove it. It happened with Pilt Down man, and there are many such
example. As long as we behave like 'humans' and operate an such premises
how ar we going to discover truth.
Roadrunner
I believe he took that idea of 'the strongest survives' from Herbert
Spencer, in his turn he took it from one Thomas R. Malthus. Find out what
that was for an individual. This 'diagnose' is not in the first prints of
Darwins book.
> Then predictions are formed based
> upon the theory, which are then tested with experiments, resulting in
> more data.
>
> Suppose someone did propose a theory without looking at any evidence.
> What are the chances that the theory would actually fit the existing
> evidence?
That's my point, they do not. But if you hammer hard enough, disregard some
contrary information and then you have it made!
>Wouldn't it be easier to look at the data first, and then
> propose an explanation? Humans are actually rather good at forming
> generalities.
They also have a very big EGO, and want to have RIGHT
Roadrunner
You can't prove me wrong, so you resort to low attacks and want to destroy,
this is Nazi conduct.
Roadrunner
"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
> > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
> > simply
> > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could
read
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that,
we'll
> > > reply with something different than this post.
> >
> > Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with
their
> > babble?
> >
> > Any suggestions? (lots of options as their adopted theory has quite
some
> > fallacies)
>
>
>
> either one of which will kill evolutionists dead.
>
>
>
> (1) tell 'em what the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design
> is, and then demonstrate to them how to test that scientific theory
> using the scientific method.
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> (2) demonstrate to 'em why they should pay more attention to YOUR
> particular religious opinions than they should to me or my next door
> neighbor or my car mechanic or the counter girl at the local health
> food store.
>
>
>
> Care to give it a go, Mouth Runner? Or don't you have the ping-pongs
> for it. . . .
>
People over here know already what kind of individual you are, I will
disregard any of your responses. Killed some jews lately, haven't you? No,
this is not popular right now, so you pick some others.......
Roadrunner
news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
simply
> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> > something like this:
> >
> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> > reply with something different than this post.
> >
>
>
>
> questions that matter, and I ask them of each and every creationist I
> meet. They are:
>
> (1) what is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design, and
> how can we test that theory using the sicentific method
I do not accept this 'scientific method', as it is not reliable and based on
predeterminations.
>
> and
>
> (2) why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular
> religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neigbbor's,
> my car mechanic's, the kid's who delivers my pizza, or my sister's
> dog's former owner's?
Tell me, you adopted the evolution faith.
>
>
> Until creationists/IDerts answer those two simple questions, they
> aren't saying anything worth listening to, and are simply hand-waving
> and evading.
Arne Vogel
>
>>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:53:42 +0000 (UTC),
>>Roadrunner <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>"tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:r153tvs2lkcik69f9...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
>>>>
>>>>should
>>>>
>>>>>>>simply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
>>>>
>>>>could read
>>>>
>>>>>>>>something like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
>>>>
>>>>that, we'll
>>>>
>>>>>>>>reply with something different than this post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>with their
>>>>
>>>>>>>babble?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I mean, if you wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who needs a theory of creationism if you simply observe and draw
>>>>
>>>>your
>>>>
>>>>>conclusions without any bias of predeterminations.
>>>>
>>>>creationism should be your conclusions without any bias of
>>>>predeterminations. Then you need to test your theory by making
>>>>predictions and performing experiments.
>>>
>>>The problem is that it works both ways. You can also make up a theory
>
> and
>
>>>adjust the 'evidence' to that, this I find is the general use of a
>
> theory.
>
>
> have
>
>>to be one of the most ignorant human beings I have ever encountered. It
>>explains your anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. You're a complete
>
> moron.
>
> If you don't stop your anti-Semitism and holocaust denial nonsense, I will
> simply address you as a Nazi Doctrine Lover (true anyway), it's up to
> you......
How many Jews were killed in the Holocaust? A range of values you find
plausible should be sufficient.
<--- Your answer goes here.
> We have different opinions about what 'evidence' is, can't be helped.
Yes. Your opinion is utter nonsense.
Roadrunner
"Arne Vogel" <ar...@123soft.de> wrote in message
news:bquq4l$kod$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Hihi, first you want me to answer about how many Jews etc.... and then you
say my opinion is utter nonsense. Great!
