Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

Would not 'God guiding the process of evolution' be considered an act(ion) of God?

I see you provided no quote from me to back up your claim of what I said.

I guess this makes your claim just another of the many real life prevarications.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Would not 'God guiding the process of evolution' be considered an act(ion) of God?

I see you provided no quote from me to back up your claim of what I said.

I guess this makes your claim just another of the many real life prevarications.

btw the post you just quoted is a question, not a claim, parados. Do you understand the difference?

I've quoted this statement of yours several times:

parados wrote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

That is a claim.

Then you switched back to:

parados wrote:

Naturalism defines our universe and how it acts.

Another claim which runs counter to the other.

It's a sad day for your team when you are the chief spokesman on this thread for the evolutionists. You're not doing so well. Laughing

0 Replies

Wow.. you sure like to make stuff up real life.

This is NOT a question from you real life. It is a claim

real life wrote:

I see that you backed off your earlier position that naturalism would include acts of God.

You claimed I held a position that naturalism includes acts of god. You provided no evidence of me saying that and still haven't provided any evidence. The 2 statements of mine that you pulled out of context don't mean what you claimed I said unless you want to argue that "naturalism" means "all things natural" at all times. I realize that seems to be one of the stupid arguments you have made but in order for you to claim it was my position you would need to provide evidence.

But let's examine my 2 statements.
I am curious how you think think my 2 statements contradict each other.

Does the question asked in the survey include all forms of "theistic evolution" including deism? I think it does. Respondents to the survey think it does. Potts, using the standard definition of "theistic evolution", thinks it does. In the question asked in the survey "god guiding a natural process" does NOT mean the process is no longer natural nor does it mean that God intervened directly in that process. It might mean god intervened directly for some of the respondents but we know it didn't mean that for all the respondents. Your attempt to quote mine my 2 statements to try to make them appear contradictory is not only pathetic it is another of your outright prevarications.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Wow.. you sure like to make stuff up real life.

This is NOT a question from you real life.

The post I referred to , and quoted, was a question.

You, of course, ignored it to go off on a completely different direction, so that you could 'answer' something that I was not referring to.

You running for office these days?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Wow.. you sure like to make stuff up real life.

This is NOT a question from you real life.

The post I referred to , and quoted, was a question.

You, of course, ignored it to go off on a completely different direction, so that you could 'answer' something that I was not referring to.

You running for office these days?

Your response, which was a question and I never said it wasn't, did NOT contain a quote from me to back up your claim in your previous post of what my position was. It seems you can't follow simple english. You make a claim about my position. I ask for a quote from me supporting your claim. You ask a question. I point out your question is NOT a quote from me that supports your claim. You then respond by saying your question is NOT a claim. Rolling Eyes

I quoted your question because it was NOT a quote from me to back up your claim in the previous post. Your attempt to pretend I was referring to your question when I said claim is just more of your pathetic attempt to avoid your own prevarications. You are getting more and more pathetic. I am not running for office but you sure are running away from defending your statements and running so hard you are looking idiotic doing it. I think you run because you are aware of your own pitiful stance.

0 Replies

But in concentrating on the "question", which it is hard to see how a person of even average intelligence would mistake my use of the word "claim" for your question, you are failing to answer how "naturalism" equates to "nature" in all instances or where I ever made that claim. Until you do that your claim is specious at best, an outright lie at the worse.

0 Replies

I guess real life has decided to no longer try to derail the thread since he was never able to provide any evidence of creationism.

0 Replies

It appears that all of the other evolutionists abandoned the thread and left you holding the bag.

Perhaps they were embarrassed as you 'led the charge' with such ridiculous antics as were displayed in the most recent pages.

Not one evolutionist backed your assertion that :

Quote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

0 Replies

No one has "abandoned" this thread RL. Certain folks like to argue in areas with which they have a specific affinity. I usually recuse myself from discussing matters of faith and doctrine because I find it pretty much a useless pursuit.
Ill just wait in the corners and , when you or your like -minded buddies try to expound on matters scientific, I find those of much greater interest.

Please do not attempt to link the various topics.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It appears that all of the other evolutionists abandoned the thread and left you holding the bag.

Perhaps they were embarrassed as you 'led the charge' with such ridiculous antics as were displayed in the most recent pages.

Not one evolutionist backed your assertion that :

Quote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

I'm assuming you can provide evidence that there is a God out there guiding a natural process?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It appears that all of the other evolutionists abandoned the thread and left you holding the bag.

I haven't abandoned the thread. I enjoy watching Parados and the others bash some of your ridiculous comments to a pulp. Please continue Smile

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

No one has "abandoned" this thread RL. Certain folks like to argue in areas with which they have a specific affinity. I usually recuse myself from discussing matters of faith and doctrine because I find it pretty much a useless pursuit.
Ill just wait in the corners and , when you or your like -minded buddies try to expound on matters scientific, I find those of much greater interest.

