The Thaw

The marginalization of Christianity and Christians in public schools has been gaining acceptance over the years.  The blame can be laid squarely at the feet of Christians who somehow got the idea that they shouldn’t involve themselves in the public or political arena.  Now they are fighting an uphill battle.  People cheer for bullies like Dan Savage who openly ridicule them for their convictions (all while decrying bullying) further creating a stigma attached to Christian religious and moral convictions.

Comments

  1. “Why can’t I pray in school?”

    “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
    Matthew 6:5-6

    “Why do they teach every other theory in science except creation”.

    Because it’s a religious dogma not a scientific theory.

    • The passage is speaking to people who would pray in public to show their holiness on display, as though their exuberant public display is what is pleasing to God to reap reward. Students, however, are often prohibited from praying together in a relatively private manner.

      I suppose we should know what one means by “creationism” before it could be better discussed. Intelligent Design is not creationism even though atheists believe otherwise.

  2. The passage is speaking to a broader audience. It says “don’t be like the hypocrites”, not don’t be hypocrites” as a would be if directed to them.

    “relatively private” sounds euphemistic for a public manner.

    “I suppose we should know what one means by “creationism” before it could be better discussed. Intelligent Design is not creationism even though atheists believe otherwise.”

    Well, the girl doesn’t seem to be an atheist, does she?
    Anyway, ID is not a scientific theory since it is not verifiable nor falsable.

    • I see you’re not familiar with ID, it is testable and falsifiable. You’d know that if you had actually read more on it than what atheist activists say about it. But “creationism” is much broader than might be presumed. So you’d need to know what she means when she uses the term.

  3. John,

    I’m familiar with ID. I have even read a whole article from Dembski.
    It says that something which shows irreducible complexity is designed. It is no testable nor falsifiable. Besides, something could wrongly said to be irreductible such as the case of the eye.

  4. Enough for Dembski to explain the theory and for me to understand it.
    Sorry if you don’t have the skill to catch up ideas.

  5. So what?

  6. Sorry, but you are not me.
    Your extrapolation of my experience to your experience is groundless.

    And we were talking about ID, not evolution.
    Since you say ID “is testable and falsifiable” could you tell me how?

  7. I have already done it. Your lack of reading comprehension leads you make mistakes.
    I notice you have avoided my request.

  8. Evolutionism is also an untestable and non-falsifiable theory. It is 100% fiction.

  9. “Evolutionism is also an untestable and non-falsifiable theory. It is 100% fiction.”

    That’s a blatant lie.

    Verification:
    – Discovering of a characteristics heritance mechanism which may have failures and thus creating new characteristics.
    – Discovering of species along time with intermediate characteristics.

    Falsation:
    – Discovering of species continuity along time.

    • Sorry Isu, but you are the one with the LIE. It is man who decides to CALL things “intermediate characteristics” so as to fit his world view, when in reality those are the original characteristics. Genetic mutations may form other characteristics, but genetic mutations are never beneficial.

      Evolutionism is a religious philosophy with no facts but lots of speculations and assumptions.

  10. Glenn,

    You cover your blatant lie with more lies.
    The finding of intermediate characteristics is deduced from the theory and there is no world view in it. You must say every characteristic is original to keep up with your dogma. Your assertion that genetic mutations are never benefical (which is proven to be false by the antibiotic resistance of bacteria) is an ad hoc assumption to hold your dogma

    The feet of Merychippus, for example, show an obvious intermediate characteristic between regular toed feet and hoofed feet.

    Being the the theory of evolution true or false is irrelevant for my world view. It is your world view which is at stake, so you are the one which has the motive to lie.

    • Isu,
      You have been deceived. Of course there is a worldview with evolutionism – anti-God! That is why it was developed. I have studied evolutionism for four decades and there are absolutely NO facts to support it – just dogma, speculations, assertions and assumptions.

      Not every characteristic is original; Creation included genes for variations, which is what we tend to call micro-evolution, which takes place WITHIN a species and never creates another species. In other words, humans have always been humans and began with a olive-colored skin. The genetic features during isolation were able to give all the skin colors we have today in the same way selected breeding with animals shuffles the genes. No NEW information is ever added.

      All the feet of merychippus demonstrate is that those were the type of feet it had. Dogma of evolutionists decide that it must be a transition between types of feet rather than be a type of its own. That’s called reading the data through a worldview.

      I have no motive to lie about evolution except the motive to preach the truth.

  11. So Isu is using a Biblical passage to justify the prohibition on school prayer? :eyebrow raised:

  12. Glenn,

    I haven’t been deceived. There is no anti-God worldview with evolutionism. I’m not atheist at all.
    The wrong interpretations about it came from a previous atheist wordview or, such as yours, lead to an atheistic worldview when it is accepted.

    There are failures in trascription mechanism are thus new information is added by alteration of the previous.

    The feet of Merychippus were the “feet it had” and “type of its own” and they are also of a intermediate type. I read the data by the worldview of the obvius instead of the worldview of deceit to keep a false dogma.

    You have a motive to lie about evolution: for you it debunks your faith.

    • Isu,
      I’m not going to argue evolutionism with you because you have so clearly demonstrated your ignorance of the subject.

      It wouldn’t ruin my faith if it was true, so that isn’t my agenda. But evolution is impossible. And a real GOD – rather than your false god of evolutionism – wouldn’t have to do trial and error to get things right.

      IF you choose to be deceived, have fun.

  13. “So Isu is using a Biblical passage to justify the prohibition on school prayer? :eyebrow raised:”

    So Christians ignore Lord’s commands? :eyebrow raised

  14. Glenn,

    Not joining to your lies is not demostrating ignorance of the subject.

    It would ruin your faith if it was true, you have stated that it forms part of atheist worldview. You haven’t demostrated it to be impossible, but merely asserted it is imposible to save you false dogma. There isn’t a “trial and error” method since God doesn’t fail creating species.

    I choose to follow the evidence wherever it leads instead of lying to myself and lying to others.

    • Isu,
      If you truly followed the evidence where it leads, then you would not follow evolutionism. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution, and intelligent design is obvious in every created thing. You are lying to yourself and to others by continuing to believe that something came from nothing or that God had to keep making mistakes to get where we are today.

      Just a wee bit of research on your part would give you all the evidence you need to know evolution is impossible. I don’t have the time to play this game with you. Feel free to stay evolutionized

  15. Glenn,

    As you are a creationism fanatical you are blind to evidence. Were is the obvious intelligence in the appendix because of which my mother could have died? I don’t belive that something came from nothing nor that God makes mistakes in his objectives.

    Your falsable statements of impossibility have been proven false (antibiotic resistance of bacteria). Keep your lies if you wish but you won’t deceive intelligent and honest people.

