As I said there, however, it's kind of low of her to claim to my face on Friday that her blog isn't moderated and then to restrict me to one thread just 4 days later, but then again her hypocrisy isn't exactly a secret.
You were hijacking her posts, and she offered you one to comment on. You were free to follow the original posts and comment, but not to continue hijacking.
She gave you your very own thread..quite a nice gift to a troll, and now you fault her for it.
As she said Rho….TITS or GTFO ( I recommend the small spotted brown tit…come on play along, win back a little good will)
You were free to follow the original posts and comment, but not to continue hijacking.
ERV posts. I comment on the post. Her posse challenge me on extraneous topics. I answer them. Anonymous accuses ME of hijacking threads. Please. And it's not like anyone has to pay attention to me, you know. Her threads routinely have several dozen comments. Plus, what about "I don't moderate my blog" don't you understand? Where do you see "I do moderate" in the phrase "I don't moderate"? You appear to be another of her sycophantic tools. You're welcome to it.
Maybe you were annoying enough that she changed her possition?
She wan't moderating until she got fed up with YOU in particular. Even so I noticed you were still able to post on one of the other threads resulting in: TITS OF GTFO
I have never met Abby, I find her sometimes childish and difficult to tolerate as ERV.
I find the whole TITS OR GTFO to be stupid, but I'm comming around to the humour as more and more complain.
and your right no one does have to pay attention to you, of course having a blog kinda begs that you want people to do just that.
Different bloggers allow different degrees of freedom in their comments threads. Insisting that comments thread stay minimally related to the topic of the post in question is not at all an onerous or unreasonable restriction.
You then 23 hours after Abbie had constructed a thread specifically for you decided to once again post in one of the other threads.
Actually it's a very beneficial facet of a blog, to confine conversationn about a topic into a single location, so that those that wish to engage in the conversation are not forced to look throughout the entire blog, and so that those who do not want to read that particular conversation can simply avoid that post.
I do, however, agree that the 'Tits or gtfo" is inappropriate for any kind of meaningful conversation.
I also don't think that it was neccessary or appropriate for her to imply that you were the one pulling every single topic off of conversation.
Often times Blame is seen to be more important than resolving the issue with debates, which can cause problems.
I have a question for you Rho, and I think I know the answer to it, but I saw earlier that someone asked if you were a proponent of ID (which I thought you were) and told them you weren't so; Do you not believe in/agree with evolution?
To be clear, I don't begrudge her the herding me into one single thread. It's her bizness. I DO begrudge her the claim that her blog is unmoderated and then in short order we discover it's actually fairly moderated after all. Just come clean - you guys complain about the Wedge document and ID's nefarious secret religious agenda. Fair play, then.
Amnistar, there is evidence that microevolutionary change occurs all the time. The evidence is severely lacking that macroevolutionary change occurs or has ever occurred absent intelligent interference, which is the very point of contention between Darwin and ID, and much more lacking that this change is responsible for the variety of life we see today coming from a common ancestor. Rather, the evidence favors a young earth and a God Who created it all not exactly like it all is today but in many ways pretty close.
An infallible God who was there at the beginning said so. Please let me know how finding a few (or few hundred) bones buried in dirt will overturn the testimony of an infallible and truthful eyewitness. Thanks!
So the evidence we have is that 'microevolution' occurs, which you accept. Would you also accept that, presuming that there was enough time, that these smaller changes would build up, and differ in direction, creating a further and further divide between creatures?
And forgive me if this seems obtuse, but where precisely are you getting your information from God? And what is it that is said that makes the presume a young earth?
First question - see here. http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/flying-lizards-with-big-beaks-that-eat.html I make little statement either way, b/c there is no evidence I've seen that this has happened.
I get my info about God from the revelation of Himself that He put in the Bible. Most days ;-) I am more or less convinced that the biblical evidence supports a young earth. So, on one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence. On the other side are some people who've seen finch beaks get smaller and bigger and who've managed, in the lab, to make bacteria develop drug resistance and make certain animals sexually incompatible and who have a collection of animal bones they dug up but have no idea whether reproduced or even a great scheme of how to put them together in a linear (or otherwise) structure. Whom should the objective observer believe?
I make little statement either way, b/c there is no evidence I've seen that this has happened.
I understand the qualm, my question was though, presuming not a young earth, would you accept that over a very expanded period of time creatures would evolve and differentiate?
I get my info about God from the revelation of Himself that He put in the Bible.
Alright so we're using the Bible as evidence of a Young Earth. Now, if I might ask, what evidence in the Bible are you looking at? If you want to link me to a post where you talk about this that would be fine.
So, on one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence. On the other side are some people who've seen finch beaks get smaller and bigger and who've managed, in the lab, to make bacteria develop drug resistance and make certain animals sexually incompatible and who have a collection of animal bones they dug up but have no idea whether reproduced or even a great scheme of how to put them together in a linear (or otherwise) structure. Whom should the objective observer believe?
Well, you've created a very unfortunate false dichotomy in this. One need not believe one or the other exclusively. Many religious individuals, especially those that work in the Biological sciences, accept that evolution was the means through which the supernatural entity created this world worked, and as such have no qualm with the Theory.
