The Tomb of Sir Richard

Doc Savage

New member
Pale Horse said:
You CH seem to argue the evolutionist side of the debate well, at least from an educated stance...
CH is very erudite. He defends his position well, and is a master of citation. He just has faulty information...;)
Pale Horse said:
(and Doc and I can be on opposite sides of that stage).
You oughtta see my newest acquisition, Thanatos. My better half got me an archaeological study bible for Christmas. With over 800 pages of study notes, I'm enthralled.
Pale Horse said:
It made me respect your position more then that of my 20 year friendship, though sometimes your retorts are a bit gritty.

I'll blame that on the language barrier. ;)
Nah, he's just a Canuck curmudgeon... (that's a joke, before all the accusations of jingoism start flying...)
 
"Clinton, are you and atheist? And if so, why?"
I guess I am... and as for why, there's no evidence to support the existance of any diety, and plenty of evidence against it...

One of the best pieces of evidence against there being any kind of 'god' is religion itself.... and the people who follow them.
 
I'll let you do it for me.... Like your silence when faced with the overwelming evidence against your 'interpretation' that there was a global flood at some point in our planets recent past.... You claim to be open-minded, but you have yet to read it, or comment on it....

Which is par-for-the-course when it comes to religious people...

On the otherhand, I've seen your so-called evidence, and was easily able to punch it so full of holes that it held no water at all...
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
I'll let you do it for me.... Like your silence when faced with the overwelming evidence against your 'interpretation' that there was a global flood at some point in our planets recent past.... You claim to be open-minded, but you have yet to read it, or comment on it....

Which is par-for-the-course when it comes to religious people...

On the otherhand, I've seen your so-called evidence, and was easily able to punch it so full of holes that it held no water at all...
Incorrect assessment...I quit posting because everybody and their mother was up in arms about the discussion. To clarify a point, CH, I have no problem discussing anything. When people decide to insult and imply rather than civlly conversate, count me out. I know no one on this forum well enough to put up with such puerile nonsense. The holes you "punched" are based on nothing more than dogged adherence to a THEORY that you've chosen to espouse...some as me. The difference is I choose to admit that mine's an issue of faith.

As to your propagandist reference to religious people, it sounds more like personal bitterness than a well-though-out statement...a surprising thing comin from you. I noticed in a post of your's on another thread a reference to astrology and Beltane...should I deride you for belief in something that you would define in me as 'belief in the invisible, intangible, and unproveable?'

I respect your adherence to, knowledge of, and iteration of your opinions, but to label anyone in the way you've chosen is nothing less than bigotry.
 
"based on nothing more than dogged adherence to a THEORY"
The difference is that theory is the one supported by all the evidence....

Your theory isn't supported in the least.

"mine's an issue of faith."
Yours HAS TO BE an issue of faith, because there's no other basis for it.

"because everybody and their mother ..."
Who cares what other people do?

"a reference to astrology and Beltane"
I'll wager it was either a joke, or a passing "well-wish" like saying Marry X-mas to people in December doesn't mean you think that some son of some non-existent deity was born 2000 odd years ago around that time of the month.... So put up the quote and I'll tell you what it meant.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Your theory isn't supported in the least.
To the contrary...it's just not the most popular. To imply a Creator would also imply accountability inherent in the created...which would blow your Randian philosophy back to Valhalla.
ClintonHammond said:
Who cares what other people do?
Interaction is contingent on civility as far as I'm concerned. Jibes, wit, etc., is all well and good...outright and obvious attacks because of a dislike of one's beliefs relegates one to the realm of Rosie O'Donnell.
ClintonHammond said:
I'll wager it was either a joke, or a passing "well-wish" like saying Marry X-mas to people in December doesn't mean you think that some son of some nonexistant diety was born 2000 odd years ago around that time of the month.... So put up a quote and I'll tell you what it mean.
It was in reference to Pale Horse's wee one being due in May. Regardless, it is the kind of reference I've seen others on this board flamed by those of a more 'intellectual' bent for.
 
"To the contrary..."
You keep saying that, but you keep NOT providing ANY evidence or support....

Which serves to make my point about religion and religious people all over again.....

" To imply a Creator would also..."
Pointless, unsupported, (Indeed, insupportable) philosophical blatherskite.... Maybe you'd be more at home in Dr. Tyree's classroom....

"outright and obvious attacks because of a dislike of one's beliefs"
For the record... I'm not attacking you... I'm attacking people LIKE you (A joke, son :p) and your beliefs.... those I am attacking, sure. That's what beliefs are for. Their only value is in how they are, how they can be defended.

For the record, astrology is the same kind of bullflop as religion... same with remote viewing and ghosts....
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
You keep saying that, but you keep NOT providing ANY evidence or support....
http://www.globalflood.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
To quote someone I know, "That'd be a good place for you to start.... That is, if you're not too close-minded..... "
ClintonHammond said:
Pointless, unsupported, (Indeed, insupportable) philosophical blatherskite.... Maybe you'd be more at home in Dr. Tyree's classroom....
No moreso than the "man as the penultimate hero" pipedream you adhere to...how much Ayn Rand have you read?
ClintonHammond said:
"outright and obvious attacks because of a dislike of one's beliefs"
For the record... I'm not attacking you... I'm attacking people LIKE you (A joke, son :p) and your beliefs.... those I am attacking, sure. That's what beliefs are for. Their only value is in how they are, how they can be defended.
And Christianity can be defended on so many fronts. It made this country preeminent in the world in a short period of time, according to Alexis de Tocqueville. It wasn't until America started embracing "man from monkeyism" under Eisenhower's administration that our civil society began to rot around the foundations.
 