Roadrunner
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ug4tvk3glvo1i9qs...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:50:35 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
> <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
> >"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:ubc3tvglq6cc887vg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:49:53 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
> >> <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
> >> >"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:6o03tvgtiru209f1t...@4ax.com...
> >> >> <http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
> [snip]
> >> >And more bibles....
> >>
> >> How do you type while holding fingers in both ears?
> >
> >Good question, I wonder about that too!
>
> As you may know, the Theory of Evolution stands or falls on the
> evidence.
Not really, not the theory that is. But if you talk about the fact of
evolution, you are right.
>Here is a link to some of that evidence:
> <http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
> Since you seem so sure that there are problems with the theory, then
> you should have no problems pointing out to us how the evidence is
> faulty.
You gave me bible reference.
>
>
> 內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
> �虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>
> -- Pip R. Lagenta
> President for Life
> International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
> (If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
> ---
> <http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
> (For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
>
Lenny Flank
> "Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:238b53a4.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
> simply
> > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> > > reply with something different than this post.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > In the entire creation/evolution 'debate", there are only two
> > questions that matter, and I ask them of each and every creationist I
> > meet. They are:
> >
> > (1) what is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design, and
> > how can we test that theory using the sicentific method
>
> I do not accept this 'scientific method', as it is not reliable and based on
> predeterminations.
>
Why the fuck should any of us care what you "acceopt" or don't.
<shrug>
Got a better scientific method? let's see it. Put up or shut up.
Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the damn toilet.
> >
> > and
> >
> > (2) why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular
> > religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neigbbor's,
> > my car mechanic's, the kid's who delivers my pizza, or my sister's
> > dog's former owner's?
>
> Tell me, you adopted the evolution faith.
<yawn> OK, so you have no answer to my question.
Gee, I'm shocked.
>
> >
> >
> > Until creationists/IDerts answer those two simple questions, they
> > aren't saying anything worth listening to, and are simply hand-waving
> > and evading.
> >
See above. <shrug>
Lenny Flank
<yawn>
Surprise, surprise -- you DON'T have the ping-pongs for it and you
AREN'T gonna answer my two simple questions.
Gee, I'm shocked. Utterly shocked.
Thanks for demonstrating once again to all the lurkers that
creationists simply have nothing to say.
Michael Clark
news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
simply
> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
> > something like this:
> >
> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
> > reply with something different than this post.
> >
> > Jingo.
>
> "Jingo was his name-o".
>
> Creationism is a scientific theory.
It is? Could you print it here or provide a URL? Please?
> It purports that the earth is fairly young.
Some do (creationistas). Some don't. Do you think you
fellers could get your story straight?
> That is a testable statement.
Yep. It sure is. We tested it. It failed.
> When you understand that,
> we'll reply with something different than this post.
OK, I understand that. Now, can I have something other
than this post? Please?
> JM
Paid that feller yet?
Ross Langerak
> > >
> > > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
> > should
> > > simply
> > > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
could
> > read
> > > > something like this:
> > > >
> > > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
that,
> > we'll
> > > > reply with something different than this post.
> > >
with
> > their
> > > babble?
> >
ask,
> > I get no response other than "Yes I did!"
>
> I simply don't want to repeat our earlier discussions a while back.
I think
> it is obvious (for now anyway) that we are not going to convice
eachother.
> I am not clear myself about a lot of things, with this I mean to say
that I
> reconsider old views in let's say a new dimension of time. Also the
main
> issue for me is not evolution/creation, it's rather how people came
to
> believe and accept their convictions.
If you presented evidence, you wouldn't be repeating an earlier
discussion.
Pip R. Lagenta
[snip]
>> As you may know, the Theory of Evolution stands or falls on the
>> evidence.
>
>Not really, not the theory that is. But if you talk about the fact of
>evolution, you are right.
Your statement makes no sense because "evidence" *is* "facts",
including the (observed and recorded) fact of evolution. The Theory
of Evolution is required to explain the known facts, including the
(observed and recorded) fact of evolution. The Theory of Evolution
stands as a workable and accurate theory *ONLY* if the facts (i.e.
"the evidence") are truly explained (so as to make sense) by the
Theory of Evolution. Should you wish to discredit the Theory of
Evolution, you must show that the evidence (i.e. the facts) is *not*
explained by the Theory of Evolution. However, the real bitch for you
is that discrediting the Theory of Evolution will in *no* way detract
from the (observed and recorded) FACT of evolution. Heh heh!
