Hitchens' Death Will be Closely Watched

Would that action stop the accuser?

 

Of course not.

 

A rather vacant recommendation then, I suppose.

 

Huh? If the goal is to stop the accuser, then I guess it is.

What's your point?

 

The point is that the recommendation was rather vacant/void considering that the recommendation will not stop the accuser, but instead will only allow the accused to bury his head in the sand.

 

When I asked what your point was I kinda meant in relation to my post. But that's ok. You can of course make any point you want anywhere. I'm glad you made your point.

 

THis of course assumes that the accustion if false. It is not.

When you choose to make you honor the center piece of an arguement, do not be surprised when it becomes the center piece of an arguement. And when the evidence exists to support something .... probably best to apologize rather than jump into multiple thread with same spurious denials and then to accuse others of lying and malicious intent - repeatedly.

You tell me who the accuser is in this circumstance?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/4599697-post220.html

Pretty much says it all.

 

To set the record straight on this issue. When in my posting regarding 'stopping the accuser', my use of the word "accuser" was only in context to the same word used by another poster who suggested the use of the 'ignore' function. IMHO, the 'accuser' in this scenario is actually Stroll. Having placed an accusation against someone for what stroll considered as someone else having launched attacks against stroll. That is my opinion.

 

"The fact that all these events happened ~50,000 years ago precludes any possibility that previously existing hominids could be our ancestors, since Homo erectus died out 300,000 years ago, and Homo neanderthalensis has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor (29, 30). Where does this leave the evolutionists and their descent of man theory? Well, they can always fall back on their favorite line - "the fossil record is just incomplete." Alternatively, check out Genesis 1:26 (43)"

The notion that no previously existing hominids could be ancestral to homo sapien sapien is not a premise that is supported in any biological or anthropological literature that I have come across. Evidence exists that Neanderthals contributed gene flow to H. Sapiens. Analysis of H. Sapien Sapien DNA with that of H Neaderthalis indicates divergence between the two 460,000 to 700,000. Not only is the premise of this GodandScience.org essay false it does not offer any evidence to support the biblical creation.

Personally, I use religion to enlighten the manner in which I live my life rather than for explanations about the history of life. I think trying to use science to validate ones faith is a fools errand. If your faith allows you to live a better, more fulfilling and purposeful life does it matter if it is congruent to current science? If some people want to assume the bible is literal that is fine but I think it is pretty dishonest to suggest that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the bible.

Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE, et al. (November 2006). "Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA". Nature 444 (7117): 330–6

 

That is interesting, because THAT is not what I posted.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

So, rather than address what was presented, and apparently not finding anything in there, you went throughout the entire site, with no citation mind you, and pulled one of the artiles in the debate about design vs. evolution, without citation mind you, and rebutted it.

There is a reason I listed the evidence for God portion and not the evolution portion. Its telling that, once again, atheists return to evolution as if by default, even when the oft demanded evidence for God is presented makes no mention of evolution --- to the point that they will apparently go out of their way to find it and reintroduce it rather than engage the actually presented arguement.

Pleaser refute what was actually presented.

 

Thanks for one of the best laughs I had in recent times. The revealed hypocrisy was just a bonus.

 

Here is text taken directly from the link you have provided:

No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes.

The page you linked explicitly states that chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. If your actually interested in discussion why don't you explain what evidence their is for god and how it is relevant.

BTW what makes you think I'm an atheist?

 

You are deluding yourself. Really, really, no one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you believe about him or his death.

 

Really? It is statement that is hyperlinked to ANOTHER page about the comparison of abiogenesis claims and rebuttals.

In short, it is a non-contextual citation, in which you appear to be claiming that the issue is evolution rather than the spontaneous eruption of life on earth.

Here is the hyperlinked result from the EXACT phrase you lighlighted and simply failed to mention was hyperlinked:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Now, if you are wondering how I concluded that you were atheists, it would be because you do EXACTLY what atheists do.

#1 - you avoided teh cosmological arguementation actually spelled out on the page.

#2 - You went straight for evolution, when that clearly is not the intent of the page.

#3 - You are using non-contextual quotes to bolster your position, exactly like quoting deuteronmy and then telling use we are murderer commanded by God himself to murder.

Again, it is kinf od hard to have a discussion about presented evidence and when atheists go out of their way to avoid it.

 

You are truly delusional. Do you really believe anyone cares what you want in regards to Hitchens? You wish that he goes to heaven? Do the right thing, pray for it and stop posting stupidity. If and when you make it there or anywhere it will be confirmed for you. Take that as your proof.

 

Then you are in the wrong thread. Here, no one cares that you think no one cares about Hitchens impending death. You have it backward brother.

 

Come now, that is sinful.

 

Is this the atheist ideal of debate? Calling people delusional and stupid?

Hitchens is an off-topic discussion because an atheist doesn't want to talk about it, but wants to tell others not to talk about it either? Nice.

 

It is truly amusing to see the rantings of the feeble minded.

 

Are you kidding me?? The text I linked is from the section titled "conclusion" from the essay "Is God Real? Does Science Answer "Is There a God?"" by Rich Deem that constitutes the vast majority of your link. Whats more you have the nerve to accuse me of quote mining when the cosmological evidence you reference consists of little more than several quotes that were 'mined' from two publications that make absolutely NO reference to god. Your hypocrisy is obscene. I am not an atheist. I am a scientist who is also religous, which is why I can pick apart your ridiculous arguments with such ease. Now you want to talk about evidence for god or not?

BTW you do exactly what you accuse atheists of doing. Are you an atheist?

 

There is nothing like love and devotion instilled by fear.

 

As you said earlier, if the description fits, then it is the ideal way to use it.

Have I said that Hitchens is or should be off topic? Anything is a good topic, as long as it serves a, any, purpose. However, the demands of Blackrook, surrounding the death of Hitchens serve really no purpose other than to underscore his delusion.

 

What part is kidding? The part that it is hyperlinked to a discussion about abiogenisis? Or the padt where you misconstrued it as saying life is not subject to evolution?

This is EXACTLY what happens when you rip things out of context and deliberately misconstrue it.

And now, like every other atheist who pulls this stuff, you blow you stack.

So, to conclude, you have not addressed any of the cosmological arguements, nor ideed have you addressed the issues with abiogenesis. But of course, my arguement stands in tatters .... without actually being addressed?

And atheists claim they are objective and unemotional about this? THat rebuttal and skepticism are good things? Not to them it would seem.

 

Yes, you have told someon talking about Hitchens that he is delusion and stupid and that he should go pray about it elsewhere ... but not here - but of course that is an invitation to open and honest discourse.

Hence forth, as decreed by atheists all ateist arguementation shall be henceforth dismissed as stupid and delusional - because the description fits - so sayeth the mighty king fallacy.

You don't have to be a jerk to disagree. And I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many atheists disagree with such anger and, quite frankly, meaness and then consider themselves totally objective about the subject?