I Was "expelled"

[performedge 0]

Hey guys,

 

I have been reading these forums for some time with great interest, but I haven't been involved much, because I've been actively involved with an atheistic/agnostic web forum IIDB (Internet Infidels Discussion Board)

 

My tenure lasted about six months, before I was banned for "disruptive behavior." The process goes something like this. If you are a Christian, you are immediately assumed to be stupid and ignorant. And you will be told so. Over time, I was able to demonstrate otherwise. I learned very quickly that if you make a claim then you must support it with scientific evidence. I was admonished for this once, and then I complied thereafter. Not one time did I ever cite a Christian/ID website. I only used scientific papers and websites.

 

Over time, many of my arguments became difficult to deal with so the threads began to get closed for no apparent reason. Then I received the dreaded OAN (Official Administrator's Notice). The OAN cited all the forum rules which I had complied. It also mentioned "disruptive behavior." I asked for a citation of any rules violation or disruptive behavior, and they replied that the OAN doesn't have to do with a "rules" violation. No citations of any violations were given.

 

So I continued to comment and argue, and after a few days I was banned for 10 days. The subject was the evolution of consciousness, which as you know is a roadblock discussion for ToE. When I retuned to the discussion I asked for an explanation for the banishment. Again, I was not responded to with any particular complaint except "being disruptive." After blogging a few more days I was banned for good.

 

My experience has shown me that freedom of speech is not on the minds of those who adhere strongly to ToE. The other thing I discovered is that not only is ToE religious, it is highly evangelistic. If one expresses any doubts in their faith, then those doubts are exploited.

 

Here is the discussion I was banned from....Evolution of Consciousness

 

My screen name is Ibelieve (chosen to invoke emotion). I like to use sarcastic humor to convey a point. If you read this you will see, how I lead them into some biblical areas. In the middle I am absent, because I've been banned for 10 days??? Notice the thread gets closed for review. Then later I was banned from good. I suspect it was this thread.

 

I submit this as evidence as to the nature of the religion of atheism/ToEism and how it is strong on preventing people from thinking beyond what they call science

.

 

I am curious if any agnostic or atheistic readers think that my voice was out of line in this thread.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: I'm allowing this link to another forum because it is the whole forum topic, and the forum is not a creation forum. which means it would not be taking members from here. I say this because we usually do not allow links to other forums.

 

ikester.

[ikester7579 19]

Hey guys,

 

I have been reading these forums for some time with great interest, but I haven't been involved much, because I've been actively involved with an atheistic/agnostic web forum IIDB (Internet Infidels Discussion Board)

 

My tenure lasted about six months, before I was banned for "disruptive behavior."  The process goes something like this.  If you are a Christian, you are immediately assumed to be stupid and ignorant.  And you will be told so.  Over time, I was able to demonstrate otherwise.  I learned very quickly that if you make a claim then you must support it with scientific evidence.  I was admonished for this once, and then I complied thereafter.  Not one time did I ever cite a Christian/ID website.  I only used scientific papers and websites.

This is why I don't waste my time at forums like that. There is no point when everyone there thinks exactly the same way. And everyone hates you for what you believe, not who you are.

 

Over time, many of my arguments became difficult to deal with so the threads began to get closed for no apparent reason.  Then I received the dreaded OAN (Official Administrator's Notice).  The OAN cited all the forum rules which I had complied.  It also mentioned "disruptive behavior."  I asked for a citation of any rules violation or disruptive behavior, and they replied that the OAN doesn't have to do with a "rules" violation.  No citations of any violations were given.

Interesting, since they always accuse us of just banning at will.

 

So I continued to comment and argue, and after a few days I was banned for 10 days.  The subject was the evolution of consciousness, which as you know is a roadblock discussion for ToE.  When I retuned to the discussion I asked for an explanation for the banishment.  Again, I was not responded to with any particular complaint except "being disruptive."  After blogging a few more days I was banned for good.

I doubt I would last a week there. I have a nack for pushing their buttons LOL.

 

My experience has shown me that freedom of speech is not on the minds of those who adhere strongly to ToE.  The other thing I discovered is that not only is ToE religious, it is highly evangelistic.  If one expresses any doubts in their faith, then those doubts are exploited.

