|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 20:25:48 GMT -5
Blondie...please get it right.... I have not wasted one word "arguing" creationism with you...I don't know how else I can say it...creationism is a matter of my faith and not science....can you get that? and yes...i admit that makes me (in your mind) ignorant, lunatic fringe material who is lying to kids....ok....now get off of that, and lets get back to science.... stop throwing links at me....once again , I am NOT trying to convince you of ANYTHING...other than to get you to LEARN the SCIENTIFIC METHOD....that has NOTHING to do with creationism vs. abiogenesis.... I see now you are impugning my psychological make-up, so I guess I can add that to the list....and the only reason you would suggest that I don't believe evolution and climatology is science is because you cannot read.... What's your point about the scientific method? Does it involve the word observation?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 20:49:58 GMT -5
bamagatr,
I read back through this and still don't see your point. That's not necessarily your fault. This is an Internet forum.
Are you saying abiogenesis isn't a science? It isn't when it's being explored by philosophers, but it is when it's being studied by chemists.
You definitely said said ID is "logic" which is ironic because it's a logical fallacy.
ID is just the old Cosmological argument for the existence of god.
If creation needs a creator the creator needs a creator etc, etc. This is a very old reply to this very old argument.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 22, 2007 23:34:57 GMT -5
blondie, Do you believe in other dimensions?.....scientist do...is that logical...I think not......its just hypothesis and FAITH.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 23, 2007 7:51:04 GMT -5
blondie, Do you believe in other dimensions?.....scientist do...is that logical...I think not......its just hypothesis and FAITH. This its the Fallacies of Ambiguity. You're misusing the word "faith." www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htmThere are mathematical reasons to believe in other dimensions. And yes they are still a hypothesis. Now obviously you're trying to make a connection between believing in other dimensions and believing in the resurrection of Christ. A fairer comparison would be between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of Osiris.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 23, 2007 8:00:00 GMT -5
No, Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. We cannot prove there are other dimensions nor can we prove the resurrection of Christ or the existence of God. Its faith. I read your other post where you stopped believing in God when you discovered the truth about santa. I agree that the lie of santa can be a detriment to children and their beliefs, and for that reason we have never lied to our children about santa being real, we have always taught the truth about what Christmas is truly about. Im sorry to see that you have lost your faith for that reason but the existence of our creator is as real as air...we cant see it but we know it is there.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 23, 2007 8:28:27 GMT -5
A fairer comparison would be between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of Osiris. Nice story. I had never read this version. It's is so full of undying love and devotion. www.philae.nu/philae/IsisOsiris.html
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 23, 2007 9:04:10 GMT -5
Wow...this thread just got knocked into far left field....lol
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 23, 2007 10:12:50 GMT -5
I find it amazing that anyone would want to believe they are the descendants of monkeys. No wonder Eli Lilly and Company are making such a killing... If you just happen to be the result of billions of years of chance then....what's the point of living? Everything around you is just....chance. There is a great irony that, in man's attempt to disprove the existence of a creator, they have reduced themselves to a worthless improbability.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 23, 2007 11:51:37 GMT -5
No, Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. We cannot prove there are other dimensions nor can we prove the resurrection of Christ or the existence of God. Its faith. I read your other post where you stopped believing in God when you discovered the truth about santa. I agree that the lie of santa can be a detriment to children and their beliefs, and for that reason we have never lied to our children about santa being real, we have always taught the truth about what Christmas is truly about. Im sorry to see that you have lost your faith for that reason but the existence of our creator is as real as air...we cant see it but we know it is there. Faith is a loaded word. It's often brought up as a rhetorical point to get people like me to admit we believe in things we can't prove. Also to equate Christianity with Science. There are logical reasons to believe in other dimensions. The evidence is provided by people doing some far out math. I don't understand string theory completely, but physicists and mathematicians have a pretty good track record. Why don't you believe Mohammad had a perfect revelation? There is plenty of other reasons not to believe the gospels are history. They look like Greek mythology. I don't believe any ancient tales of magic.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 23, 2007 20:30:16 GMT -5
I don't believe any ancient tales of magic. You prefer the more recent ones, right?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 24, 2007 7:25:38 GMT -5
Another Algoreism....
Tell you what...this guy is a real piece of work....
"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.' "
That's right, Al...instead we go see a science fiction MOVIE (yours), then come out of the theater shouting, "The sky is melting!!"
and where did you get your Doctor of Earth Medicine degree, Al? Somewhere behind the stills on the Cumberland Plateau?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 24, 2007 14:04:27 GMT -5
and where did you get your Doctor of Earth Medicine degree, Al? Somewhere behind the stills on the Cumberland Plateau? If I'm not mistaken, he got it somewhere around here: Hack Science>--------------------*---------------------------<Grand Ego
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 24, 2007 18:38:58 GMT -5
To build a bit on bama's analogy...
The way that 'Pope Algore I' would have us 'treat' the 'illness' that is global warming would be akin to a doctor treating a patient who might have heart trouble later in life by removing his heart.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 25, 2007 14:19:10 GMT -5
To build a bit on bama's analogy... The way that 'Pope Algore I' would have us 'treat' the 'illness' that is global warming would be akin to a doctor treating a patient who might have heart trouble later in life by removing his heart. exactly...and even to play a little more with Gore's analogy...if I take my child to the doctor with a fever, and he gives him an antibiotic without determining that the cause is bacterial and not viral, then I will find a different doctor...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 25, 2007 22:02:03 GMT -5
bama-
Another good call on your part.
Did you happen to catch any of the rebroadcasts of Wednesday's testimonies on C-SPAN over the weekend?
I happened to catch not only Gore's laughable performance- Sen. Feinstein had to bail him out when Sen. Inhofe's questions began to hit a bit too close to home- but I also happened to see another individual's testimony and it painted the Democrats on the committees in the poorest possible light.
And that's saying something...
Bjorn Lomborg of the Danish Statistical Institute testified following Gore's appearance. Lomborg, it may be remembered, is the man who challenged Gore on more than one occasion to a free and open debate to take place either here in the US or overseas.
One might point out that Lomborg is not a climatologist and thus is not an expert on the issue. I'd point out that neither is Gore but that doesn't make the Left not fall to their collective knees to perform rectal osculation on Gore's more-than-ample posterior.
Anyway, Lomborg is one of the 'agnostics' and presented an extraordinarily compelling case that was- gasp!- actually based on science rather than emotion that refuted approximately 97% of what Gore said. I think the only point on which they agreed was that Gore got his own name correct.
But how was Lomborg's testimony presented as compared to that of Gore?
You're waaaaay ahead of me, aren't you?
I don't think any of the MSM even mentioned Lomborg's testimony. Not only that but, out of some 25 Democrats serving on the two committees before which testimony was heard, I think only about two even bothered to hear Lomborg make his case. I think Republicans, agree or disagree with the premise, treated Gore with a bit more respect...certainly more than either he or his opinions deserve.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 25, 2007 22:23:56 GMT -5
I don't think any of the MSM even mentioned Lomborg's testimony. Not only that but, out of some 25 Democrats serving on the two committees before which testimony was heard, I think only about two even bothered to hear Lomborg make his case. I think Republicans, agree or disagree with the premise, treated Gore with a bit more respect...certainly more than either he or his opinions deserve. To my understanding, this same thing happened to Dr. Spencer...when I pointed this out, Blondie promptly accused me of whining about some kind of media conspiracy... Inhofe is a trooper...wasn't it his blog that put the spotlight on the Heidi Cullen/James Spann kerfuffle?
|
|