Originally posted by Dasa
You are constantly manipulating my words to make them appear differently than what I originally intended.

It seems that, at least in the case of your abusive "even a 7 child with cerebral palsy" comparison, that I have in fact not manipulated your words at all, nor have I attempted to "make them appear differently than what [you] originally intended". You have even repeated the abusive comparison. Do you think this kind of behaviour on your part is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

Originally posted by FMF
It seems that, at least in the case of your abusive "even a 7 child with cerebral palsy" comparison, that I have in fact [b]not manipulated your words at all, nor have I attempted to "make them appear differently than what [you] originally intended". You have even repeated the abusive comparison. Do you think this kind of behaviour on your part is an effective way of advocating your belief system?[/b]

I have just presented a new post just for you as regards your question.

Please read.

Originally posted by Dasa
I have just presented a new post just for you as regards your question.

Please read.

I have read it. Dasa, there is no connection whatsoever between me and "a 7 year old child with cerebral palsy". Why do you suggest that there is a comparison or analogy of any kind? Do you seriously not concede that mentioning "cerebral palsy", "dementia" and "mental incapacity" [in the context of an honest disagreement] is personally abusive?

Once again: Do you think this kind of behaviour on your part is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

Originally posted by FMF
I have read it. Dasa, there is no connection whatsoever between me and "a 7 year old child with cerebral palsy". Why do you suggest that there is a comparison or analogy of any kind? Do you seriously not concede that mentioning "cerebral palsy", "dementia" and "mental incapacity" [in the context of an honest disagreement] is personally abusive?

Once again: D ...[text shortened]... his kind of behaviour on your part is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

Because of dishonesty you have failed to understand.

Still manipulating and pretending to not know.

Never mind.

I have explained myself clearly.

Originally posted by Dasa
I have explained myself clearly.

What I gleaned from your "explanation" is that you have a tendency to lash out with the unkindest, bitterest, most abusive insults that you can think of, when you encounter people with belief systems that are different from yours. Are you sure it is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

Originally posted by Dasa
The most simple can be complicated by the person who is the most mathematical.

Their mathematical prowess is their undoing for they seek to see everything in terms of the mathematical equation.

They try to understand the mathematics of God and because God is not a mathematical equation they become stumped.

Or they provide a mathematical equation for God which in the final analysis is just a mathematical equation.....nothing more and nothing less.

(backing away from computer) OK, yeah, math is dishonest. 😕

Originally posted by FMF
What I gleaned from your "explanation" is that you have a tendency to lash out with the unkindest, bitterest, most abusive insults that you can think of, when you encounter people with belief systems that are different from yours. Are you sure it is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

If someone believes in falsity then they are a fool

If someone teaches falsity then they are dishonest.

If someone eats any rubbish then they are behaving like a hog.

If someone labours very hard for temporary material things then they are behaving like an ass.

Truth can be unpalatable but never abusive and to say so is dishonest.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Life can not come from nothing. You are taking fat chances. Science has definetely made you blind

I did not say life came from nothing.
I said life can come from non-life.
Non-life can be remarkably complicated.
And science is a process that opens peoples eyes, and demands all statements
be tested and justified.
Religion on the other hand requires you ignore everything that doesn't fit
your world view... Who is the blinded one?

Originally posted by Dasa
If someone believes in falsity then they are a fool

If someone teaches falsity then they are dishonest.

If someone eats any rubbish then they are behaving like a hog.

If someone labours very hard for temporary material things then they are behaving like an ass.

Truth can be unpalatable but never abusive and to say so is dishonest.

You are a total whackjob.

Signed: The sane Rational World.

Originally posted by Dasa
Because of dishonesty you have failed to understand.

Still manipulating and pretending to not know.

Never mind.

I have explained myself clearly.

