The Evolution is an enhanced error (America, philosophical, evidence, Universe)

[rifleman]

Now there's an arrogant little put-down if I ever saw one! Honestly, Mystic! You calling GCST's 95 words "misguided"? In what way? All this stuff's been proven, and you even claim to agree about Evolution yourself!

Or did you just feel left out of the discussion, especially when it got elegantly eloquent without you?

BTW, GCST; I suspect Ryrge's predictable denialist's response will be: "No, wait! I said simple, plain English!"

I get a sense of the old "I know you are, but what am I?" sort of advanced debating power from this tiresome fellow. Or is it: "Nyah, nyah!"

(BTW, kudos for Historian Dude as well. Question asked and well answered. Fini!)

[AREQUIPA]

For the benefit of the readiership let's translate this from Theist into English.

Originally Posted by Ryrge

You have just defined favorable and protected statistics which makes evolution possible, and it is the theistic evolution not the atheistic evolution.

It's all a conspiracy to support the Darwinist science - religion. God dunnit all anyway.

Think about it in terms of the totality of existence.




You should always look at everything in the whole totality of existence, because even science is under the totality of existence, otherwise how kind it be anything at all if you don't situate it in the totality of existence?

Repeat, whatever evidence you find, God dunnit.

It should belong to another universe?

Well in which case please situate yourself in that other universe, and spare us of your presence here.

Why don't you atheists go away and leave us to sell our god - beliefs to eveyone else in peace?


Ryrge[/quote]

[JetJockey]

I have six fundamentalist, Creation believing, 10,000 year old earth Christians in my online Anthropology class. Since it is online, we use a discussion board as means to do a lot of our assignments and 'talk' to each other.

Currently we're doing a unit on Creation vs. Evolution and I can't BELIEVE the arguments that are being used. I'm really tempted to cut and paste some of the responses, but I think that may be kind of mean.

Suffice to say, there has been a lot of 'Evolution is only a THEORY!' and 'God is hiding fossils to lure us away from HIM'. We also have a lovely person who has to capitalize THE ALMIGHTY SUPREME LORD AND SAVIOR at least 3 times in every 100 word response.

I'm really curious how many of them are there to actually learn... and how many are there to be irritating. I took a world religions class a while back and it was well known that a local church would ask their college age members to take that class JUST to debate with the professor and annoy the rest of us that were learning.

Bah.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Now there's an arrogant little put-down if I ever saw one! Honestly, Mystic! You calling GCST's 95 words "misguided"? In what way? All this stuff's been proven, and you even claim to agree about Evolution yourself!

I think you misunderstood, rifleman, as I think he was referring to other conversations we've had on various topics. At least, I suspect that's what was being insinuated and I had no initial reaction or feeling whatsoever that he was trying to put me down over what I wrote.

Originally Posted by rifleman

BTW, GCST; I suspect Ryrge's predictable denialist's response will be: "No, wait! I said simple, plain English!"

He has no right to request simple, plain English. His spelling and grammatical mechanics largely resemble that of a character from a Steinbeck novel. If anything, he should familiarize himself with more complicated English to boost his elementary school understanding of reading and writing. And, obviously, science too.

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Science of course is a limited thinking on the part of scientists of the atheist school.

These scientists limit themselves to the what they call empirical world.


But that does not mean that other scientists should not go beyond the empirical world for the ultimate explanation of things.

The way I see it, it is a mind-binding of the brain no different from the foot-binding of feet, for atheist scientists to not think beyond the world which they can claim to see with their sensory inputs.

There is a whole world outside their sensory inputs, which they can come to and think about from reasoning on their sensory inputs, but they are under their own self-oath to not go there from fealty to their limited worldview.


Dear readers here, ask these scientists about the ultimate agent of evolution or agency, and see how they bind their brain to not think beyond blind chance which however they consider to be the kind that is favorable and protected in regard to the rise of a new species from an old species.

Favorable and protected, the impersonal passive, but just the same an agent or agency is implied which they are allergic to mention, unless to say it is blind chance which is no explanation at all, but a psychology of saying nothing but hoping to impress readers with the gambit that they are saying something worth any salt.

Ryrge

So what you are suggesting that sciences, should take into account all pseudoscience?

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop being absurd.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I think you misunderstood, rifleman, as I think he was referring to other conversations we've had on various topics. At least, I suspect that's what was being insinuated and I had no initial reaction or feeling whatsoever that he was trying to put me down over what I wrote.

Bingo! . . . I am so easily misunderstood by those antagonistic to my views.

[Ourself]

Whenever I hear the term "evolutionist" I brace myself for an anti science tyrade.

Wiki has this to say about that word.

In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution,[4] and so it is not used. To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views.[5] In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion

There is no reason the two concepts cannot co exist. To have faith against scientific findings isn't objective so you cannot expect anyone to accept any kind of proof that Creationism can offer.

97% of all scientists agree that we evolved.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Gplex

So what you are suggesting that sciences, should take into account all pseudoscience?

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop being absurd.

That is indeed the suggestion. It further suggests that science somehow thinks that it knows it all and dismisses anything else as non -existent. That isn't the case. It does reasonably require more than just wishful thinking as a reason to accept any claim. It requires more than anecdotal submissions (I saw a ghost therefore they exist) or inadequate science (There is a stretch of shingle that resembles a road leading out to sea - therefore Atlantis is real) or argument from ignorance (we do not know for sure how this or that happened so God mustha dunnit).

P.s gosh. What a long list. and what a small number have since been proven. Meteorites, Continental drift and Ball lightning. And only ball lightning is what one would call 'recent'.

[rifleman]

Oh no no. A recent "find" on Mt. Ararat is 99.9% sure it's Noah's Ark. Therefore god exists!

[Ourself]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That is indeed the suggestion. It further suggests that science somehow thinks that it knows it all and dismisses anything else as non -existent. That isn't the case. It does reasonably require more than just wishful thinking as a reason to accept any claim. It requires more than anecdotal submissions (I saw a ghost therefore they exist) or inadequate science (There is a stretch of shingle that resembles a road leading out to sea - therefore Atlantis is real) or argument from ignorance (we do not know for sure how this or that happened so God mustha dunnit).

P.s gosh. What a long list. and what a small number have since been proven. Meteorites, Continental drift and Ball lightning. And only ball lightning is what one would call 'recent'.

I guess that list should have been on the list. Continental drift? Hello!