Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

Yes.

Reality is truth.

 

Sorry folks. But, some of you may have noticed by now that your posts in this thread have been deleted.


Why?

Off Topic.

I invite you to read the Forum Guidelines again, paying special attention to Item 6, Off Topic Postings. You can find them here: http://www.hipforums.com/forumguidelines.htm ... or reposted below for your convenience.

Again, I apologize, but keep it on topic or it gets deleted ... like this message will be in a couple of days.

Darrell

______________________________________________________________

Off Topic Postings: Often people post remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of the forum or thread. Occasionally threads are deliberately taken off topic to advance an opposing agenda or disrupt the discussion. These posts will be moved or deleted at the discretion of the moderator, and the user may be banned. We urge all members wishing to discuss a new topic to start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

​

 

I answered question asked me- why were the answers deleted and not the questions?

Oh, well!

Adios.

 

I´m still working my way through this thread but if it hasn´t been said yet- speaking of "black boxes", religion is used as the ultimate black box. Whatever goes in or comes out, without knowing anything else, it must be "god" or allah. Nowhere in the perception of complexity is there evidence of a creator. But similarly, it is equally as hard to prove a negative and so I don't care to argue the point of gods' existence or not. It may be that such an entity exists despite there being no evidence from my point of view. Just labelling something as the work of the creator does not explain anything and only creates a circular argument that goes nowhere.

 

So

Darwin was incorrect ?

Occam

 

Only if he assumed that the forces that guide evolution are unintentional.

I don't know if Darwin ever said that?

To get back to the main topic: Darwin didn't have to lie to me to get me tied to a bed, he just had to use his hot sister. Damn kidney thief.

 

Kharakov
If he assumed that.. then it is but his opinion..there is no way he could
support it rationally as a fact.
[insufficient data]

Occam

 

I thought that was what the whole argument was about.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote the new testament at all those creationists out thar, out thar:

Titus 1:13-16 :
13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 :
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

1 Timmayyyy 1:4 :
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Genesis is a Jewish Fable.

Fable: a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings b : a narration intended to enforce a useful truth;

A useful truth that this Fable conveys is that God is the creator of man. It conveys some other messages as well.

 

Code:

I don't know if Darwin ever said that?

He said something like it. In the bilnd watchmaker, Dawkins mentions how Darwin very concrete states that he will not support his theory if it means any interference from a Creator.

Very brilliant post -Occam- proving your sence of linguistic skill without really imposing a sever threat but rather a gentle call for fruitful interchange.

Now for the interchange:
Occam, are you a supporter of Eldredges and Goulds idea of a puncuated equilibrium to describe the extreme lack of fossils or are you more found of the neo-Darwinistic approach used by Dawkins?
If you believe in Goulds argument, how would you then explain how such a mutant creature would reproduce? If you rather support the more classic version; then why occam, WHY OCCAM, do we not find these intermediate fossils all around us or atleast alot of them.

 

with logic like "since termites are so 'advanced' there has to be a God" you could also say that if the universe is so incredibly vast, what are the chances that God created a religious history for each and every life baring planet in it?

 

You are trying to prove a point with inadequate information. You are assuming that there is life on the other planets and this guessing from your side cannot be compared with the advanced structure of the termite.

 

I flipped a quarter 42 times, and my results were: HHTHHTHTHTTTHTHHHTHTHTHHTHTTHTHHTTTTTHHHTH. The chances of that happening were 1 in 439,980,046,511,104. This result must show that god exists. I find it rather hard to believe that such a high improbability coming true is mere happenstance.

 

but youre guessing that there is a god, there is no difference.

 

William Dembski, mathmetican and author of several books on ID and darwinism very often mentions "the third mode of explanation", that is design.(The other to are neccesity and chance) albeit, without going in to details he uses a "special filter" to know what is design and what is not. According to him design requires 3 factors; complexity, contingency and specifikation. You result with the coin is complex indeed but it lacks specifikation, it is a random result. What if it said: HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHHHHHHTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTHHHHHH
(reminds you of that UFO message on the movie contact, according to Dembsi it had all components needed for the crew to suspect design)

Then you may inquire about design!

 

How convenient of you to not define specification. I say your theory lacks glomely. Therefore, you are wrong.

 

I don't know what glomely is, but it sounds cute.

 

everyone laugh at the silly creationists trying to debunk evolutionary fact.
HAHAHAHA.

 

445 posts and still nothing has changed...

 

you won't attract me to your side of the fence by laughing at others' faith.
As for the 'theory' of evolution. There is a reason it is called a theory. It is by no means undisputed. I am a fan of it with a few tweaks, ie. catastrophism leading to rapid changes is an aspect I feel plays a role. And the ancient people also played a role, imho, by genetic engineering.
I just tend to like these ideas as they explain the discrepancies that the official line does not. But it is still just conjecture. Not fact, as facts are to me almost always an illusion. Fact: Dead is dead, pregnant is pregnant, good is good, bad is bad. Beyond that, it is all debatable, and to be totally realistic, at least two of those 'facts' I post are arguable.