- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ed
Quote Second: Do you want me (go back) to rebut you every point?
If you can’t defend the videos then don’t post them. Especially don’t be so discourteous as to change the subject every post by going from one YouTube effort to another without addressing responses to what you started.Quote 1) Do you want me to read Clinton's mind like you read the Prophet Issiah's mind? <– Second Post
Hey, how come you can read the Prophet Issiah's mind but not President Clinton's?
I read both. At least we know who Clinton was.Quote 2) You mean just like your unsupported assertion?
Doesn’t work that way, sorry Ed. He is saying something is impossible. I am asking how he substantiates that claim. Burden of proof again.Quote 3) (A) Another unsupported assertion of Stuart![/qupte]
No, I’m just pointing out the logical fallacy of thinking an analogy is evidence. Do you know what logical fallacies are?(B) Why not?
I know christians who are idiots. Should I therefore conclude that all christians are idiots? Your argument is that I should.Quote  Computer programs make errors sometimes as well.
What has that got to do with it?Quote 4) You are falling for the biggest con trick ever, evilution, mate.
Empty, mindless words. You don’t even know what evolution by natural selection actually says.Quote 5) Stuart's opinion.
He didn’t tell us. My experience of this liar is that he never does.Quote 6) Cannot people stand in awe of whatever they want?
Sure, but AS I WROTE, that does not mean your god exists, which is what the lying Strobel wants gullible people to think. This video appeals to this scientist’s authority, which is another logical fallacy. Dawkins has a PhD and has been a professor. Does that mean you should not believe in god? No of course not, but the same applies in reverse.Quote 7) This comment proves you are an Atheist, though you claim to be Agnostic!
I am both. Can you not see how?Quote 8) I guess you have to wait until Science evolves a bit more; huh?
Stop posting the videos if you can’t defend them.Quote 9) Stuart's labels and accusations, pitiful.
I can’t help it if you don’t know anything about epistemology and logic.Stuart
Ed
Stein’s film isn’t new.
“Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism”
Drinking leads to falling down too. Do you think we should ban drinking because some people fall over (whether they have been drinking or not)?“There could have been no holocaust without Darwinism”
Then explain all the persecution of Jews that happened BEFORE Darwin.What an idiot.
“Darwinism explains so little … It doesn’t explain how life began … It doesn’t explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits … It doesn’t explain how thermodynamics works … Doesn’t explain the laws of motion…
Here is a challenge for you Ed. It is a really simple one. This time you tell me why Stein is wrong. If you can’t, then I will not be replying to any more of your videos until you can.No one has ever observed the evolution of a single mammalian species
Look at the fossils, and look at the DNA evidence. That is exactly the same as observing evolution. If you don’t like that, then at least please don’t commit a crime on the assumption that you won’t be caught because you were not observed. Both the science that allows us to understand natural history, and the science that would catch you are kinds of forensic science. Do you believe in forensic science Ed? The idiot Ben Stein doesn’t seem to.Quote No one has ever observed (evolution of ) a new species
That is a lie. Is there any point in me listing them for you? Will you bother to take it on board?Quote “I’m often wrong”
That part is true.Quote People don’t want to believe in god because then they will be morally accountable.
By posting this video, are you suggesting that applies to me Ed? How about you just sit down and actually think about it for a minute. I don’t believe in any gods and yet I am still accountable to the morals which I hold. I act ethically just because it is the right thing to do. What kind of childish person would only act ethically because he feared his Imaginary Friend?Stuart
Attempt two (formatting):
Ed
Stein’s film isn’t new.
“Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism”
Drinking leads to falling down too. Do you think we should ban drinking because some people fall over (whether they have been drinking or not)?“There could have been no holocaust without Darwinism”
Then explain all the persecution of Jews that happened BEFORE Darwin.What an idiot.
