Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientists who work in the field of evolution do not use "micro" and "macro." It's just evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
you obviously don't read much about it then.
No, mensa is (mostly) correct. If/when scientists do use those terms, it is not in the way that creationists suggest. Here are a couple good, credible explanations... since you like to read.
This must be why you never get in trouble with the mods, butter up much trans.
Mensa has never been hesitant in deleting a post of mine when needed, nor telling me why just as he tells anyone. Playing the persecution card will just dent your credibility and that of the faith you are batting for, not Mensa's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Well whether you understand why I put HD on ignore is not relevant. I thought anyone could understand wanting to be a better person, but I guess not.
And you seem to be ok with plagiarism as long as it is in support of what you believe. Do lies and misrepresentation fall into the same category?
When one is not open to all possibilities one must rely on begging the question.
When fundamental christian do that with the book called the bible you guys are all over them, yet when you do the same thing with Gods other book nature you are totally blind to it.
I'm finding this a bit hard to follow, so I'll do my best.
Playing the persecution card does not do you or your faith any credit. We apologists for pointy -ears learn to look at the argument and either agree or demolish it, and not use irascible tone as a pretext to evade the points.
Which deals with plagiarism (actually you mean unquestioning cut and paste). lies and misrepresentation. That is what you have been cutting and pasting all the time, and if you deny that they have been refuted, others do not.
Atheists are at least open to all possibilities. Even I/C which (as I said - and you seemingly ignore) looked the best effort to put I/D on a credible scientific level. It failed. And it is you and your Creationists quotemasters that are in denial about it. You seem to refuse to admit the possibility that evolution - as supported by all the evidence up to the overwhelming numbers of Steves, and even the Law courts which you dismiss as a foolish dupe of atheist -agenda scientists - could actually be true. Bear in mind that Christians can actually be evolutionists. Rejecting Genesis -creation as a myth does not mean that one must become an atheist.
Who is it then, who is denying possibilities?
Your last accusation is hardly coherent. I suggest you go take a cold beer and tell yourself that it doesn't hurt your Faith to admit that you have no decent evidence - indeed it makes Faith more pure. What hurts the benefits that faith brings, is to lie and slander, which is what the Creationists you quote from are doing.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-24-2019 at 08:47 AM..
And you seem to be ok with plagiarism as long as it is in support of what you believe.
This was explained to you in the link I posted. And your response was that I should read the link that I had clearly read (otherwise I would have not known what was in it). Professor Moran said he had made a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Do lies and misrepresentation fall into the same category?
That may be your MO, it is not ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
When one is not open to all possibilities one must rely on begging the question.
That does not follow. You use many other fallacies as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
When fundamental christian do that with the book called the bible you guys are all over them, yet when you do the same thing with Gods other book nature you are totally blind to it.
I'm finding this a bit hard to follow, so I'll do my best.
Playing the persecution card does not do you or your faith any credit. We apologists for pointy -ears learn to look at the argument and either agree or demolish it, and not use irascible tone as a pretext to evade the points.
Which deals with plagiarism (actually you mean unquestioning cut and paste). lies and misrepresentation. That is what you have been cutting and pasting all the time, and if you deny that they have been refuted, others do not.
Atheists are at least open to all possibilities. Even I/C which (as I said - and you seemingly ignore) looked the best effort to put I/D on a credible scientific level. It failed. And it is you and your Creationists quotemasters that are in denial about it. You seem to refuse to admit the possibility that evolution - as supported by all the evidence up to the overwhelming numbers of Steves, and even the Law courts which you dismiss as a foolish dupe of atheist -agenda scientists - could actually be true. Bear in mind that Christians can actually be evolutionists. Rejecting Genesis -creation as a myth does not mean that one must become an atheist.
Who is it then, who is denying possibilities?
Your last accusation is hardly coherent. I suggest you go take a cold beer and tell yourself that it doesn't hurt your Faith to admit that you have no decent evidence - indeed it makes Faith more pure. What hurts the benefits that faith brings, is to lie and slander, which is what the Creationists you quote from are doing.
Its not about people being rude and obnoxious to me trans its about ME being rude and obnoxious back.
What is so hard to understand about that?
And whether or not you believe it I am open to evolution if and when it can explain the cause, so far it has not from everything I have read.
And evolutionist beg the question so how in the world can you sit there and say they do not.
No, mensa is (mostly) correct. If/when scientists do use those terms, it is not in the way that creationists suggest. Here are a couple good, credible explanations... since you like to read.
Its not about people being rude and obnoxious to me trans its about ME being rude and obnoxious back.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Why you'd put someone on ignore if you were being rude and obnoxious to them.
Quote:
And whether or not you believe it I am open to evolution if and when it can explain the cause, so far it has not from everything I have read.
And evolutionist beg the question so how in the world can you sit there and say they do not.
You haven't given the slightest indication of being Open to anything but Creationist lies, fallacies, misrepresentation and quotemining. It is utterly clear that you understand nothing about evolution theory and don't want to (you are not alone in that as my experience of Creationists has shown me.) If you rejected evolution, that is one thing, but not even understanding it (or you would know that in the Theory, 'Macro' and 'Micro' is meaningless -they are the same) refutes your claim that you are 'open' to evolution being true. Your position is obviously and evidently faith -based denial, and there's no way you can deceive us.
Huh, so is ID science or religion. You guys keep saying it religion but refuse to let me post on it and if I tried to take it to the science we know what would happen there.
So which is it? or don't you know.
No, ID wouldn't go over well on the science forum, but you could take your argument against evolution there without bringing ID and religion into it. You'd lose, but you could still argue about it.
If you want to discuss Intelligent Design, perhaps the Philosophy forum would be suitable.
Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate
Why you'd put someone on ignore if you were being rude and obnoxious to them.
.
I explained that trans go back and read my post.
Quote:
You haven't given the slightest indication of being Open to anything but Creationist lies, fallacies, misrepresentation and quotemining. It is utterly clear that you understand nothing about evolution theory and don't want to (you are not alone in that as my experience of Creationists has shown me.) If you rejected evolution, that is one thing, but not even understanding it (or you would know that in the Theory, 'Macro' and 'Micro' is meaningless -they are the same) refutes your claim that you are 'open' to evolution being true. Your position is obviously and evidently faith -based denial, and there's no way you can deceive us
While I just posted two links that tell me you are in error about micro and macro.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
