 Not sure about you but 666 comes to mind! |
Christian Creationism Exhibit at Tulsa Zoo a Top Priority for Mayoral Candidate – FOXNews.com — Yes, with war, swine flu, economic meltdown all in play, this idiotic exhibit is TOP priority. What is wrong with this woman?
A mayoral candidate in Tulsa, Okla., is reportedly putting a Christian creationism exhibit in the Tulsa Zoo among her top priorities, along with addressing crime and budget issues. Republican Anna Falling says the people of Tulsa must recognize that God needs to be honored in the city, Tusla World reported. “If we can’t come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come,” she told the paper. As part of that effort, Falling has resurrected a failed push for an exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo that would tell the Genesis story of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh, originally proposed by Christian activist Dan Hicks in 2005
#79 Wretched Gnu is not Unix
He’s not a closet liberal, he was outed a long time ago.
Creationism or Evolution are equally misguided efforts at explaining how we came to be. The powers of change are magnificent and obviously follow some very clearly defined rules, otherwise something as big as the universe couldn’t possibly come into being – if it were even a little imperfect and you multiplied that imperfection to near infinity… Structure on the other hand doesn’t necessarily denote intention or design. The scientist sees what he doesn’t understand and percieves ‘chaos’, a religous persons sees what he doesn’t understand and percieves ‘god’, two different flavours of the same ignorance, your symbols are ineffective.
#59 Bobbo,
I might suggest that your capacity to interpret what I wrote is your problem, but I know you understand my meaning. You disagree, that’s ok. But in order to learn something it’s better to make the effort in understanding, than to simply suggest it’s drunken confusion. Just because you think you got a handle on something doesn’t make it true. I make a meager effort to share my opinion, poor contribution as it is, and I know I’m just farting in the wind with this group, or I probrably wouldn’t participate at all.
#83–amodedoma==you don’t see any direct and implied contradictions in your short post #54?
Has the same ambiguous floating meaningless gestalt as your post #82.
You used to have more substance. Turn away from the poetic before you get depressed.
It’s the DU base in action. Republicans all.
#79 Clearly you don’t understand argumentation…Bertrand Russell was taking Christian premises as fact, and from them, arguing infinite regression proves them wrong.
Christians say one can regress from what is made, to its maker, and arrive at God.
Bertrand Russell accepted those premises, but pointed out, why stop at God.
Hence when I point out his “refutation” is flawed, equivocal, its not positing entities…I am taking the argument as is, and pointing out a Russell’s fallacy, using his premises…recall he accepted Christian premises…
But he left out the premise God is infinite…that’s what Christians believe.
He defined God as finite for the purpose of his refutation = equivocation…the Christian God in the Premises, is not the Russell God in his conclusion.
The Christian God is infinite, while Russell’s argument insists He is finite, and therefore can be regressed from.
Too bad informal logic is strange to you…we could have had an enlightening discourse, rather than your usual moonbat irrational barking.
# 79 Wretched Gnu
“I think I love Alfred. He is so clearly a liberal troll.”
No, no. You’ve got it all wrong. I have finally seen the light.
It is quite clear that, in matters of faith, Alfred is always right – he is never, ever wrong. That is to say that, in matters of faith, he is infallible.
It is, of course, well known that only one person in the world is infallible in matters of faith and that is the pope.
It thus follows, logically, that Alfred is the pope. Why did it take me so long to see this?
#87 A false premise, yoked with a hasty generalization, to conclude a non sequitur…
You must be proud.
Clearly your pin head has done more for you, than granting the ability to peep through a keyhole with both eyes.
It also grants you lots of room under your hat, to put this under your hat…
First the bad news:
Something is definitely preying upon your mind…
Then the good news:
It will quickly die of starvation.
#87 That’s why I should proof read…
I meant to say:
Clearly a pin head is for more than just leering through keyholes with both eyes…
Your false premise, yoked with a hasty generalization, to conclude a non sequitur, is a tour de force even for your normally brain dead postulation.
Something is definitely preying upon your mind, but not to worry, it will quickly die of starvation.
Is that better…less verbose? I think so.
#89 Alfred1
Now let me see:
I can identify my non sequitur.
I can also identify my hasty generalization.
This leaves me searching for my false premise, which can only be “It is quite clear that, in matters of faith, Alfred is always right”, since that is all that is left.
#90 Please follow the example of your head and come to the point.
Well, with 8 or 9 candidates we are certainly going to have some crazies running. Now I just have to remember not to vote for her!
Oh, Alfred. Now I understand why you keep going on about Bertrand Russell, when I never, ever made reference to him, nor do I know or care about his “regression” argument, whatever that is.
But you need to argue against what you think is Russell because you can’t deal with *my* argument.
I’ll give you one more shot.
How do you derive an “infinite God” from the intelligent design argument, which is *only* based on the following premise:
# All complex entities must have had an intelligent designer. #
If the axiom is true, then God, if he exists, must have a prior designer. Any nonsense you or the bible make up about an “infinite God” that would necessarily preclude His being created is something you are positing *outside* this axiom.
That would mean that the axiom is insufficient. Because it requires you to import this *other* premise or axiom from the Bible.
See how that works?
Wretched Gnu, the reason that many Christians are hostile to Russell is his Celestial Teapot argument which argues that the proof of burden lies with the believer, not the skeptic.
Basically believers argue that the teapot (and belief in it) is different from belief in God since is infinite and incorporeal while teapot is simply short and stout. In other words superstition vs religion.
I do think the analogy is weak (his third point) but his main argument is still strong: if the existence of God has not been disproven, it does not follow that God exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
Needless to say, this tends to make certain people froth at the mouth. I think at that point I would just throw them on the ground and shove a stick in their mouth.
#93 If you understood why, you would not have embarrassed yourself.
#94 An analogy…you and I are in NYC, but the people are gone. You believe everything evolved by chance…I say that is absurd, as in our experience, everything manifesting intelligent design had an intelligent designer.
I say its on you, you are the one special pleading, not me.
How would you prove that buildings were built rather than spontaneously formed? You might look at those buildings and then look at simpler ones and conclude that the earlier buildings led to the construction of more complicated buildings. One might argue that the buildings evolved from simpler ones even though some aspects of the skyscrapers look so complex that they couldn’t be reduced to simpler forms and still work…
#96
Another empty argument. There are many substances in a city that are not naturally occurring: concrete, steel, plastic, etc. The buildings have rivets and precise welds which could not have been placed by chance *given the substances involved*. Further, we have evidence of factories that constructed these materials which are also not naturally occurring. There is plenty of evidence of design. Furthermore, the evidence makes the idea of a single designer ridiculous.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant which in this case is the theist. You are claiming such a being exists. To support your claim, you must show us how to detect what is *and* what is not your deity. It is for this reason that the creationist claims and those of the “god is infinite” crowd fall flat.
alfred1 said ” You believe everything evolved by chance…”
I did? Wow, what else am I thinking that you’re wrong about?
I love that creationists think that Evolution says things evolve by “chance”.
Natural selection is not based on chance.
And the mutations that are candidates for selection do not come about by chance either. They each have followed a very specific causal trajectory.
Being wrong must be like crack to the “intelligent design” brainiacs. They’re addicted to it.