Dumb Ass wrote: No. That would be the pseudo-intellectual (not unlike Buffalo) named Seth McFarlane.
I like this thread - I got the mopologists and flat earth Christians riled up all at one go!
You've got to love it when folks who seriously believe in magical fantasy super heroes attempt to degrade the intellect of others. It's so quaint... like a three year old saying, "Yer stupid!"
Awww... so cute. You have to chuckle knowingly and pat them on the head.
*bracing self for same old crap, like "noxious mediocrity," "pull the other leg it has bells on it," a bit of latin to fake education/intellect, or some other tired, nonsensical comment*
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Buffalo wrote:Still no substantive remarks from the DI crowd. Not surprising.
To what is one supposed to respond? That I.D. lost the court case? I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Maybe it's that the I.D.ers were trying to slip creationism into the schools under the guise of I.D.ism. That's certainly what the court concluded. So what? Though a legitimate case can be made for a distinction between creationism and I.D. ism, though obviously this court thought otherwise.
And he's bigger than you to. Wow, you must really be hurting.
LOL
Yeah, I'm utterly writhing with pain. (Honestly, sometimes what you write catches me off guard and sends me into hysterical laughter, like this did. I have to give you credit for that, despite it looking like it's unintentional).
by the way, is pain what motivates you to write what you do? Is that it? Because that explains much, like your lack of clarity, reason, intelligence, common sense... you know... that sort of thing.
Just curious.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Buffalo wrote:Still no substantive remarks from the DI crowd. Not surprising.
To what is one supposed to respond? That I.D. lost the court case? I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Maybe it's that the I.D.ers were trying to slip creationism into the schools under the guise of I.D.ism. That's certainly what the court concluded. So what? Though a legitimate case can be made for a distinction between creationism and I.D. ism, though obviously this court thought otherwise.
So what are you looking for?
How about you make the 'legitimate case' for the distinction between creationism and ID, just to show us how it can best be done?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Tarski wrote:I hate to respond to my own post but, the more I think about it, the more I think I had better make the following concessions/admissions
1) I haven't done a real survey of the output of the MI.
2) I suspect, that MI puts out real scholarship that not is directly apologetic (like that Stak mentioned). One might guess that they hope this will give more prestige to the apologetics.
Despite the concessions, what I have seen leads me to say that the scientific part of the apologetic efforts (with regard to egyptology, Book of Mormon archeology) is both minimal and unimpressive in terms of apologetic effectiveness.
Yeah, I agree with this. I've thought for a long time that the "legit" work done by the MI is essentially "window dressing" to help bolster the credibility of polemical Mopologetics. And it's interesting that you bring up the issue of Book of Mormon archaeology. I just finished listening to the "Mormon Stories" podcast with Michael Coe, and I found it fascinating that quite a few LDS meso-American researchers have had their faith eroded or destroyed by their research. One of these, obviously, was Thomas Ferguson (who DCP once tried to smear by pointing out that he hadn't been fully trained in archaeology, and was "just" a lawyer). Coe named somebody else but the name escapes me at the moment... If I recall correctly, Dehlin asked him how many researchers he knew still had 100% faith in the Book of Mormon, and he said "one," whereas he was able to think of at least half a dozen whose faith has been shaken. Granted, he admits that he's guessing to a certain extent, but I thought this was revealing.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Yeah, I'm utterly writhing with pain. (Honestly, sometimes what you write catches me off guard and sends me into hysterical laughter, like this did. I have to give you credit for that, despite it looking like it's unintentional).
by the way, is pain what motivates you to write what you do? Is that it? Because that explains much, like your lack of clarity, reason, intelligence, common sense... you know... that sort of thing.
Just curious.
When you can sit at the adult table without a booster seat, then feel free to psychoanalyze. Until then, slither into your tiny clothes, tie up your tiny shoes, corral your massive ego, and let the adults talk.
Hoops wrote: When you can sit at the adult table without a booster seat, then feel free to psychoanalyze. Until then, slither into your tiny clothes, tie up your tiny shoes, corral your massive ego, and let the adults talk.
I see. So this is all you've got.
Would someone tap the needle on this broken record? Or better yet, just chuck it out. It was never that good to begin with.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
lostindc wrote: I have to agree with this statement but go even further. Buffalo is very reminiscent of Paul Osbourne in that he cannot process an argument and of course cannot develop an argument. What makes it even worse is the mental instability and hate exploding in each post.
A little ironic now that Mr. InDC has left the ranks of the faithful.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
