Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[Wolf]

The only worthwhile point to which I have yet to respond is the one recently posted by MrFlibble.  And indeed, I intend to respond to it.

Are you serious? Hwi, are you the most shamelessly hostile and condescending person who's ever lived, or are you just a frakking idiot? I'm going to go with the latter, because at least that might be corrected: don't you remember when multiple people on this forum variously pointed out to you that you ignored the two damning objections I had to ID? That anyone had with ID that you couldn't answer? Did you even notice, or did you even go so far as to ignore the fact that others realized you were ignoring things? Remember this?

Hwi, small question, do you even consider replying to responses you don't have an inmediate anwer to? All I'm seeing is that you selectively respond to people solely on the base of whether you have a counter for that..

if it's too hard, you simply ignore the man and continue on to the next unfortunate.

I know you saw them, so, again, you are either an idiot, or an extremely, extremely pathetic little person. This is all off-topic now, but it can't get back on-topic until you actually make an effort an answer those points. Or concede the argument and walk away like a decent human being, if you can.

I'm sorry to the rest of you that this is so hostile, but the fact that she's actually saying that she's "addressed" everything when it's as plain as day to so many of us that she hasn't is just so, so offensive. I'm not going to let her get away with it, and neither should you all, either.

[chatfsh]

Eeeeasy now, Wolf.  You seem to be getting a bit worked up there.  Why any second now you might start making threats about how you're going to leave this thread for good!  Oh, wait

[Dunenewt]

Hwi, they have a point though, you do ignore valid arguments.

[Wolf]

Hwi: I'll take that post as an admission that you are comfortable with the fact that you've objectively demonstrated that you are a liar.

Dunenewt: It's not just that she ignores them, it's that she ignores them and says things like:

The only worthwhile point to which I have yet to respond is the one recently posted by MrFlibble.  And indeed, I intend to respond to it.

Perhaps the realization that ID is logically untenable doesn't fall within the definition of "worthwhile" for her. I'd love to take a poll of the forum and see who thinks/doesn't think the objections-that-she-ignored were "worthwhile" points or not.

EDIT: PS, Hwi, that's a great way to respond to the charge of petty-minded condescension. You have a lot of friends, right?

[SandChigger]

*Yawn*

Right back at you, sister.

Pick and choose, choose and pick, lovely cherries, pick them as you will on whim!

I kept thinking earlier there was something else that needed to be added to my list, and as I was driving down to the office, listening to the CoD soundtrack, my cellphone rang and I remembered what it was:

You seem to have no trouble accepting the results and discoveries of Science and its methods as they have been applied in the creation of the technological accoutrements and conveniences of daily life in our so-called modern world. Yet when that same Science uses those same methods to investigate subjects already claimed by your millennia-worn beliefs and superstitions, you reject the results. Again, you cherry-pick what you accept and what you reject. You talk the talk, but stumble in the walk.

In another thread just now I posted that I was raised a "Christian". One of the reasons I lost faith in the human side of the Church was years of watching too many self-proclaimed "good Christian" people saying one thing while doing another. There's a word for people like that, isn't there? Hypocrite?

[MrFlibble]

The only worthwhile point to which I have yet to respond is the one recently posted by MrFlibble.  And indeed, I intend to respond to it.

Oh, finally I get some attention! ;D :D

[Dunenewt]

Right back at you, sister.

Pick and choose, choose and pick, lovely cherries, pick them as you will on whim!

I kept thinking earlier there was something else that needed to be added to my list, and as I was driving down to the office, listening to the CoD soundtrack, my cellphone rang and I remembered what it was:

You seem to have no trouble accepting the results and discoveries of Science and its methods as they have been applied in the creation of the technological accoutrements and conveniences of daily life in our so-called modern world. Yet when that same Science uses those same methods to investigate subjects already claimed by your millennia-worn beliefs and superstitions, you reject the results. Again, you cherry-pick what you accept and what you reject. You talk the talk, but stumble in the walk.

In another thread just now I posted that I was raised a "Christian". One of the reasons I lost faith in the human side of the Church was years of watching too many self-proclaimed "good Christian" people saying one thing while doing another. There's a word for people like that, isn't there? Hypocrite?

I believe the correct word is...politician.

[arnoldo]

On what basis are you assuming that the Christans who support  ID are heretics, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe? . . .

The fact is the bible does not teach that the earth is 6000 years old, is flat or any other nonsense.  Yet, people will emphatically state that it does without even bothering to read what the bible says in the first place.  While other ancient cultures described the earth riding upon a turtle or some other nonsense the bible states that the earth is held upon nothing.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Reading is fundamental  ;)

[athanasios]

In another thread just now I posted that I was raised a "Christian". One of the reasons I lost faith in the human side of the Church was years of watching too many self-proclaimed "good Christian" people saying one thing while doing another. There's a word for people like that, isn't there? Hypocrite?

