Theistic Evol vs ID vs Hindu religion

[BobRyan]

Quote:
UTE, you are presenting your opinions as facts in a number of cases here.

UTEOTW
I think I am presenting the majority opinion as something that I agree with

I believe that UTEOTW is correct about the majority of atheists agreeing with him on this point Hellen.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding the abiogenesis miracle needed by Atheist darwinists and their need to "tell stories" when confronted with the lack of imperical data SHOWING it can be done --

Quote:Hellen said
As far as abiogenesis is concerned, "many plausible methods by which life could have arisen" is not evidence. It is imagination. And all the imagination in the world does not create data. The data we have from labs and nature indicate that abiogenesis is impossible, despite the imaginations of believers.
Good point Hellen. "Thought experiments that show abiogenesis" are "merely stories" no matter how firmly believed by atheist darwinists. If others choose to follow them - then they have also chosen the same "story telling" instead of science.

UTEOTW said

I'll give you the same response.

How life arose is lost to history, never to be known for sure. However, I gave a sizable list of references of research into how it might have happened.

Their "story tellinig" thought experiments hardly make it to even that standard UTEOTW.

To SHOW that something MIGHT have happened "this way"

#1. Step 1. SHOW that it can be contrived in the lab under controlled conditions -- even though artifical and contrived in the lab it would be a starting point for the argument. A fully formed cell - with the benefit of millions in research would be a good start but would not show that this is a NATURAL outcome in nature itself.

#2. Step 2. SHOW some sequences and conditions in nature that if arranged correctly - would yield the same results.

#3. Step 3. SHOW that the conditions in nature needed in Step 2 could actually be expected to happen as needed, high probability.

But atheist darwinists can not GET TO STEP 1. So they "imagine" step 2 after "IMAGINING" that Step 1 could ever be done - then they go on to "IMAGINE step 3"!!

And WHY all this "imagination" instead of actual science??? Because the STARTING point for the atheist darwinist is "there IS NO God"! They HAVE to go down this blind alley - it is their ONLY choice!

So why does UTEOTW do it??

Indeed - why join the atheist darwinists on this futile quest to "Be creator" when Romans 1 says that EVEN PAGANS are "without excuse" and should know better!!

And what is worse! Why deride the ID evolutionists whose only crime is that IN THIS ONE point of Romans 1- they ADMIT to the most basic of ALL attributes "CLEARLY SEEN IN the things that have been made"!!??

Question for the reader - notice how religiously UTEOTW avoids the obvious blunder his atheist darwinists have to make when it comes to Romans 1???

 

[UTEOTW]

I believe that UTEOTW is correct about the majority of atheists agreeing with him on this point Hellen [sic] .

I am not sure why Helen did not get on to you for calling everyone who doesn't think as you do "atheists." Oh well.

I think that you are forgetting that it is not just atheists who accept universal common descent.

For example, the famous CHristian biologist Dobzhansky said the following in his essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutual exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 B.C.; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy; the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

 

[BobRyan]

You are continually trying to sidestep the problem. Your argument says that "IF I want to BELIEVE in a minimalist Creator who is soooo far in the background - when it comes to atheist darwinist models for origins - that He can only be imagined by true believers then I am free to do so".

Those TE "Believers" that accept ID are taking a stand for evolutionism that I would oppose as I stated from the very start - BUT I freely admit that they are holding to a small element of truth that is a "Step up" from the "distinctively atheist" point of view when it comes to "What is clearly seen in the things that have been made".

My point is that your argument makes no room at all for the Rom 1 fact being fully accepted and demonstrated by the ID argument that atheist darwinists so desperately oppose. The fact that even for pagan unbelievers - even for those in outright rebellion against all that God stands for "They are without excuse" because these ID attributes are "clearly seen in the things that are made" EVEN by them!

In other words - by your bold oppostion to ID on this very point you have joined the Atheist Darwinists on a "distinctively atheist" argument!

You are totally exposed on this one sir.

 

[BobRyan]

Now this scenario is totally unique, because in this one you have an evolutionist and faithful devotee to atheist darwinism attacking OTHER EVOLUTIONSTS (ID evolutionists in this case) BECAUSE those ID evolutionists STILL admit to the TRUTH of Romans 1 where God says that EVEN PAGANS can "clearly SEE the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE".

