I have one for you, How come the bible (The divine word of God) lists Bats as Birds we are not to eat?

posted: 12/16/2005 817 PM
Trewq,

As I have told you before it is silly to debate semantics when you don't even have the words.

You wrote:


Like listing "Bats" as one of the "Birds" we're not suppose to eat?
doesn't that "contradict current proven scientific facts"?

This is again a mistranslation...the word was not bird but 'flying creature'

If you are going to debate the merits of God / Creationism surely it cannot be too much to ask you to use logical reasoning and avoid fallacious arguments.

Charlie

I cut and pasted this from your profile:

"I call my replies Super Charged Power Thoughts (SCPT). all my SCPT's are positive and inspirational. A few to many may have difficulty understanding my thoughts only because their opinions differ or their will power is programmed to block concepts like SCPT while they themselves have a basic understanding of SCPT's words."

And so that I"M answering the thread. Apparently a Christian is a guy that can't take criticism from people that don't share his beliefs. There thats my piece on it.

Just for the record- this is slanderous. I NEVER called her stupid. I simply pointed out she was uniformed on the issue. That is not the same as stupid. We are all uninformed on some issues. Read my response to her; it was actually fairly cordial.

NO! I take it you didn't read my post above whereby I just addressed this egregious fallacy. NO! NO! NO!

A Christian will always take the time to try and convert you without respecting your own beliefs??? No??

by the way...can someone tell me what BBW means?

Dude, tell me you've got references on that stuff, CR. I'd love to see what all went into it.

1)You're dealing with a garden variety Creationist. One that doesn't understand the arguments in the various articles they're posting, and so can't understand when you point out critical errors in their claims. Even something basic as 'the source you cite doesn't support your argument' gets ignored. You could post something by Einstein on the speed of light, and the Creationist would say 'that's just his opinion'. They're idiots.

It's only a very, very rare Creationist that has the intelligence and honesty to actually read and then think about any post that disagrees with their pre-conceived ideas - I've met a few, and they're really rare.

Beyond a point, and I'm probably guilty of this 10x as much as anyone, you just end up enjoying pointing out how stupid they look when they say this sort of stuff. Once they reach the 'stupid saturation point' as this one has, really it just becomes a sort of sport to point out their latest particular bonehead statements, which they seldom (if ever) correct.

If they were smart, they wouldn't be Creationists, after all, would they?

--R.

2) What sort of idiot falls for this sort of mindless insane crap theology?

Oh, wait, we know that one. No names, but his initials are G.G. - and, sorry Prof. Dimitrevsky, he's not 'just being cute'.

--R.

3) I'll just sit back and wait for the next round of Creationist spam from the Usual Suspects. It'll come, in a wave of 'cut and paste'. They're like clowns, who only know one routine - falling flat on their faces.

--R.

4) The problem here is that the poster you're replying to doesn't understand basic science, never mind basic Thermodynamics. I leave the door open as to 'too stupid' or 'too lazy' to note that they have been repeatedly corrected on this point. They clearly don't care to learn anything about the subject, but it could be for either reason.


5) You just have to laugh at the idiot. Still waiting for 'oxygen kills life' or some of the other previously Creationist lies to get regurgitated again by the same poster. Should we start a pool on which particular one will be next?

--R.

6) Guess_who:

I'm sorry, I don't choose to debate mentally deranged people

7)
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/16/2005 9:35:30 AM
trewq36 please edit your post to fix quoting? you make it look like Ms. Looney Tunes said the latter part.



8) Why do Creationists make these sort of claims up? Do they know no science so they think it's all one big mishmash? Biology/evolution... physics/cosmology.... two different fields.... hello! wake up! learn something!

The people who should take offence are those who tried to teach you science in school. Or maybe the ones who paid their salaries.

--R

9) Just stop trying to stick your religion into science, thanks. You look like idiots when you try.

--R.

10) .Oh, goody, more Creationist quotes. Let's see how many are false or misquotes, shall we?

And when you make return insinuations about CR, it's S-C-H-I-Z-O, clear?

--R.

11) They're *your* "grossly misinformed, misleading and unsubstantiated opinions".

