The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Thanks Wicknight, can't say I am surprised JC would attempt something like this, must be cold being so naked.:rolleyes:

...yet more 'handwaving' ... all mouth ... and no trousers!!!

...and still no substantive rebuttal to the substantive points made by me @#21140!!:D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...yet more 'handwaving' ... all mouth ... and no trousers!!!

You have yet to make a single post in this thread which accurately describes evolution.

Galvasean

J C, you cited something a paleontologis said in 1979. In case you have not noticed that was over three decades ago. Thankfully a whole lot has happened in the field of palaeontology since then (heck, we even had a 'dinosaur reneissance'). What we knew about the fossil record in 1976 pales in comparison to what we know now. I'm sure you are aware of this. You will have to do a lot better than recycling very old quotes from over three decades ago if you want to convince me that the fossil record lacks transitional fossils.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...and still no substantive rebuttal to the substantive points made by me @#21140!!:D

Sorry, JC, could you point out the substantive points made by you in post 21140? Or do we now count plagiarism as one of your crimes against science?

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You have yet to make a single post in this thread which accurately describes evolution.

...and YOU have also yet to do so!!!
...and I'm NO LONGER an Evolutionist ... but you claim to be!!!

...anyway here are some further words of wisdom from Prof David Raup,

"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Science July 17 1981 p.289

... and the pure fantasy isn't just confined to the textbooks!!!

... it is alive and kicking in the fevered imaginations of many Evolutionists on this thread.

... and this is the stuff that they are going to use the 'long arm of the law' to 'force-feed' to four-year olds !!!:D

If this stuff makes Atheists feel 'intellectually fulfilled', then I guess they could reach the same level of 'intellectual fulfillment' from reading a crisp packet!!!:D

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...and YOU have also yet to do so!!!
...and I'm NO LONGER an Evolutionist ... but you claim to be!!!

He has also yet to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on the topic.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

J C, you cited something a paleontologis said in 1979. In case you have not noticed that was over three decades ago. Thankfully a whole lot has happened in the field of palaeontology since then (heck, we even had a 'dinosaur reneissance'). What we knew about the fossil record in 1976 pales in comparison to what we know now. I'm sure you are aware of this. You will have to do a lot better than recycling very old quotes from over three decades ago if you want to convince me that the fossil record lacks transitional fossils.

...the science has indeed progressed since then ... and all of its new discoveries point away from Spontaneous Evolution ... and towards Creation as the most likely 'origin' for all life.

...the only thing that remains unchanged during all of this time is the obstinacy and denial by many Evolutionists of the evidence before their eyes.

I was an Evolutionist in 1979 ... and I am now a Creation Scientist ... so I guess some Evolutionists do CHANGE ... but often very SLOWLY ... it took me over 10 years to get over my Evolutionist brainwashing ...
... and even yet, I sometimes find myself admiring a particularly beautiful woman ... and saying to myself 'isn't that an amazing random assortment of selected accidental biochemistry ... if ever I saw one!!!':eek::D:):)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry, JC, could you point out the substantive points made by you in post 21140? Or do we now count plagiarism as one of your crimes against science?

Emma honey bunch, the entire post is a substantive rebuttal of the validity of Gradual Evolution ... and it's not just me saying it, but one of the most eminent Evolutionists in North America, Prof David Raup!!!:D:)

...of course, I completely understand, that because you are unable to refute my posting ... the best you can come up with are unfounded ad hominem remarks about me and equally unfounded 'handwaving' about 'quote mining' when I have legitimately and fairly commented about what Prof Raup had to say!!!!:D:):cool:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...more 'handwaving' ... all mouth ... and no trousers!!!!:eek::eek:

You don't understand what he is saying. I'm not sure how much more "trousers" I can say that to you

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...says Wicknight with his eyes wide shut ... and his fingers stuck firmly in his ears ... just in case he might find out that the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh' ... is the greatest load of baloney ever invented !!!!:eek::D

...please address the ACTUAL quote ... and my conclusions in relation to the quote ... and even more importantly the evidence from the 'fossil record' upon which BOTH the quote and my conclusions are based.!!!:D

How can you possibly have the nerve to demand of someone that they "address the actual quote"? You are demanding a response to a criticism of an opposing view, when you have repeatedly (at least 6 times now to my knowledge, probably many more that I don't know about) refused to address the destruction of the notion of CSI by Elsberry and Shallit (given here http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf ). Yet you continue to use this completely discredited concept in the hope that no one will notice. How have you the shamelessness to demand standards of others that you completely fail to live up to yourself? You talk about Wicknight "having his fingers stuck in his ears" - lol. You have had your fingers in your ears for more than 20,000 posts now.