The faithful cultist and devoted follower of atheist darwinism has responded to the ID claims for the MOST BASIC OF ALL attributes (intelligence in the MAKER) by boldly denying the ID argument showing specific cases WHERE this attribute "can be clearly seen" -- in favor of Romans 1. Those believers in atheist darwinism have claimed in response "I have not found even one such case"

 

[UTEOTW]

Now this scenario is totally unique, because in this one you have an evolutionist and faithful devotee to atheist darwinism attacking OTHER EVOLUTIONSTS (ID evolutionists in this case) BECAUSE those ID evolutionists STILL admit to the TRUTH of Romans 1 where God says that EVEN PAGANS can "clearly SEE the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE".

You are just going to keep beating that dead horse, aren't you? No matter how many times you hit it, it is not going to jump up and live.

I told you in my very first post just where it is that I see suc hattributes.

You seem to ignore that and keep wanting to beat me over the head for not accepting the vacuous claims of the IDers. Thus far, all of their claims have been without merit. I am merely rejecting poor scholoarship. I even told you right at the beginning of this thread that I would have no trouble whatsoever in accepting such claims if they were true. But the claims of the IDist thus far just cannot hold water.

But you seem to think that I should give up my intellectual integrity and accept poor scholarship. Sorry. No dice. If they ever do worthwhile work, I'll listen openly.

 

[UTEOTW]

[snip] atheist darwinism [snip]

Can you please get away from this fallacious phrasing? All you are trying to do here is to poison the well by using inflamatory language that does not reflect reality.

Let me refer you to a poll.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Look here and you will see that about half of scientists consider themselves to be "creationists." Look even more closely and you will see that of those, nearly 90% are of the old earth variety of creationists.

This means that when you paint with your broad, fallacious brush, terming supporters of science as "atheists evolutionists," that you are in reality tarring many fellow believers.

Reality does not support your assertions, so why do you continue with them?

And let's remind of what one specific Christian biologists had to say.

Dobzhansky said the following in his essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutual exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 B.C.; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy; the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

And since you asked me if I supported ID in your first post, and continue to criticize me for not accepting all of what they have to say, let's remind you of their position on the matter.

Behe:

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. ...Although Darwin’s mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

Dembski:

More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.

Wells:

If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.

They find common descent to "convincing" and with no reason to "doubt" it. They say that common descent cannot "be denied by reasonable people." They say that ID accepts common descent "cheerfully."

Do you think that Dembski and Wells and Behe are "atheist evolutionists?"

Then why do you continue to paint with that braod and fallacious brush?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
[snip] atheist darwinism [snip]

UTEOTW
Can you please get away from this fallacious phrasing? All you are trying to do here is to poison the well by using inflamatory language that does not reflect reality.

In your endless quest to "ignore inconvenient detail" you have "done it again" in your classic style!!

How can you pretend to miss the point time after time after time (even with Patterson's post as was shown on the testcase thread).

#1. Atheist darwinists like Dawkins make it "crystal clear" that they AGREE with Bible believing Christians on the total opposition to their doctrines on darwinism vs the Christian view. BOTH groups AGREE that there is a "distinctive" here that can not be glossed over the way you want to do it!

#2. YOUR OWN pretense has been FULLY EXPOSED in your opposition to the evolutionists in the ID camp using a DISTINCTIVELY Atheist argument in direct opposition to "inconvenient facts" of life identified by God in Romans 1 that apply EVEN to pagans!! "They were WITHOUT EXCUSE" because the basic (invisible) attribute of INTELLIGENCE required for ALL OTHER invisible attributes of God "is CLEARLY SEEN in the things that HAVE BEEN MADE".

You could not BE more exposed on this as you justify the term "atheist darwinism" in your every post on this thread UTEOTW.

It is a religion that takes the distinctively ATHEIST view of naturalism EVEN to the point of denying the Romans 1 fact of the invisible attributes of God "CLEARLY SEEN by pagans" via the "THINGS that have been MADE"!!

How many more times do you need this point exposed while you try to gloss over it??

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
This means that when you paint with your broad, fallacious brush, terming supporters of science as "atheists evolutionists," that you are in reality tarring many fellow believers.