    • Isu,
      The problem with you evolutionists is that you conflate micro-evolution (adaptation) with macro-evolution (one thing changes into another). Antibiotic resistance of bacteria is an example of the former – not the latter.

      I am not “fanatical” about creation any more than I am “fanatical” about 2+2=4. I prefer truth and facts over speculations and assumptions.

      You evolutionists really need to start educating yourselves better if you are going to continue to use the appendix as something worthless or vestigial. How about reading this article, thinking of it as “Appendix 101”
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v3/n1/human-veriform-appendix

      So if something didn’t come from nothing, then to what do YOU attribute evolutionism? God trying to get it right? That God’s objective was to start with something and keep working until he got it right?

      No one yet has provided one iota of proof for evolution. Not one.

  16. Glenn,

    I didn’t confuse microevolution and macroevolution. You said “genetic mutations are never beneficial” and microevolution prove it is false. So, you patently lie.

    Creationism is not a truth or fact. It is based on a speculation and assuptiom of a religious dogma. There is no fanatism in believe that 2+2=4, there is no evidence against it such in the case of creationism which is blindly denied by fanatism.

    I didn’t said the appendix was worthless or vestigial. The point is that a designer that makes something that explodes on infection causing death is not intelligent but a blunger.

    The evolution comes from the way biological inheritance works.

    The species along time with intermediate characteristics are proof of evolution.
    The blindly denial of proof is a clear characteristic of a creationism irrational fanatic.

    • Genetic mutations can appear to be beneficial, but overall they loose information, which makes then NON-beneficial; the loss of information is NOT beneficial.

      Creationism is factual, unless you decide Genesis is just a myth. Creation is spelled out in Genesis very distinctly.

      The appendix is like every other thing originally created good – it is part of a deteriorating system. It only “explodes” due to corruption – and, by the way, most appendices do not cause any problem.

      Your “proof” of evolution is “proof” of creation. The blind denial of proof of creation is a clear characteristic of an irrational evolutionist fanatic.

  17. Glenn,

    Increasing survival rate is not an apparent benefit but a real biological benefit.

    Creationism is not factual since evidence shows it is false.

    An intelligent being creates durable system, blungers deterioriating systems. An intelligent designer would make a design in a way it would explode due to infection.

    Species with intermediate characteristics along time prove evolution.
    Creationism would have a point if the same species would be present along time but evidence shows it is not so.
    Unreasoned assertion that prove of evolution is proof of creation is another proof of your irrational creationism fanatism.

    • Isu,
      You asserted that creationism isn’t true, and that evidence says it is false. The evidence FOR creationism is the Bible. There is NO evidence available anywhere to prove it is false. There is not ONE iota of evidence for evolutionism – nothing, nada.

      Your idea of what an intelligent designer would or would not do is nothing by your opinion and not fact.

      Asserting something is “intermediate” does not make it a fact. No one was around to watch and the fossil evidences does not come with dates or descriptions, rather that is all added by the worldview bias of the individual looking at the evidence.

      It is you who has an irrational fanaticism for evolutionism.

      Now, evolution/creation is not the topic of the post- shall we leave it? All you do is continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.

  18. Glenn,

    And what which is the evidence for the Bible truthfullness?

    Discontinuity and intermediate characteristics along time in species would show creationism is false since continuity and the same species would be expected.
    And evidence shows the first not the last.

    I’m an engineer so I know a thing or two about design. An intelligent designer with means would make something exploding-proof.

    Something showing intermediate features makes it a fact. The fossil bones of Merychippus are descriptive and there are scientific methods to date. You comments are similar to a murder saying in his defence that “no one was around to watch” and that the forensic evidence has a worldview bias against him.

    I have not irrational fanaticism for evolution since you haven’t proved creationism is true and since evidence goes for evolution. You are the fanatical which makes his dogma infalsable.

    All you do is continue with your lies and irrational fanaticism.
    Creation/Evolution is the topic of our discussion in this post. You don’t need to ask that since when you leave it, I’ll leave it. Unless I get tired first.

    • Isu,

      Well, if the Bible isn’t true, then neither are the Jewish and Christian faiths. Simple as that.
      The historicity of the Bible has been proven true in every instance examined. Jesus, as God, cited Genesis 1 through 11 as true, not to mention further chapters. If they aren’t true, then he is a liar and not God.
      Just some food for thought, as I seem to remember you claiming to be a Christian, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

      Your opinion as to what should or should not be expected of creation means nothing. You aren’t God. All one needs is one pair of a dog-type to genetically derive most of current canine species, and if you add a second dog-type, you just increased your capability. You will never find a dog type turning into a cat type, yet that is what creationists claim – that one species miraculously changed into another species.

      Showing something which some CLAIMS to be intermediate does not make it intermediate. It meres says they see another type.

      Scientific dating methods are all based on speculations and assumptions, and the assumptions are based on evolutionary bias.

      So, if I can’t prove creationism to you, then I have a fanatical dogma, but you cannot prove evolutionism and you are sane and rational?!?! I’m therefore lying and you are not?

      I’m leaving the discussion as fruitless, but suggest you refer to http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for some research which will prove evolutionism is a fraud.

  19. “The finding of intermediate characteristics is deduced from the theory…”
    For those keeping score, this actually means “there is no proof”

    John,
    Just stop, Isu read one entire article, he is obviously much more versed in ID than you.

    Glen, please stop the lying, your pants are on fire.

    :)

    • Yeah it could be reworded “the theory says there should be intermediate characteristics, therefore if a structure might look like an intermediary it is, because the theory says it is.”

  20. Glenn,

    It can be a true allegoric instead of a true literal meaning. Simple as that. The historicity of the Bible cannot be proved by the Bible itself but by external proof. Jesus used metaphorical and symbolical languaje so this could be the case.

    I think I didn’t claim to be a Christian. That’s highly dependable on what is the definition used.

    My idea of what should be expected from creation is a rational deduction of creationism features. It is reasonable to expect continuity and the same species along time. I’m not God but since I’m created in his “image” and “likeness”, I have the skill to achieve knowlegde. There is no record of miraculously changing one species into another in the Genesis: it simply states that “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” and “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”.

    The feet of Merychippus show an obvious intermediate characteristic between regular toed feet and single hoofed feet since it has a hoof and toes. That makes it an intermediate character. It is a logical and reasoned claim instead of your irrational denial to save your dogma.

    Your faith is based on speculations and assumptions religiously biased. The intermediate characteristic of the feet of Merychippus is not based on evolutionary bias but on evidence physical description.

    You could prove creationism by, for example, showing evidence of horses in the same strata than Merychippus. I reasoned a way for you to prove creationism: by continuity and same species along time. I can not prove you evolutionism since you are a blind fanatic which will no accept any sort of reasonable proof. I’m open-minded to creation proof and you are close-minded to any proof of evolution.