>>Here is a link to some of that evidence:
>> <http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
>> Since you seem so sure that there are problems with the theory, then
>> you should have no problems pointing out to us how the evidence is
>> faulty.
>
>You gave me bible reference.
You gave me non sequitur.
If you are not able to deal with (or even identify) facts, then you
belong in the Booby-Hatch.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova
<nos...@buzz.off>:
RR? You there? How about listing the "fallacies" you
mentioned; you wouldn't want everyone to think that was
merely empty rhetoric, would you? And "I already did" won't
cut it, at least not without a cite to Google with the
message ID. So put up or shut up.
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:55:11 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Roadrunner"
><peg...@privat.utfors.se>:
>
><snip>
>
>>Alright now, but how do we respond when an evolutionists start with their
>>babble?
>>
>>Any suggestions? (lots of options as their adopted theory has quite some
>>fallacies)
>
>List them.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Jingo
> >> <http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
> >> Since you seem so sure that there are problems with the theory, then
> >> you should have no problems pointing out to us how the evidence is
> >> faulty.
> >
> >You gave me bible reference.
>
> You gave me non sequitur.
What the heck is a 'bible' anyway? Isn't it Latin or something for
"biblio" meaning a collection of writings about a person or persons
life/lives?
Jingo.
Ethan Rogati
lfl...@ij.net wrote on 12/7/03 10:47 AM:
<snip>
> Got a better scientific method? let's see it. Put up or shut up.
> Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the damn toilet.
<snip>
I know you're a prolific poster, Lenny, but could you please put more
thought into your replies than it takes to hit the F1 key to activate the
"Put up or shut up" macro?
Lenny Flank
> > > > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism
> is
> not
> > > > > religious?
> > > >
> > > > Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
> > > > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> > >
> > > If you say that you have not understood.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Mouth Runner --- why is it that NO ONE ever seems to "understand"
> > you. Is it because you're so much more brilliant and perceptive than
> > all of us mere mortals? Or is it just because you're an incoherent
> > idiot?
>
> No idea, Herr Nazi Doctrine Lover!
<yawn>
Thanks for once again demonstrating to all the lurkers out there how
utterly inane you are, Mouth Runner.
Please feel free to use all the silly taunts you like. But answer my
fucking questions, or shut the hell up.
Lenny Flank
> news:<TUfAb.30340$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > > Right, the evolutionists bible. And still saying that evolutionism is
> not
> > > > religious?
> > >
> > > Your criteria for what is a religion is the same as saying that "I
> > > believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ask him first to tell you all about the Galactic Emperor Xenu and the
> > body-snatching space aliens that can be detected using a blood
> > pressure machine (if you're willing to cough up enough money for it).
>
> Is it not past your bedtime Herr Nazi Doctrine Lover?
<yawn>
Great answer, Mouth Runner.
Thanks once again for demonstrating to all the lurkers how utterly
vapid you really are.
us...@example.com
>"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:E8wAb.3012$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Suppose someone did propose a theory without looking at any evidence.
>> What are the chances that the theory would actually fit the existing
>> evidence?
>
>That's my point, they do not. But if you hammer hard enough, disregard some
>contrary information and then you have it made!
So don't do what those scientists do. Don't hammer the data into fitting
the conclusion, and don't disregard any of the evidence. Come up with a
scientific theory of divine creation, and do so honestly.
John Wilkins
It's anything you can put in a bibliography (biblos = "book"). In
ordinary use it also means the standard reference work on some field
(like "Kernigan and Ritchie is the programmer's bible"). This is a
derived meaning, but I'm not too sure what it is derived from. Perhaps
there is some book that everybody thinks is authoritative, but apart
from the Oxford English Dictionary, I am unable to think what it could
be...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Ross Langerak
Certainly, scientists have biases and they often want to prove their
favorite theories. This is why we rely upon the evidence, not the
opinion of any particular scientist. Notice that the mistake
associated with Piltdown man was discovered and corrected by
scientists. We discover the "truth" by applying the scientific method
which allows us to weed out error and fraud and bias.
Roadrunner
Is that not what for example talk.origins site is about?