"again" you simply "gloss over details that are too inconvenient for your story telling" -- How predictable.

I do not call you or any of the other Christian devotees to the doctrines of atheist darwinism - "Atheists".

#1. RATHER I admit that the Atheist darwinists like Darwkins ARE ATHEISTS.

#2. I admit that the OPPOSITION your group has to EVOLUTIONISTS that ACCEPT the Romans 1 fact in ID -- EXPOSES you on a DISTINCTIVELY Atheist argument!

#3. I state that you are BELIEVING in that system - at the same time that you claim to be Christian. JUST as I do not claim that Athist darwinists BECOME Bible believing Christians JUST BECAUSE they expose a blunder in Darwinist history SO I do not claim that your group CLAIMS to be atheists JUST because you get so befuddled as to JOIN Atheist Darwinists in their disctinctively Atheist arguments AGAINST EVOLUTIONISTS that admit to the ID fact of life identified in Romans 1!!

Get it? Yet?

 

[UTEOTW]

And Bob, we have another fallacious argument that you need to rid yourself of.

#3. Having NO EXAMPLE of such a sequence and being UNNABLE to generate one - the Atheist darwinist is confined to "story telling".

This was one of your responses to the abiogenesis discussion, if you can call it a "discussion." You have continuously swpapped back and forth equating "never happened" and "impossible" to be the same thing.

Let me give you an analogy. What if I said that it would be impossible to land a man on Europa. You might give me all the technical reason why it might be possible but I argued that it "never happened" and that we have "failed" to accomplish such a feat and thus it was impossible.

Can you see why in that case that "never happened" does not equate to "impossible?"

Sorry for the extended lead in, but now it is time for the fallacy of your argument. The analogy provides a nice transition.

You said that abiogenesis is "impossible." I have responded with a long list of references that show how many of the steps that are hypothesized along the way are plausible and have laboratory evidence to support their plausibility.

You often respond, as in the quote above, that scientists have "failed" to make a single new life form following these paths. Therefore if it is impossible in the lab, then it is impossible in nature.

That, sir, is nothing more than a strawman.

And you continually knock that strawman over. Never mind that it has no basis in fact and does not resemble anything that actually goes on.

Let me explain.

Well, I'll explain by asking you to justify your strawman. Since you say that scientists have "failed" to make life following their proposed paths of abiogenesis, why don't you tell me of a single experiement that has even tried to do so?

Name for us one published report of one single team of scientists that have tried to duplicate the path from basic chemicals to life.

Can't name one? Then how can you say that they have "failed" at something which they have not attempted?

It is a nice sounding strawman, but it is nothing more. In reality, you have no factual basis with which to reject the references which I provided.

I doubt that you even checked a single reference. I doubt that you searched for a single paper. I doubt that you clicked a single link. But you still deny it.

And, BTW, you can bumb those quote threads as many times as you want, I already told you that I am through with those. I have exposed you so thoroughly that there is really nothing more to say. Just look for example at what a thin thread to which you grasp in the Patterson quote. Need a reminder?

Some creationist, I think it was Sunderland or something like that, quoted Patterson in a book I think it was and used that quote to try and prove some point.

So someone wrote to Patterson, asked abot the quote and gave what he thought Patterson was trying to say.

Patterson responded. He first gave the rest of the paragraph from which the quote came and then agreed that the person asking him about the quote had the right idea (was "correct") and that the creationist's interpretation was "wrong."

So Bob comes along and quotes the rest of the paragraph, the part that Patterson gave in his reply.

Now you would have us believe that because you were not quoting the couple of senetences out of hte paragraph that Patterson was asked about, that his response should have no bearing on your quote.

Hogwash.

For that to be the case, you would have us to believe that in the middle of a single paragraph, that Patterson gave two opinions which were conpletely and totally opposite from one another and contradictory. And furthermore that he would then think that quoting the whole paragraph would help him show that the creationists interpretaion of the first part was "wrong." If he meant two opposite things in a single paragraph, he would not want to quote the second half to make his point.

That you are clinging to such a thin thread has already been shown on that thread. I don't know how you argue that in good conscience. But if you wish to keep bumping the thread to remind others that you cannot even accept a bad quote when the person himself tells you that you are wrong, by all means go right ahead.