By the way Wicknight's links completely destroy your claim that Raup's quote give any support to anti evolutionists. You have again LIED about the truth. Of course the quote is presumably accurate, but thie particular lie takes the form of quoting out of context, which is just as much a lie as deliberately misquoting.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

How can you possibly have the nerve to demand of someone that they "address the actual quote"? You are demanding a response to a criticism of an opposing view, when you have repeatedly (at least 6 times now to my knowledge, probably many more that I don't know about) refused to address the destruction of the notion of CSI by Elsberry and Shallit (given here http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf ). Yet you continue to use this completely discredited concept in the hope that no one will notice. How have you the shamelessness to demand standards of others that you completely fail to live up to yourself? You talk about Wicknight "having his fingers stuck in his ears" - lol. You have had your fingers in your ears for more than 20,000 posts now.

By the way Wicknight's links completely destroy your claim that Raup's quote give any support to anti evolutionists. You have again LIED about the truth. Of course the quote is presumably accurate, but thie particular lie takes the form of quoting out of context, which is just as much a lie as deliberately misquoting.

...I have told you before that my time is too precious to respond to all 54 pages of this argument about CSI at the above link ... this is simply not the forum to do so!!!

If you wish to take any point in the paper and justify it yourself, I will be glad to respond!!!:)

On the 'quote mining' allegation, could I point out that I use complete sentences (and often complete paragraphs) that are unabridged ... so they are a fair representation of what the original author had to say!!
In the English language, complete sentences are capable of being understood on their own ... that is actually what a sentence is supposed to be ...
... and their context can be fully understood with explanatory bracketing!!!

I will take some sentences from previous posts at random to demonstrate:-

You (J C) have again LIED about the truth.

Your (J C) conclusions in relation to the quote are completely wrong and show a complete lack of understanding of what Raup was actually saying.

Sorry, JC, could you point out the substantive points made by you in post 21140?

...or how about this complete and unabridged paragraph?

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links of transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." Prof David Raup Scientists Confront Creationism (1983) p.156
...so Darwins predictions in regard to the fossil record supporting Gradual Evolution haven't been realised ... even after the vast expansion of paleontological knowledge that has taken place over the last one hundred and fifty years ..and if Darwin were alive today he would probably revise his entire Theory!!!!
... if the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh' is going to be taught to four year olds then surely these fundamental 'deficiencies' will also be highlighted to them as well ... or are Evolutionists going to ALSO suppress this information about Evolution ... just like they are also suppressing access to information in schools about ID and Creation???!!!

...it sounds like there is MORE suppression of information going on within Evolutionist Science than in the last days of East Germany before the 'fall' of the Berlin Wall !!!:eek::D
.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...and YOU have also yet to do so!!!

I have posted evolutionary biology journals many times. As I have told you before JC, if you are going to post, it would be helpful to us if you posted things that are actually true.

<snipped the rest of your handwaving>

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...I have told you before that my time is too precious to respond to all 54 pages of this argument about CSI at the above link ... this is simply not the forum to do so!!!

That excuse does not stand up to any scrutiny. You have spent hundreds of posts making silly jokes and unfounded allegations about evolution.
You have spent hundreds of post talking about "CSI", yet you claim not to have the time to respond to an article that debunks one of your central concepts. If 'CSI' was peripheral to your argument, then maybe. But it is not. You have based hundereds of posts on this bogus notion, so it a bit ridiculous to then say that you haven't got the time to defend it, when given a serious criticism. As for this not being the forum - why? You use 'CSI' as an argument, so why is this an inappropriate forum to discuss a criticism of it? If it is inappropriate to discuss Elsberry and Shalitt's paper, then it is just as inappropriate to use 'CSI' in your arguments.

If you wish to take any point in the paper and justify it yourself, I will be glad to respond!!!:)

Why should the onus be on me to "justify" any point in the paper. The paper is pretty much self explanatory (as you would realise if you had read it). The onus is on the defenders of 'CSI' to justify their use of a highly controversial (actually completely bogus) concept.

If you want a specific point to address, how about the challenges posed to ID advocates in section 12?

Or how about explaining why your notion of CSI is different from any of the variants that Dembski proposes? As Sam Vimes pointed out, your CSI amounts to measuring the length of a string multiplying by a constant?

