This post has a title. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 16, 11:23:26am [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: This post has a title.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 02/ 5/02 11:28am
In reply to: ozboy 's message, "No title?????" on 02/ 3/02 2:20am

>>Remember that both creation and evolution
>>explain the similarities in life forms.
>
>>>> I'm simply not well read enough on creation to
>accept or ridicule its explination on our subject. I
>will say that I find our creation by god absurd -
>therefore any explination creation might present must
>be equally absurd.
>
>I must re-state that there is no evidence for god, but
>evolution goes on around us as well as inside us,
>every day.

To say that there is no evidence for God is a rather extreme (and unsupported) claim, as is your flat claim that the explanation I presented is absurd (since you have not provided any supporting evidence for that either).

As for God, one category of evidence is theism�s explanatory power. Nature consistently operating in mathematical patterns might be expected if a rationally orderly God created the universe, whereas there is no a priori reason to expect this from atheism. But this goes off the topic. The theory of creation (as I defined it earlier) does not by itself entail the existence of any deity.

>... as for the title of my post I suggest you ask your
>girl friend.

Alas, I don�t have one. Never have. To quote/paraphrase Mick Foley (before he got married and before he got his first girlfriend) I couldn�t get laid if I had a fistful of passes to a women�s prison.

>bewdy

What the heck does �bewdy� mean?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

I have an invisible dragon Ben 02/ 5/02 3:26pm

Interpretation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 8:17am

Getting on out there again -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 9:21am

And again. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 10:01am

Some more -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 1:14pm

And some more. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/15/02 9:24pm

Not so much more -- Damoclese, 02/23/02 5:41pm

As I see it ..... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 9:25am

A fundamental question... -- Ben, 02/ 6/02 3:09pm

A fundamental answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 7/02 6:24pm

A fundamental misconception -- Ben, 02/23/02 11:29am

Fundamental beliefs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/24/02 12:32pm

Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm

A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm

You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm

Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am

You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm

Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm

Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am

Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am

Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm

Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm

How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm

Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm

There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm

Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am

I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm

Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm

Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm

On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm

Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm

How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm

Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm

Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am

A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am

Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm

Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm

Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm

Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm

Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm

To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm
Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm

response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm

Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am

Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm

Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm

Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm

I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am

Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm

What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am

Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm

Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am

Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am

Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am

Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm

Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm

*giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm

Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm

Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm

toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm

Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am

you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm

not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am

Dream a Little Dream. ozboy 02/ 6/02 9:49am

Ok Wade, if logic........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 3:23pm