 

Here is the discussion I was banned from....Evolution of Consciousness

And you prove that they are not what they claim to be. Make them look bad with a rational arguement and they will get rid of you. Did they call you a bunch of cuss words too?

 

My screen name is Ibelieve (chosen to invoke emotion).  I like to use sarcastic humor to convey a point.  If you read this you will see, how I lead them into some biblical areas.  In the middle I am absent, because I've been banned for 10 days???  Notice the thread gets closed for review.  Then later I was banned from good.  I suspect it was this thread.

O, I see. You must of out done them on two points. You out debated them on the creation front, and out sarcasmed them too . Which is a big no no to make them look bad at what they take pride in being able to do to us. But, on a side note I have to let you know something.

 

At this forum we don't allow much sarcasm from either side because it invokes fights. Maybe a poke here or there, but "very few" and far in between. I have not look at your link yet, but I know how that forum operates so I can imagine what you had to do to keep up. And your head above the sarcasm pool.

 

I submit this as evidence as to the nature of the religion of atheism/ToEism and how it is strong on preventing people from thinking beyond what they call science

.

 

I am curious if any agnostic or atheistic readers think that my voice was out of line in this thread.

18247[/snapback]

I'll take a look and get back to you as soon as I check my e-mail. I hope I don't have to weed through a bunch of so called scientific cuss words.

[ikester7579 19]

LOL, I'm into the second page. I think you are out rationalizing them and they cannot stand it. I like the mods response here:

 

The OP addressed a fairly specific issue. Please try to stay focused on that.

 

Thanks,

I see them all the time go way off base as they make fun of creationists who debate there. But they have a problem when a creationist can actually do this and make sense at the same time.

 

Side note: I have one suggestion on word usage. Illumination is what Satan does. Bringing into the light is what God does. Hence why the illuminati is called what it is. Studying black magic and witchcraft, I came to figure this out.

 

Note: I studied this so I knew as a Christain what I was up against when I met someone who believed this.

 

Now the mod responds to one of his peers:

 

Point taken. Let me amend the statement to "Please concentrate on issues germane to the discussion of the OP". Sorry for my sloppiness.

 

regards,

He pointed out that the OP was probably a fallacy. If you would have pointed that out, I doubt the mod would have liked that.

 

And this comment is just to much. Made me laugh:

 

Let me summarize this post. We're not quite sure what consciousness is and we're not quite sure of its origins, therefore it is magic.

 

And some smart guys think so too.

Those who think they are smart always win the arguments . And now we have magic to add to evolution. And they say what we claim is lame? But then again Dawkins did say that he believed in an intelligent designer. One that was evolved more from another planet.

 

Well, that thread is very long. If you kept with posting like I see here so far. I see no reason for banning except that you made some rational statements that was making people think. And you got some of them to put their foot into their mouth.

 

Since we are speaking of that thread on that forum. That thread will either disappear, get edited (like one I commented on one time), or they will start another to mock what we are saying here.

 

But let's not start a forum war.

[OriginMan 0]

WOW ! That was a long read of two to three different threads.

 

You did become a little hostile, but no more than what they were dishing out. I did see where you seem to calm back down.

 

Eitherway I also saw where you asked questions, and then they avoided them by asking you questions.

 

GenesisNemesis has still NOT answered your first question, yet continued to respond as if everyone forgot about it.

 

It's the same ol Evo Babble as some here like to say.

 

Avoid, summarize, possible, chance, magic, who knows ?

 

And then they make the dubious WE HAVE TONS OF PROOF ! Claim

 

 

I think you bought a Very Real and Valid Argument to the table, and then you were attacked personaly MORE than just a few times. Yet they refused to answer the question. Then they had a few scrubs jump in just to say "Exactly" then refrained from posting until one of their fellow Fairy Tale believers spoke up again.

 

 

When I see suppresion like that I always am reminded of:

 

God handing them over to their own corruptness & Not allowing them to think otherwise.

