There are just as many "dorks" in the evolutionists circles. Big deal.
It's all in each man's perspective.
Edited by - pomegranate on 23 October 2002 20:43:23
Creation: The big and the small of it
by Zechariah 85 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
IronGland
No, it's all in the evidence. Expose yourself to some.
-
Francois
Pom,
Yeah, I hate to see you have to pour all that JD into your shorts. And THEN it all evaporates leaving "things" colder than they were. But remember, you're going to be busy with a 65 pound striper. You won't have a free hand, nor time to use it. Har.
Frank
-
Realist
pom,
i'm still waiting for the evidence supporting a great flood!
-
expatbrit
Zechariah:
The Creator is the Creator by whatever name you call him. No one is arguing religion only the existence of a Creator. Don't try to obfuscate. I hope I used that word correctly. If not you know what I mean.
I was responding to Pomegranate's posting where he listed:
Scientific Disciplines Established By Bible-Believing Scientists
Note that "Bible-Believing Scientists" is underlined. Not "God-Believing Scientists". Thus, I am not being obfuscatory. We all know that when a fundamentalist Christian refers to "God" that it is the God of the Bible they refer to. Claiming otherwise is being disingenuous. If you were to say "look at all these God-believing scientists" and I was to reply "okay you've convinced me, I believe in Allah!" you would promptly attempt to convert me to Christianity, with its particular God and creation accounts.
The point is that a scientist pioneering a particular field does not give any indication as to the accuracy of his religious beliefs. There have been scientific pioneers in all ages and in all cultures, and they held an enormous variety of religious beliefs. Some believed in one God, some believed in many Gods. Imhotep of the 3rd Egyptian dynasty, for example, was a scientific pioneer of his time. Does that give credence to his religious beliefs in the existence of the Egyptian pantheon? No. Neither does listing pioneering scientists who believe in other Gods, or in the existence of God at all, give any credence to their religious viewpoints.
Therefore listing scientists who believe in God is a fallacious argument, known as "the argument from authority."
Expatbrit
-
TR
Pom says:
Insults are thrown by LOSERS
Then he says:
The man who lobs insults is the man that can't debate.
Uh, yeah. So you're a loser, and you can't debate?
TR
Edited by - TR on 23 October 2002 21:59:27
-
Kenneson
Expatbrit,
Is the converse also true? Would the listing of evolutionists or scientists who do not believe in God also be a fallacious argument? Should we give credence to their non-religious viewpoints?
-
Gedanken
pomegranate,
: I have no reason to defend my position to the likes of you.
So why did you?
Gedanken
-
pomegranate
Yo TR,
Loser isn't an insult, it's the opposite of winner in a debate. Looking for a nit to pick TR?
These are REAL insults that were tossed my way:
you are a total moron
ignorant
uneducated
you are behaving in exactly the same was as the Catholic Church did.
Emotionally you are unable to deal with reality
In reality your opinions are just as sane as those as Woodworth's views on science as recounted in Golden Age.
you are so emotionally incapable of accepting reality - but that's the fact of the matter
Very nice but absolutely dishonest (or stupid -
It is only your distance from even the semblance of educated thought that make syou unable to distinguish between having a PhD and being credible.
It is amazing that anyone able to ascend such heights of critical thinking is simultaneously able to type or log on to the computer needed to do that - or do you have a helper?
But it's my own fault for trying to debate a creature with the intellect of a three-month old baboon.Great stuff eh? A real intellect.
Edited by - pomegranate on 23 October 2002 22:16:1
-
pomegranate
So why did you?
Because it was before I knew you were only in it for the insults. Duh. After insults, no more debate.
Bah bye.