... man s speculations, Gabor immediately leaps to his speculations about his alleged Creator God. It s often very difficult keeping up with the manyMessage 1 of 579 , Apr 1, 2007View Source
> Leon: LOL! From the admission that "the 'origin' of 'god' isman's speculations," Gabor immediately leaps to his "speculations"
about his alleged "Creator God." It's often very difficult keeping
up with the many forms of blatant illogic of fundamentalist
creationists. He also falls back on others of his favorites here,
i.e., blatant exercises in "begging the question," i.e., assuming
his alleged "God's" existence and nature as he "speculates" about
them. Fundie Gabor's illogic gets very tangled as it feeds on
>out "gods". The Creator God proves Himself by the facts of the
> Professor Leon try to be more focused please. Men speculate
existing world or worlds. Rational, sane thinking can see all those
evidences, in addition to His verbal revelation which is the
> False "science" is cornered at once when the problem of ORIGIN
>from the evo camp.
> So here is one of the questions of ORIGIN,
> fatal to evolutionism. I keep asking it and there is no answer
MATT: No a god does not prove herself at all there are only words in
a book. The facts of the existing world? Bullshit. So you would look
at The Grand Canyon for example and say wow look at what a god did.
You truly are delusional. There is no such thing as evolutionISM
there is biology. You get answers all the time. Wake up instead of
ignoring them. ;-)))))
... about ... the ... put ... A thousand year hence you will be dead, as will I and nothing we have written will even be remembered, but the Book you speakMessage 579 of 579 , May 30, 2007View Source--- In creation_evolution_ debate@yahoogrou ps.com, "ochs_matt"
> Prof. of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@ >wrote:
> > <mochs@> wrote:teaching which is understood by unaided
> > >
> > > > Timothy E.K.(partial)
> > > > The Trinity is not a
> > humanreason. One believes in the Trinity or one does not so believe,
> > >
> > > is not a teaching which is rational or can be reduced to
> > > rational terms.story (the original source of which I have not be
> > > > There is a
> > ableabout
> > > to find) about Augustine walking on the beach and thinking
> > thehole in the sand and
> > > Trinity. He notices a boy who has dug a
> > boyperhaps Augustine thinks) the boy is trying to
> > > indicates (or
> > thethat he
> > > > sea in the little hole. Augstine suddenly understands
> > canthe boy can put the sea in
> > > no more understand the Trinity than
> theremember this story when one treats the
> > > hole.It is useful to
> > subject.thank you, I really appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > Gabor:
> > > > Brilliant Timothy,
> > > > It is also the onlylogical, reasonable approach to the
> > infinitelygreat Creator God.
> > >
> > > > If we would understand all Hisgreatness we would be equal to
> > Him.impossibility.
> > > An
> > >no evidence for the trinity.
> > > MATT: No it isn't. There is
> >you mean by evidence. There is indeed no
> > That depends on what
> > evidence for the Trinityas evidence is understood in MNS.
> > Timothy E.
> >indeed no evidence for
> > Leon: Yeah right, Timothy. There is also
> tooth fairies as evidence is understood inMNS.
> MATT: Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. What do you think I mean by
> Tim? What alternative, other evidence do you see outside ofscience
> Tim? That is, other than alleged testimonials in a piss-poorbook?
> Could your evidence be being in a state of AWE ofCOMPLEXITY?! ?!
>A thousand year hence you will be dead, as will I and nothing we have
written will even be remembered, but the Book you speak will still be
read and studied.
Timothy E. KennellyLeon: The same is probably true of _Mein Kamph_ and Grimm's fairy tales. This doesn't make any of them necessarily valid or true. The same holds for your beloved Plato, Timothy. Must practically all devotees of the "Book" also be devotees of such blatant illogic and such lousy and inept analogies?