“Darwinism explains so little … It doesn’t explain how life began … It doesn’t explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits … It doesn’t explain how thermodynamics works … Doesn’t explain the laws of motion…”
Here is a challenge for you Ed. It is a really simple one. This time you tell me why Stein is wrong. If you can’t, then I will not be replying to any more of your videos until you can.No one has ever observed the evolution of a single mammalian species
Look at the fossils, and look at the DNA evidence. That is exactly the same as observing evolution. If you don’t like that, then at least please don’t commit a crime on the assumption that you won’t be caught because you were not observed. Both the science that allows us to understand natural history, and the science that would catch you are kinds of forensic science. Do you believe in forensic science Ed? The idiot Ben Stein doesn’t seem to.No one has ever observed (evolution of ) a new species
That is a lie. Is there any point in me listing them for you? Will you bother to take it on board?“I’m often wrong”
That part is true.”People don’t want to believe in god because then they will be morally accountable.”
By posting this video, are you suggesting that applies to me Ed? How about you just sit down and actually think about it for a minute. I don’t believe in any gods and yet I am still accountable to the morals which I hold. I act ethically just because it is the right thing to do. What kind of childish person would only act ethically because he feared his Imaginary Friend?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2010,09:14) Ed Re: Strobel video
This Strobel is another lying creationist, although he is not even a very sophisticated liar. Of course he doesn't substantiate his own claims, he just makes assertions without backing them up.
His lies in this video:
1) “Lack of evidence for Darwin's claim that there is a common origin to all life”
This is an amateur lie by Strobel. Does he take his audience for idiots? Perhaps he is just playing on their genuine ignorance. How dishonest is that?I already gave you the fact that all life uses DNA, and the fact that the only reasonable explanation for the patterns of appearance of the same retroviruses in the same chromosomes in different species is common ancestry. I also mentioned that the differences in DNA sequences in between living species match differences in the morphology of dated fossils. This is only a fraction of the evidence, but this evidence on its own puts it beyond question.
2) “Microevolution says there is variation between different kinds of animals” (like lost of different kinds / varieties of dogs)”
Microevolution is an idea invented by creationists. Real science does not make any such distinctions, because there is none.3) “Science has failed to substantiate Darwin's claims of macroevolution”
“Future discoveries have not borne out Darwin's theory”
Science has tried in vain to disprove Darwin. There is at least one lucrative Nobel Prize and the astonishment of the world to motivate the scientist who can do it. None has, and especially none of the unnamed “skeptical scientists” from his long list of universities. They talk the talk but apparently all they have is religiously-motivated “skepticism”, certainly no evidence.Actually, every discovery made has fitted perfectly into the framework provided by Darwin. He had no idea about DNA, genes, mutation and heredity, and yet they provide the mechanism for exactly what he described. The discovery that t8 used to go on about, that of Piltdown Man, is an example of Darwin's theory being used to predict Piltdown would turn out to be a forgery, which it was when the techniques became available some decades later. There is no disproof of Darwin, and Strobel certainly hasn't provided one. All he has done is talk empty words through a big mouth.
4) “The fossil record shows the 40 phyla…sprang forth without transitional forms preceeding them”
Not true. Let's be generous and guess that he is talking about the Cambrian Explosion. This was a period about 500 million years ago when many new species left fossils, apparently without their ancestors leaving fossils. The Cambrian Explosion does not consist of the magic appearance of new species, it is the appearance of species that have hard body parts that can leave fossils. There were ancestors, but they did not leave much in the way of remains. Lack of fossils is not evidence of lack of living things.5) “There's no evidence of the gradual evolution that Darwin predicted”
“Should be millions of transitory fossils between bats and whales”
Why should there be? This is a classic dishonest creationist ploy. Pick a lineage and criticise the number of gaps. Then a new transitional fossil is found, and the new criticism is that now there are two gaps! Make up a ridiculous number and claim you should find that many fossils. Fossils are incredibly rare, but nevertheless there are many well-documented sequences of transitional fossils, some of them even showing probable direct lines of ancestry. Strobel's lie this time derives from the assumption that the number of fossils known 80 years ago is the same as the number known today. Check out the talkorigins page on mammal fossils. Of course it covers the other kinds on other pages on their website too. It includes an honest list of how good the fossil evidence is for each period. Don't forget that evolution by natural selection does not actually rely on fossil evidence at all for its validity.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
6) “This is science versus science”
It is science versus liars. Why does Strobel feel he has to lie? Is that what his god demands he do?By the way, even the title of the video is a lie.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) By your logic if a virus infiltrates both dog and man in New Zealand in 1999,
then Scientists in the year 3323 can say they had a common ancestry?2) So only if Darwin names something, it becomes truth?