 

[UTEOTW]

How can you pretend to miss the point time after time after time (even with Patterson's post as was shown on the testcase thread).

This thread is about to roll pages. Since you have been shown to not read my responses to you, it took four times of me telling you that you were stating my gender incorrectly before you noticed, I need to repeat something from my last post because I doubt you will ever go back to page 7 and reach the very bottom to find it.

And, BTW, you can bump those quote threads as many times as you want, I already told you that I am through with those. I have exposed you so thoroughly that there is really nothing more to say. Just look for example at what a thin thread to which you grasp in the Patterson quote. Need a reminder?

Some creationist, I think it was Sunderland or something like that, quoted Patterson in a book I think it was and used that quote to try and prove some point.

So someone wrote to Patterson, asked abot the quote and gave what he thought Patterson was trying to say.

Patterson responded. He first gave the rest of the paragraph from which the quote came and then agreed that the person asking him about the quote had the right idea (was "correct") and that the creationist's interpretation was "wrong."

So Bob comes along and quotes the rest of the paragraph, the part that Patterson gave in his reply.

Now you would have us believe that because you were not quoting the couple of senetences out of hte paragraph that Patterson was asked about, that his response should have no bearing on your quote.

Hogwash.

For that to be the case, you would have us to believe that in the middle of a single paragraph, that Patterson gave two opinions which were conpletely and totally opposite from one another and contradictory. And furthermore that he would then think that quoting the whole paragraph would help him show that the creationists interpretaion of the first part was "wrong." If he meant two opposite things in a single paragraph, he would not want to quote the second half to make his point.

That you are clinging to such a thin thread has already been shown on that thread. I don't know how you argue that in good conscience. But if you wish to keep bumping the thread to remind others that you cannot even accept a bad quote when the person himself tells you that you are wrong, by all means go right ahead.

You really should read the last post on page 7. I show how you have built a strawman for your standard abiogenesis response and ask that you justify the strawman with some actual data.

I will not be holding my breath.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW

And since you asked me if I supported ID in your first post, and continue to criticize me for not accepting all of what they have to say, let's remind you of their position on the matter.

Behe:


Quote:
I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. ...Although Darwin’s mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

Again your attempts to misdirect and derail the thread "are not working"!!

I asked if you accepted the distinctives of the ID argument "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" the "ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN"!

You "continually attempt" to derail the design theme CENTRAL to the ID distinctive and INSERT general evolution themes that are NOT unique to the ID group!! (your typical bait and switch maneuver).

But it is not working UTEOTW!

The TE argument is supposed to be SOME modest confession that God exists. The ID argument - "distinctive" in fact is RAISING THE BAR for ATHEISTS in that they ADMIT to the "intelligence" and "DESIGN" that is SEEN In "The THINGS THAT have been MADE"!!

They admit to the MINIMUM fact that all who accept Romans 1 for PAGANS would have to accept. It is ON THAT DISTINCTIVE that you oppose them using a distinctively atheist POV as compared to the truth of Romans 1 "for unbelieving pagains"!!

bait and switch is not working for you UTEOTW

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
And, BTW, you can bumb those quote threads as many times as you want, I already told you that I am through with those. I have exposed you so thoroughly that there is really nothing more to say. Just look for example at what a thin thread to which you grasp in the Patterson quote. Need a reminder?

Some creationist, I think it was Sunderland or something like that, quoted Patterson in a book I think it was and used that quote to try and prove some point.

So someone wrote to Patterson, asked abot the quote and gave what he thought Patterson was trying to say.

Patterson responded. He first gave the rest of the paragraph from which the quote came and then agreed that the person asking him about the quote had the right idea (was "correct") and that the creationist's interpretation was "wrong."

Avoding "inconvenient facts again" UTEOTW???!!

#1. YOU are the one that brought up the PAtterson quote and now YOU are the one fleeing from it!!

#2. YOU now post a "something or other" post about Patterson SHOWING you have no clue what the EXACT quote is that is being complained about.

#3. I SHOWED YOU IN YOUR OWN QUOTE where Patterson APPROVES and PROMOTES a small portion of the quote saying IT DOES reveal HIS TRUE position!!