Or explain why 'CSI' has never been identified in any scientific endeavour, other than the pseudo science of creationism? Such a seemingly important concept would have massive implications in many disciplines that have nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. Why has no one in any other field identified and used this notion? (I guess they are all in on the conspiracy, right?)

The truth, (which you have yet again twisted and misrepresented) is that you have not responded to the Elsberry Shallit paper, because you are unable to do so.

equivariant

Your attempted defence of 'quote mining', as you describe it, is laughably weak. You claim its OK because you use whole pararaphs????? Ridiculous. If the context is mispresented and ignored, it doesn't matter whether you use whole sentences, whole paragraphs, or whole chapters, it is still twisting and lying about the truth.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...the science has indeed progressed since then ... and all of its new discoveries point away from Spontaneous Evolution ...

Spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron - I'm not at all surprised that all the evidence points away from it.

J C wrote: »

and towards Creation as the most likely 'origin' for all life.

No, failure to understand the scientific process. Unsurprisingly.

J C wrote: »

I sometimes find myself admiring a particularly beautiful woman ... and saying to myself 'isn't that an amazing random assortment of selected accidental biochemistry ... if ever I saw one!!!':eek::D:):)

OK, I'm 99% positive that you're a troll. Nobody can have read the posts here, on top of a science background (cough), on top of a claim to have been an evolutionist in a previous era and still come out with this rubbish.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... 'Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' didn't occur and cannot (logically or physically) occur ... not even in a billon years!!!!

doctoremma
What about 3.5 billion? Your highlighted parts are entirely unsubstantiated

I understood that Evolutionists believe that the first life only really got going about 1 billion (Evolutionist) years ago ..and not 3.5 billion years ago as you claim!!
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html

...the above link has this to say about the timing of the first 'Pondkind' life:-

"About 1.3 billion years ago the first eukaryote (a single cell organism with a complex inner structure) which contained many internal organelles such as mitochondria appeared, having evolved from the prokaryote. From the eukaryote, the multicellular metazoa ('Pondslime') evolved about 680 million years ago. All modern complex life developed from these."

...so Emma honey bunch ... which is the correct Evolutionist time for the 'arrival' of 'Pondkind' ... is it 3.5 billion (Evolutionist) years, as you say ... or some time between 680 and 1300 million (Evolutionist) years ago i.e. about 1 billion years, as I have said?
...or is it a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it???:eek:

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron - I'm not at all surprised that all the evidence points away from it.

...on this we can agree ... so why is it planned to teach Spontaneous Evolution as a 'scientific fact' to innocent four-year olds???

doctoremma wrote: »

OK, I'm 99% positive that you're a troll. Nobody can have read the posts here, on top of a science background (cough), on top of a claim to have been an evolutionist in a previous era and still come out with this rubbish.

Why? ... the rubbish is all on the Evolutionist side!!:)

J C

equivariant wrote: »

That excuse does not stand up to any scrutiny. You have spent hundreds of posts making silly jokes and unfounded allegations about evolution.
You have spent hundreds of post talking about "CSI", yet you claim not to have the time to respond to an article that debunks one of your central concepts. If 'CSI' was peripheral to your argument, then maybe. But it is not. You have based hundereds of posts on this bogus notion, so it a bit ridiculous to then say that you haven't got the time to defend it, when given a serious criticism. As for this not being the forum - why? You use 'CSI' as an argument, so why is this an inappropriate forum to discuss a criticism of it? If it is inappropriate to discuss Elsberry and Shalitt's paper, then it is just as inappropriate to use 'CSI' in your arguments.



Why should the onus be on me to "justify" any point in the paper. The paper is pretty much self explanatory (as you would realise if you had read it). The onus is on the defenders of 'CSI' to justify their use of a highly controversial (actually completely bogus) concept.

If you want a specific point to address, how about the challenges posed to ID advocates in section 12?

Or how about explaining why your notion of CSI is different from any of the variants that Dembski proposes? As Sam Vimes pointed out, your CSI amounts to measuring the length of a string multiplying by a constant?

Or explain why 'CSI' has never been identified in any scientific endeavour, other than the pseudo science of creationism? Such a seemingly important concept would have massive implications in many disciplines that have nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. Why has no one in any other field identified and used this notion? (I guess they are all in on the conspiracy, right?)

The truth, (which you have yet again twisted and misrepresented) is that you have not responded to the Elsberry Shallit paper, because you are unable to do so.

...I have read the paper and found that it didn't invalidate CSI in any way ... so why should I waste my time saying this about every one of its 54 pages?