An infallible God who was there at the beginning said so. Please let me know how finding a few (or few hundred) bones buried in dirt will overturn the testimony of an infallible and truthful eyewitness.
The problem with eyewitnesses is that they actually need to turn up. If a lawyer stood up in court and said "I have an infallible witness who can prove my case, but I can't demonstrate conclusively that they exist, and all I have is this unsigned statement that happens to be in the handwriting of my secretary", their argument would be laughed at in exactly the same way that yours is.
On one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence.
Man I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean Rho. What are we discussing here: what is God?
And it is difficult, yes. There's not really anything that we're very familiar with to which to compare for reference. It's like the God-man. I don't get how Jesus, eternal God, can ADD a human nature. I don't get how said human nature can die on a cross. But I have good reason to think they are true. This is part of what it means to have biblical faith. Not close your eyes and just throw down your finger on a chart full o' worldviews, but rather to take the things I don't understand and believe them b/c I have sufficient and well-grounded trust in the source who's telling me they are so.
In my mind that makes you a negative theologian, placing your understanding in the bible first and everything else second. In which case do you think the bible could be falsified?
I'm also wondering how would you define existence?
Dont get me wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like the bible is where you are "throwing down the finger", what other means do you have to trust?
I'm not sure what "negative theologian" means, but I do firmly and happily accept the title of Bible-first believer. To falsify the Bible, the body of Jesus, still dead, would go a long way. But the principle of falsification is itself unfalsifiable, so that's not the standard of truthfulness, see what I mean?
I believe in the Bible first and foremost b/c God has made me to believe, has changed my heart. No one is a robot and believes in sthg for only one wholly-intellectual reason. Or very few. I continue to believe in it b/c God has proven its trustworthiness over and over to me, and I have seen hundreds of challenges fall flat on their faces. And it describes reality and existential dilemmas and their solutions truthfully. That's a start.
wow Rho
ReplyDeletepersecution complex much?
You were hijacking her posts, and she offered you one to comment on. You were free to follow the original posts and comment, but not to continue hijacking.
She gave you your very own thread..quite a nice gift to a troll, and now you fault her for it.
As she said Rho….TITS or GTFO ( I recommend the small spotted brown tit…come on play along, win back a little good will)
You were free to follow the original posts and comment, but not to continue hijacking.
ReplyDeleteERV posts.
I comment on the post.
Her posse challenge me on extraneous topics.
I answer them.
Anonymous accuses ME of hijacking threads. Please.
And it's not like anyone has to pay attention to me, you know. Her threads routinely have several dozen comments.
Plus, what about "I don't moderate my blog" don't you understand? Where do you see "I do moderate" in the phrase "I don't moderate"?
You appear to be another of her sycophantic tools. You're welcome to it.
Maybe you were annoying enough that she changed her possition?
ReplyDeleteShe wan't moderating until she got fed up with YOU in particular.
Even so I noticed you were still able to post on one of the other threads resulting in:
TITS OF GTFO
I have never met Abby, I find her sometimes childish and difficult to tolerate as ERV.
I find the whole TITS OR GTFO to be stupid, but I'm comming around to the humour as more and more complain.
and your right no one does have to pay attention to you, of course having a blog kinda begs that you want people to do just that.
Is you stop making false or completely indefensible claims, I don't think you will annoy nearly as many people who care about science.
ReplyDeleteI have zero sympathy for you.
ReplyDeleteDifferent bloggers allow different degrees of freedom in their comments threads. Insisting that comments thread stay minimally related to the topic of the post in question is not at all an onerous or unreasonable restriction.
You then 23 hours after Abbie had constructed a thread specifically for you decided to once again post in one of the other threads.
Actually it's a very beneficial facet of a blog, to confine conversationn about a topic into a single location, so that those that wish to engage in the conversation are not forced to look throughout the entire blog, and so that those who do not want to read that particular conversation can simply avoid that post.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree that the 'Tits or gtfo" is inappropriate for any kind of meaningful conversation.
I also don't think that it was neccessary or appropriate for her to imply that you were the one pulling every single topic off of conversation.
Often times Blame is seen to be more important than resolving the issue with debates, which can cause problems.
I have a question for you Rho, and I think I know the answer to it, but I saw earlier that someone asked if you were a proponent of ID (which I thought you were) and told them you weren't so; Do you not believe in/agree with evolution?
To be clear, I don't begrudge her the herding me into one single thread. It's her bizness. I DO begrudge her the claim that her blog is unmoderated and then in short order we discover it's actually fairly moderated after all. Just come clean - you guys complain about the Wedge document and ID's nefarious secret religious agenda. Fair play, then.
ReplyDeleteAmnistar, there is evidence that microevolutionary change occurs all the time. The evidence is severely lacking that macroevolutionary change occurs or has ever occurred absent intelligent interference, which is the very point of contention between Darwin and ID, and much more lacking that this change is responsible for the variety of life we see today coming from a common ancestor.
Rather, the evidence favors a young earth and a God Who created it all not exactly like it all is today but in many ways pretty close.
