Creation vs. Evolution

[Cross Reference]

Preaching and quoting Bible verses doesn't work on me. You could try throwing monkey bones or casting an hex but that won't work either I'm afraid.

Have you got Google in your neck of the woods? Just type in "The No True Scotsman Fallacy" and read. It is the exact Logical Fallacy you are engaged in. And it's not difficult to understand.

re in yellow:

That is because you have allowed your mind to snap shut to the reality of life as it is, tragic, preferring rather to ignore what good you experience in your own life as being of something higher than you are willing to yield to by believing a falseness of it all __ made especially easy to except when times are pleasant. We learn by antagonism. In WW1 there was a very true saying: "There are no atheist's in foxholes".

 

[Cross Reference]

Oh do tell.

Can you please explain how you have come to this "brilliant" conclusion?

Do you think "being accurate" is a "false religion"?

As with atheism, evolution must be a false religion because it is not of any proven facts that would make faith unnecessary. Of course, you will deny that, but, even that requires faith.

 

[Cross Reference]

:chuckle:

OK, and the irony meter has now been pegged into the red.

:chuckle:

You cannot make this stuff up, folks.

You are simply a "talking head". Of course you have always known that and needed only someone to explain it using those words. There is no life in you.

 

[Cross Reference]

Preaching and quoting Bible verses doesn't work on me. You could try throwing monkey bones or casting an hex but that won't work either I'm afraid.

Have you got Google in your neck of the woods? Just type in "The No True Scotsman Fallacy" and read. It is the exact Logical Fallacy you are engaged in. And it's not difficult to understand.

Perhaps not difficult to understand but, to except the logic is another issue, isn't it? I believe that is the challenge before us, regardless of what we read with by those who make the attempt to persuade to their perspective __ even mine.

 

[DavisBJ]

In Yellow:

I have had seven such surgeries, all relating to the removal of my prostate. I can assure you that whatever you have etched in stone about it, isn't.

My info was not etched in stone, and obviously I have no detailed knowledge about your particular experience with prostate problems, but since you allude to having had “seven such surgeries, all relating to the removal of my prostate”, and you only have (had) one prostate, then I am left wondering what your surgeries actually were for, and how typical they were.

From a book by Dr Patrick Walsh – “Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer” copyright 2001. Page 206:

“Never underestimate prostate cancer, it is a formidable adversary. … a cancerous prostate has, on average, seven separate tumors growing inside it. Thus, to cure the disease, we can’t just take out a few of these spots of cancer, we must eliminate the entire prostate. If cancer is confined to the prostate, there is no better way to cure it than radical prostatectomy. <Total surgical removal of the prostate>.

Michael briefly mentioned early in this thread that his prostate had been surgically removed a few years ago.

If you had seven surgeries, you clearly did not have a radical prostatectomy.

Romans 7 re the "law of the flesh", lives on necessitating a warfare as Paul speaks of it with victory found in Romans 8:1,2.

And this has what to do with prostate?

 

[noguru]

evolution must be a false religion because it is not of any proven facts that would make faith unnecessary. Of course, you will deny that, but, even that requires faith.

You are not even accurate in what you think evolution is. When I try to show you the accurate model you ignore the correction. If you are not accurate in what you think evolution is, then you cannot possibly have an effective strategy to gauge it veracity.

None of this requires faith. It requires being accurate and/or utilizing an effective methodology.

At any rate, you still have not supported your claim that my "desire to be accurate" is a "false religion".

 

[noguru]

You are simply a "talking head". Of course you have always known that and needed only someone to explain it using those words. There is no life in you.

You are simply a "talking head" also. But the thing that separates us is that my words are accurate, your words are inaccurate.

 

[Cross Reference]

My info was not etched in stone, and obviously I have no detailed knowledge about your particular experience with prostate problems, but since you allude to having had “seven such surgeries, all relating to the removal of my prostate”, and you only have (had) one prostate, then I am left wondering what your surgeries actually were for, and how typical they were.

From a book by Dr Patrick Walsh – “Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer” copyright 2001. Page 206:


Michael briefly mentioned early in this thread that his prostate had been surgically removed a few years ago.

If you had seven surgeries, you clearly did not have a radical prostatectomy.

And this has what to do with prostate?

I understand however, I clearly did have a radical. My 7 were because of complications due to the doctor I chose that by his poor judgment ultimately led to me needing a urinary prosthesis because scar tissue is not muscle tissue. Nor can it ever be that I might regain control.. [that last bit is for our friends in the evolution camp] All else remains the same when blood flow is normal which, my case is rare, requiring an additional prosthesis I chose not to have performed.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[noguru]

Perhaps not difficult to understand but, to except the logic is another issue, isn't it? I believe that is the challenge before us, regardless of what we read with by those who make the attempt to persuade to their perspective __ even mine.

:chuckle:

The problem with trying to persuade using your strategy is that using inaccuracy is not a good way to persuade. And if you were to actually get more accurate, then your argument would lose all its force.

 

[Cross Reference]

:chuckle:

The problem with trying to persuade using your strategy is that using inaccuracy is not a good way to persuade. And if you were to actually get more accurate, then your argument would lose all its force.