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manâ€â€Âand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. - ROMANS 1: 18-25

 

Which Simultaneously reminds me of:

 

Matthew 10:33

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Those two verses scare the CRAP out of me !

[A.Sphere 6]

I am on the second page and I have noticed a couple of things...

 

 

1. It seems to me that you are going off topic too much which makes it hard to stay focused on the discussion at hand.

2. On April 3 at 2:30 you made a post to GenesisNemesis requesting him to give you a citation - on the same day only an hour later you say

Will I get a reply for my citation request?

.

 

That is kind of annoying and it will get you banned from many forums - I believe this one has a rule against this.

 

I haven't read past page 2 yet though so these are just some thoughts...

 

EDIT: Yes this forum does have a rule against this:

 

Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond.

 

[performedge 0]

I am on the second page and I have noticed a couple of things...

1.  It seems to me that you are going off topic too much which makes it hard to stay focused on the discussion at hand.

2.  On April 3 at 2:30 you made a post to GenesisNemesis requesting him to give you a citation - on the same day only an hour later you say .

 

That is kind of annoying and it will get you banned from many forums - I believe this one has a rule against this.

 

I haven't read past page 2 yet though so these are just some thoughts...

 

EDIT:  Yes this forum does have a rule against this:

18256[/snapback]

Thanks for your comments. I just will give a little context. This thread was split, and after that the topic did remain on the evolution of the consciousness, of which emergence was their main argument.

 

The other thing you might need to understand is that Genesis Nemesis is an online moderator. He comments against me often, and I was entraping him in his comments here. I could see if he was online, and he went silent, because he knew he was trapped. I understand your point, but he did respond later with....

 

You are most likely going to object, but it can be seen in the fossil record. Quite clearly, I might add.

I didn't respond back, because it would have been off topic.

 

I understand the reason for rules, and I abided by their rules as listed in their forum. However, banishment was not because I broke any rule. They stated so. Bannishment was for "disruptive behavior" which was not defined anywhere. And not one example from me of "disruptive behavior" was ever cited in any admonishment or temporary banishment prior to getting completely banned.

 

Please understand that I think it is God's will that I am off that particular forum. There are more beneficial ways for me to spend my time in God's kingdom. I do think God led me in that direction though to learn many things about logic (The Word) and Satan's strategies.

 

I am now much better prepared to give "a defense" of my faith in this dark world in which we live.

[Guest kega]

you were quite belligerent and deliberately obtuse in most of your posts. there wasnt any sarcasm there that i could see. you werent really adding anything to the debate by going about things that way. you should have been more constructive in your posts. even in this forum, being deliberately nasty to other forum members will get you kicked out.

[performedge 0]

you were quite belligerent and deliberately obtuse in most of your posts.  there wasnt any sarcasm there that i could see.  you werent really adding anything to the debate by going about things that way.  you should have been more constructive in your posts.  even in this forum, being deliberately nasty to other forum members will get you kicked out.

18261[/snapback]

Thank you for your reply. I don't think you read this whole thread though. I was the only person arguing for the origination of the conscious from the biblical concept of spirit. I personally think they had nothing to add to the debate, but we can agree to disagree.

 

When working with people like this, IMHO you cannot be a Bible "thumper" from the get go or they will throw you out immediately. You have to lead them to the scriptures, which is probably the main reason I got banned.

 

However, you are entitled to your opinion on my behavior.

[OriginMan 0]

you were quite belligerent and deliberately obtuse in most of your posts.  there wasnt any sarcasm there that i could see. you werent really adding anything to the debate by going about things that way.  you should have been more constructive in your posts.  even in this forum, being deliberately nasty to other forum members will get you kicked out.

18261[/snapback]

Belligerent, Deliberately obtuse, sarcastic ?

 

Are these different ?

 

I thought he carried himself well and firm.

 

Eitherway, GenesisNemesis posted a few replies after the question was asked, yet obviously avoided the punchline.

 

If Macro is so Obvious he should have had an easy response right ? I mean c'mon, evolution is a fact right ? Therefore it should be easy to debate.

[A.Sphere 6]

Belligerent, Deliberately obtuse, sarcastic ?

 

Are these different ?