Please do not attempt to link the various topics.

Sorry , I took literally your statement:

farmerman wrote:

I think Im gonna be the first of the "evolutionists" to bail. It was fun for a while.

We had been discussing parados statement:

farmerman wrote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

Can you give a simple yes or no whether you agree with him or not?

Same question to ros and xingu. Agree with parados or no?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

Can you give a simple yes or no whether you agree with him or not?

Same question to ros and xingu. Agree with parados or no?

I agree with parados.

I don't see any problems with that statement.

Wasn't it you that said that anytime god is involved it is supernatural? So wouldn't that conclude that the universe it self is supernatual, and that nothing is natual?

0 Replies

Yeh, I bailed when it got to be "heads of pins carrying angels". I have no opinion about the side argument twixt you and parados. Im agnostic and dont think theres any validity in hairsplitting of terminology when the reference is about "whos running the boat".

If its important to you, go for it. Why should you need approbia from others of us who may not give a rats ass about whether a god driven evolution is "natural" or not. If its all natural , to me, it means that there are no artificial ingredients. Very Happy

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

RL, did I say that? where? I must have been toking cause thats a statement that I believe someone else made.

0 Replies

rl, I went back a few pages and youve incorrectly ascribed a quote that was not mine, when I bailed I then stated

Quote:

Archeological Evidence is strong that we, as a species "created" gods,religions, and governments at about roughly the same times. It was a population density issue and a societal response to populations that grew beyond mere extended family groups. We needed to invent "control". All the rest are mere details and ceremony.

Im most disappointed in your progress RL, you dont seem to take up any information and consider it for more than a few posts following. You redistribute the same tripe today that you were 6 months ago, and you present it like a cycle of ignorance. Theres really no discussing issues with you as long as your catechism forbids listening.

Does that sound like I even give a steamer about a "god driven natural world?"..Youve got me all wrong. Im one who believes in the freedom of and from religion. Those of you who need the pie in the sky promises of a bene god, you have my good wishes. Like alcohol, that kind of stuff just aint for me any more.

Your entire concept of a god in the context of this dsicussion is amusing. You have a benevolent god who gives you a brain then is busy trying to fuddle it with (obviously) false scientific findings in order to test what? your faith? Sounds like your a pet rat, not a sapiens.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

somebody wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

Can you give a simple yes or no whether you agree with him or not?

Same question to ros and xingu. Agree with parados or no?

As usual, you need to be more specific with your questions, or the answers won't make any sense.

For me, god and nature are the same thing, so saying, "god guiding a natural process" is like saying, "nature guiding a natural process". What version of god are you asking about when you ask your question? And just what do you mean by "guided".

0 Replies

Oh I haven't bailed either. In fact I'm still waiting patiently for you to answer my last group of questions from, I believe, December fourth.

You remember when you were enthralling us all with the conservation laws at the big bang. Remember? When I pointed out that you and BD (or you as BD whatever the case) were so ignorant of science that you were using Galilean conservation laws to describe a quantum environment and didn't even know any better.

Come on, you remember; you then said I couldn't prove what happened back then, though -- apparently somehow you could. Then you went off about wanting to talk about something REAL that we KNOW, we meaning you of course.

So I re-asked you some questions about the conservations laws in general (original post 12/4/2007), I think. You said it wasn't relevant. I pointed out that I though it was relevant as my questions dealt with the conservation laws as they exist today and you didn't seem to be able to answer even the simplest questions regarding them here and now let alone billions of years ago. You then used your usual tactic of ignoring my posts.

You then went on to pick on Parados. That got ugly quick as Parados uses your own posts to make you look like the idiot that you are and I was getting queasy from all the metaphorical blood so I looked away.

Also I was getting busy with my client dealing with issues that according to you I know absolutely nothing about. Fortunately for me they are a very charitable corporation who pay me well for my opinion on things of which I have no knowledge.

I think my company is pulling in...

Oh, and you have a REAL NICE weekend. Cool

ROFLMAO!!!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
farmerman wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

RL, did I say that? where? I must have been toking cause thats a statement that I believe someone else made.

Yeah, that's what I get for being in a hurry.

I prefaced it with 'We had been discussing parados statement: ' , but then somehow I must've pasted your name in there instead of parados.

My bad, fm . Sorry.

It was parados statement, as I indicated . And I assume you disagree with it , but I'm not sure.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

.......I have no opinion about the side argument twixt you and parados. Im agnostic and dont think theres any validity in hairsplitting of terminology when the reference is about "whos running the boat".

If its important to you, go for it. Why should you need approbia from others of us who may not give a rats ass about whether a god driven evolution is "natural" or not........

I would think it very important to you as a scientist to make sure that the definition of a natural process didn't include God.

Isn't that what you've been all about on these discussions?

Now you claim you have no opinion. Rolling Eyes

Why can't you muster the gumption to tell another evolutionist that they've got it wrong?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know