The evidence is severely lacking that macroevolutionary change occurs
ReplyDeleteThat claim is false.
the evidence favors a young earth
No, it does not.
An infallible God who was there at the beginning said so. Please let me know how finding a few (or few hundred) bones buried in dirt will overturn the testimony of an infallible and truthful eyewitness. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAlright, so if I can ask, what is, in your mind, the difference between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what evidence is there that points to the idea of a young earth?
Micro - finch beaks get smaller or bigger over time.
ReplyDeleteMacro - lizard-like animals turn into finches. Unicellular organisms turn into bananas.
Evidence for young earth - God says so, and He was there.
So the evidence we have is that 'microevolution' occurs, which you accept. Would you also accept that, presuming that there was enough time, that these smaller changes would build up, and differ in direction, creating a further and further divide between creatures?
ReplyDeleteAnd forgive me if this seems obtuse, but where precisely are you getting your information from God? And what is it that is said that makes the presume a young earth?
First question - see here.
ReplyDeletehttp://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/flying-lizards-with-big-beaks-that-eat.html
I make little statement either way, b/c there is no evidence I've seen that this has happened.
I get my info about God from the revelation of Himself that He put in the Bible. Most days ;-) I am more or less convinced that the biblical evidence supports a young earth.
So, on one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence. On the other side are some people who've seen finch beaks get smaller and bigger and who've managed, in the lab, to make bacteria develop drug resistance and make certain animals sexually incompatible and who have a collection of animal bones they dug up but have no idea whether reproduced or even a great scheme of how to put them together in a linear (or otherwise) structure. Whom should the objective observer believe?
I make little statement either way, b/c there is no evidence I've seen that this has happened.
ReplyDeleteI understand the qualm, my question was though, presuming not a young earth, would you accept that over a very expanded period of time creatures would evolve and differentiate?
I get my info about God from the revelation of Himself that He put in the Bible.
Alright so we're using the Bible as evidence of a Young Earth. Now, if I might ask, what evidence in the Bible are you looking at? If you want to link me to a post where you talk about this that would be fine.
So, on one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence. On the other side are some people who've seen finch beaks get smaller and bigger and who've managed, in the lab, to make bacteria develop drug resistance and make certain animals sexually incompatible and who have a collection of animal bones they dug up but have no idea whether reproduced or even a great scheme of how to put them together in a linear (or otherwise) structure. Whom should the objective observer believe?
Well, you've created a very unfortunate false dichotomy in this. One need not believe one or the other exclusively. Many religious individuals, especially those that work in the Biological sciences, accept that evolution was the means through which the supernatural entity created this world worked, and as such have no qualm with the Theory.
An infallible God who was there at the beginning said so. Please let me know how finding a few (or few hundred) bones buried in dirt will overturn the testimony of an infallible and truthful eyewitness.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with eyewitnesses is that they actually need to turn up. If a lawyer stood up in court and said "I have an infallible witness who can prove my case, but I can't demonstrate conclusively that they exist, and all I have is this unsigned statement that happens to be in the handwriting of my secretary", their argument would be laughed at in exactly the same way that yours is.
I get my info about God from the revelation of Himself that He put in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have that God had anything to do with what was written in the Bible?
On one side is the omniscient, perfect, truthful, infallible God of the universe, who just so happened to be there when He Himself spoke the universe into existence.
ReplyDeleteMan I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean Rho. What are we discussing here: what is God?
Vagon,
ReplyDeletehttp://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-is-god-like.html
Thanks Rho, I'm still confused. If he's supernatural and not made of matter or energy, whats there left for him to be?
ReplyDeleteSpirit.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is difficult, yes. There's not really anything that we're very familiar with to which to compare for reference. It's like the God-man. I don't get how Jesus, eternal God, can ADD a human nature. I don't get how said human nature can die on a cross. But I have good reason to think they are true. This is part of what it means to have biblical faith. Not close your eyes and just throw down your finger on a chart full o' worldviews, but rather to take the things I don't understand and believe them b/c I have sufficient and well-grounded trust in the source who's telling me they are so.
In my mind that makes you a negative theologian, placing your understanding in the bible first and everything else second. In which case do you think the bible could be falsified?
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering how would you define existence?
Dont get me wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like the bible is where you are "throwing down the finger", what other means do you have to trust?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what "negative theologian" means, but I do firmly and happily accept the title of Bible-first believer.
ReplyDeleteTo falsify the Bible, the body of Jesus, still dead, would go a long way.
But the principle of falsification is itself unfalsifiable, so that's not the standard of truthfulness, see what I mean?
I believe in the Bible first and foremost b/c God has made me to believe, has changed my heart. No one is a robot and believes in sthg for only one wholly-intellectual reason. Or very few.
I continue to believe in it b/c God has proven its trustworthiness over and over to me, and I have seen hundreds of challenges fall flat on their faces. And it describes reality and existential dilemmas and their solutions truthfully. That's a start.
Wow Rho, you actually are willing to acept (potentially) that the bible could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAre you also willing to entertain the posibility that there is no god?