It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[coco]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you for your concern. It doesn't bother me, in fact I welcome it. It means I am making a point that they can't refute, so inturn it comforts them to hurl insults, but the truth remains, they stand there refuted!

Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.

[ChromiuMan]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
We looked at areas where it rains the most: 24/7 for about 5 months.
Well no worries.
What i alluded to, is that noone talks like that any more so more people are bound to get the wrong interpretation, even if you would give the right translation.
And literalism is probably never going to be cured.

I see. So it is not in the least duplicitous that Creationists can and do switch (repeatedly) from allegorical = literal = interpretive adaptation at will....

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Well i'm with KAB on this one, or is it the other one.
I should start listing them.
'god'is mentioned as the enemy of yhwh as 'gawd'and his band.
Since Gawd was the first english way to say and write god.
15 cubits do not make miles. The arabah-flat land, with some molehills.

15 cubits OVER THE TOPS OF Dena and Mount Ararat is close enough to say miles. Why quibble over "molehills?" I suppose I can modify/mollify/"mole-ify " and henceforth say "well over a mile/"mole" of water depth to submerge most of the Zagros Mountain/"Moletain" Range in 960 hours..."

[Subduction Zone]

coco wrote:

<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.

People are mean to Marky because he is an arrogant idiot.

The only way to learn something in a debate is to admit you are wrong when you are shown to be wrong. Marky's posts should be filled with that sort of acknowledgement. They aren't. Instead he acts like a true asshole.

Is it any wonder that he gets flamed?

[ChromiuMan]

coco wrote:

<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.

People are mean to him because he has evinced no integrity, honor or shame.
People are mean to him because just as the fig tree in Mark 11, he bears no fruit.

[ChromiuMan]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "f@ck off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"

I would wager that Jesus would say the exact same thing about the novel written about him.

[coco]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
People are mean to him because he has evinced no integrity, honor or shame.
People are mean to him because just as the fig tree in Mark 11, he bears no fruit.

Do you mean he has no balls? Is that the fruit you are speaking of?

[ChromiuMan]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not. Globes are spherical. Ancient Hebrews thought the earth was flat and the sky was a solid dome over the top with stars stuck to it.

But nevertheless, the actual statement in the passage make it clear that they believed the flood covered all the world and wiped all life off the face of it.

Of course. KAB didn't really want an equivalent word or phrase - he just wanted somebody to play 'go fetch data' with. It's all he does and all he's got.

[MikeF]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you expect to find a unique sediment layer of loose material washed down from the inside slopes of the hundreds of feet high walls of a meteor crater sitting on relatively flat surrounding terrain? Is that the kind of data you had in mind?

That is only one data point. It would have to be consistent world-wide. Which it is not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/443...

[Dogen]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't criticize science in general. Just psuedoscience like human from non-human evolution and the gullible people who feel the need to insult those people who see it for what it is, and out right rejects it.

You have denied every major and many minor fields of science.

Name a valid field of science that you agree with.

While you are at it how about wowing us with your scientific credentials. For example, name one single undergraduate science class that you have received a passing grade in.

Just one!

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.

And take note of the property of equivalence.

[Chimney1]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now that you agree with me...
<quoted text>
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.
<quoted text>
I'm glad you are.
If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.
But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.
In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."
Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?
<quoted text>
Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*
<quoted text>
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
<quoted text>
The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.
But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.

Yes, using intelligence, humans went from the discovering electromanetic theory to a supercomputer in just over a century.

Random mutation plus natural selection, following millions of blind alleys and with no goal "in mind", because, no mind of course, blundering upon a creature capable of our level of abstraction in 3,500,000,000 years, give or take an eon. Might never have happened, and for all the wonders that life has produced, intelligence like ours appears to be nothing but a sideshow.

You might call the process resilient, but hardly intelligent, and certainly not efficient!

[Chimney1]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "f@ck off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"

I would have to agree with that. The creation of a hoax does not invalidate the actual religion of Christianity.

Just as, the creation of a hoax like Piltdown Man does not invalidate the science of evolution. Yet seventy odd years after its exposure (by evolutionary scientists, of course), creationists still cannot stop going on about it.

