Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

So, does this mean you finally believe the evidence I have given you?

I'm suprized that someone who supposedly doesn't believe in God, believes that there is more than one. Oh well the one I speak is יהוה,who else?

 

Does God then have only one face?

 

I must have been sick the day you offered your evidence, would you mind offering a link?

 

The Hebrew name did not hear the voice of the burning bush. Tell them I Am has sent you. I Am the way. Whatever you ask in my name. I thirst, it is finished.

 

Munchausen would be proud of Darwinists !

 

The common voice.

 

You are the one obliged to produce evidence and prove existence, not other way around

 

Then why did you say I had it?

 

That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

gosh i really really enjoy reading creationists arguing against evolution. oh this is fantastic =]

 

You do know of course that those who believe in creation and creationists are not necessarily the same thing, don't you?

Also if you are a evolutionist, were does your sig; "I have mystical visions and cosmic vibrations", fit into that.

I was also wondering where your sig picture is from since almost all the trees are dead. Looks like beetle kill.

 

Ah and you do realise that the biggest evolution doubter of them all, mr Jumbuli here, is not a believer in Creation right?

 

Ah, and do you notice that the doubter and the believer strike an identical pose, they both are trying to tease apart knowledge and belief. Someone asked, "Don't you believe in what you know?". Well, do we know how to tie our shoes, or do we only believe we know? Jumbli insists that if we cannot demonstrate proof, then we have no right to make a claim. If a person who has learned to tie his shoes looses their arms and hands it does not deprive them of that knowledge. Knowledge is, being shared. All it takes to know something is intimate engagement. Simply watch out for that tree.

 

Jumbuli never made such an absurd claim that if you lost your arms and couldn't tie your shoes it would imply your lack of knowledge how to tie your shoes. This is a false inference, whether willful or not.

What Jumbuli said all along was that the theory itself is nothing but tall tale and hugely improbable story backed up by nothing but baseless assertions.
If Munchausen claimed that he could fly to the Moon on cannonball, his being sick and physically unfit to get inside the cannonball to be shot up the skies could hardly serve as a proof of his ability and knowledge how to perform claimed deed otherwise.

There is a difference between claiming you can tie up your shoe and claiming you can fly up the Moon on cannonball.

Read full article here
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=381132&page=29
Post # 287

 

You mixed up my quote with yours making it appear that you also typed what I typed.
So I quoted you above for all to see what you actually wrote

Here, from my earlier responce to you (Post # 257) :

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=381132&page=26

Unlike you I am not playing word games here.

Let me break it down so your futile attempt to confuse the reader can once again fail.

First of all the topic is "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory".
It is not "Argument is or isn't a valid scientific metric."

Second, I would actually note in the context that "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory" is not a proper name for the thread as it implies that one has obligation to prove non-existence.
Opposite is true.
One who makes Positive Assertion is obliged to prove it.
One who doubts such assertion isn't similarly situated to be obliged to prove anything.

Therefore I would say the proper name for this thread should be "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory".

Given that the OP himself is a devout believer that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid, naming this thread "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory" would be so much more plausible.

But what plausibility can we expect from a man who resorts to name calling and ignoring his opponent at the first opportunity just to free himself of obligation to prove his baseless ,arbitrary assertions and tall tales ?

Munchausen would be proud of him !

It is tehrefore understandable that his naming this thread "Evloution is not a valid scientific theory" was a ploy devised in hopes of misguiding the reader into thinking that those who doubt his baseless and arbitrary Positive Assertion are also the ones obliged to prove non-existence and absurdity of his claim.

While the motivation of OP is clear, it doesn't quite achieve the purpose he may have had in his head.

And I hereby call his bluff and once again challenege him to prove his claim by presenting a relevant to the theory he defends evidence and plausible argument to back up his assertion that it is Scientifically Valid theory.

Either that, or he has no claim to begin with and someone else should take his place instead, if there is any.

 

Again, the only game that can be played with a word is to confuse its' meaning, other than that it is used for communication. There is no disparity between my postulates and phenomena known to occur.

 

Darwinists Believe the Darndest Things

 

Future title of a Scientific American issue. :cheers2:

 

Exactly, man, exactly. Like Alan Watts once said, "you cannot get an intelligent creature out of an unintelligent universe, because one cannot gather figs from thistles, or grapes from thorns."

We are pretty much asked to believe that a random bumping together of chemicals eventually brought on a creature that can appreciate beauty, recognize suffering, enjoy pleasure, escape pain, and think abstractly as a way for us to create and make real that which is not.

[Our ability to think in abstractions points to how we were made in God's shadow: The created is like the creator.]


You know. I have been thinking lately. Can advanced life exist without the existence of pleasure? I try to imagine a reality completely disconnected from all pleasure and I can't see how life would move further a certain complexity.

Why does pleasure even exist... This subjective experience exists. At the very heart of reality, it's brought about, supposedly randomly and blindly, this experience. Ah well.