Roadrunner
I will not adjust to the evolutional science approach. The results allow
too much space for subjectivity.
Ross Langerak
>
> "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:E8wAb.3012$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip]
> > Yes. Believing in creationism. Scientists don't do what you
suggest.
> > First comes the data, then comes the theory to explain it. Darwin
> > proposed evolution to explain things he saw in nature: first came
the
> > evidence, then came the theory.
>
> I believe he took that idea of 'the strongest survives' from Herbert
> Spencer, in his turn he took it from one Thomas R. Malthus. Find
out what
> that was for an individual. This 'diagnose' is not in the first
prints of
> Darwins book.
So what? Every scientist builds upon the work of previous scientists.
That is what allows us to advance from generation to generation. The
old theories were based upon evidence. New theories are based upon
new evidence (as well as the old evidence). Quite often, a new theory
is just a modification of an old theory. That is how science works.
> > Then predictions are formed based
> > upon the theory, which are then tested with experiments, resulting
in
> > more data.
> >
> > Suppose someone did propose a theory without looking at any
evidence.
> > What are the chances that the theory would actually fit the
existing
> > evidence?
>
> That's my point, they do not. But if you hammer hard enough,
disregard some
> contrary information and then you have it made!
Except, that is not what scientists do. When a theory doesn't fit the
evidence, the theory is changed, not the evidence. Our theories
regarding evolution have changed since it was first proposed by
Darwin. This doesn't sound like fitting the evidence to the theory.
Perhaps you could provide an example of how evidence is being altered
or ignored to fit evolution?
> >Wouldn't it be easier to look at the data first, and then
> > propose an explanation? Humans are actually rather good at
forming
> > generalities.
>
> They also have a very big EGO, and want to have RIGHT
Which is why we don't allow the opinion of any particular scientist to
determine the validity of a theory. Theories are judged entirely on
how well they fit the evidence.
Ross Langerak
>
> "Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:238b53a4.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jingo" <Jingo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we
should
> simply
> > > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which
could read
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand
that, we'll
> > > reply with something different than this post.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > In the entire creation/evolution 'debate", there are only two
> > questions that matter, and I ask them of each and every
creationist I
> > meet. They are:
> >
> > (1) what is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design,
and
> > how can we test that theory using the sicentific method
>
> I do not accept this 'scientific method', as it is not reliable and
based on
> predeterminations.
Considering how successful the scientific method has been, perhaps you
should rethink that position.
Mark VandeWettering
As opposed to your approach which relies _solely_ on subjectivity?
I must admit, you seem ruthless in your policy of remaining ignorant.
Mark
Mike Goodrich
>
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03120...@posting.google.com...
> news:<2ObAb.29762$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>> > From now one, when a creationist starts with their babble, we should
> simply
>> > post the same response each time, with no elaboration, which could read
>> > something like this:
>> >
>> > Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
>> > reply with something different than this post.
>> >
>>
>> "Jingo was his name-o".
>>
>> Creationism is a scientific theory.
>
>
>> It purports that the earth is
>
>
> That was tested several hundred years ago. Guess what? They found out that
> the earth was much older than "fairly young".
>
>
Hey John, at least Boikat is agreeing with you that the proposition is
testable ...
cheers,
-mg
Roadrunner
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbt98od.1...@keck.vandewettering.net...
Why wanting to find wrong with opponents, why not attempt to understand? In
my opinion you are the ignorant one, stating this does not get us anywhere,
now does it.
Ross Langerak
Then visit the archive and actually become familiar with some of the
evidence. We've looked at Hovind's arguments and they don't work.
It's your turn to either defend them or present evidence supporting
your position.
Roadrunner
"We" you tell me. I've looked at a variety at talk.origins, but I do not
find that I get anywhere. Too much assuming.
> It's your turn to either defend them or present evidence supporting
> your position.
No, it's not actually. You should have understood by now that I wish the
creational view to be spread around. Anyone should at least have an inkling
about that it exists.
harvest dancer
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<8JoAb.40957$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
> "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ubc3tvglq6cc887vg...@4ax.com...
> > How do you type while holding fingers in both ears?
>
> Good question, I wonder about that too!
Apparently Roadrunner wonders how Roadrunner types while holding
Roadrunner's fingers in both of Roadrunner's ears.
Jason