 

I thought he carried himself well and firm.

 

Eitherway, GenesisNemesis posted a few replies after the question was asked, yet obviously avoided the punchline.

 

If Macro is so Obvious he should have had an easy response right ? I mean c'mon, evolution is a fact right ? Therefore it should be easy to debate.

18264[/snapback]

The response is easy: Nobody knows exactly how consciousness evolved. That says nothing however about the validity of the theory of evolution. Once human beings didn’t know why lightening struck or what caused the tides.

 

It is easy to argue the TOE and in fact most scientists working in the biological science have been won over by those arguments. However, it is never easy to argue against what a fundamentalist believes no matter what it may be. Have you ever tried arguing with the moon landing hoax fanatics? No matter what evidence you bring forth they have an argument for it that only satisfies themselves.

[OriginMan 0]

The response is easy:  Nobody knows exactly how consciousness evolved.  That says nothing however about the validity of the theory of evolution.  Once human beings didn’t know why lightening struck or what caused the tides.

 

It is easy to argue the TOE and in fact most scientists working in the biological science have been won over by those arguments.  However, it is never easy to argue against what a fundamentalist believes no matter what it may be.  Have you ever tried arguing with the moon landing hoax fanatics?  No matter what evidence you bring forth they have an argument for it that only satisfies themselves.

18265[/snapback]

Moon Hoax Fanatics, Evolutionists, and Creationists are all the Same.

 

The Evidence is all the same as well. The only problem with the evidence is that it will ALWAYS be left up to the interpreter.

 

There are a few things in this world that are ABSOLUTE.

 

Creationism is side by side with Absolutes. (Not talking about God, I'm talking about YEC.)

 

The ToE is not side by side with these Scientific Absolutes. Therefore it is the Evolutionists that has to provide the burden of proof.

 

Just like you, sometimes I am floored by the level of ignorance one shows while trying to defend his own belief.

 

An invisible God goes against your materialistic belief.

 

In order for your materialistic belief to be proven false,

 

ONLY "1" person out the past 5 Trillion in Human Kind would have to have had "1" Spritual moment in their lives. For if they indeed had a spriritual moment, materialism would be FALSE.

 

I know a few here on this site that are very much sure that they had a spiritual moment, probably more than once.

 

I find it humorous at times how YEC's are charged with stretching the evidence, and bending the rules. Even though YEC follows absolutes.

 

Just look at the Ape to man Argument. How often is the DNA similarity thrown at Creationists ? Even though the similarity has NOTHING to do with common ancestry.

Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

What if we were not the same ?

Click here for a Great Article on Ape to Human

 

Even though evolutionists like to use this similarity as proof for common ancestry,

 

What about Elephants & Hedgehogs ? They have more similarities in their DNA than Ape & Man.

 

Havard says that the T. Rex (With Tissue on it, Yet is still supposedly 60 million years old) found by Mary Schweitzer shows mastodon protein sequences with those of 21 living animals, including ostriches, chickens, and alligators.â€ÂÂ

 

T. Rex to Chicken ? And that doesn't sound as far fetched as an Invisible God to you ?

 

The problem with this whole common ancestry thing is, there was NO COMMON ANCESTOR.

 

Animals and Man contain the similarities so we can EAT THEM. If we were completely different, what would we eat ?

[performedge 0]

The response is easy:  Nobody knows exactly how consciousness evolved.  That says nothing however about the validity of the theory of evolution.  Once human beings didn’t know why lightening struck or what caused the tides.

 

It is easy to argue the TOE and in fact most scientists working in the biological science have been won over by those arguments.  However, it is never easy to argue against what a fundamentalist believes no matter what it may be.  Have you ever tried arguing with the moon landing hoax fanatics?  No matter what evidence you bring forth they have an argument for it that only satisfies themselves.

18265[/snapback]

You maybe right that knowbody knows how consciousness evolved, but for science to answer the question it must be materialistic, and this begs the reasoning process. How can matter recognize itself?

 

From a creationist standpoint though, the answers are in the scripture. You see God has given you evidence to recognize Him. Just like the example you gave about moon landing hoax fanatics. No matter what evidece you try and present to an atheist they have an argument for it that only satifies themselves as well.

