JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views

As you quote a web page?

ThiChi, like I say, you’re amusing. Your lack of grasp of sarcasm is especially funny.

Wow! How do you know what I have read?

By the fact you post outdated bollocks and very bad arguments. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and it shows in your argument. Your arrogance in assuming you can in one evening get a good grasp of a massive amount of science is hilarious, especially since you are only looking at it from the viewpoint you want to defend, and don’t even know enough about the viewpoint you’re attacking to see the errors or weaknesses in the arguments you cut and paste. There are some points worth talking about AMONGST the verbiage you’ve posted, but that’s just chance, and I’m sure you don’t know which are the good points you’ve made and which are the silly ones. Prove me wrong.

If you do a search, I have brought in the author of Forbidden Archeology for a Q & A here (via e-mail). So once more, you proceed from a false assumption.

No, your lack of comprehension is obvious. If you’ve got someone else helping, it might help if we talk to the Organ grinder rather than the monkey, don’t you think? And arguments from authority never impress me, and normally, they wouldn't impress you. Why the inconsistancy?

On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

How replication may have arisen through protobionts et. al. can be demonstrated by example as a possibility, even if not replicated in a lab. There are other examples in nature showing how an organic entity of some description can gain the ability to pass on information, even if that organic entity is not alive in the conventional sense of the word. If you had a basic knowledge of biology you'd know this. Oh, and ‘single source’ in that above passage is a good example of bad science. If you had a basic knowledge of biology you'd know this. Who said that where?

There is considerably more evidence supporting the theories regarding a natural development of life than any theology can provide, more than Creationism and Intelligent design can provide. These philosophies are not even working hypothesis, they are unfounded conjecture.

Which do you think is more sensible to believe in? The theory that can show some evidence that such things can happen in such a way, or the theory that has no evidence?

I look forward to your answer to that question, or will you avoid answering it?

Oh, and as Realist says, post your own arguments. You don’t known enough to select the ones you cut and paste without selecting unscientific, irrelevant or out-dated ones, just like the Society do.

I used to find Creationist/JW counter evolutionary arguments convincing. I can hear myself parroting the ‘jumbo jet in a scrap yard’ argument, and the ‘watch-maker’ argument. It was only after I had a basic grasp of Biology and scientific methodology that I could see how stupid these arguments were.

If you have an open mind, go to a bookshop and buy some biology textbooks. Read them, and I’m not even talking about the sections on Evolution, but get a good grasp of fundamental biology. Then look at the evolutionary arguments. Then look at the counter arguments. See what you believe then, when you don't have to accept my word for it or some Creationist's word for it. Take responsibility for yourself.

Abaddon

Wow! It seems you are the one lacking any perspective as to the points made.

Again, you proceed from many false assumptions

Examining your words closely is very telling:

.""your lack of comprehension is obvious. If you’’ve got someone else helping""

You betray yourself. Any college educated person knows the value of questioning an Author or submitting questions related to the field of interest within a debate. Your comments show that you are either not college educated, or ignorant and closed minded to the value of intercourse. I have proved by this example that I have more than a passing interest and willing to go to the source. Your claim of standing on your own arguments is betraying the work and progress of others in the arena of Ideas, and really impossible.

However, it seems you have invented some sort of closed, self sufficient world where you and you alone can postulate and argue without the benefit of anyone else. Bravo! Do you sell tickets to the event? Outrageous? Yes it is, but so is your claim.

""""By the fact you post outdated bollocks and very bad arguments. You don’’t know what you’’re talking about, and it shows in your argument."""""

The fact is the information was taken from a current College Based Group that is academically active and recognized in this field. The only outdated information that really is obvious is your ever changing Facts related to this most interesting field of "Working Theories" as one Stanch Evolutionist exclaimed.

What is very telling is that you have provided nothing (except a web site, double standards?) of substance, except your "pronouncements" of wright or wrong. Using your own requirements, you are a fraud.

I have demmonstrated that even your Icons are more intellectually honest than you. An example:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

Your and Realist’s reply? Insults, and intellectually dishonest tactics and fallacies based on a hidden agenda.

"Which do you think is more sensible to believe in? The theory that can show some evidence that such things can happen in such a way, or the theory that has no evidence?"

Here is a good example of only offering a false choice. Your question itself begs the question: How much is "some evidence" compared to all the evidence? Is there one current theory or many? I provided recent and past quotes from Stanch Evolutionists pondering, basically the same questions. Which you and Realist reject out of hand. You two are either the Eienstein’s of the new millennium, or are closed minded, irreverent fools (sorry, but I am betting on the latter).

I do know this as a fact, from a purely mathematically based perspective, if life does not qualify as a miracle, I do not know what does.