How can you keep this "avoidance tactic" for inconvenient facts -- a central theme in your EVERY POINT UTEOTW??!!

How have you become so blind to fact!!?? When you are exposed as in the Patterson case - you simply run away.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Do you think that Dembski and Wells and Behe are "atheist evolutionists?"

Obviously not. If you are reading these posts with any comprehension - (attention to detail) at all you can see that - as do all the rest!

YOU oppose EVoLUTIONISTS like Behe on DISTINCTIVELY Atheist opposition to Romans 1!!

I do not.

I ALSO DO not think that an atheist darwinist like Dawkins could EVER embrace Behe's evolutionism without first giving up some of his atheist views!

Obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
#3. Having NO EXAMPLE of such a sequence and being UNNABLE to generate one - the Atheist darwinist is confined to "story telling".

UTEOTW
This was one of your responses to the abiogenesis discussion, if you can call it a "discussion." You have continuously swpapped back and forth equating "never happened" and "impossible" to be the same thing.

Let me give you an analogy. What if I said that it would be impossible to land a man on Europa. You might give me all the technical reason why it might be possible but I argued that it "never happened" and that we have "failed" to accomplish such a feat and thus it was impossible.

Can you see why in that case that "never happened" does not equate to "impossible?"

Misdirection and "revisionism" again UTEOTW - how "unnexpected".
YOU are the one that DENIED the truth of Romans 1 "for unbelieving Pagans" saying that you did not FIND EVEN ONE example in ALL of nature for PAGANS and UNBELIEVERS seeing the "invisible attribute of intelligence" through the design "SEEN CLEARLY in the things that have been made". You claimed that ANY such claims had a "possible SOLUTION" that was already established (not simply story telling we assume).
I SHOW that in the case of Abiogensis you HAVE NO SOLUTION - not even a contrived one in the lab for generating a single living cell!
I SHOW that you are willing to insert "story telling" in thought experiments IN PLACE of the truth of Romans 1 and the extent to which the ID evolutionist point out the TRUTH of Romans 1.
I show that those things that ARE IMPOSSIBLE never happen!
Obviously.
You argue that just because your thought experiments in abiogenesis never HAPPEN in the lab does not mean you can not have an atheist's kin of FAITH that one day they WILL!
How sad that THIS is your "possible solution" faith - to hold in direct opposition to Romans 1 and the ID evolutionist's claims!!

 

[UTEOTW]

I find it quite unlikely that Helen will be back, but in case she does return I would like to explore something she said in more detail.

Second, we can prove common ancestry within groups. Dogs had a common dog ancestor. Swine had a common swine ancestor. Horses had a common horse ancestor, etc. Genetic and biological evidence easily goes back to original distinct populations.

Helen says that "genetic and biological evidence" can "easily" show the nesting of species back to the original "kinds," whatever they may be.

So let's take a thought experiment.

Pretend that I am someone who thinks that species are the "kinds." I believe that no speciation is possible. How would you convince me that there really was a dog kind or a pig kind or a horse kind?

(As I remember, you put the definition of "kind" as generally around the family level. So the dog "kind" would be what we usually call canines: dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc. Right?)

Well, as you said, you would go to the evidence. Maybe you would look at the morphology of extand dogs and wolves and foxes and so on. Show what they share. You might have some fossils with which you could also show the diversification through morphology. You might pull in genetics. I remember a discussion last year involving a shared feline mutation that prevents that tasting of bitter substances. You might could show how extant canines, or whatever, share such rare genomic events.

But here is the catch.

You know as well as I do that whatever methods you would use to assert that canines are of a single "kind" do not stop at that level.

You know as well as I do, that whatever kind of evidence you were to use, I could cite studies that extend that line of thinking right up the nested heirarchy.

Since the evidence does not stop at the family level, why do you? There is no sharp demarcation. There is no change in the kind of data available. The things that show nesting up to that point continue to show nesting past that point. It does not stop. And I am sure that you are fully aware of such studies.

And when extending the boundary, lines of evidence become available to me that you would simply ignore. I doubt that you would use any ontogeny. I doubt that you would use atavisms and vestiges. But they exist.