    If the site you refer uses your same lies, I think I will pass, thank you.
    If it have reasonable proof of fraud in evolutionism, you could explain it here.

    • Isu,

      Everything I’ve stated is 100% true – no lies. As to whether there were other horses in the area, horses weren’t in every part of the world. SO if they weren’t in the same area as your critter, they won’t be in the same strata there.

      Genesis never says one species changed into another – because it never happened!!

      You are afraid to look at the site I posted because you are afraid that real scientists will burst your evolutionist bubble.

  21. Craig,

    “For those keeping score, this actually means “there is no proof”.”

    For those irrational creationist fanatics, this actually means we will receject any proof even by lying.

    John,

    “Yeah it could be reworded “the theory says there should be intermediate characteristics, therefore if a structure might look like an intermediary it is, because the theory says it is.””

    The feet of Merychippus doesn’t “may” look like intermediate. It is intermediate since it has both toes and a hoof.
    And it is intermediate in time since the merely hoofed are not found in the same ancient strata but only more recently and regular toed feet are found in similar species in older strata.

    It is the evidence characteristics which shows intermediaty not the theory.
    And evidence confirms the theory.

  22. For those keeping score, let me recap Isu, arguments. “I read one article once, so I am an expert on ID, I will continue to spout the evolution party line even though I choose not to provide any evidence or answer questions. If you have the temerity to question me I will call you an evil, lying creationist.”

    Well played my friend, well played.

    FYI, “The finding of intermediate characteristics is deduced from the theory…” means in English, that there is no proof.

  23. John,

    The Merychippus itself is a hoofed specimen.
    Citations of Equus ferus caballus with at least 10 million years old, please.

    Glenn,

    You lie. You said that “genetic mutations are never beneficial” and it has been proven false.

    Craig,

    You also lie, I choose to provide evidence of evolution.
    The truth is that you reject any evidence as fanatics do.

    • Isu,
      YOU LIE. Genetic mutations are beneficial for a brief time only, and even then it is a reduction of information and not an increase in information. You really need to study more.

  24. Glenn,

    The fact is that “a brief time” is not “never”. You are inconsistent in your lies.

  25. For those keeping score, Isu’s most effective debating point(s).

    “You lie.”
    “You also lie,…”
    “…irrational creationist fanatics…”
    and
    “I choose to provide evidence of evolution.”

    I would certainly hope that you would choose to provide evidence of evolution. It might help.

  26. Craig,

    “I would certainly hope that you would choose to provide evidence of evolution. It might help.”

    I have done it. It might help your quitting lying.

  27. John,

    That’s a false quotation and a straw man.

  28. John,

    Why don’t you explain how ID “is testable and falsifiable” and why don’t you give me citations to evidence of Equus ferus caballus contemporary to Merychippus?

  29. John,

    I think I referenced that in an earlier comment. But it was probably just an evil lie.

    Isu, just like Dan. You won’t provide citations and evidence, yet you expect them from others.

    “I’m familiar with ID. I have even read a whole article from Dembski.”

    I’d be willing to go out an a limb and say that everyone else here has read more than one article about evolution.
    Of course your default to “creationism”, when no one is actually advocating creationism, is not a lie or anything evil. Just a handy pejorative to dodge the actual issue. I’m shocked, just shocked.

  30. Craig,

    I asked for citations to show John’s error. I even gave him tips: I told him that Merychippus is a hoofed specimen and asked for Equus ferus caballus.
    Species in Equidae family are called horses and Merychippus is a horse in the same way a donkey or a zebra are horses. It must not be mistaken for Equus ferus caballus. And, by the way, if you reject the evolution of “horse” species because they are in the same family you are resorting to malicious rethorics.

    I had read more than one article about ID and reading a lot won’t serve you if you lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skill. If John’s implies I’m not fluent in ID whereas he is then, it wouldn’t be troublesome for him to explain how ID is testable and falsable, and, of course, if he wants ID be taught in science classes then “ID is science” must be proven.

    The girl in the video was advocating for creation. And attacking evolution is a factual way for advocating creationism since evolutionary truth exposes creationism falsehood. Who do you thing you are fooling?

  31. Isu,

    So you ask for citations, yet don’t provide them. Great. Also, it is not an evil lie that you claimed to have read one article on ID, it is your own words. I’ve had Dan accuse me of lying about what he said when I quoted him, is this some kind of left thing where quoting your own words is lying?

    You, expect ID to be held to a standard (testable & falsifiable) that evolution can’t meet. FYI, there are plenty of resources that address this issue, maybe you could check them out.

    As for your equus example, simply proving that there are different branches to the horse family tree, does not “prove” that horses evolved from another distinct species. Unless you can provide some testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence to the contrary.

    I understand your tactics, name calling, accusations of evil lying and malicious rhetorics (copying your exact words I guess), holding your opponents to a standard you choose not to hold yourself to, and dodging questions.

    Pretty much par for the course.

  32. Craig,

    I ask for citations when information is rare and suspicious, such as Equus ferus caballus contemporary to Merychippus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    You seem to imply that I only read an article about ID and that is false.

    Evolution meets that standard. I have shown how in a previous post in response to Glenn’s lie which you repeat.

    Merychippus is a distinct species from Equus ferus caballus, so evolution from distinct species is proved.

    You can keep up your lies. It’s pretty fun that about dodging questions when it is John who is avoiding mines.

  33. Glenn,

    You lie. The theory of evolution uses hypothetical-deductive reasoning, and it is verifiable and falsable as I have shown, so it meets standards of science. And evidence goes for it.

  34. Hypothetical-deductive reasoning is part of scientific method.

  35. That’s shifting reality, Glenn.

  36. “I ask for citations when information is rare and suspicious, such as Equus ferus caballus contemporary to Merychippus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
    Yet, you refuse to provide citations.

    “You seem to imply that I only read an article about ID and that is false.”
    No, I quoted you, using your own actual words. “I have even read a whole article from Dembski.”. I fail to see how accurately quoting you is by any stretch of the imagination a lie. FYI, in the English language, “an article” is singular. Further FYI, singular comes from the the same root as single, which means one. Somehow you and Dan seem to think that presenting your own words in an actual quote, that you actually voluntarily wrote, is lying. Bizarre.

    “Evolution meets that standard. I have shown how in a previous post in response to Glenn’s lie which you repeat.”

    Please provide a link, so that I can witness this explanation for myself.

    “Merychippus is a distinct species from Equus ferus caballus, so evolution from distinct species is proved.”

    Please provide citations that show the the step by step transition between the two.

    “You can keep up your lies.”
    Of course, you must realize that since you have not demonstrated that I have actually lied, your statement would actually be a lie. Ironic, that.

    ” It’s pretty fun that about dodging questions when it is John who is avoiding mines.”

