2. Right and Wrong

Originally posted by LemonJello
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

Bertrand Russell

I expected something more profound than an ad hominem from you.

Originally posted by Halitose
I expected something more profound than an ad hominem from you.

so "monkey shaved" more closely resembles the profundity you seek?

Originally posted by LemonJello
so "monkey shaved" more closely resembles the profundity you seek?

😏

Not something insulting my intelligence, no. You may be ugly but not stupid. 😛

Originally posted by dj2becker
Will you at least admit that Science has limitations?

Yes, science deals with the physical world. Will you admit that religion has its limitations, particularly in the realm of theorising and modelling the physical world?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Yes, science deals with the physical world. Will you admit that religion has its limitations, particularly in the realm of theorising and modelling the physical world?

Theorising and modelling the physical world demands some faith (especially the beginning of time and space - where did all the matter come from?) In Evolution, one could believe that matter is simply self-existing and in ID, one could believe that an omnipotent God spoke the universe into existence...

Originally posted by RatX
Theorising and modelling the physical world demands some faith (especially the beginning of time and space - where did all the matter come from?) In Evolution, one could believe that matter is simply self-existing and in ID, one could believe that an omnipotent God spoke the universe into existence...

That's just a turn around, a play on words that has no basis in reality.
One could believe anything one wants too, but what one believes isn't correct or even rational unless the observed facts support it.
Biblical creation, as told in the bible doesn't come close to fact and that's as simple as that. Creation "scientists" will not be able to reconcile the Bible to facts no matter how many sciences they convolute, that's just the way it is, period.

I.D. is fine as far as "creation" goes as long as it stays away from a micro-managing god that created the universe for some devious Man-centered purpose. There is no evidence to support a great many of the I.D. arguments, especially the one comparing the universe to a watch, which is laughable except that people still seem to think the universe has some macronistic order about it, which it doesn't.
All that I.D. has , really, is peoples desire to believe and has, even if it was correct, no divine inspiration eminating from it.

Originally posted by RatX
Theorising and modelling the physical world demands some faith (especially the beginning of time and space - where did all the matter come from?) In Evolution, one could believe that matter is simply self-existing and in ID, one could believe that an omnipotent God spoke the universe into existence...

So centuries of experiment and learning should be rejected just because a primitive tribe's creation myth says something different.

PUHLEEEEZE

Originally posted by The Chess Express
BLAAAAARRGGUU!! WAAAMMAAKKAAMMAAKKAA!!! 🙄😲😵

An All Black in Colorado - hehe

Originally posted by frogstomp
That's just a turn around, a play on words that has no basis in reality.
One could believe anything one wants too, but what one believes isn't correct or even rational unless the observed facts support it.
Biblical creation, as told in the bible doesn't come close to fact and that's as simple as that. Creation "scientists" will not be able ...[text shortened]... les desire to believe and has, even if it was correct, no divine inspiration eminating from it.

Frog? I thought you'd died...

Ok, point out where my postulation has no basis in reality, please don't just throw a lot of dust in the air.

The observable evidence is that we're here. Evolution lacks substantial evidence and if you claim that the Bible and Creation Science is laughable and "doesn't come close to fact" - please elaborate. Show me where the Bible cannot reconcile with science and empirical evidence before your post sounds like a sixties beatnik windbag...

You're free to be as closed-minded as you like - don't shove evolution down my throat as if it's fact without the empirical evidence and call ID stupid without support - the watch analogy is just that, an analogy with limitations.

Elaborate on macronistic, please - or did you just make it up? If you claim the universe has no order, then there's none in your brain either...

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
So centuries of experiment and learning should be rejected just because a primitive tribe's creation myth says something different.

PUHLEEEEZE

Experiment and learning? Such as the fabricated evidences of Haekel, Piltdown-man and Nebraska-man, now holding their deserving posts in history's hall of shame?

Give me some advancements in Science credited to the theory of evolution (like Newton's (among others) theory of gravity got man on the moon)...

Who're you calling primitive? Ditto and more to your tribe!

Originally posted by RatX
Frog? I thought you'd died...

Ok, point out where my postulation has no basis in reality, please don't just throw a lot of dust in the air.

The observable evidence is that we're here. Evolution lacks substantial evidence and if you claim that the Bible and Creation Science is laughable and "doesn't come close to fact" - please elaborate. Show me wh ...[text shortened]... t make it up? If you claim the universe has no order, then there's none in your brain either...

