28 Nov 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not sure, but upon reflection it may be because I have more respect for you and so I am a bit tougher on you because I think you are capable of better. Robbie on the other hand is clearly stuck in a world of self delusion that I suspect I can never free him of. I am merely trying to understand the psychology of it all and want to see how he responds when faced with difficult questions. I have met a number of people like him before and it has always left me wondering to what extent they realize their own delusions. I have noticed on these forums how certain people carefully avoid certain questions, but I am not always sure to what extent that is conscious avoidance of the truth or to what extent it is unconscious, or to what extent they genuinely believe what they say but do not understand the subject matter and are afraid of being shown up as ignorant.
you don't have this much patience with me when i say that god may exist, and my faith doesn't contradict with my reasoning.
yet you put up with this buffoon much longer than anyone. why is that?
28 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mexicosorry my friend the ill will that has been generated by those who have nothing constructive nor relevant to state has overwhelmed my desire for anything more to do with this thread nor this forum, if you want to private mail me any of your references then please do so, for i myself have nothing further to state and in future, although it is a public forum i will be more careful with whom i engage in dialogue for the motives of those aforementioned are unclear and their propensity for derogatory remarks a general feature and reflective of the type of persons they are! i find myself being drawn to this level which is not advisory for i am a generally cheerful and good natured person and only wish to share some ideas and have some fun in the process - regards Robbie.
You've completely failed to answer either of my questions, instead jumping onto the opinion I expressed at the end of the post and attempting to debase it.
I'll try again this time without the opinion
[b]So robbie, If I gathered from your essay at the start and postings your looking for.
1. A clear and unequivocal example of a biological system made te isn't the most effective method of arguing....
Now please answer my questions......
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou have tickled my ego and thought me a lesson in patience, patience that ran out with robbie here. thank you.
I am not sure, but upon reflection it may be because I have more respect for you and so I am a bit tougher on you because I think you are capable of better. Robbie on the other hand is clearly stuck in a world of self delusion that I suspect I can never free him of. I am merely trying to understand the psychology of it all and want to see how he responds ...[text shortened]... they say but do not understand the subject matter and are afraid of being shown up as ignorant.
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned......Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components is the product of intelligent activity."
what are you talking about? i have looked at every reference given by you purveyors of the myth, i have looked at and read the references posted by Bosse , i have looked at and read the references posted by andrew hamiltion and even refuted the claims with regard to a certain moth, do you really want me to go through them all, the RNA world theory, t ...[text shortened]... their minds by years of conditioning and embrace other sources other than unintelligent causes!
question:
you call evolutionists crazy and chasing ghosts and being illogical, devious, unscientific, etc. you disregard their theories yet you think the above quote to be from a brilliant scientific mind even if he doesn't explain anything doesn't give reasons.
they were designed, not might be designed, they are the product of intelligent activity, not might be. not to mention that if they were, then that intelligence chooses to act in a totally unintelligent manner by contradicting the laws that intelligence put forward for the universe in the first place.
who is the quack here?
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIll will? People have been trying to engage you in good faith, yet you decline to return the favour. Worse yet, you're playing the victim. Please accept my pity.
sorry my friend the ill will that has been generated by those who have nothing constructive nor relevant to state has overwhelmed my desire for anything more to do with this thread nor this forum
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo... You start a thread, one that you know will be inflammatory and attract all the usual comments from both sides, but in your defense you certainly seem like you want an actual discussion in the first post.
sorry my friend the ill will that has been generated by those who have nothing constructive nor relevant to state has overwhelmed my desire for anything more to do with this thread nor this forum, if you want to private mail me any of your references then please do so, for i myself have nothing further to state and in future, although it is a public ...[text shortened]... ured person and only wish to share some ideas and have some fun in the process - regards Robbie.
People start to dismantle either your references' credibility, which by the way is a perfectly valid debating technique, or arguing your points but not providing the evidence your requesting. Thus you use this as a leverage to start bashing Darwinian evolution, which was a nice distraction from your original points diverting the whole thing into an irrelevant name calling match allowing you to take the moral high ground be indignant and never actually respond to anyone......
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by Mexicojoin the flood thread that's where the party is now 😀
So... You start a thread, one that you know will be inflammatory and attract all the usual comments from both sides, but in your defense you certainly seem like you want an actual discussion in the first post.
People start to dismantle either your references' credibility, which by the way is a perfectly valid debating technique, or arguing your points but ...[text shortened]... owing you to take the moral high ground be indignant and never actually respond to anyone......
29 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust out of curiosity, where are the scientific papers that support your views?
no this is science verses the myth of evolution debate, which has already been proven, by numerous references and attested to by the most learned of people to be unscientific, please let us not delude ourselves, so far it has nothing to do with creationism, that merely shifts the emphasis away from the scientific arguments and provides a target for e ...[text shortened]... ith fairy tales and mythology masquerading in the form of science as is the case with evolution!
I would like to read them. I am talking about pubs like "Nature" and the like. Peer reviewed works. Do you have links since your contention is it is science vs the myth of evolution, I would like to see that science in action.