    The number of questions you’ve ignored is significant. Mines on the other hand are dangerous places, I too avoid them whenever possible. Unless you mean land mines, which are also dangerous and should be avoided.

  37. Craig,

    “Yet, you refuse to provide citations.”

    You are intentionally ignoring my coment on the difference: rare and suspicious information. Mine isn’t.
    Besides, I wasn’t asked for citations, so I couldn’t refuse.

    My statement: “I have even read a whole article from Dembski”
    That doesn’t mean that I read “only” an article. I had read several articles about ID. The point was that I remembered I read a “whole” (in full) article of one of the advocates of ID.

    “Please provide a link, so that I can witness this explanation for myself.”

    I have explained it in a previous post. You don’t need a link.
    John didn’t explain how ID is testable and falsable whereas I did it in the case of evolution.

    “Please provide citations that show the the step by step transition between the two.”

    There is no way for us to watch macroevolution step by step.
    We can watch “frames” not the whole “movie”.
    And “frames” are evidence of the “movie”, being Merychippus one of them.

    “Of course, you must realize that since you have not demonstrated that I have actually lied, your statement would actually be a lie. Ironic, that.”

    I have demostrated that evolution is testable and falsable, so by saying that it isn’t you lie. Surely, you will deny it to cover your lies with more lies.

    Ignoring captious or unreasonable questions is licit.
    Asking for how ID is testable and falsable is a proper and reasonable question to someone who asserts it is so.

    • Isu

      I had you clarify several times and you affirmed that you considered yourself adequately informed on ID because you read a whole article. You can back track now, but have the integrity to admit you’d like to walk back the statement.

      Second, if in fact you’ve read several articles on ID, even if only in part then you’d have read about IDs testability and falsifiability because that always comes up because the entire theory is argued from the fact that it is falsifiable and testable.

  38. John,

    I didn’t affirmed that I considered myself adequately informed on ID because I read a whole article. There is no such statement.

    In the article I mention: “Science and Design” from Dembski , testability and falsifiabillity of ID does not appear despite “always coming up”.
    Testability and falsifiabillity must be deduced from the theory, not the other way round (“argued from” them), and I don’t see anyway to deduce them from it.

    You keep dogding my question about how ID is testable and falsifiable.
    For someone familiar with ID, it should be easy to do.
    Or is it sooo complex that you must write at least two articles to do so?

    • Isu

      You said: I’m familiar with ID. I have even read a whole article from Dembski.

      Then I said: Wow, a whole article huh.

      To which you replied: Enough for Dembski to explain the theory and for me to understand it.

      Which makes this statement by you: I didn’t affirmed that I considered myself adequately informed on ID because I read a whole article. There is no such statement. False.

      Perhaps if you waited a few minutes before commenting you’ll have time to think about what you want to say. Craig has now repeatedly pointed out where you make one statement, then later on deny you ever said any such thing.

  39. John,

    It is false. I consider myself adequately informed on Intelligent Design NOT BECAUSE I read a whole article but BECAUSE I know and understand the theory.
    Familiary comes from knowledge, not by mere reading a lot as you suggest.

    And you still dodge my question, as usual.

  40. Isu,
    You complain that your questions are being dodged, even though they’re not, yet you continue to dodge your very own words. You know, the ones you actually wrote, which have been quoted to you multiple times. The fact that you are unable to be adequately informed regarding your own statement, and the meaning and implications thereof, raises significant doubt about your adequately informed status on ID. So far you have provided no reason for anyone to believe you, and multiple reasons to doubt you.

    I know you warned John about mines, and I agree they are dangerous, so I must warn you you’ve managed to find yourself in quite the rhetorical minefield. The irony is, it is entirely of your own making.

  41. Craig,

    “You complain that your questions are being dodged, even though they’re not”

    Another lie. I asked how ID is testable and falsifiable and it haven’t been answered yet.

    “You know, the ones you actually wrote, which have been quoted to you multiple times.”

    Your wicked interpretations are not my own words.

    “So far you have provided no reason for anyone to believe you, and multiple reasons to doubt you.”

    John hasn’t provided any valid reason to believe in his familiarity with ID. His assertion that “the entire theory is argued from the fact that it is falsifiable and testable” is a valid reason to doubt about it since they are deduced from the theories.
    John hasn’t provided any valid reason to believe that ID is testable and falsifiable. His refusal to explain it is valid reason to doubt about it.

    You are playing double standards on which your fellow believers in creationism always “win”.

  42. “Your wicked interpretations are not my own words.”

    As a favor to you, I’ll explain a few things.

    The little ” ” marks around words mean that the phrase is a direct quote. In other words it is the actual words of the person who said or wrote them originally. Further the computer has this wonderful feature called copy/paste. This allows one to copy the words of another and “paste” them somewhere else. This eliminates the possibility of a transcription error.

    When some one directly quotes someone else and takes the words at face value, by definition, there is no interpretation going on. When someone uses a singular term “an article”, it is clear that one article is being referred to. Had a plural term been used “some articles”, then it would be same to suppose that more than one article was being referred to. Simply reading someones words does not involve interpretation.

    Your use of the term “wicked” puzzles me. Simply disagreeing with someone does not make either party “wicked”. In English the term “wicked” carries with it the notion of intent. For example while one could accidentally make a false statement (a lie), it could not be considered “wicked” unless the statement was made with the intent to cause harm. In this case, there is no lie on lie part, there is no intent to cause you harm, therefore the term “wicked” is completely and wholly inappropriate in this context.

    Finally, what John has (or has not does) is immaterial when one considers your familiarity with ID. You have made several (contradictory) claims about your knowledge of ID, yet when the contradictions are pointed out your response is “John hasn’t provided any valid reason to believe in his familiarity with ID.” (note the quotation of your own exact words with no interpretation). It seems strange to “answer” a question about yourself, by referring to someone else. Are you unable to provide the information requested? Are you ashamed that you have been caught contradicting yourself? Are you attempting to divert attention away from your own inadequacies by trying to turn the attention to someone else.

    “You are playing double standards…”
    No, I’m actually trying to hold you to the same standards you expect from others. If you want others to provide citations, then it is reasonable for you to as well. If evolution was so well proven, i would think you would be bursting with quotes and links to make the point. Instead, nothing.

    “… on which your fellow believers in creationism always “win”.”

    This statement is an excellent example of an actual lie. I’ve seen no one in this thread who is advocating creationism. (although it is a handy pejorative) Yet you continue to use the term either as a pejorative or because you are unaware of the difference between creationism and ID.

    I hope that this was helpful to you.

  43. Craig,
    You might want to look at MY comments. I do indeed advocate Creationism. Creationism, of course, has to include ID, but ID is not Creationism.

  44. Craig,

    In my quotations it is not mentioned at all that I only read an article about ID. That’s A wicked interpretation (this doesn’t mean you use more). “wicked” means “evil or morally wrong”, so your lies are such.