 

You see all the evidence for ToE is the same evidence for God. The evidence doesn't change. The universe is our evidence. Scientists interpret the evidence based on their minds (which they can't even account for). Christians interpret the evidence in light of the scripture. Which we believe happens to be in perfect agreement with real science.

 

So the problem is not the evidence. Let me just give you an example. I'm sure you are aware of forensic science. This is investigative science presented in a courtroom environment. The thing you need to remember is that forensic science may lead to one conclusion, but the court often decides against the science. How can this be? Well it's because there is eye witness testimony, historical evidence, and opposing forensic science as well. Then people have to decide what is reasonable.

 

Today's scientific environment ignores certain eye witness testimonies, historical evidence, and much opposing science. Since the perversion of science to only consider naturalism, (which is a relatively new concept), science labels many things pseudo science to avoid dealing with an opposing interpretation.

 

Therefore, their minds exist in a very limited paradigm. Christians are not opposed to science though, so they have a more open paradigm.

[CTD 1]

We are all individuals with unique gifts, and it's not surprising that we have different styles of communicating. I much admire the late Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, but I don't think I'll successfully emulate him.

 

I read 3 or 4 pages at the link, and so far performedge is actually a little less confrontational than I tend to be. While it's easy to go overboard, there are advantages to a somewhat cocky approach. For example, an emotional evolutionist can "spill the beans" and let out that abiogenesis is indeed required or the Biblical account is the only alternative in their opinion.

 

I certainly don't mean to say people should be insulting or ugly. And I'd caution anyone against trying to change their own style on a whim.

 

The setting is important also. I'm still new here, and things are much different here, and it's a change for me. I'm not outnumbered; on the contrary, I must be careful not to post too much for the evolutionists to keep up. It's not usually hard to dial down my confrontational style, since Hans & most of the regulars are pretty civilized.

 

Interlopers are another thing altogether. For now, I refrain from responding. I know my habitual way of dealing with evobabble, but I don't want to risk my reputation on this board just to swat a pest who'll soon be gone. Neither do I want to participate in escalation scenarios which might lead to the banning of someone who could learn something here.

[OriginMan 0]

We are all individuals with unique gifts, and it's not surprising that we have different styles of communicating. I much admire the late Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, but I don't think I'll successfully emulate him.

 

I read 3 or 4 pages at the link, and so far performedge is actually a little less confrontational than I tend to be. While it's easy to go overboard, there are advantages to a somewhat cocky approach. For example, an emotional evolutionist can "spill the beans" and let out that abiogenesis is indeed required or the Biblical account is the only alternative in their opinion.

 

I certainly don't mean to say people should be insulting or ugly. And I'd caution anyone against trying to change their own style on a whim.

 

The setting is important also. I'm still new here, and things are much different here, and it's a change for me. I'm not outnumbered; on the contrary, I must be careful not to post too much for the evolutionists to keep up. It's not usually hard to dial down my confrontational style, since Hans & most of the regulars are pretty civilized.

 

Interlopers are another thing altogether. For now, I refrain from responding. I know my habitual way of dealing with evobabble, but I don't want to risk my reputation on this board just to swat a pest who'll soon be gone. Neither do I want to participate in escalation scenarios which might lead to the banning of someone who could learn something here.

18272[/snapback]

There's a whole lot of wisdom in your posts

[Guest rjw]

[snip]

 

If Macro is so Obvious he should have had an easy response right ? I mean c'mon, evolution is a fact right ? Therefore it should be easy to debate.

18264[/snapback]

It is a fact that gravity is the main controller the motions of objects within the solar system.

 

That fact hardly means that we can therefore explain every thing about the motion of objects in the solar system or that we can therefore explain gravity. On that latter point, we don't have much of an idea at all, as to what gravity is. It is something of a mystery.

 

It is a fact that the sun exists and is a real object in space. From that fact, should you be able to tell me everything about the sun? Or do you think there are still plenty of big mysteries and small mysteries about it – notwithstanding that we can both agree that its existence is real?

 

Having something as a "fact" does not mean that therefore every thing associated with it can be, or should be explained.