3) By your logic: if you say there is a flying spaghetti
monster and no one can disprove it then it is true?
Hey; since you cannot disprove God, why doesn't your logic apply here?4) More of Stuart's opinions.
5) You work really really hard to support the lie of evIlution!
6) Do you even know the definition of a Lie?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
1. No.
2. Read what I wrote.
3. No. As far as I am aware there is no FSM (bhna). I think you should still fear it in case it does exist. What have you got to lose?
4. Pearls before swine.
5. Sorry you appear unwilling to overcome your own pride. Perhaps it just is that you cannot read.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2010,16:33) Ed, Stein’s film isn’t new.
1) “Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism”
Drinking leads to falling down too. Do you think we should ban drinking because some people fall over (whether they have been drinking or not)?2) “There could have been no holocaust without Darwinism”
Then explain all the persecution of Jews that happened BEFORE Darwin.What an idiot.
3) “Darwinism explains so little … It doesn’t explain how life began … It doesn’t explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits … It doesn’t explain how thermodynamics works … Doesn’t explain the laws of motion…”
Here is a challenge for you Ed. It is a really simple one. This time you tell me why Stein is wrong. If you can’t, then I will not be replying to any more of your videos until you can.4) No one has ever observed the evolution of a single mammalian species
Look at the fossils, and look at the DNA evidence. That is exactly the same as observing evolution. If you don’t like that, then at least please don’t commit a crime on the assumption that you won’t be caught because you were not observed. Both the science that allows us to understand natural history, and the science that would catch you are kinds of forensic science. Do you believe in forensic science Ed? The idiot Ben Stein doesn’t seem to.5) No one has ever observed (evolution of ) a new species
That is a lie. Is there any point in me listing them for you? Will you bother to take it on board?“I’m often wrong”
That part is true.6) ”People don’t want to believe in god because then they will be morally accountable.”
By posting this video, (A)are you suggesting that applies to me Ed? How about you just sit down and actually think about it for a minute. (B)I don’t believe in any gods and yet I am still accountable to the morals which I hold. (C)I act ethically just because it is the right thing to do. (D)What kind of childish person would only act ethically because he feared his Imaginary Friend?Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) He is not trying to ban Darwinian evilution, but prove it is a LIE!
2) Ben's point is logical. Your point has no relevance!
3) Darwinian evilution has no relevance to those points.
4) Observed includes evidence, which there isn't any!
5) Humans are on the brink of making some new species
6) (A) Doesn't it?
(B) You mean like Hilter and Stalin?
(C) bravo, many pats on the back for Stuart.
(D) Asana Bodhitharta; remember he said so?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2010,20:23) Discussion over Ed. Get back to me when you have actually understood what I have written. Stuart
Hi Stuart,You remind me of an ostrich who buries its head in the sand to not face its fears.
That's what you want to do concerning the FACTS of God's existence!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Stu, Edj,
“Nature”, as in flora and fauna, is just a euphomism for “God”.
Nature, as in flora and fauna, comes from 'Natural'. No one wanted to say that God created all these things so they said it was 'just Natural', 'Just Nature'.
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 02 2010,21:35) Stu, Edj, “Nature”, as in flora and fauna, is just a euphomism for “God”.
Nature, as in flora and fauna, comes from 'Natural'. No one wanted to say that God created all these things so they said it was 'just Natural', 'Just Nature'.
What god?Stuart
Princess,
You ask me why
I'll tell you why
Because you asked why
That is whyI seek them here,
I seek them there,
Those that speak fair
Are worth God's care.In the open i did it
So you would know my Spirit
I was hoping you'd hit it
If i offend you then 'out',
spit it!There's only so long
One can prolong
But maybe i'm wrong
I see to another you hang on
Yeah, the Ape, King Kong.I thought you were one
Who's spurned the Con,
and a step further had Gone.