    What John’s does, it is relevant in the case of your double standards since it is your fellow creationist and you only target me. I didn’t make any contradictory claim about my knowledge of ID, that’s your wicked invention to support unfounded claims from creationism advocates.

    You repeat your lie about my standards once again. And, once again: “You are intentionally ignoring my coment on the difference: rare and suspicious information. Mine isn’t.”

    “If evolution was so well proven, i would think you would be bursting with quotes and links to make the point. Instead, nothing.”

    If you really wanted to “witness this explanation for myself” (evolution is testable and falsifiable) you could see my post which is something and not nothing.
    I don’t need citations to explain something I can explain.
    But both know what you really want.

    “This statement is an excellent example of an actual lie. I’ve seen no one in this thread who is advocating creationism.”

    As I said, attacking evolution is a way of advocating creationism. Who do you thing you are fooling?

    “(although it is a handy pejorative) Yet you continue to use the term either as a pejorative or because you are unaware of the difference between creationism and ID.”

    I continue using the term as descriptive and I’m aware of the difference between creationism and ID.

  45. Glenn,

    “You might want to look at MY comments. I do indeed advocate Creationism.”

    It was one of his rethorical lies. He is well aware.

    “Creationism, of course, has to include ID, but ID is not Creationism.”

    Yep. ID is creationist and one of the branches of creationism.

    • Isu,
      You just demonstrated again your total ignorance of the subject. Shall I say you are a wicked liar?

      Just because Craig missed my reference to creationism in a couple of posts out of over 50 comments, that doesn’t make him a liar – it means he missed them. You calling him a liar makes you the wicked one because you demonstrate your evil intent.

      ID is NOT a branch of creationism, and the majority of the scientists who support ID are NOT creationists. That fact alone demonstrates your ignorance of the subject you claim to have studied so well.

      And many, many creationists do not agree with the ID people because the ID people do not necessarily agree that the designer is the God of the Bible.

      Creation requires an intelligent designer, but but that doesn’t mean creationists are proponents of the ID theories.

      But you, like all the other ignorant fools who are Christophobes, are so afraid that ID may mention a GOD that you have to totally ignore the fact that their cosmology is much more scientific than evolutionism.

      Creationism and IDism (for lack of a better term) are not the same, nor have they ever been. To continue to claim as much demonstrates how irrational you are for making claims about that which you have read very little.

  46. Glenn,

    I haven’t demostrated ignorance on the subject and your statement is just another unfounded lie.

    As you say Craig missed that comment. Intentional missing is a lie. And it is also a lie that he isn’t advocating creationism by his irrational attack on evolution.

    ID is a pseudocientifical disguise of creationists. You have said that “Creationism” “has to include ID”, so you implicitly admit that ID is part of creationism.

    All scientist who support ID, factually support creationism since ID is included in creationism. The fact that the majority of the scientist consider ID a pseudoscience demostrates your ignorance on the subject according your own criteria.

    All the creationists I have found so far support ID, such as you, to use it as “scientifical” support for creationism.

    “Creation requires an intelligent designer”. So intelligent designer is creator and ID is creationist.

    I’m not afraid of God mentioning. I’m not an atheist, don’t you remember?
    You are ignoring the fact that ID is creationist pseudocience.

    You have claimed that creationism “has to include ID”, so ID is included in creationism.

    ID is not the same as creationism. ID is a pseudoscience to back up creationism.

    • Isu

      You object to ID in an identical manner as its atheist critics. Now, I’m not saying you’re an atheist because I don’t know. What I do know is you have bought into the anti-ID characterization of it.

    • So, Isu, Do you know for a fact that Craig intentionally missed my comment? Are you a mindreader?

      Interesting how you seem to use the word “liar” a lot. I don’t think that word means what you think it means. You really abuse it, demonstrating that not only are you ignorant of ID, Creationism and even evolutionism, you are also continuing to demonstrate your complete foolishness, let alone childishness of name-calling.

      Creation includes the idea that God is an intelligent designer, but that is not the same thing as the ID movement which does not identify who or what the intelligent designer is. Your continued claim that the two are together shows not only ignorance, but downrights stupidity for refusing to accept correction on the subject. FOOLISH MAN!.

      I stated a 100% true fact that ID scientists may or may not accept a God, and yet you claim that ID and creationism are the same, proving you know absolutely nothing about the subject! ID is not pseudo science, but evolutionism certainly is.

      Your beliefs, your behavior, etc, point towards someone who, if you are a Christian, you are ignorant of much of what it teaches and are extremely immature in the faith.

  47. Glen,

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to leave you out. I probably should have qualified that you might have been the exception.

    Isu.

    I believe that I have explained to you several times that “a whole article” is singular. In English that means one. It does not mean more than one. No matter how hard you try, this is a pretty incontrovertible fact. There is no interpretation, just simple basic 4th grade reading comprehension. I’m not sure, but wouldn’t proper grammar be “an whole article”?

    I am pleased that you chose to look up wicked. Unfortunately you continue to misapply it.

    ” What John’s does, it is relevant in the case of your double standards since it is your fellow creationist and you only target me. I didn’t make any contradictory claim about my knowledge of ID, that’s your wicked invention to support unfounded claims from creationism advocates.”

    By your standards, the fact that you choose to refer to John and I as “creationist”, is an intentional wicked evil lie. The fact that your original claim was that you had read “a whole article” is contradicted by your later claims to be conversant on ID. My claims are founded upon your exact words.

    “…you could see my post which is something and not nothing.”

    What post? I’ve asked you several times to provide something and now you mention some mystery post. Where could one find this devastating critique of ID, and overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution?

    “As I said, attacking evolution is a way of advocating creationism.”

    The fact that you said something means absolutely nothing, there are plenty of folks who have pointed out the significant flaws in evolutionary theory, without advocating any particular alternative. “attacking evolution” is attacking evolution. It is not the same as advocating any other possibility. The fact that you continue to insist (without evidence) that I am “advocating creationism” is yet one more example of what you would consider an evil wicked lie when someone else does it. Double standard? I have not advocated anything in this discussion, and for you to say that I have is a demonstrable false statement.

    “…I’m aware of the difference between creationism and ID.”

    Yet you choose to use the term creation(ism/ist) as a blanket term to describe anyone who has the temerity to question your pronouncements. Perhaps you could gain a tiny bit of credibility by being more precise.

    “Intentional missing is a lie.”

    I must say, I am in awe of your gift of mind reading. You have deduced from thousands of miles away that I intentionally missed something in order to tell a evil wicked lie. This is truly an impressive feat. Perhaps you have evolved to the level of being able to read other peoples minds and discern their motives from great distances.

    “And it is also a lie that he isn’t advocating creationism by his irrational attack on evolution.”

