Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Only someone completely blinded would think that.
Kelly

I just insist on people using terms like faith properly, that's all.

I already know you don't, so this is going to be my only response to you.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The important difference between us is that [b]I never thought that the earth didn't rotate. 😀[/b]

You were too stupid to think if the earth rotated or not until you went to school and they told you what to believe. That is why you believe in the theory of evolution. You were taught evolution in school and you are too stupid to think otherwise, numbnuts!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I just insist on people using terms like faith properly, that's all.

I already know you don't, so this is going to be my only response to you.

Then why bother smarting off at all? You just want to throw something out
and run off like a coward go ahead.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your exact words were "... don't have eyes to see ..." which has a subtly different meaning.
Maybe I overacted because in another thread I am told that there is solid proof that the world is getting worse, but only a certain select group of people can see it.

I am still not convinced you have answered the question. Have you considered the possibility ...[text shortened]... ving under such conditions. So there must be some conditions that you have not specified yet.

Oh, so I have to worry about subtly....I see you cannot just read what I write
you have to put something in between the lines and complain about that.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
You were too stupid to think if the earth rotated or not until you went to school and they told you what to believe. That is why you believe in the theory of evolution. You were taught evolution in school and you are too stupid to think otherwise, numbnuts!

Hah! You think I was taught evolution in school...that's a riot. If only you knew. 😕

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I just insist on people using terms like faith properly, that's all.

I already know you don't, so this is going to be my only response to you.

Even though faith can be defined as putting one's trust in someone or something not seen, it does not mean it comes about without evidence and reason. The Christian has a reason for their belief and faith or trust even thought that faith is in that which is not seen at the present.

The Christian believes in the Holy Bible not because it presents miracles, which are hard for anyone to believe, but because it presents things we can verify to be true and other things that seem more reasonable than the alternative explanations. We believe Christ rose from the dead not just because it said so in the Holy Bible but because of logic, reason, and evidence. We have the empty tomb, the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo as some physical evidence.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_tomb

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57410982/controversial-new-theories-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23742885/ns/today-today_news/t/shroud-turin-debate-rekindled/

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh, so I have to worry about subtly....I see you cannot just read what I write
you have to put something in between the lines and complain about that.
Kelly

I do read what you write. What you wrote was apparently not what you meant. If you dont want to be misunderstood then yes, you do need to worry about subtlety. But we all get misunderstood sometimes and we just have to try and correct the error or live with it. I am still not convinced that you have grasped the subtleties of my question - as I still don't see any answer to it and I fully admit that that may be my inability to phrase it effectively. I just keep trying. When you don't seem to have answered what I asked, I ask again in a slightly different way in the hope that I will get my point across.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do read what you write. What you wrote was apparently not what you meant. If you dont want to be misunderstood then yes, you do need to worry about subtlety. But we all get misunderstood sometimes and we just have to try and correct the error or live with it. I am still not convinced that you have grasped the subtleties of my question - as I still don't ...[text shortened]... I asked, I ask again in a slightly different way in the hope that I will get my point across.

I think you are being dense and I don't think you are a stupid person so I am
wondering if you are doing it on purpose. I am beginning to doubt your honest
efforts in our discussions.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you are being dense and I don't think you are a stupid person so I am
wondering if you are doing it on purpose. I am beginning to doubt your honest
efforts in our discussions.
Kelly

And I think that you are trying really hard to avoid actually answering the question. But I could be wrong, and you could be wrong about me.
So lets just try it again:
You claim that a life form in the ancient past would have been unable to survive. You claim that the environment would have been hostile and that the chances of it surviving would be so minute as to be untenable.
I claim that there are many life forms in the world today that not only survive but flourish in a wide range of environments.
I want to know what is different today from the past that would cause ancient life forms to fail where current life forms seem to flourish.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you are being dense and I don't think you are a stupid person so I am
wondering if you are doing it on purpose. I am beginning to doubt your honest
efforts in our discussions.
Kelly

Funny, That's exactly what your posts sound like to me.

Perhaps what you need to do is to stop getting angry at why you can't communicate with
twhitehead and start trying to find out why you can't communicate.


If this forum is and can be useful for anything it should be helping people of differing world
views learn how those of other world views think and to learn how to communicate between
them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Funny, That's exactly what your posts sound like to me.

Perhaps what you need to do is to stop getting angry at why you can't communicate with
twhitehead and start trying to find out why you can't communicate.


If this forum is and can be useful for anything it should be helping people of differing world
views learn how those of other world views think and to learn how to communicate between
them.

I am getting pretty good at it, numbnuts. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am getting pretty good at it, numbnuts. 😏

What at communicating?

No you suck at it.

The only thing you successfully communicate across faith lines is your own stupidity and smug ignorance.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What at communicating?

No you suck at it.

The only thing you successfully communicate across faith lines is your own stupidity and smug ignorance.

Well, alrighty then, I guess I am just better than the average. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think that you are trying really hard to avoid actually answering the question. But I could be wrong, and you could be wrong about me.
So lets just try it again:
You claim that a life form in the ancient past would have been unable to survive. You claim that the environment would have been hostile and that the chances of it surviving would be so m ...[text shortened]... the past that would cause ancient life forms to fail where current life forms seem to flourish.

My claims have been had life started off with a simple single cell life form there
would have so much stacked against it being around a little later alive would be a
huge feat. Throw in reproduction, food supplies, enviroments that are stable
enough to support and maintain life over time would just add to the complexity of
what would be required that anyone who thinks all of this could or just had to
happen lives in a fairly tale far beyond anything religion has to offer.

Enviroments today, are not what was supposed to have been here when life was
to have began, you do not have anything to compare it too in the here and now.
What your left with are eco-systems that support life in every enviroment we see
life in now, but the life we see in the here and now...isn't the question it is where
it all started, how did it begin? Just saying we see life now everywhere where we
see it doesn't answer those questions, they could have just started by design that
is just a valid reason as any other, to claim otherwise is just a bais that has
nothing with realities of all the issues that would have had to over come.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My claims have been had life started off with a simple single cell life form there
would have so much stacked against it being around a little later alive would be a
huge feat.

And my question is why? What was different? Clearly in the world today, there are many many instances of single cell life forms starting with one cell and quite successfully multiplying to cover vast areas of diverse environments. If it can happen today, what was different in the past that made it so difficult?

Enviroments today, are not what was supposed to have been here when life was
to have began,
How do you know this? Have you studied the subject? Can you tell me what environments were supposed to be like at the time?

you do not have anything to compare it too in the here and now.
My understanding was that we do. Maybe I read the wrong books on the subject. Can you provide any references to correct my understanding?

What your left with are eco-systems that support life in every enviroment we see
life in now,
That is simply not true. A large proportion of life is not dependent on eco-systems.

but the life we see in the here and now...isn't the question
But it does demonstrate what life is capable of - some of which you claim requires living in a fairy tale to believe, yet we can see it happening around us.

Just saying we see life now everywhere where we
see it doesn't answer those questions, they could have just started by design that
is just a valid reason as any other, to claim otherwise is just a bais that has
nothing with realities of all the issues that would have had to over come.
Now you are trying to subtly change your argument. Now you are saying 'all explanations are equal' whereas you started off with 'I don't believe your explanation because it seems impossible'.
Are you now admitting that abiogenesis and evolution are perfectly credible, but you just don't think the evidence supports them more than a creationist view?