04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am a die-hard evolutionist and computer geek/programmer. The little I have read so far on the posted site seems rather disorganised. Do you have a link to a particular page with a meaningfull arguement. If so I would be glad to revue the material.
For those die-hard evolutionists (who inexplicably choose to hang out in a spirituality forum), here's a link you may wish to check out. The author picks a fight along the lines that information can only result from a mind.
This will be especially interesting to the computer geeks out there; however anyone with an inquiring mind will likely enjoy the j ...[text shortened]... I am expecting any of you to honestly review the material, but it's worth a shot, nonetheless.
I had a quick look at
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm
and notice some glaring incosistencies. He first defines information in such a way as to require a sender and reciever and then proceeds to talk about other forms of information which do not require this without readjusting his prior definition and thus concludes that there must be a sender and reciever for all information. Sounds like a proof of a definition to me.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStrange how you never refutre what anyone else says. I wonder...
[b]It is a widely accepted theory.
There's a word in that sentence that nags at me. I wonder...
Rabid? Yeah, that's me: FreakyKBH, the rabid anti-evolutionist. Sheesh.[/b]
EDIT: Oh, and what word are you talking about exactly?
04 May 06
I have looked at the site some more and still cant make any sense out of it. There is a page for example titled:
'New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God'
but I cant find on the page where this evidence is mentioned.
He also makes rather a lot of false statements.
Unless you wish to highlight a specific one of his arguements for discussion, I wont bother to proceed.
04 May 06
Originally posted by amannionIf someone told FreakingIdiot that a smelly fart was evidence of God, it would satisfy him.
I've seen some of his stuff before, but had a brief look at this stuff. Typically it panders to those who already believe.
Certainly his arguments are circular and use a lot of descriptors and definitives - vast, all, never, etc. - without any justification.
But I'm sure it satisfies you.
As always, we're arguing past each other ...
04 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere's the link to the site wherein he is set upon by a good 25-30 self-professed (rabid) atheist/evolutionists. Keep in mind, however, that in true Clintonesque avoidance, a large part of 15 pages is spent by the antagonists arguing over how "code" should be defined.
I have looked at the site some more and still cant make any sense out of it. There is a page for example titled:
'New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God'
but I cant find on the page where this evidence is mentioned.
He also makes rather a lot of false statements.
Unless you wish to highlight a specific one of his arguements for discussion, I wont bother to proceed.
The provided link takes you to page 18 of (as of this morning) 19 pages.
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=18
04 May 06
Originally posted by David CAstounding insight, David. I think you really nailed it this time. So-called atheists faced with an objective, systematic orthodox theological doctrine, unable to rationally refute even a single point, turn to the Christian and charge him with possession of an unbalanced ego. And full of fear, to boot! Masterful. Rest in peace for a job well done, good sir.
Typical Christian fear mixed with unbalanced ego, clutching to the bible like a security blanket.
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI admit it. I am a fool. The bible is STILL not the word of god. ANY god. You have blinders on your mind which is the proper way for religious people to behave. You have to leave your real mind at home if you want to go to heaven. No room for thinkers there.
You're a fool if you think the Bible is not the word of God.
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI was not aware there were such links. All I saw was a sales pitch and a request for my e-mail address.
Psst. Your ignorance is showing. If you "distrust" the pitch so much, why not go to the provided links of the infidel website and view the conversation itself? Likely any argument you have to offer has already been introduced and refuted/rejected.
What am I ignorant of now? The links at the bottom of the page? OK. I was ignorant of them. I read the entire body of the ADDRESS YOU POSTED. I didn't go surfing through the links. I assumed if you wanted me to read a webpage, you'd give me the address of that webpage instead of some other random webpage that happened to link to the websites you actually wanted me to read.
04 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankTo be free, one must first grasp reality. One cannot grasp reality without first coming to grips with the One who makes reality so. Patterns: they're everywhere!
Didn't you used to be a freethinker... talk about 360...
EDIT: Wouldn't 360 put me back where I started?
04 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe ignorance referred to your non-qualified (or justified) dismissal. The web site doesn't sell anything. It asks for your e-mail in order to send you (free of charge) five e-mails for your consideration of the material.
I was not aware there were such links. All I saw was a sales pitch and a request for my e-mail address.
What am I ignorant of now? The links at the bottom of the page? OK. I was ignorant of them. I read the entire body of the ADDRESS YOU POSTED. I didn't go surfing through the links. I assumed if you wanted me to read a webpage, you'd give me the a ...[text shortened]... ome other random webpage that happened to link to the websites you actually wanted me to read.
If you go to the link that I provided the second time, be forewarned that it is only going to get you to page 18 of the discussion. If you decide to read the entire discussion, you will have to hit the bottom hyperlinks to previous pages, up to 17 times.
I find the argument initially compelling. Seeing the dissention it caused on the website cited, prompts me to think there is even more to it than what I have considered. Anytime the opposing side of an argument chooses to bog the conversation down by focusing on irrelevant minutae, it's a sure bet they have nothing else with which to combat the threat.