    This statement would actually be correct, if I had actually advocated creationism or irrationally attacked evolution. The problem with this particular intentional, wicked, evil lie is that you can’t actually provide any evidence to back it up. I haven’t advocated for any alternative to evolution, I’ve intentionally not done so.

    I have to admit, it’s pretty humorous having these exchanges with Isu.

  48. John,

    “You object to ID in an identical manner as its atheist critics. Now, I’m not saying you’re an atheist because I don’t know. What I do know is you have bought into the anti-ID characterization of it.”

    I object ID in a identical manner as most scientist do and that includes not only atheists.
    ID is pseudoscience because it is pretended to be science whereas it doesn’t match the criteria of science.

  49. Craig,

    I knew “a” is singular. Your saying A lie, doesn’t mean you don’t say multiple lies.

    Refering you and John as creationist is not a lie since you and John are creationists. The claim of reading “a whole article” shows no incompatibility with being familiar with ID since your postulate that familiarity comes from “reading” instead of “knowing” is false.

    “What post? I’ve asked you several times to provide something and now you mention some mystery post. Where could one find this devastating critique of ID, and overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution?”

    The question, according to context, was about evolution testability and falsiability and there is a post where I explain it. Your question is captious and changes the issue.

    As I said, attacking evolution is a way of advocating creationism. Your not explicit advocation of creationism doesn’t mean you implicitly aren’t. By your irrational attack on evolution I recognize you as creationist.

    “Yet you choose to use the term creation(ism/ist) as a blanket term to describe anyone who has the temerity to question your pronouncements. Perhaps you could gain a tiny bit of credibility by being more precise.”

    I use the term creationist as a term to describe those who support creationism.
    I’m using to describe:

    creacionismo:
    2. m. Biol. Doctrina que, en contraposición a la teoría de la evolución, defiende que cada una de las especies es el resultado de un acto particular de creación.

    “I must say, I am in awe of your gift of mind reading. You have deduced from thousands of miles away that I intentionally missed something in order to tell a evil wicked lie. This is truly an impressive feat. Perhaps you have evolved to the level of being able to read other peoples minds and discern their motives from great distances.”

    It’s not not mind reading but logical reasoning.
    To make the claim that you have “seen no one in this thread who is advocating creationism” you must have checked the whole thread and intentionally miss it or not checked the whole thread and therefore intentionally miss it. So the conclusion is clear.

    “This statement would actually be correct, if I had actually advocated creationism or irrationally attacked evolution. The problem with this particular intentional, wicked, evil lie is that you can’t actually provide any evidence to back it up. I haven’t advocated for any alternative to evolution, I’ve intentionally not done so. ”

    In your first show in this thread you said:
    For those keeping score, this actually means “there is no proof”
    in response to:
    “The finding of intermediate characteristics is deduced from the theory…”

    This no sequitur fallacy is an obvious irrational attack on evolution.

    Attacking evolution is a way of advocation creationism following the adage “The best defense is a good offense”.

    Once again: Who do you thing you are fooling?

  50. Glenn,

    “So, Isu, Do you know for a fact that Craig intentionally missed my comment? Are you a mindreader?”

    As I said to Craig:
    It’s not not mind reading but logical reasoning.
    To make the claim that you have “seen no one in this thread who is advocating creationism” you must have checked the whole thread and intentionally miss it or not checked the whole thread and therefore intentionally miss it. So the conclusion is clear.

    “Interesting how you seem to use the word “liar” a lot.”

    I have use it only once in this thread and it was in a conditional clause. Is that “a lot”?

    “I don’t think that word means what you think it means. You really abuse it, demonstrating that not only are you ignorant of ID, Creationism and even evolutionism, you are also continuing to demonstrate your complete foolishness, let alone childishness of name-calling.”

    I know what the word means and your statement “You really abuse it” is a lie and your conclusion a non sequitur fallacy.

    “Creation includes the idea that God is an intelligent designer, but that is not the same thing as the ID movement which does not identify who or what the intelligent designer is.”

    Then, who would be if not God?

    “Your continued claim that the two are together shows not only ignorance, but downrights stupidity for refusing to accept correction on the subject.”

    Your claim that creationism “has to include ID”, links them together.

    “I stated a 100% true fact that ID scientists may or may not accept a God, and yet you claim that ID and creationism are the same, proving you know absolutely nothing about the subject!”

    Show me an atheist ID scientist as sample that they may not accept a God.

    “ID is not pseudo science, but evolutionism certainly is.”

    The reality is the other way round.

    “Your beliefs, your behavior, etc, point towards someone who, if you are a Christian, you are ignorant of much of what it teaches and are extremely immature in the faith.”

    I thought that in Christianity there were no command to lie by saying that something is scienfitic when it isn’t and saying that something scientific is not scientific to prevent dogma debunking.
    I seems I’m pretty ignorant about what you call a Christian.

    • Isu,
      When you say someone is telling a liar, you are de facto calling them a liar. I figured you were intelligent enough to understand when I said you used the word “liar” that you would understand it to include every permutation of the word so that I would not have to list them. Obviously you are not intelligent enough to figure that out. SO let me rephrase – you use the words “liar” and “lie” in almost every comment. You abuse the words – they do not mean what you think they mean, or if you do know the meaning you misuse the words. is that clear enough for you?

      No, there was no logical deduction for claiming that Craid intentionally missed my comments. People overlook things all the time, but I’m sure you must be perfect and have never had such a problem. You were making a charge for which you had no evidence.

      Who would the intelligent designer be if not God? Ask the ID guys who don’t ascribe it to God. A “force” is something I have read in the past, an “intelligence” is something I’ve read in the past. And if you had actually studied the subject you would also have read such things. Oh, but you are a mind-reader and know that all ID proponents ascribe the design to God. You are a fool.

      Again I described the difference between the “intelligent design” by God and the ID movement and yet you ignored it and came to your own conclusion, telling people what they believe even though it has nothing to do with reality.

      You want me to name an ID scientist who is an atheist, as if I keep a list. BUT, if you have studied the subject as I have for the past 30 years, then you would know the FACTS of those who don’t ascribe to the judeo-CHristian God who or what the designer is.

      Evolutionism is a pseudo science as has been demonstrated by too many scientists to number. You behave as a cult member who will accept the cults beliefs no matter how much evidence is given to the contrary. Again demonstrating your deception.

      Your last statement demonstrates more ignorance, because no one on this string has lied except you as you deceive yourself.

      I am finished with discussion with you on this string. You are a fool and a waste of my time.

  51. Glenn,

    The word “liar” is not the same as the word “lie”. Craig wickedly accused me of “name calling” and there is a meaningful difference. I know what “lie” word means and I don’t misuse it.

    As you say Craig overlook things all the time, so it is clearly an intentional overlooking.

