MWF
That's because the idea has never been "abandoned", except in the
minds of fundy creationists.
> I guess you still don't know how to answer the old but still valid
> arguments creationists have pointed out all along.
MWF
There are no valid creationist arguments, they are all old, and most
of them were abandoned BEFORE Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species"
> The fact that their
> objections are STILL both valid and sound shows how weak a position
> Evolutionists come from.
MWF
See above
> In 20 years they still haven't been able to
> come up with a plausible story
MWF
Their "story" is more than just plausible. You just don't know, and
obviously have no intent of learning, what "the story" really is.
It's easy to scoff from ignorance, just don't expect anyone with a
shred of education to take you seriously.
> and no wonder - "Professing to be wise they became fools."
MWF
I'd say "pot, kettle, black" but only one of us appears to be
laboring from a position of abject ignorance while claiming to possess
universal absolute knowledge.
>
> I'm sorry but I really don't have time to read the drubble books you
> propose.
MWF
Bullshit.
>They don't say anything.
MWF
They say plenty. Of course they do require more than a grade school
level of literacy to understand.
> And their perspective comes from
> nothing "Professing to be wise they became fools"...
MWF
Now you're repeating yourself inappropriately.
>
> If you want to read an honest book, filled with integrity, try DR. A.E.
> Wilder Smith's "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution."
MWF
Their are no honest, competent, intelligent creationists.
I've read Morris, Gish, Phillip Johnson, and even Hugh Ross.
How many times does Smith refer to Morris, Gish, Ross, or other
creationist wackos as authority in his book? If he does so even once, then
he is as much a fool as his sources.
>If you
> can refute what this brilliant man says, then my hat is off to you. Let
> me just say that Carl Sagan, who is now a creationist, was afraid when
> he was alive to debate Dr. Smith because he didn't want to be made to
> look like a fool in front of all his contemporaries and having met the
> man, (Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith) personally and having had the privilege to
> sit under his teaching, I can see why.
MWF
References? I suspect either you or your source is lying.
>
> I guess it's no big deal that evolutionists lied about Java Man,
> Neandrathal man, pitifall man, peking man, lucy, and every other
> so-called missing link.
MWF
Please, references where an "evolutionist" told a "lie" about any of
the above.
A lie is making an assertion which is intended to deceive. Show me
an "evolutionist" lie.
>It was a long time ago...hey come on, that's an
> old argument. It's no longer valid. Can you say Fallacy of question
> begging definition ? To define an argument as invalid only because it is
> old is an error in reasoning. One must look at the argument itself.
MWF
Were those last two sentences intended to communicate something? If
so, what?
> Based on the shady and outright falsification practices of evolutionists
> in this century, who with a discerning eye will ever be able to trust
> their integrity.....their honesty....it doesn't exist.
MWF
Please document the alleged falsifications, or stand accused and
convicted of being a lier yourself.
<pure ad hominem abusive snipped>
>
> Mr. Fisher, it is common knowledge that these hoaxes were perpetrated
> on a trusting public but to date, why have these deliberate hoaxes been
> glossed over but never officially recanted?
MWF
Once again, documentation please or stand accused and convicted of
being that which you accuse others of being.
>Your cavalier attitude
> towards these issues is downright laughable if it weren't for the fact
> that the destiny of your eternal soul is at stake.
MWF
Please prove that the word "soul" describes anything with an
existence other than an abstraction of language.
<verbal noise snipped>
<more ad hominem abusive snipped>
>
> By the way, The Supreme Court throughout this century has had the 10
> Commandments on their wall and if society followed them, there would be
> no need for police officers, lawyers, nor any other type of criminal
> agency. You say not so - but- I do say - SO!
MWF
Most lawyers do not practice criminal law; it is a very small part
of the field of law.
>If everyone followed just one of the Commandments,
> say commandment number 9, "You shall not bear false witness against your
> neighbor." This means we shall not lie against others. If we always told
> the truth in our dealings with others where would it be necessary to draw
> up contracts and the like.
MWF
Oh, when corporation A makes a deal with corporation B involving
complex deals.
I could go on at length, but contracts is a two semester graduate
level course, and I'm not sure you're even ready for high school yet.
>A mans word would be his bond. By the way Mr.
> Fisher, it wasn't that long ago that things were like that.
MWF
Ignorant of history also Mr. Magill is.
Tell me, who were/was the main competition for the early common law
courts of the king?
>
> or if everybody followed the commandment to not Murder (#6) "You shall
> not murder"
MWF
Is self defense "murder"?
Is a battered woman who kills her abuser who has been pursuing her
committing murder? Is it murder when the state orders you kill someone?
> in conjunction with (#8) "You shall not steal"
MWF
What if you thought the property was abandoned? What if you add
substantial value to the property while it is your possession?
Is deceptive selling "stealing"? The old common law courts, heavily
influenced by the church thought not, what do you think? Can you justify it
biblically?
>in
> conjunction with (#7) " You shall not commit adultery,
MWF
If your spouse is in a permanent coma, can you commit adultery? What
if s/he leaves you? Does a merely civil divorce protect you? What of
fornication? Sex activity short of fornication? Does oral sex count?
>in conjunction
> with (#10) You shall not covet anything of thy neighbor's including his
> wife or his goods.
MWF
Does that mean its okay to covet someone's wife so long as we're not
neighbors? Is what is not proscribed, permitted?
> If these 4 simple commandments were obeyed by
> everyone on planet earth, there would be no crime. We could literally
> empty out our federal prisons today and no longer utilize the death
> penalaty.
MWF
Uh huh. And how would you enforce your rights where there is an
honest disagreement?
> <pointless noise snipped>
>
>
> Laws are only necessary for law breakers Mr. Fisher who do not operate
> out of God's principle of unselfish, unconditional, (AGAPE) love.
MWF
Really? What's the biblical convention for when an offer and
acceptance occur in a transaction by mail?
Where does the bile discuss easements, profits, and whether or not a
fee tail is a valid form of property ownership? Where does it discuss
reversionary interests? When does a benefit under a will vest, biblically
speaking?
<more ranting snipped>
>
> Back to evolution, or I should rightfully call it devilution.
> When your system of belief is so interwoven with lies,
MWF
Again, please document willful untruths told to deceive by
"evolutionists", or stand accused and convicted being that which you accuse
others of being.
> no wonder you are
> unable to weigh worthy argument and give it the credit it is due.
MWF
Actually, personal experience suggests I am not just able, but
extremely capable at "weighing" arguments and assigning such credit as is
due.
> Nothing has changed in terms of evidence to give even a reasonable
> argument for accepting the fairy tale of devilution. For scintists to
> come forward and admit their deliberate lies and deceptions in the
> devilutionary field would be to sign it's and their death warrant.
MWF
Again, please document willful untruths told to deceive by
"evolutionists", or stand accused and convicted being that which you accuse
others of being.
> Science would never be trusted again so instead of coming clean, they
> now operate in the shadows MR. Fisher and you are as duped as the rest.
MWF
Again, please document willful untruths told to deceive by
"evolutionists", or stand accused and convicted being that which you accuse
others of being.
<incoherent rant snipped>
<unsupported superstitious assertion sniped>
<pointless "testimony" snipped>
>
> You believe that some non-explainable force or whatever caused all that
> is in the universe as we know it through the mechanism of random chance
> and chaos.
MWF
Wrong.
I don't know WHAT "caused" the universe, or even that a "cause" was
or was not required.
You are the one, who in a complete absence of any evidence, proclaim
that you none the less know for certain what happened.
>
> Your uncaused cause is chaos. My uncaused cause is God.
MWF
I have no uncaused cause. See above.
>
> Your faith is believing in the possible nothingness that somehow
> unexplainably brought about somethingness- this can be defined as
> religion.
MWF
Again, see above. In the absence of evidence, I refuse to "believe"
anything.
<more inchoate "testifying" snipped>
>
> You believe that matter, gases, molecules, atoms, the building blocks of
> life, etc. somehow always existed from eternity past
MWF
See above. I don't know where it came from.
I just admit I don't know instead of making up a fantasy pal to
"explain" it all.
>and somehow one day
> or over many days somehow got together to form life. you believe that
> chaos is capable of creating order all by itself.
MWF
I believe you don't understand the first thing about any field of
science at all, nor math, nor apparently logic. If you do, you hide it very
well, so well in fact you appear to be totally ignorant.
>You believe that
> random chance and probability if given enough time can cause order. You
> essentially believe that life can come from non-life.
MWF
Like I said, totally ignorant.
> <more incoherent ranting snipped>
> My critical question to you is where did any of the stuff that makes up
> the universe come from?
MWF
I don't know.
>Did it create itself?
MWF
I don't know, but I see no evidence that it did so.
> I would appreciate an
> honest answer to this question.
MWF
Given.
> I've already stated that I believe by
> faith that God has always existed?
MWF
Why?
>
> Do you believe by faith that matter has always existed?
MWF
No.
>And do you
> believe by faith that life can come from non-life through a mechanism
> called random chance?
MWF
No.
> <ad hominem snipped>
Ciao.
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
==================================================================== For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.