 

Just a small aside from the topic of this thread.

 

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest rjw]

You maybe right that knowbody knows how consciousness evolved, but for science to answer the question it must be materialistic, and this begs the reasoning process.  How can matter recognize itself?

 

From a creationist standpoint though, the answers are in the scripture. 

18270[/snapback]

Where is the explanation (asnwer?) in the Bible, in the same sense that you would expect science to explain?

 

When science explains, it gives a nuts-and-bolts explanation of how something occurs and offers empirical evidence to back that explanation up.

 

So where is that corresponding kind of explanation in the Bible, given that you appear to be putting both on the same par?

 

 

Regards, Roland

[performedge 0]

Where is the explanation (asnwer?) in the Bible, in the same sense that you would expect science to explain?

 

When science explains, it gives a nuts-and-bolts explanation of how something occurs and offers empirical evidence to back that explanation up.

 

So where is that corresponding kind of explanation in the Bible, given that you appear to be putting both on the same par?

Regards, Roland

18277[/snapback]

I think you should read the whole post. Starting on page three, I begin by leading into a discussion on the spirit. This would open up a whole new thread here, but if you really desire to discuss it, why don't you open up a new one.

[deadlock 3]

It is a fact that gravity is the main controller the motions of objects within the solar system.

 

That fact hardly means that we can therefore explain every thing about the motion of objects in the solar system or that we can therefore explain gravity.  On that latter point, we don't have much of an idea at all, as to what gravity is.  It is something of a mystery.

 

It is a fact that the sun exists and is a real object in space.  From that fact, should you be able to tell me everything about the sun?  Or do you think there are still plenty of big mysteries and small mysteries about it – notwithstanding that we can both agree that its existence is real?

 

Having something as a "fact" does not mean that therefore every thing associated with it can be, or should be explained.

 

Just a small aside from the topic of this thread.

Regards, Roland

18276[/snapback]

It´s the fallacy of false analogy.Gravity being a fact does not mean evolution is a fact.We dont believe evolution because the evidences show it´s not a fact , and not because we dont know everything about it.

[ikester7579 19]

It´s the fallacy of false analogy.Gravity being a fact does not mean evolution is a fact.We dont believe evolution because the evidences show it´s not a fact , and not because we dont know everything about it.

18282[/snapback]

But didn't you know that when you don't believe that evolution happend, that you are uneducated, ignorant, moron who goes around and tells lies. O, forgot one. We are brain damaged and brain washed too.

 

All because we disagree. But they will claim that we know nothing about it. Disagreement is not allowed. Only a one forced view for everybody.

[Guest rjw]

I think you should read the whole post.  Starting on page three, I begin by leading into a discussion on the spirit.  This would open up a whole new thread here, but if you really desire to discuss it, why don't you open up a new one.

18278[/snapback]

I shall. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest rjw]

It´s the fallacy of false analogy.Gravity being a fact does not mean evolution is a fact.We dont believe evolution because the evidences show it´s not a fact , and not because we dont know everything about it.

18282[/snapback]

I did not argue that because gravity is fact therefore evolution is fact. Nor did I argue for the factuality of evolution or otherwise.

 

My opponent claimed that if we argue that evolution is a fact then we should know everything about it. Well, gravity is a fact and we most certainly do not know everything about it.

 

Hence, no matter what you think about evolution, my analogy does undermine my opponent’s claim.

 

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest kega]

Thank you for your reply.  I don't think you read this whole thread though.  I was the only person arguing for the origination of the conscious from the biblical concept of spirit.  I personally think they had nothing to add to the debate, but we can agree to disagree.

 

When working with people like this, IMHO you cannot be a Bible "thumper" from the get go or they will throw you out immediately.  You have to lead them to the scriptures, which is probably the main reason I got banned.

 

However, you are entitled to your opinion on my behavior.

18263[/snapback]

i read about halfway through so i got a good idea of why you got peoples backs up there

 

i could see what you were trying to do and i didnt see anything wrtong with what you were trying to do but its just the way you went about it

 

i completely agree with you about the bible thumping! but we also have to hold ourselfs to a higher standard

 

your right and it is just my opinion but i think i told the truth ans sometimes the truth isnt what we want to hear but its just as important that we hear it

 

i hope you repect me for being honest.