    Ascribing it to “force” and “intelligence” is not rejecting adscribing to God, being them refered to God’s force and God’s intelligence. Are you de facto saying that God is impotent and idiot?

    You don’t need to keep a list to name one. If you have “studied the subject” for the past 30 years you could recall an unlisted sample.

    The theory of evolution is scientifical since it is demonstrated that matchs scientifical criteria and the vast mayority of scientists support it as such.

    “You behave as a cult member who will accept the cults beliefs no matter how much evidence is given to the contrary.”

    You are a cult member who accept the cult beliefs no matter how much evidence is given to the contrary.

    “Again demonstrating your deception.”

    You are the one in the creationist cult deception.

    “Your last statement demonstrates more ignorance, because no one on this string has lied except you as you deceive yourself.”

    You started this thread with the “Evolutionism is also an untestable and non-falsifiable theory.” lie and continue covering your shit with more lies.

    “I am finished with discussion with you on this string.”

    I hope isn’t another lie of yours such as “I’m leaving the discussion as fruitless”

    “You are a fool and a waste of my time.”

    You waste you time if you hope to brainwash me in your idiotic deception.

  52. “I knew “a” is singular.”

    Thank you for admitting that my point was correct.

    “Refering you and John as creationist is not a lie since you and John are creationists.”

    A baseless statement (lie) for which you can provide no evidence. Your mind reading skills continue to amaze me. The fact that you claim to know with certainty that for which you have no proof is impressive.

    “…and there is a post where I explain it. Your question is and there is a post where I explain it. Your question is captious and changes the issue.”

    I’ve asked you to prove this mystery post exists, yet you don’t. Why is that? It doesn’t change the issue, I’d like to see this amazing defense of evolution so I don’t have to keep trying to pry tidbits out of you here and waste time and space.

    “As I said, attacking evolution is a way of advocating creationism. ”

    Just because you said something doesn’t make it True. That seems to be a problem with you, you think that simply making a statement makes that statement True.

    “Your not explicit advocation of creationism doesn’t mean you implicitly aren’t.”

    But it doesn’t mean that explicitly am either. Your problem is you have no actual EVIDENCE to back up your claim. I’ll give you a hint. If you can find and provide a link that supports your contention, I will apologize for doubting you.

    “By your irrational attack on evolution I recognize you as creationist.”
    Maybe in the world you inhabit, this is sufficient. But not here. EVIDENCE!

    I use the term creationist as a term to describe those who support creationism.
    I’m using to describe:

    creacionismo:
    2. m. Biol. Doctrina que, en contraposición a la teoría de la evolución, defiende que cada una de las especies es el resultado de un acto particular de creación.”

    Thank you for again admitting that you are wrong. since you have no actual evidence to demonstrate that I believe that “defiende que cada una de las especies es el resultado de un acto particular de creación.” Again, provide evidence.

    “This no sequitur fallacy is an obvious irrational attack on evolution.”

    No actually it’s not. Deductive reasoning, is not the same as testable verifiable. falsifiable evidence. Further, it not an “irrational attack” on evolution, it’s point out that your faith in the explanatory powers of evolution is not the same as providing actual evidence.

    “a : the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning; specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises.”

    As you see the definition of deduction specifically does not include the use if evidence. I’m not saying that deductive reasoning is always wrong or bad, just that it does not have the power you ascribe to it.

    “Once again: Who do you thing you are fooling?”

    No one, I don’t thing I am fooling anyone.

    PS perhaps a better translation software would help eliminate the frequent errors in tense and grammar that plague your comments.

    “The word “liar” is not the same as the word “lie”. ”

    Brilliant, genius. Yet as Glen pointed out that both describe the same behavior. You have once again failed to provide any objective proof that anyone here has lied. It would seem that mere faith in your amazing deductive reasoning skills are sufficient for you to ferret out the Truth in all situations.

    “Craig wickedly accused me of “name calling””

    No I truthfully accused you of name calling, there is a difference. Calling people names (wicked,liar, creationist) that don’t reflect reality is name calling. You might note that I provided actual examples, try it some time.

    I’m just not sure how much more of this intelligent and witty repartee I can tolerate. Especially with the lack of evidence for the claims being made.

  53. Craig,

    “Thank you for admitting that my point was correct.”

    That’s not an admission. That is A lie among the MANY you say.

    “A baseless statement (lie) for which you can provide no evidence. Your mind reading skills continue to amaze me. The fact that you claim to know with certainty that for which you have no proof is impressive.”

    John explicitly admitted to be an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) in the “The Days Of Old (Genesis Creation)”. As for you, it is not mind reading but a conclusion reached by abductive reasoning. As far as I know, attacks on evolution comes only from creationists. I don’t need you explicit confession as creationist. Matthew 7:20.

    “I’ve asked you to prove this mystery post exists, yet you don’t. Why is that?”

    The post in discussion is in the first in response to Glenn in this thread. There is not mystery at all.

    “It doesn’t change the issue, I’d like to see this amazing defense of evolution so I don’t have to keep trying to pry tidbits out of you here and waste time and space.”

    You changed the issue from evolution testability and fasifiability to “devastating critique of ID, and overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution”.

    Defense of evolution isn’t amazing but normal. Creationists are the weirds.

    “Just because you said something doesn’t make it True.”

    Just because you said something doesn’t make it False.

    “you think that simply making a statement makes that statement True.”

    How do you know what I think? Are you using mind reading skills? LOL.

    “But it doesn’t mean that explicitly am either.”

    But the point is not what is you explicitly claim you are, but what you are.

    “Your problem is you have no actual EVIDENCE to back up your claim. I’ll give you a hint. If you can find and provide a link that supports your contention, I will apologize for doubting you. ”

    I recognize you by your attack on evolution. Abductive reasoning is an implicitly validaded method by Christ as seen in Matthew 7:20.

    “Maybe in the world you inhabit, this is sufficient. But not here. EVIDENCE!”

    Are you implicitly saying that “there” Matthew 7:20 is not valid?

    “Further, it not an “irrational attack” on evolution, it’s point out that your faith in the explanatory powers of evolution is not the same as providing actual evidence.”

    Saying that “The finding of intermediate characteristics is deduced from the theory…” means “there is no proof” is an irrational non sequitur fallacy attacking on evolution.

    “As you see the definition of deduction specifically does not include the use if evidence. I’m not saying that deductive reasoning is always wrong or bad, just that it does not have the power you ascribe to it.”

    In science the deductions from the hypothetical deductive reasoning set the criteria for evidence.

    “No one, I don’t thing I am fooling anyone.”

    Yes, you don’t “thing”.

    “PS perhaps a better translation software would help eliminate the frequent errors in tense and grammar that plague your comments.”