[God Himself]

MAAT wrote:

I foresee long dence repetitions, of the he said/she said. and than aunt maud said etc.
Must be viral on that island.(Cleaned up the sea yet? And how about gay bashing and general homofobia. And oh what's the rapestatistic again?)
GH DID NOT SAY THAT.*
God Himself wrote:
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY
The Dude wrote:
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency
God Himself wrote:
... EFFICIENCY.
The Dude wrote:
...it would... be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.
*God Himself: In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
---
It's simple: you did not specify in what way efficiency would be tested.
This going to take another hundred post:
YOU did NOT write WHAT The Dude wrote.
Even if you intended it, you STILL DID NOT WRITE IT DOWN.
So you are dishonest.
How hard is that to understand?!

What did the Dude write, that I did not write that he wrote?

[God Himself]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
I would wager that Jesus would say the exact same thing about the novel written about him.

And what if he did?

[The Dude]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
So you respond by inventing even more?

No. As we already established the Bible has leeway in "interpretation".

[ChromiuMan]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
And what if he did?

Indeed.. what if he did say that in the interim of 300+ years between his death and the canonization of the New Testament his biography was mythologized and his message was garbled? Certainly it would have more importance to you than to me - but then I've been known to break mirrors, spill salt, stroll past black cats, open umbrellas indoors and walk under ladders without a second thought.

[The Dude]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "f@ck off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"

In which case biology has no reason to be "fracking ashamed" of Piltdown Man. Otherwise if it did it would mean you were a hypocrite.

[God Himself]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, using intelligence, humans went from the discovering electromanetic theory to a supercomputer in just over a century.

So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...

Chimney1 wrote:

Random mutation plus natural selection, following millions of blind alleys and with no goal "in mind", because, no mind of course, blundering upon a creature capable of our level of abstraction in 3,500,000,000 years, give or take an eon. Might never have happened, and for all the wonders that life has produced, intelligence like ours appears to be nothing but a sideshow.

I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.

That bit isn't even intelligible.

How many sentences were you intending to compose?

How many ideas were you intending to express?

You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?

Chimney1 wrote:

You might call the process resilient, but hardly intelligent, and certainly not efficient!

While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.

Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.

FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).

[The Dude]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that you agree with me...

I do not.

God Himself wrote:

And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.

It has no "import".

The sun "performs" nuclear fusion. Perhaps it even does it extremely efficiently? Or perhaps not. Either way, it does it. That still does not indicate any intelligence on the part of the sun or invisible Jews. Though I admire the mental gymnastics on your part in attempting to avoid the simple fact that you have no mechanisms for your proposed intelligence nor evidence for it.

God Himself wrote:

I'm glad you are. If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.
But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.
In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."
Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?

I already made it clear that I disagreed. "Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works efficiently. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works. Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters. I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.

God Himself wrote:

Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*

In which case you have no issue with common ancestry. God is then handled by Occam's Razor.

God Himself wrote:

I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.

And I have no intention to since that is not our claim. Animate elements? Yes. Just go and visit any maternity wing. Or forest for that matter. Inanimate? No. Though I doubt anything could really be described that way until the universe itself dies.

God Himself wrote:

The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.
But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.

Your above opinion is irrelevant to the scientific method. You are claiming that subjective claims are enough. The rest of us non-fundies do not care. If they are demonstrated in nature you should be able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method. If you are only describing observable natural phenomena and using it as a metaphor for God then God is scientifically meaningless, though it may give you a philosophical/theological happy.

Hence thus far the best you can provide is God as a metaphor. I don't accept that as evidence because it is not scientific.

[The Dude]

coco wrote:

<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.

Except the problem is that we are able to refute him, and he is unable to refute us. He then lies a lot then acts dishonestly in order to avoid tackling the subject in an intellectually honest manner. He is therefore taken to task for his behaviour. He then refuses to talk to some people for being too "mean", although there have been many times he has boasted about is prowess at being a macho-man. Understandably we are left unimpressed.