Like yours? Don't make me laugh.

 

[noguru]

I understand however, I clearly did have a radical. My 7 were because of complications due to the doctor I chose that by his poor judgment ultimately led to me needing a urinary prosthesis because scar tissue is not muscle tissue. Nor can it ever be that I might regain control.. [that last bit is for our friends in the evolution camp] All else remains the same when blood flow is normal which, my case is rare, requiring an additional prosthesis I chose not to have performed.

I hope that clears things up.

:chuckle:

You are an idiot. You do not clear anything up. You just talk rubbish.

I could care less about the state of your prostate and urinary tract. But I do see you used this as another opportunity to introduce an inaccuracy regarding evolution.

 

[noguru]

Like yours? Don't make me laugh.

It is real easy to talk, ha?

Put your model on the table.

The current model is out there for analysis. If you believe your model is more accurate, put your money where your mouth is and place it under the same rigorous light of scrutiny. If not, then just shut up and go back under your rock and admit to being the wimpy little weasely coward you have been so far.

Show me where I have been inaccurate. I have showed where you have been.

 

[Cross Reference]

It is real easy to talk, ha?

Put your model on the table.

The current model is out there for analysis. If you believe your model is more accurate, put your money where your mouth is and place it under the same rigorous light of scrutiny. If not, then just shut up and go back under your rock and admit to being the wimpy little weasely coward you have been so far.

Show me where I have been inaccurate. I have showed where you have been.

Getting more desperate, are you??

Why not you telling us all what your so-called model says about the inability of evolution that it has no effect on curing common cold? How about the thousands of parts of the eyeball that sprang into existence on their own? Why there are no and have never been any evolution transitions found?

Go for it! Begin where you feel you are the most comfortable. ____ I'll try not to laugh.

 

[DavisBJ]

I understand however, I clearly did have a radical. My 7 were because of complications due to the doctor I chose that by his poor judgment ultimately led to me needing a urinary prosthesis because scar tissue is not muscle tissue. Nor can it ever be that I might regain control.. [that last bit is for our friends in the evolution camp] All else remains the same when blood flow is normal which, my case is rare, requiring an additional prosthesis I chose not to have performed.

I hope that clears things up.

No, that muddies things. I am aware that prostate issues can lead to urinary problems, but in my comments about Michael, I was alluding to what is politely referred to now as “ED”. Again, referring to a book, this one by Sheldon Marks, MD, “Prostate and Cancer”, 1999:

25% to 50% of the men who undergo radiation therapy will become impotent. <This is referring to external beam radiation>

… <Referring to radiation seeds implanted> Up to 63% of men … will have (ED)

<Referring to total prostate removal> Many time the tiny nerves that transmit messages … can be cut or damaged … there will be (ED) <because those nerves are routed right on the surface of the prostate>

So, ED is commonly associated with total prostate removal. Isn’t that what I initially said?

 

[Cross Reference]

No, that muddies things. I am aware that prostate issues can lead to urinary problems, but in my comments about Michael, I was alluding to what is politely referred to now as “ED”. Again, referring to a book, this one by Sheldon Marks, MD, “Prostate and Cancer”, 1999:

So, ED is commonly associated with total prostate removal. Isn’t that what I initially said?

AND THAT IS WHAT I ADDRESSED!!!

 

[patrick jane]

so much for evolution -

 

[noguru]

so much for evolution -

:chuckle:

Evolution happens. Even if some want to claim there is some yet undiscovered barrier between micro and macro evolution. To deny evolution is to hide from reality. And the inability to isolate a mechanism that stops micro evolution from becoming macro evolution is well, the inability to isolate that mechanism.

 

[noguru]

AND THAT IS WHAT I ADDRESSED!!!

:chuckle:

Who cares?

Your experience, as much as you hide from realities, certainly does nothing to vindicate Michael in his tendency to deny reality.

:chuckle:

You guys are too much sometimes. Just who do you think you are fooling?

 

[noguru]

Getting more desperate, are you??

Why not you telling us all what your so-called model says about the inability of evolution that it has no effect on curing common cold? How about the thousands of parts of the eyeball that sprang into existence on their own? Why there are no and have never been any evolution transitions found?

Go for it! Begin where you feel you are the most comfortable. ____ I'll try not to laugh.

I am not desperate. The current model is out there should you have the sincere interest in accurately understanding it. But you are not sincere.

The common cold is not evidence against evolution. Are you really this stupid?

Should we just uncritically accept your claim that the common cold is the result of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

We have lots of transitional species. For which two kingdoms, classes, orders, families, genus do you want to see the intermediate form(s)?

 

[DavisBJ]

AND THAT IS WHAT I ADDRESSED!!!

You often resort to yelling?

Here is what I initially said that you seem to have an issue with:

It is far from being a medical secret that one very common effect of prostate removal (or radiation) is that the nerves that are essential for a male to perform as a “male” in reproduction are almost always seriously damaged.

That sure sounds like about what Dr. Marks said in his book.

Now what is the burr in your saddle?