... like I have already said, if you can find any point within it that even half-disproves CSI ... please point it out ... because, quite frankly, I didn't find any such points, when I read it myself!!!

...over to YOU!!!:eek:

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Your attempted defence of 'quote mining', as you describe it, is laughably weak. You claim its OK because you use whole pararaphs????? Ridiculous. If the context is mispresented and ignored, it doesn't matter whether you use whole sentences, whole paragraphs, or whole chapters, it is still twisting and lying about the truth.

...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

...the fact that ALL of the Evolutionists on the thread have IGNORED both the quotes and my comments on them indicates that they ARE valid!!!!

...plenty of handwaving and sinister generalisations ... but no SPECIFICS.

...like I have already said, please 'stand up' your accusations - or withdraw them!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

Why?

Everyone here knows you are selectively quoting, they have read your posts and seen the replies from others.

You know you are selectively quoting because this has been pointed out to you before.

So what exactly would be the point of doing this all again. You didn't listen the last 5 times it was pointed out to you, you aren't going to listen now, and no one else needs convincing that you are selectively quoting.

Are you going to complain to the Mods? :rolleyes:

J C

...and for the Christians on this thread who appear to think that the 'origins question' and Evolution is a minor issue ... here are some thought-provoking ideas from Prof Michael Ruse Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology

"Now, for the first time, one could confidently suspend belief in any kind of God. The Natural development of organisms explains everything, most especially adaptation. Even if you did not want to become a full-blown atheist, you could become what Darwin's already mentioned supporter, T.H. Huxley, labeled an 'agnostic', neither believer nor disbeliever (Huxley, 1900). However, excluding or distancing God in this fashion raises with some urgency the major problems of philosophy. If God (perhaps) does not exist, wherein lie the guarantees of knowledge and of truth? Possibly all is subjective illusion. If God does not exist, wherein lies the force of morality? Why should we not do precisely what we please, cheating and lying and stealing, to serve our own ends? Dry answers by philosophers aiming for purely secular answers tended not to convince.

Evolution destroyed the final foundations of traditional belief. To many people, it was evolution that would provide the foundations of a new belief-system. Evolution would lead to a deeper and truer understanding of the problems of knowledge. Evolution would lead to a deeper and true understanding of the nature of morality. Thus were born (what are known now as) 'evolutionary epistemology' and 'evolutionary ethics'." Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.30

"The importance of the Scientific Revolution for philosophy is beyond question. Modern philosophy – the work of both rationalists and empiricists would have been impossible without great advances in physics. Analogously, therefore, we could anticipate that the Darwinian Revolution will have important implications for philosophy. Indeed, I would go further and say that we might expect Darwin's work to have even greater implications for philosophy than those of physics. The theory of evolution through natural selection impinges so directly on our own species. It is not just that we are on a speck of dust whirling around in the void but that we ourselves are no more than transformed apes. If such a realization is not to affect our views of epistemology and ethics, I do not know what is. As I said in the Preface, I find it inconceivable that it is irrelevant to the foundations of philosophy whether we are the end result of a slow natural evolutionary process, or made miraculously in God’s own image on a Friday, some 6,000 years ago." Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.274-275

... the Atheists are taking Evolution very seriously ... and I would respectfully suggest that the Christians should ALSO do so!!!!:D:)

.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

Wicknight

Everyone here knows you are selectively quoting, they have read your posts and seen the replies from others.

You know you are selectively quoting because this has been pointed out to you before.

So what exactly would be the point of doing this all again. You didn't listen the last 5 times it was pointed out to you, you aren't going to listen now, and no one else needs convincing that you are selectively quoting.

Are you going to complain to the Mods? :rolleyes:

...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

...the fact that ALL of the Evolutionists on the thread have IGNORED both the quotes and my comments on them indicates that they ARE valid!!!!

...plenty of handwaving and sinister generalisations ... but no SPECIFICS.

...like I have already said, please be man enough to 'stand up' your accusations - or withdraw them!!!

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

...the fact that ALL of the Evolutionists on the thread have IGNORED both the quotes and my comments on them indicates that they ARE valid!!!!

...plenty of handwaving and sinister generalisations ... but no SPECIFICS.

...like I have already said, please 'stand up' your accusations - or withdraw them!!!

Well if you didn't one of your CREATIONIST counterparts did!!!!! :eek:;)

J C

...now here is an interesting idea from Prof Michael Ruse!!

