Yet Another JW Thread

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok Noobster are you denying that they have as a common denominator a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversity of life? nope then what's your problem? given the context of the argument i think its perfectly reasonable to draw the comparison, no matter how you may whinge. As for a degree, did not Michael Behe, professor of microbiolo ...[text shortened]... bility of an intelligent source in order to fully grasp the evolutionary hypothesis! Pathetic!

I'll take by your non answer that there isn't anywhere that i could obtain a degree in creation science??

Strange don't you think, considering the so called scientific evidence for creation?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll take by your non answer that there isn't anywhere that i could obtain a degree in creation science??

Strange don't you think, considering the so called scientific evidence for creation?!

its not my fault the education authorities have not yet opened their minds to the possibility of a beneficent creator but instead have merely limited the curriculum and the search for truth to unintelligent agencies! The fools, one theory is as good as another!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not my fault the education authorities have not yet opened their minds to the possibility of a beneficent creator but instead have merely limited the curriculum and the search for truth to unintelligent agencies! The fools, one theory is as good as another!

You have to be kidding. I have studied some science at tertiary level. It is intellectually demanding. These people who teach evolution have substantial academic qualifications and abilities.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You have to be kidding. I have studied some science at tertiary level. It is intellectually demanding. These people who teach evolution have substantial academic qualifications and abilities.

it is not a question of whether one is secularly qualified, is it, for those who would have liked to introduce intelligent design, irreducible complexity and other creationist theory as in the Dover case were also eminently qualified, i mean, what do you want more than a professor of biochemistry for goodness sake, the question is with regard to open mindedness, not secular qualifications. why you have confused the two, i do not know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is not a question of whether one is secularly qualified, is it, for those who would have liked to introduce intelligent design, irreducible complexity and other creationist theory as in the Dover case were also eminently qualified, i mean, what do you want more than a professor of biochemistry for goodness sake, the question is with regard to open mindedness, not secular qualifications. why you have confused the two, i do not know.

Scientist, historian and biblical exegete, you sure do claim expertise in a lot of fields. Most would call you arrogant.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Scientist, historian and biblical exegete, you sure do claim expertise in a lot of fields. Most would call you arrogant.

Rob has debunked the scientific fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, organic chemistry, human evolution, anthropology, cosmology and others, without reading any journals, doing any research, and all from the comfort of his own living room.

He is a very miraculous man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not my fault the education authorities have not yet opened their minds to the possibility of a beneficent creator but instead have merely limited the curriculum and the search for truth to unintelligent agencies! The fools, one theory is as good as another!

It's taught in religious education where it belongs.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Scientist, historian and biblical exegete, you sure do claim expertise in a lot of fields. Most would call you arrogant.

you forgot to mention artist, musician, raconteur and chess prodigy! why should i be overly concerned with what others think? to quote another RHP member, Pylkna i think it was, 'the dogs bark and the caravan rolls on'. i claim to be an expert at nothing.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's taught in religious education where it belongs.

nope, for when you explain the concepts of irreducible complexity, you must have recourse to scientific models. If you should reduce creationism to religious education, you should also put Darwinian evolution in the same field, for it is based on the same principles, that is, drawing conclusions from the natural world.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, for when you explain the concepts of irreducible complexity, you must have recourse to scientific models. If you should reduce creationism to religious education, you should also put Darwinian evolution in the same field, for it is based on the same principles, that is, drawing conclusions from the natural world.

You're like a broken record aren't you?!

Irreducible complexity has been dealt with.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is not a question of whether one is secularly qualified, is it, for those who would have liked to introduce intelligent design, irreducible complexity and other creationist theory as in the Dover case were also eminently qualified, i mean, what do you want more than a professor of biochemistry for goodness sake, the question is with regard to open mindedness, not secular qualifications. why you have confused the two, i do not know.

So i ask you again, do you consider yourself open-minded?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So i ask you again, do you consider yourself open-minded?

open minded, well i read the majority of posts on this forum, it matters not whether they are from Atheists, Catholics, born againers, Buddhists, what ever, however, the fact of the matter remains, that wisdom, is proven righteous, by its works. Let me ask you Karoly Poly, what you think that means? For there in lies the answer to what i am prepared to accept and what i am not.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're like a broken record aren't you?!

Irreducible complexity has been dealt with.

dealt with? dealt with? you dont deal with irreducible complexity, you embrace it! and anyway, this was not an argument about the merits of irreducible complexity, it was merely used to show, that one may take the exact same data, in this case, the observance of the natural world, and derive a completely different interpretation, that is what it means to be open minded. You are the people who are always chiding christians for having a one dimensional view, of being unbending in their devotion, what is completely apparent, is that fundamentalist evolutionists, are equally as unbending in their assertions and as equally unwilling to consider an alternative point of view in their devotion to their belief system.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dealt with? dealt with? you dont deal with irreducible complexity, you embrace it! and anyway, this was not an argument about the merits of irreducible complexity, it was merely used to show, that one may take the exact same data, in this case, the observance of the natural world, and derive a completely different interpretation, that is what it m ...[text shortened]... lly unwilling to consider an alternative point of view in their devotion to their belief system.

Anybody can look at the same data and make up any old nonsense but in this case irreducible complexity has been shown to be unproven.

This little debate started because you claimed creationism was backed up by science. Where? You failed to show me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Anybody can look at the same data and make up any old nonsense but in this case irreducible complexity has been shown to be unproven.

This little debate started because you claimed creationism was backed up by science. Where? You failed to show me.

no it has not been unproven, if you would like to take the time to read Professor Behes own blog, you shall see that he refutes the refutations of his theory. i did not start this debate on the premise that you suppose, i am just making sure that you do not go beyond what is acceptable, for the exact same criteria that is applied to religion, in this instance creationism, should be applied to the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. It is simply a belief system like any other.