I cannot understand by what logical reason you accept some set of data and then capriciously ignore the same kind of data when it goes further than what you can accept.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
So Bob comes along and quotes the rest of the paragraph, the part that Patterson gave in his reply.

Now you would have us believe that because you were not quoting the couple of senetences out of hte paragraph that Patterson was asked about, that his response should have no bearing on your quote.

Hogwash.

For that to be the case, you would have us to believe that in the middle of a single paragraph, that Patterson gave two opinions which were conpletely and totally opposite from one another and contradictory. And furthermore that he would then think that quoting the whole paragraph would help him show that the creationists interpretaion of the first part was "wrong." If he meant two opposite things in a single paragraph, he would not want to quote the second half to make his point.

That you are clinging to such a thin thread has already been shown on that thread. I don't know how you argue that in good conscience.

#1. If you had an OUNCe of assurance that YOUR OWN TEST case (the Patterson letter YOU brought in as proof) for defeating my POV had ANY CHANCE of surviving the light of day you would be THANKFUL for my giving YOU an entire thread to hammer that one point home!! Istead of thanking me for giving you a platform for highlighting emphasize and detailing your supreme testcase against my quotes -- You "predictably" flee from it - knowing how your fact-devoid arguments are "once again" totally exposed in YOUR OWN selected test case!! What a blunder UTEOTW! I don't blame you for running away from YOUR OWN selected testcase!!

#2. I SHOW Patterson to ENDORSE the very quote I have been REPEATIng for HIM and I show him doing it in THE VERY LETTER you provided!! you simply "run away" from that detail though I quote his letter almost non-stop.

IF his letter WAS making your case you would be all over that thread in stead of running away from it - and hiding.

 

[UTEOTW]

I SHOWED YOU IN YOUR OWN QUOTE where Patterson APPROVES and PROMOTES a small portion of the quote saying IT DOES reveal HIS TRUE position!!

Oh, Bob, you take even that out of context. All he was saying is that the text was correc t quoted as far as being and accurate representation of the words used and the order into which they were placed.

He says nothing about the presentation of the quote actually reflecting what he meant.

The bottom line is that in the Patterson quote, he took a paragraph of his and stated clearly that the way that creationinsts were interpreting it was "wrong" and that the interpretation that I gave you was "correct."

You think that you have an out because you quoted a different couple of sentences from a single paragraph than Sunderland (or whatever his name is).

You think that we are dumb enough to believe that Patterson contradicted himself in the same paragraph.

Unbelievable.

Patterson addressed your interpretation of the passage and declared it "wrong."

Why can you not face that?

If you had an OUNCe of assurance that YOUR OWN TEST case for defeating my POV had ANY CHANCE of surviving the light of day you would be THANKFUL for my giving YOU and entire thread to hammer that one point home!! You flee from it - knowing how you are exposed in that blunder.

I flee nothing.

When you have the very man being quoted stating that he is being misquoted and you continue to insist that you are right, there is not much left to say.

You argue that you better know what Patterson meant than Patterson himself. If his own words won't make you realize your deceit, nothing I can say will.

So I have decided to leave it alone. YOu won't take Patterson's word that you are "wrong," you'll never take mine. But there is plenty there to indict you for anyone who reads it. There is no reason to keeping beating my head on the wall.

 

[BobRyan]

Helen says that "genetic and biological evidence" can "easily" show the nesting of species back to the original "kinds," whatever they may be.

So let's take a thought experiment.

We already did that with the famous thought experiment "abiogenesis".

Remember?

Now back to the topic of the thread - which is your joining in the "Atheist distinctive" opposition to ID on the VERY GROUNDS where it AGREES with Romans 1!!

Why do you join them in leaping off that cliff?

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, Bob, you take even that out of context. All he was saying is that the text was correc t quoted as far as being and accurate representation of the words used and the order into which they were placed.

He says nothing about the presentation of the quote actually reflecting what he meant.

Wrong again UTEOTW!

Go to the post SHOW your work. I HIGHLIGHT I COLOR the text that HE SAYS reflects his own views.

you simply AVOID the fact in your every post on that thread.

Why not DEAL with the details instead of fleeing them "every time".

Go to the thread - MAKE an intelligent argument USE the facts LISTED THERE!

it is your OWN example. Surely should not have to be DRAGGED into defending it!! "again"