I have left these forums to the other guys for a bit, however in the case of your ranting , I'll make an exception.
#1) the bible creation story is "borrowed" from the 5th tablet of the Enuma Elish.
#2) the only wind here is posted by you as it has nothing in it except hot air.
#3) Science is always refining evolution , NOTE refining and NOT redefining.
#4 ) that's all I have time to write today, If you're a good little rat I might give some examples later ,even though I don't think you could understand them anyway.

Originally posted by RatX
Experiment and learning? Such as the fabricated evidences of Haekel, Piltdown-man and Nebraska-man, now holding their deserving posts in history's hall of shame?

Give me some advancements in Science credited to the theory of evolution (like Newton's (among others) theory of gravity got man on the moon)...

Who're you calling primitive? Ditto and more to your tribe!

In case you aren't aware, Newton's "laws" were proven to be inaccurate a long time ago... While they apply to a small subset of motion, etc., they aren't useful in studying things moving at very fast speeds, for example.
Also, large amounts of psychology and medicine have basis in evolutionary theory. Various diseases undergo a much faster evolutionary process than larger organisms...think of influenza and HIV.

Originally posted by echecero
In case you aren't aware, Newton's "laws" were proven to be inaccurate a long time ago... While they apply to a small subset of motion, etc., they aren't useful in studying things moving at very fast speeds, for example.
Also, large amounts of psychology and medicine have basis in evolutionary theory. Various diseases undergo a much faster evolutionary process than larger organisms...think of influenza and HIV.

Hmmm..yes...yes...I see...hmmm

Originally posted by echecero
In case you aren't aware, Newton's "laws" were proven to be inaccurate a long time ago... While they apply to a small subset of motion, etc., they aren't useful in studying things moving at very fast speeds, for example.
Also, large amounts of psychology and medicine have basis in evolutionary theory. Various diseases undergo a much faster evolutionary process than larger organisms...think of influenza and HIV.

What psychology is based on evolution? I know that Tom Cruise had plenty to say about it ("all psychological disorders are the result of chemical imbalance and can be cured by vitamins and exercise, I know psychology, you don't!"😉 which was very consistent to evolutionary theory in that man is a complex mix of chemicals and every emotion and response is the result of a chemical reaction... No free will, no discernment between right and wrong, etc and so forth. No wonder shrinks are so confused!

Ultimately, you can't really call psychology a science, it doesn't deal entirely with observable and imperical systems... Lots of guesswork and meds (yeah, I know, which I forgot to take, blah blah blah).

Diseases certainly go through micro-evolution (adaptation and mutation) two accepted, scientifically proven processes that are not some "forced package-deal of evolution" but rather derived from biological and genetic observation. This science and its observations may be borrowed to try and explain macro-evolution. Mutations were discovered independent of TOE, and were jumped on by evolutionists, desperate for a mechanism for their theory...

Originally posted by frogstomp
I have left these forums to the other guys for a bit, however in the case of your ranting , I'll make an exception.
#1) the bible creation story is "borrowed" from the 5th tablet of the Enuma Elish.
#2) the only wind here is posted by you as it has nothing in it except hot air.
#3) Science is always refining ...[text shortened]... give some examples later ,even though I don't think you could understand them anyway.

#1) the bible creation story is "borrowed" from the 5th tablet of the Enuma Elish.

Please, prove this "evidence" that appears pulled from where the sun don't shine... Some Babylonian stone had some creation story in it with some similarities (six generations of gods instead of six days and the goddess Tiamat compared to the primordial ocean in Genesis). Who says they ever compared notes? Unless the fossil of Moses is found clutching your tablet, I think you have plenty faith and a fair amount of wishful thinking.

#2) the only wind here is posted by you as it has nothing in it except hot air.

lol... old men fart plenty, don't they?

#3) Science is always refining evolution , NOTE refining and NOT redefining.

Hmmm... Refining the age of the universe from 500 million to uh, (how many is it now?) 13.7 billion years? Methinks there is plenty assumption and faith involved (by the way, have I ever complimented you guys on this? The incredibly complex order of the universe and life, all by chance? Monumental faith, try moving a mountain sometime)

#4 ) that's all I have time to write today, If you're a good little rat I might give some examples later, even though I don't think you could understand them anyway.

A poor excuse for not being able to procure examples. A typical statement like:
"Beneficial mutations?"
"There are plenty beneficial mutations! Like sickle-celled anemia!"
"Yes, and...?"
"I'll get back to you, you dumb s#!t"