Another poster has urged me to stop responding to your increasingly erratic rants, since he/she thinks you're mentally unstable. I concur, so this will probably be my last reply to you (or your aliases).

--R.

12) If you don't want to be attacked for what you post, don't post false statements. Learn something about the subject beyond empty repetition you don't understand. You're not being attacked for being a Christian, you're being attacked for being ignorant about what you're saying, and then ignoring the people pointing out your constant errors of fact.

You're a very ordinary, run-of-the-mill, boring Creationist who has read a few Creationist books and websites and nothing more. Scientists have pointed out the errors in these claims by Creationists, but oddly the Creationists (including you) seem oblivious to them.

--R

13) I don't know if the people who ignore counterevidence are lazy, stupid, liars, or not. I do know they're not interested in sincere debate since they aren't interested in whether their claims are true or not.

--R.

14) I hope you feel better after getting that anti-science rant out.

--R.

15) Darwin observed evolution in organisms, and posited his theory based on that evidence. You might consider actually learning something about what he wrote some day. But I doubt you're interested in reality when you can just make stuff up like you do.

16) You really are completely ignorant of the actual science, it's brutally clear. You just parrot Creationist sources (usually garbled) without understanding their errors.

--R.

17) Guess_who plays the credentials card and flunks:
I'm happy you know some high-school chemistry (that's where I first learned it). Your grasp on science and the scientific method, however, clearly lacks opposable thumbs. Just because you don't understand evolution, you think it's false.

--R.

18) You know, a simple web search would have spared you the need to look so clueless

But you're not really interested in learning any actual science, are you?

--R.

19) In reference to a former pof member:"Guess_who_the_sockpuppet wrote"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"and strong atheism is equally faith based. "

That is not even remotely an accurate definition of evolution. First, evolution has no opinion on god one way or the other

Cosmology is an entirely different scientific discipline. It's not even subsumed under the same category! Evolution is biology

This point, though, shows more depth of thought on your part. Still it makes god seem a little petty, though. Why would he want to play such a cruel game? I'll put all this evidence to lead them astray, and offer no conclusive evidence of my existence, and if they don't choose to believe in me then I'll damn them to eternal suffering. Does that seem rational to you, that such a magnificent being would do that? I could, in the abstract, buy the notion of a whimsical god, but not a cruel one.

First of all Flew is a philosopher, which follows a different and less evidentiary strict methodology from science, so claims of "scientific evidence" are unfounded. Second, conversions are proof of nothing. People convert from one faith to another all the time. Would you suggest that a renown Christian converting to Buddhism is evidence of the veracity of Buddhism? That is a logical fallacy. Third, it's not even true! Following is a quote from Flew himself in response to the news story.

I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their falsity.
I can suggest only one possible source of the rumours. Several weeks ago I submitted to the Editor of Philo (The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers) a short paper making two points which might well disturb atheists of the more positive kind. The point more relevant here was that it can be entirely rational for believers and negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same scientific developments. ...I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.

That was a very relevant analogy to illustrate the logical fallacy inherent in the thread, so it is exactly what the thread is about. Nice try. That statement could only have been manifest from one of two causes- either a willfull attempt to confuse the logic or a woeful misunderstanding of logic and rational debate- sad whichever is true.

so what you are saying is that there is no physical or real evidence.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

what data?

I was just talking to Mick yesterday (micxter) about how it's sad that there are people in all races, religions, countries, etc... that ruin something for others.

I was just letting you know that my Church still use it as it originally was used, so you (and others) won't assume that anyone who uses it is not Christian. <---so you will know I really am not offended

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Okay, first of all this is a second hand account. The simplest example that I can give you as to why second hand accounts are not considered in science is this- have you ever played the game telephone when you were a kid? Now imagine that basic principle and add to that how widely interpreted conceptual constructs become when filtered through the sieve of all the differing perceptions and beliefs in society. Secondly, that very same reason applies to why anecdotal accounts are not scientifically valid in general. There are far too many explanations for personal experiences to pin down to the one-dimensionality necessary for objective proof. Also, the post is peppered with biased language that colors the actual event in the mind of the reader. i.e. - "This godly family wept" "something inside the Christian internist..." Without the loaded inferences it doesn't have the same impact. Next-