    I don’t use a translation software. They don’t get the context which is necessary to a proper translation.
    It’s evident that I don’t use a software translator since they don’t make simple grammar errors. Try “Son mios” in Google Translation: you will get “mine” instead of “mines”.

    “Brilliant, genius. Yet as Glen pointed out that both describe the same behavior. You have once again failed to provide any objective proof that anyone here has lied.”

    Your systematic denial of valid reasoning against your false statements is an objective proof that you lie.

    “It would seem that mere faith in your amazing deductive reasoning skills are sufficient for you to ferret out the Truth in all situations.”

    It seems that your merely stating something makes it “truth”.

    “No I truthfully accused you of name calling, there is a difference. Calling people names (wicked,liar, creationist) that don’t reflect reality is name calling.”

    I used “wicked” with “interpretations”, “interpretation” and “invention” which aren’t people.
    I didn’t call anyone “liar”.
    And “creationist” reflects your reality.

    “You might note that I provided actual examples, try it some time.”

    I note you didn’t.

    “I’m just not sure how much more of this intelligent and witty repartee I can tolerate. Especially with the lack of evidence for the claims being made.”

    Yes, the lack of evidence for your claims is overwhelming.

  54. “That’s not an admission. That is A lie among the MANY you say.”

    No, look at your original comment. You clearly used a singular term, then when called on it changed your story. No lie, fact. I’ve provided the evidence, you won’t.

    “John explicitly admitted to be an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) in the “The Days Of Old (Genesis Creation)”. ”

    Since I haven’t read that particular post, I have no way to judge that accuracy or inaccuracy of this particular claim. The fact that you won’t quote or link causes me to doubt you, but if I am wrong, I’ll stand corrected. To be clear, in this thread, the conversation was about ID not OEC.

    “The post in discussion is in the first in response to Glenn in this thread. There is not mystery at all.”

    Then why not just say that the first time I asked? I just re read the post, and I didn’t find any evidence, links or citations. The first line of your comment is “You cover your blatant lie with more lies.” That’s a pretty effective strategy.

    “Defense of evolution isn’t amazing but normal.”

    No, defense of evolution is not amazing for someone who is committed to defending evolution. Not at all. The problem is that in defending evolution, actual evidence (citations, links, quotes) is much more potentially effective that making unsupported statements and telling those who disagree that they are evil, wicked, liars

    “Creationists are the weirds”

    This sentence makes no sense in English.

    “Just because you said something doesn’t make it False.”

    Since I never claimed this, what is your point.

    “But the point is not what is you explicitly claim you are, but what you are.”

    So, despite my explicit claims, you know what I really am? Really? Can you provide one teeny tiny shred of evidence using my own actual words to support your claim? To be fair, I haven’t made any explicit claims, but you either purposely missed that or the old mind reading thing doesn’t always work that well.

    Your use of Matthew 7:20 is completely out of context in this discussion. Even if it was, you would need to be able to provide some actual evidence of the “fruit” in question. You still won’t.

    “In science the deductions from the hypothetical deductive reasoning set the criteria for evidence.”

    So, in other words, you’re saying that you make a hypothetical deduction to determine what evidence you should find, then only look for evidence that fits the hypothetical deduction? What happens when the evidence doesn’t conform to your hypothetical deduction? What happens when there is no evidence? How does the Cambrian explosion fit with your hypothetical deduction? Were Haekel’s embryos an example of hypothetical deduction? If so, why were they used as evidence long after they had been proven false?

    “I don’t use a translation software. They don’t get the context which is necessary to a proper translation.”

    I see. Maybe you should brush up on things like tense and spelling etc. I “thing” you could make life easier for everyone with a little more attention to detail.

    “Try “Son mios” in Google Translation: you will get “mine” instead of “mines”.”

    And your point is?

    “Your systematic denial of valid reasoning against your false statements is an objective proof that you lie.”

    First, you haven’t demonstrated the validity of your reasoning by providing evidence to back it up.
    Second, your presume false statements with out any evidence to support your presumption.
    Third, “objective proof” requires objective evidence. A lie requires intent, please provide objective proof of my intent.

    “I didn’t call anyone “liar”.”

    Oh Really?

    Let’s start with the English dictionary definition of the word liar.

    “li·ar
    /ˈlīər/
    Noun
    A person who tells lies.”

    So, if I liar is “A person who tells lies”, then when you accuse someone of telling lies it is the same thing as calling them a liar. I know this is kind of remedial English grammar, but I want to help you understand.

    So when you say the following. (All of these are direct quotes from you in just this thread.)

    “That’s a blatant lie.” ,
    “You cover your blatant lie with more lies.”
    “So, you patently lie.”
    “Not joining to your lies”
    “…even by lying.”
    “You also lie,”
    ” …quitting lying.”
    “…Glenn’s lie…”
    “Another lie.”
    “You can keep up your lies.”
    ” so your lies are such.”
    “You repeat your lie…”
    “It was one of his rethorical lies. ”
    “…another unfounded lie.”
    “And it is also a lie…”
    ” Your saying A lie, doesn’t mean you don’t say multiple lies.”
    “…and your statement “You really abuse it” is a lie…”
    ” That is A lie…”
    ” objective proof that you lie.”

    According to the correct standard English definition of the word “liar”, you have de facto called John, Glenn, and I liars. You can try to play little semantic games, but the basic definition of the word liar, demonstrates who is actually being less than truthful here.

    And “creationist” reflects your reality.

    Yet you have no objective evidence to back this statement up. You will note above, that I provided actual quotes that you actually wrote as well as the actual definition of the word liar to objectively prove my point. You are free to quote mine as much as you want to make yours. The problem is, you can’t.

    “I note you didn’t.”

    Maybe you don’t understand that when I use actual quotations of your own words that you actually wrote, that is how one provides actual examples. Now you try.

  55. Craig,

    “No, look at your original comment. You clearly used a singular term, then when called on it changed your story. No lie, fact. I’ve provided the evidence, you won’t.”

    My original comment said: “I have even read a whole article from Dembski.” and that doesn’t mean that I only read one article about ID as you wickedly pretent. It is a non sequitur falllacy which you repeat once again evidencing your dishonesty.

  56. John,

    You call yourself creationist and I call you creationist in the same way.
    Fake “victimismo” is a cheap rethorical trick.

  57. “I have even read a whole article from Dembski.”

    Enough said.

    I guess it’s possible you weren’t clear or specific enough in your first comment. In that case what most would have done is to clarify and be more specific. You chose a different path.

    “You call yourself creationist and I call you creationist in the same way.”

    Except you call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a creationist, no matter what they have actually said on the issue. In my case, I have intentionally not addressed the issue.

  58. Glenn,

    The first article totally misses the factual existence of theistic evolutionists which evidence that this isn’t a battle against secular humanism.
    The second one doesn’t face the evolutionary issue.

  59. Glenn,
    I guess he told you. Snap!

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: