Re: And the winner is *** Post of the Month for November 2006 ***

On Mar 16, 5:01 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 16, 11:08 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:...

Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
I had no votes by private email.  Feel free to double check
my count.

I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
some time figuring out how to automate the process.

Thanks to all those who voted.

Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9

As already noted, I could not make such a decision on my own,
even were I so inclined, and as you may suspect I am not at all
so inclined,

Why not?

If roles were reversed I would be very much inclined because it would
contrast the degree to which the evolutionist response fails. Your
position is based on fear and censorship whether you admit (and of
course, you won't) or not. Over at Uncommon Descent they have a list
of arguments not to make or the Atheist dunce who fronts for Dembski
will not post your message. This list shows fear - fear of an argument
that they, whether they admit or not, cannot refute. That is why they
have such a list even though the reason they provide for the existence
of the list says the banned arguments are PRATTs. If I was an
evolutionist I would never fail, day or night, to bring this list to
the attention of the world. Banning your opponents arguments for any
reason is because you cannot refute. While the point here is entirely
hypothetical, the point is that your position is the same: you are not
inclined because you cannot refute and perceive a response would harm
the evolutionary view.

even though I very much appreciate your
participation in the votes.


I only vote so I can also post my reason for voting, otherwise my
participation would make no sense. I realize that my reason has no
chance of being heard outside this medium, but like I said: I wouldn't
hesitate if our roles were reversed. When my paper is released I will
be actively looking for debates to post on my own website forever so
the world can see how evolution fails.


Just for fun, I will also note a second problem: you refer to "*the*
Creationist-ID response".   As I am sure you are aware, there is
no such thing as THE C-ID position.  There are almost as many
creationist positions as there are creationists.


While you do have a valid point per se, Creationism-ID does have a
small core of undisputed common denominator beliefs:

1. God is the Creator and Designer.

2. Design and organized complexity correspond to His invisible
attributes: power, mind and intelligence. Causation is Divine and not
material.

3. Evolution, Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution is Atheist
ideology packaged as "science" and has been refuted in a great number
of ways repeatedly.


We evolutionists on the other hand stick pretty closely to the
official party line, because (I suggest) that line is constrained by
observational evidence.  

What "party line"?

Dawkins or Gould or Mayr?

Are you aware of the fact that how evolution proceeds is hotly
disputed - still?

Are you aware over at Pandas Thumb a poll was conducted which asked
'who's version of evolution do you subscribe to - Dawkins or Gould?'
Dawkins won in a landslide, but Gould was a major scientist, which
tells us that just like Creationists-ID, evolutionists are divided. Of
course Dana Tweedy will now pull one of his stunts and assert that
there is no dispute between Dawkins and Gould; that black is white and
wet is dry. Anyone can google around and see that there are major
disputes between major evolutionists.


The reason (I suggest) that there are
so many C-ID positions, is that you folks are largely unconstrained
by much of anything, and so can (and do) just make stuff up.


There isn't any evidence for evolution - none. This is why you refuse
in principle to post responses while I would jump at the opportunity
and expose the hollow horse of evolution.

Given that scripture can reasonably be interpreted in many different
ways, I hope you will begin considering the possibility that it can be
read in a way that is consistent with the other observational
evidence that God has left us.

Double agency.

Evolution says the Bible is false and that God did not create reality.
If evolution presupposed the presupposition seen in your comment above
then all of the Atheists in this Group and Dawkins and Gould and Mayr
would not be evolutionists. They are evolutionists because it claims
to disprove the Bible and Creationism. Your comment above concedes the
need to camoflauge the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.

This is essentially the same position
that Augustine and Aquinas (via VBM) are urging on you.


Quote mining hardcore Creationists is a very bad idea and supports the
fact that evolution is Atheist ideology with no evidence in existence
to support its claims.


Cordially;

 Friar Broccoli
 Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada  Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
 Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com

 --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Watchermaker is Watching
    ... Dawkins says that Darwin was "the founder of really everything ... evolution, the very first time they appear. ... despise so-called scientific creationists equally, ... You are quote mining or, more likely, the creationist ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chez Watt Vote 03APR06
    ... Creationists Maths Catagory: ... Equal Opportunity Nomination: ... Every single quote that speaks against evolution is ... ... Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Horizon: A War on Science
    ... He concentrated more on the Creationists and their belief in ... do show that evolution is the most likely way things develop. ... >> When someone makes astonishing claims isn't it normal to be astonished ... > Yes and this astonishment shows all over Dawkins' face and, imho, hurts ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: bats flew before echolocation
    ... What "quality conflicting evidence"? ... there is no evidence that the first humans were "ultra ... Creationists have always disagreed with one another, ... Evolution, however is quite true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Watchermaker is Watching
    ... evolution, the very first time they appear. ... Darwin and Dawkins in the same post. ... despise so-called scientific creationists equally, ... You are quote mining or, more likely, the creationist ...
    (talk.origins)