> Jesus, whom you seem to ridicule, named them so.

> The wrong acts of others are not an excuse for throwing (y)our values to the dustbin.

> Good words impress me not. "Works" not "Words"!

[SandChigger]

Yet, people will emphatically state that it does without even bothering to read what the bible says in the first place.

Are you claiming now to know who has and has not read the Bible? Are you God now, arnoldo? I have read it. Quite a bit of it in the original languages, as a matter of fact. Have you?

While other ancient cultures described the earth riding upon a turtle or some other nonsense the bible states that the earth is held upon nothing.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Um ... huh? Irrelevant arnoldo twaddle, as usual. (No new tricks, arny?)

Reading is fundamental  ;)

Yes, I have heard that before. And posted it quite frequently. I look forward to the day when you finally learn to read.  ::)

> Jesus, whom you seem to ridicule, named them so.

I don't ridicule the backwoods Jewish preacher (was he even a rabbi?) who wanted to reform the excesses of his religion. (His end-of-the-world stuff was a bit silly, obviously, since we're still here two millennia and counting later.) But I have nothing but contempt for the idiots who would make a man into a god.

Not sure what you're trying to say with the last. Did "Jesus" (since we don't know the exact form of his name in Hebrew/Aramaic) actually give his followers a name? Is that what you're saying?

> The wrong acts of others are not an excuse for throwing (y)our values to the dustbin.

WTF? I never threw MY values away. I rejected a belief system that THE HYPOCRITES had already rejected, as shown by their actions.

> Good words impress me not. "Works" not "Words"!

News break: "Jesus" is dead. He's impressed by neither.

Now, wasn't Heretical Hwi supposed to address MrFlibble's concerns here? I guess she's too busy with "real" life? Or with quote mining an answer somewhere?

[Wolf]

Not sure what you're trying to say with the last. Did "Jesus" (since we don't know the exact form of his name in Hebrew/Aramaic) actually give his followers a name? Is that what you're saying?

I think it's "Yeshua Ha-Notsri," but you're the linguist. You figure it out. Pretty sure that "Jesus" is a variation of "Joshua," though.

[SandChigger]

Yeah, I've used Yeshua ben-Yoseph ha-Notsri before myself. And, yep, it's a variant of Joshua (Yehoshua).

In those days you couldn't throw a stick into a crowd without hitting a Jesus/Joshua.

[Wolf]

The Romans certainly couldn't.

(Just so you all know, I know that this is terrible in advance. Therefore, my apologies in advance.)

[chatfsh]

Oh, finally I get some attention! ;D :D

MrFlibble, my apologies for the delay but it could not be helped.  I

[chatfsh]

His end-of-the-world stuff was a bit silly, obviously, since we're still here two millennia and counting later.)

(While I am pleased with the turn that the discussion has taken, perhaps a new thread should be started. Edric?)

SandChigger, given that you are well acquainted with the Bible, you should be familiar with the passages where Christ indicated that his physical return would appear to be delayed or a long time in coming.  Matthew chapter 25 contains at least two parables (the Ten Virgins and the Talents) where Jesus makes this point.  In the first parable, Jesus plainly states,

[MrFlibble]

The problem here is that most people do not see the 'purely naturalistic mechanism

[athanasios]

Did "Jesus" actually give his followers a name? Is that what you're saying?...

No, I was referring to

... THE HYPOCRITES

[SandChigger]

[snip]

Bravo, Hwi, for yet again cherry-picking one insignificant point to focus on.  ::)

But no matter. Rabbi Yeshua never "indicated" or "clearly stated", etc., <b>anything</b>, since he either never wrote anything down himself or nothing he wrote has survived (or been allowed to?). And the Gospels and Paul's crap were written long enough after the fact that people were probably already asking when he was coming back and why hadn't the world ended and Rome been overthrown yet. (Especially if that bit about "some of them that stand here shall not taste of death" is based on an actual quote.) Thus explaining the parables of the tardy.

More importantly, the Apostle Peter reminded us,

[Wolf]

Pharisee, you have your reward!

Classic.

Hwi: I have no problem returning to this thread to remind you, and everyone else, that you have ignored major, major issues that we--as a group--have brought up against ID. Given that your "issue" with naturalistic origin of life theories is that they "ignore" certain points that you feel are important, this sort of self-righteous hypocrisy of yours is truly offensive. I have no problem returning to this thread to point that out, too. As long as you continue to state such bald-faced lies like, "I have answered every point" and "I have proven beyond a doubt that ID is correct," I also have no problem returning to remind the group of the factual inaccuracies of your statements. I am not debating you until you answer those points. (Pages 2, and I think 5?)

On a final note, did it ever strike you that you might be exactly the kind of person that Christ feared might one day bear his word? You know, the arrogant and self-righteous types? Though Mr. Chigglesworth might disagree, I actually value Christ's teachings regarding humility and honesty. Why don't you? Why not admit that you have problems you can't answer? Why start every thread with attacks as opposed to honest questions? I mean, for Guess-Who's Sake, your yourself list the #1 objective of ID theory as "prove evolution wrong!" These all strike me as very un-Christian things. But, I suppose this digression belongs in the other thread...

[chatfsh]

But no matter. Rabbi Yeshua never "indicated" or "clearly stated", etc., <b>anything</b>, since he either never wrote anything down himself or nothing he wrote has survived (or been allowed to?).

True, but are you going to discredit all words attributed to historical figures, as penned  by eyewitnesses, simply because the speaker did not write down the words himself?  Regarding the Gospels, the books of Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts written directly by two of Jesus

[Dunenewt]

Sorry, but I

[SandChigger]

True, but are you going to discredit all words attributed to historical figures, as penned  by eyewitnesses, simply because the speaker did not write down the words himself?

That depends on who the "eyewitness" is, the certainty concerning their identity, and whether their account is consistent with those of others.

Regarding the Gospels, the books of Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts written directly by two of Jesus

[athanasios]

That depends on who the "eyewitness" is, the certainty concerning their identity, and whether their account is consistent with those of others.

I can confidently state that Socrates is a myth of Plato. Plato was a great philosopher and not an illiterate-like Peter and other Jesus' disciples so the image of Socrates as found in his writings (like Jesus, Socrates wrote nothing himself) has nothing to do with the real Socrates. Maybe he didn't even exist.;D

[Wolf]

(This is rapidly becoming a new thread, these posts might have to be moved.)

I want to point out that the timeframe Hwi cites actually isn't the one accepted by most scholars. Certainly, parts of the New Testament were written from 70-90 A.D., but the books we have come to know today have been modified--in some cases severely--as recently as the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., and not always in the original language (Aramaic).

The best example as to how this has affected the works, I think, is the Barabbas story. Yeah, Barabbas. Remember him? That murderer or something that the Romans threw up in front of the crowd because, supposedly, it was a tradition in Jerusalem to spare one of two prisoners on death row for each execution? (Spoiler: it isn't, and it never was--at least there's no evidence outside the Bible for it--or that this was ever a "tradition" in that part of the world.) Ignoring the obvious legal calamities which would necessarily ensue from such an unwise policy decision, I have to say that as a matter of "factual account by eyewitnesses" ... well, it isn't. It's made-up. And a linguistic analysis by a relative amateur (me) is sufficient to prove it. First of all, while there are some Roman records that point to a Yeshua that was executed in Jerusalem, there are no similar records for any person named Barabbas. Furthermore, Barabbas seems like kind of an odd name to anyone with a background in Hebrew, given that the syllable "bar" tends to mean things involving males and sons and things like that. "Abbas" is similarly weird, since it's related to "Abba," a fairly-common term in Middle Eastern and Semitic languages for referring to fathers. What's the meaning of all this? Well, "Barabbas" is a name that means "the son of the father." Weird, huh? Especially for a civilization that felt that Christ's claimant to being exactly that was a dangerous and heretical idea. I can't really see someone at that time period naming their son "the son of the Father." A little self-effacing in any case, no? No, of course not. There was no "Barabbas," and there was no second person. The crowd didn't choose to sacrifice Christ instead of Barabbas to make a point for God, there was no Barabbas in the first place. What happened is that Greek Christians were re-writing the Gospels around the 2nd century A.D. They didn't really speak Aramaic well, or at all, and wanted to do something of a translation-adaptation. What happens is that the books are a little longer, a lot of terms get changed to new meanings, and, well, this whole talk of "eyewitnesses" (I mean, since you only live to like... 30 in those times, even 70-90 A.D. was pushing it) is a little much for me.

[SandChigger]

I can confidently state that Socrates is a myth of Plato. Plato was a great philosopher and not an illiterate-like Peter and other Jesus' disciples so the image of Socrates as found in his writings (like Jesus, Socrates wrote nothing himself) has nothing to do with the real Socrates. Maybe he didn't even exist.;D

Congratulations! That's Hwi-Level Obtuse! :D

Wolf, have you read any of the speculation that Yeshua didn't actually die on the cross but was spirited away by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea, who paid off the Roman guards to say he was already dead? Amusing stuff! :)