"I always find when I meet creationists or non-evolutionists or critics or whatever, I find it a lot easier to hate them in print than I do in person." Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

... we're really nice people ... so we are!!!!:eek::D:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...now here is an idea from Prof Michael Ruse!!

"I always find when I meet creationists or non-evolutionists or critics or whatever, I find it a lot easier to hate them in print than I do in person." Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

... we're really nice people ... so we are!!!!:eek::D:)

I'd imagine that it's hard to hate a clown.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well if you didn't one of your CREATIONIST counterparts did!!!!! :eek:;)

...there is only one of me ... but nearly 300 of ye ... so I don't have any 'counterparts'!!!:)

... come on guys have a look at the quotes ... they are from Evolutionists ... you can look at them between your fingers, if you like... and turn away at any time ... if it all gets too much for you!!!!:eek::cool:

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'd imagine that it's hard to hate a clown.

... that's WHY I love all of the Evolutionists on this thread ...
... now 'Bozo' ... could you have a look at the evolutionist quotes that I have posted ... and tell me what you see!!!!:eek::):D

J C

...some more food for thought courtesy of Prof Ruse ... now that the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh' ...is about to eclipse the teaching of Chritianity in British Schools ... starting with four year olds...

"It's certainly been the case that evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion." Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

...the Atheists have 'nipped in' to effectively become a new 'Legally Protected Religion' ... in Science Class ... and in America they are sacking Christian teachers who don't recite their 'Evolution Creed' perfectly every time!!!!:eek:
...if that isn't religious persecution and discrimination ... I don't know what is????

.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...I have read the paper and found that it didn't invalidate CSI in any way ... so why should I waste my time saying this about every one of its 54 pages?

... like I have said, if you can find any point within it that even half-disproves CSI ... please point it out ... because, quite frankly, I didn't find any such points, when I read it myself!!!

...over to YOU!!!:eek:

I note that yet again you have studiously avoided discussing any detail, preferring to make completely unsupported and false claims like "it didn't invalidate CSI in any way". Since the paper claims to do precisely that, and since you seem to think otherwise, it should be a simple matter to point out some specific flaws that back up your claim. But, of course, you can't do that, can you? (The one time you tried, you embarssed yourself further by exposing the fact that you didn't even understand the basics identities satisfied by logarithms.) I also note that you seem quite intimidated by the length of the paper. You keep repeating the fact that it has 54 pages, as if you could hardly be expected to read such a long paper. As I pointed out before, real scientific papers are often a bit longer than the typical 4 or 5 page bits of drivel produced by creation 'scientists'.

If you have read the paper (I doubt it), could you enlighten us by taking even one of the many criticisms therein and explaining why you disagree. For examle on page 13 we have "[FONT=CMR12~1d]The generic chance elimination argument (GCEA) requires the elimination of [/FONT]all [FONT=CMR12~1d]relevant chance hypotheses. If all such hypotheses are eliminated, Dembski concludes design is the explanation for the event in question. The weakness of this approach seems self-evident, because this method will consistently assign design to events whose exact causal history is obscure,precisely the events Dembski is most interested in."[/FONT]

[FONT=CMR12~1d]How do you answer this point?[/FONT]

[FONT=CMR12~1d]Or on page 21 - " [FONT=CMR12~1d]Because Dembski offers no coherent approach to his choice of probability distributions,we conclude that Dembski's approach to complexity through probability is very seriously flawed, and no simple repair is possible."[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CMR12~1d][FONT=CMR12~1d]So which is it? When calculating 'CSI', do you assume a uniform probability distribution, or do you need to know the complete causal history of the event in consideration?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CMR12~1d][FONT=CMR12~1d]How do you counter the many flaws that they point out in Dembski's 'proof' of his 'Law of Conservation of Information' (section 9)? They give a specific example of function that violates this so-called Law. If you cannot point out their errors, this pretty much destroys CSI as a useful concept right there and then.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CMR12~1d][FONT=CMR12~1d]There are many more points that could be raised. However, I doubt that you can seriously address even one of the above, so these will suffice[/FONT]
[/FONT]

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...I should have said that it is always the Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!

...happy now?

Not really. either yu are expressing a tautology i.er. "the people who claim about me are always those who complain about me"

Or you are saying that
ONLY atheists or people who agree with atheists complain
which I believe is probably not true and can't be shown true by you and needs only one non atheist complainant to prove you wrong.

If you reclassify ALL people who complain about you as "fellow travellers" using some form of "only true scotsman" argument then you are back to the tautology problem.