My last appeal, then I'm done.Stu,
If to my post you refer
with me openly confer
else as a Corporal would utter
“ok, you, Back as you were!”Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2010,21:38) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 02 2010,21:35) Stu, Edj, “Nature”, as in flora and fauna, is just a euphomism for “God”.
Nature, as in flora and fauna, comes from 'Natural'. No one wanted to say that God created all these things so they said it was 'just Natural', 'Just Nature'.
What god?Stuart
Skirting around the issue doesn't change the reality that it is either God, something, or nothing.Given the options, it is foolish to write off God on account that men argue over WHO he is.
The point of this topic is more about is there a God than who God is.
If 3 detectives argued over who killed a person, then it would be silly to discount that there was a murderer based on the differing opinions as to who did it. That would be silly right?
Kinda what you are doing Stu.
Are you smart enough to see that?
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2010,11:25) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2010,21:38) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 02 2010,21:35) Stu, Edj, “Nature”, as in flora and fauna, is just a euphomism for “God”.
Nature, as in flora and fauna, comes from 'Natural'. No one wanted to say that God created all these things so they said it was 'just Natural', 'Just Nature'.
What god?Stuart
Skirting around the issue doesn't change the reality that it is either God, something, or nothing.Given the options, it is foolish to write off God on account that men argue over WHO he is.
The point of this topic is more about is there a God than who God is.
If 3 detectives argued over who killed a person, then it would be silly to discount that there was a murderer based on the differing opinions as to who did it. That would be silly right?
Kinda what you are doing Stu.
Are you smart enough to see that?
I agree that if there is a god of the kind you worship, as described in Judeo-christian mythology, it would be silly not to recognise it is a murderer.Stuart
Stuart,
Would it not be more precise to ask which god?
Stuart, what do you think of ones that believe in the idols as being a reflection of their god, does that change anything in your book, what of ones that study the paranormal, some have what they call 'proof' for their theories.
Then why so many people confess that god/jesus saved them, what psycological meaning does this have.
Why have so many people of the world turned to christianity?
Fair questions, don't you think.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 03 2010,09:02) Creepy. Stuart
Stuart,Alas, it is not the only thing creepy on this board.
So tell me, have you ever disagreed with what Hawkings has said.
Much love to you Stuart.
Quote (princess of the king @ Oct. 03 2010,13:28) Stuart, Would it not be more precise to ask which god?
Stuart, what do you think of ones that believe in the idols as being a reflection of their god, does that change anything in your book, what of ones that study the paranormal, some have what they call 'proof' for their theories.
Thank you for asking. Whether it be homeopathy, alien abduction, tarot cards, psychic readings, faith healing or god claims, I think there are genetic causes and environmental influences that lead people to suffer hijackings of their brains by tales of woo. None of these things have any basis in reality, that is what the evidence says unquestionably. Include faith healing: it has no measurable effect above placebo at all, and actually that placebo works against a medical patient, not for him!There are two properties of the human brain that make it particularly vulnerable. Firstly we are voracious pattern-seekers to the point where we will imagine patterns that are not really there. Pattern seeking is a really useful adaptation that had helped us to find food (and still does) and a mate, and to recognise threats and opportunities. The side effects lead us to believe in supernatural beings because we are genetically programmed to look for relationships between events, even if that means inventing a “cause” where none really exists.
Secondly we are really poor at estimating probability. If we were good at estimating chance mathematically, then no one in his right mind would gamble, and especially not on lottery tickets. Here is a question for you: which do you think is greater, your chance of being killed in a plane crash or your chance of winning the big prize in a lottery? The answer is that you are far more likely to die in a plane crash, but the chance of either is so small that fear of flying or hope of a big win are both irrational.
Probability comes into it because people find it freaky, say when they think of a friend who they have not seen for a while, and then on the same day that friend phones up for a chat. Actually if you do the maths, the freaky thing would really be if you managed to go for years without that happening to you.
So, we don't understand chance, and we are desperate to see patterns even if we have to invent them. It has been shown very clearly in separated twin studies that some people have genes that particularly line them up for devout religious belief. I think that completely explains god belief, although there is a lot of psychology written about it too.
Gods are human inventions.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