Can't you bring yourself to apologize and ask for forgiveness in your
religion? Maybe it is not your religion but personal pride that stands
in your way. Is it just arrogance that restrains you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I did not say life came from nothing.
I said life can come from non-life.
Non-life can be remarkably complicated.
And science is a process that opens peoples eyes, and demands all statements
be tested and justified.
Religion on the other hand requires you ignore everything that doesn't fit
your world view... Who is the blinded one?

You are the blinded one if you think life can come from non-life.
There is no evidence in science that supports such a notion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the blinded one if you think life can come from non-life.
There is no evidence in science that supports such a notion.

There is a lot of evidence that supports such a notion, the fact that you don't know about it or
believe in it has no bearing on its existence.

Now I will, and do, freely admit that science hasn't yet managed to create a complete step by
step of how life formed. But there is plenty of evidence to say that the building blocks of life
can and do indeed form naturally both in space and in the conditions found on the young earth
(that would be around 4 billion yrs ago and not 6000) and there are a number of possible ways
in which these building blocks could come together to form self replicating entities we would
classify as life.

Evolution takes over from there and easily explains how you get from there to here.

The point is that the evidence we have is, while not yet complete, completely compatible with
the formation of life from its precursor chemicals with no intelligent external influence.

This does not mean that life on our planet did form on its own, its not impossible that some alien
race came along and planted the seeds of life on our newly forming planet, or even that some
supernatural being did it, just extremely improbable.
But as there is no evidence to support those claims, and in the light of evidence showing it is possible
to form life from non-life with no intelligence involved, and no evidence for the intelligent creation
of life. I support and believe the hypothesis that is the simplest and with the most evidence.
That 'life' was formed from non-living chemicals.

I know you will never accept this as you feel it contradicts your religion, your faith.
Which is why I dislike religion and blind faith.

You can't reason with faith or religion.

I am prepared to change my position in the light of evidence showing me I am wrong.
You are not.

This makes me the open minded one, and you the close minded.
I have my eyes open, yours are blinded.

Unfortunately you would have to open your eyes to see this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is a lot of evidence that supports such a notion, the fact that you don't know about it or
believe in it has no bearing on its existence.

Now I will, and do, freely admit that science hasn't [b]yet managed to create a complete step by
step of how life formed. But there is plenty of evidence to say that the building blocks of life
can a yes open, yours are blinded.

Unfortunately you would have to open your eyes to see this.[/b]

Have you looked at this video:

YouTube

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/antony-flew-reviews-dawkins-the-god-delusion/

From wikipedia article on Antony Flew:

"In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government
to teach intelligent design in the state schools."

In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism
was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other
noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated
complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated
complexity of life itself, which is far more complex than the physical Universe,
can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that
he was not a Christian theist.

Originally posted by Dasa
If someone believes in falsity then they are a fool

If someone teaches falsity then they are dishonest.

If someone eats any rubbish then they are behaving like a hog.

If someone labours very hard for temporary material things then they are behaving like an ass.

Truth can be unpalatable but never abusive and to say so is dishonest.

So if you deem, subjectively, that having a different belief system from you amounts to "falsity", then you can say just about anything you want, even things as "unpalatable" and as "abusive" as comparing another person to a 7 year old child with cerebral palsy (because they disagree with you), their marriages to rutting dogs (because you find sex distasteful), their spiritual journey to pigs eating feces (because you read it in a book)... it's all Ok for Dasa to say this stuff on the internet because he has declared it to be "true" and has declared all his victims to be "dishonest"? Are you sure this is an effective way of advocating your belief system?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is a lot of evidence that supports such a notion, the fact that you don't know about it or
believe in it has no bearing on its existence.

Now I will, and do, freely admit that science hasn't [b]yet managed to create a complete step by
step of how life formed. But there is plenty of evidence to say that the building blocks of life
can a ...[text shortened]... yes open, yours are blinded.

Unfortunately you would have to open your eyes to see this.[/b]

This is called the big bluff perpetrated by the dishonest.