[Guest kega]

Belligerent, Deliberately obtuse, sarcastic ?

 

Are these different ?

 

I thought he carried himself well and firm.

 

Eitherway, GenesisNemesis posted a few replies after the question was asked, yet obviously avoided the punchline.

 

If Macro is so Obvious he should have had an easy response right ? I mean c'mon, evolution is a fact right ? Therefore it should be easy to debate.

18264[/snapback]

yes.

 

have you ever tried debating outside of here? its like pushing bubbles down under wallpaper argueing with evolutionists!

[OriginMan 0]

It is a fact that gravity is the main controller the motions of objects within the solar system.

 

That fact hardly means that we can therefore explain every thing about the motion of objects in the solar system or that we can therefore explain gravity.  On that latter point, we don't have much of an idea at all, as to what gravity is.  It is something of a mystery.

 

One second I'm conducting an observable exp. to test your claim.

 

Yep my keyboard came crashing down when I lifted it and then let it go.

From my little exp I can see how gravity works, I can see also how it affects the universe and the Earth.

 

Gravity is indeed a Scientific Fact. We can use Good, REAL Science to figure it out.

 

It is a fact that the sun exists and is a real object in space.  From that fact, should you be able to tell me everything about the sun?  Or do you think there are still plenty of big mysteries and small mysteries about it – notwithstanding that we can both agree that its existence is real?

 

One second, I'm conducting an observable exp. to test your claim.

 

Yep the sun is bright and hot. Now my eyes burn. From my exp I can see the sun provides light and heat. I know that everything in this world needs these two thing in one way or another.

 

The Sun is indeed a Fact, We can use Good, REAL Science to figure it out.

 

Having something as a "fact" does not mean that therefore every thing associated with it can be, or should be explained.

 

Correct. But that also means that unless the Axiom or Root of the equation is indeed a FACT, the latter can never be proven.

 

If Fish to Philosopher Evolution was indeed possible, the latter should have no problem being proven through Real Observable Science.

 

 

 

When science explains, it gives a nuts-and-bolts explanation of how something occurs and offers empirical evidence to back that explanation up.

 

Yep and we asked for some of this empirical evidence that proves molecules-to-man evolution. What we were given was a lungless frog ?

 

Now for you to even try and mix Gravatational Law, and the SUN, Both of which we can all see and know. For you to even bring that to the table shows all here the kind of faith you have in your religion. Seriously think about what your comparing.

 

Sun, Gravity, Macro-Evolution

 

I'm not saying that you should kow EVERYTHING about Evolution, but your ROOT should at least be feasable.

 

If I were to argue for Gravity being real. I would ask you to jump.

Same with the Sun. I would ask you to look up.

 

Whether you were willing or not, there is no way that you could deny to me that these two things do indeed exist. Unless you were completely ingnorant.

 

You see since these two things obviously exist, I can easily show you the ROOT of why I consider them to exist, and then go from there.

 

The reason Evolution is so Hard to prove to anyone not willing to believe it, is b/c the ROOT of the belief, is NOT TRUE ! Evolution goes against everything Science says can't happen.

 

Mutations do not make things smarter.

 

Beneficial maybe, More complex and smarter NEVER !

 

Where is the explanation (asnwer?) in the Bible,

Brother,

 

Trying to challenge my belief as an answer to the challenge of your belief only further shows that you might not be too sure about what your saying

 

If you really want to know the biblical answers, I'm quite sure you could start a topic in the Bible Q & A Thread. We would love to give you the Biblical Answers.

 

 

I'm in a Great Mood so I hope none of what I said is taken wrong. :)

 

Afterall, It is Friday !!!!!!!

[The Debatinator 2]

(break in the chain)

 

Uberhobo in this thread says he can't tell how consciousness came but somehow he can tell you why. "It was advantageous." It's advantageous for EVERY kind. Just because it's an advantage doesn't mean it will be provided. That argument has one big gaping hole in the middle.