"http://www.globalflood.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/"
Exactly what has already been examined and shot down.

Now it's your turn.... Go back to the LONG posts I made in the global flood thread and try, just try to even skim the surface....

"man as the penultimate hero"
Where did I ever say that?? Now you're projecting what you WANT to see onto me....

"our civil society"
Ha... America is, what it's always been....
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"http://www.globalflood.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/"
Exactly what has already been examined and shot down.
Since when?

ClintonHammond said:
Now it's your turn.... Go back to the LONG posts I made in the global flood thread and try, just try to even skim the surface....
I have looked it over...a couple of times actually...and while it's impressive, it's nothing more than citation of opinion. Exactly like the links I supplied.
ClintonHammond said:
"man as the penultimate hero"
Where did I ever say that?? Now you're projecting what you WANT to see onto me....
Sorry...you just remind me of Neal Peart in conversation...but you never answered the Rand question.
 
"you never answered the Rand question."
Because it's irrelevant.... This is not a discussion of philosophy.... Your attempts to make it so only further weaken your position.

"citation of opinion. Exactly like the links I supplied."
Ahh... but it's not like the links you provided, because not all opinion is of the same value.... Scientific consensus is on my side.... It has examined the 'evidence' that your 'side' has presented, shot it full of holes and dismissed it. It will be happy to re-examine it should your side ever come up with new, compelling evidence, but we're not holding our breath.
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Because it's irrelevant.... This is not a discussion of philosophy.... Your attempts to make it so only further weaken your position.
Actually, it was just amicable conversation...but be militant if you want...
ClintonHammond said:
Ahh... but it's not like the links you provided, because not all opinion is of the same value.... Scientific consensus is on my side.... It has examined the 'evidence' that your 'side' has presented, shot it full of holes and dismissed it. It will be happy to re-examine it should your side ever come up with new, compelling evidence, but we're not holding our breath.
'Scientific consensus' belongs to those who have the biggest mouths. Flat Earth was the consensus, geocentricity was the consensus...so forgive me if the opinion of those with an agenda fails to impress. Being lettered is rendered neutral when both sides have credentials. It, once again, comes down to interpretation of fact.
 
"Flat Earth was the consensus, geocentricity was the consensus..."
And it was the Scientific Method that taught the fallacy of both of those, and others.... Like "Young Earth"... "Global Flood".... "Hollow Earth" and a host of other things that some fringe crackpots (accredited or not) still try to espouse.

"interpretation of fact"
Not all interpretations are equally valid....
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"Flat Earth was the consensus, geocentricity was the consensus..."
And it was the Scientific Method that taught the fallacy of both of those...
And when, or if, evolution has been around as long as Flat Earth and geocentricity were, scientific method (which relies on observation; evolution has never been observed) will debunk "monkeyism" as well.
ClintonHammond said:
"interpretation of fact"
Not all interpretations are equally valid....
My point exactly...
 
"evolution has never been observed"
Man, are you ever woefully ill-informed.... Start by reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins....

Heck... even the Wiki article on Evolution'd do ya a world of good....
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Heck... even the Wiki article on Evolution'd do ya a world of good....
So you wouldn't espouse the accuracy of Wikipedia on anything else...just evolution...
 
There's nothing wrong with Wiki, as long as you, as with every other thing you read, check the sources before blindly accepting what is written on it....

It is a very useful research tool.... Especially for longs lists of sources....

But once again, you're just trying to evade.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Okay, let's see...regarding Richard Dawkins...

He was later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, though he began to feel that the customs of the Church of England were "absurd", and had more to do with dictating morals than with God.

So the Bible chafing his hide had to do with his disclaimer of God...

He has also been called "the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell" and compared to Ernst Haeckel.
You mean the guy who faked "embryonic evolution" drawings, postulating wildly the whole time, and who's work helped justify Nazism not long after? Sounds like a good comparison...

On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins generally refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.

Or would expose the flaws of his theory...

Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence."
Sounds like a wrongful conviction to me...and he makes my point for me. No one has ever seen a dog become a cat, or a watermelon turn into an ear of corn.
 
Last edited:
Quotes, taken out of context, and missing references are worthless...

"Or would expose the flaws of his theory..."
Given you won't even LOOK at his theories, that's a pretty wild assertion... It's also groundless and ignorant. Instead of reading HIS work, you paw through what other people have said about him looking for ANY detraction....

If I treated your 'opinion', your side of the discussion like that, you'd flip out.

So, I'm leaving it at this. It's really obvious to me you don't know squat about evolution, and out of fear for your fragile little 'faith' you're afraid to even look at it very closely... But you want others to be tagged as "Close-minded"... Others who have already looked closely at your 'side' and have dismissed it on many levels.

Typical, really. Thanks again, for affirming my opinion of religious people. (Not that I needed another example)
 
Top