Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Mother Teresa: corrupt, ignorant and unhelpful?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Mother Teresa: corrupt, ignorant and unhelpful?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 27, 28, 29 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:20 am Post subject:

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

This is literally the most poorly articulated argument I think I have ever seen anywhere, from anyone, about anything.

hey when you dont want to listen to anyone else but yourself then sure
the world could seem that way to you..
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE BROTHER!! deal with it..

Billy Pilgrim

Joined: 08 Sep 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:34 am Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

This is literally the most poorly articulated argument I think I have ever seen anywhere, from anyone, about anything.

hey when you dont want to listen to anyone else but yourself then sure
the world could seem that way to you..
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE BROTHER!! deal with it..

I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about your post. The string of words that loosely mimic actual sentences that are strung together to very loosely mimic a chain of logic. I'm talking about the way YOU express yourself in writing. Simple as that. Now, I realise you aren't going to improve yourself in this area, because for some reason you think driving away people you oppose your general idea (whatever it may be) with impenetrable prose equates to a victory for those nominal ideas that provoked your tumble of words and punctuation.

Doesn't work like that, sport. Take some writing classes, and perhaps we'll meet again on this topic.

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:01 am Post subject:

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

itaewonguy wrote:

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

This is literally the most poorly articulated argument I think I have ever seen anywhere, from anyone, about anything.

Hey when you don�t want to listen to anyone else but yourself then sure
The world could seem that way to you..
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE BROTHER!! Deal with it..

I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about your post. The string of words that loosely mimic actual sentences that are strung together to very loosely mimic a chain of logic. I'm talking about the way YOU express yourself in writing. Simple as that. Now, I realize you aren't going to improve yourself in this area, because for some reason you think driving away people you oppose your general idea (whatever it may be) with impenetrable prose equates to a victory for those nominal ideas that provoked your tumble of words and punctuation.

Doesn't work like that, sport. Take some writing classes, and perhaps we'll meet again on this topic.

Wow the last time I watched a debate they were not writing their views down and passing notes to each other...
Either put up or shut up!!!
And all you atheists
have not PUT UP ANYTHING!!!
So if you want to talk about my writing styles, my excess of!!!!!!
Or ????? Go ahead.. Fact is when you are pushed into a corner and you realize you are stuck you look for other ways to come off shining..
BROTHER! I have heard all about my writing styles for 4 years on here
If that�s the best you can come up with, then I suggest you take a number and wait in line...
Fact is I have facts which you guys don�t want to admit because you are atheist extremists smelling your own farts!! You love to knock down Christians or other religious people.. but when an agnostic like me comes into an argument fact is you have no way to win! Because I don�t take sides!! I just show you guys how wrong you are..
Now if I was a Christian.. You could call out show me your god...

But because I am neutral and open minded I remain open to either..

Quote:

The string of words that loosely mimic actual sentences that are strung together to very loosely mimic a chain of logic.

you call that a grammatical sentence???
Rolling Eyes

but you see Im not the one to care about grammar seems you have issue with it all I want is for you guys to admit that.. its impossible to be sure that their isnt a god..
also its impossible to be 100% sure that we didnt evolved without intelligent design....

www.amazon.com

millions of books.. still not one book which is the sure winner..
you choose which book you wish to believe..,.
2008! we dont have a winner yet!!! prove me wrong..
ive been waiting for over a week now.. but thats cool..

just like I would ask the christians the same thing..
its not possible to be 100% certain that humans are from adam and eve..
and its also possible but not 100% certain that we evolved from bacteria in a pond of water..

we cant be sure..
when are athiests gonna let it go!!! and admit this...

you all sound like TOM CRUISE on 60 minutes talking about scientology

atheists are actually the worst! of all preachers.. becuase they like to smell their own farts and use science as a way of snobbery...
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT EVVVVVEEEERRRRRRRRRR!!

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

you read it!!!
then ask me the question...
or perhaps you are just to lazy becuase you have already made up your mind!!!

I did. I found nothing compelling. Look a whole web page about how einstein was wrong:

http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/

Gosh those silly physics departments and legion of nobel prize winners must just have a different take on things... huh? No. See. Einstein is backed by reams of experimentation and scientific evidence. This web page has nothing. Just a bunch of claims. Do you grasp the difference between a claim and a hypothesis that is tested with experimentation and eventually becomes a theory because the lines of evidence are too compelling?

Anyway, your link is a page of claims.

Now any claims on that page you find compelling? I'm not asking you to restate the whole page. I'm asking you for the top 3. That seems entirely reasonable. "I loved the movie." "Okay you don't have to retell me the whole movie, what was your favorite part?" That's how things work. At the end of the day I don't see anything but a long ramble. Nada. Zippo.

Further, which part addresses the molecular evidence? It's pretty disingenuous to claim there is no evidence, be shown the evidence, and then simply hand wave it away without tackling it head on. Hot air. You run your business on that model? Making claims and never delivering? "Could you summarize the advantages of doing business with you?" "Just buy my products and services!" Lame.

Anyway, I see nothing that tackles the molecular evidence. As the subject matter expert on that link, perhaps you could reveal it? I sure can't see it. You do understand it, right? You're not just posting links you haven't read yourself and don't even understand?

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

But because I am neutral and open minded I remain open to either..

For a fence sitter you seem very opinionated.
Do you really see Genesis and Evolution as having an equal chance?
(I've giving up waiting for this to get back to MT)

Who's claiming 100% certainty about anything?

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:19 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

I did. I found nothing compelling.

Yeah becuase you are looking at with a closed mind!
You are going into the writings already shaking your head..

Quote:

Gosh those silly physics departments and legion of Nobel Prize winners must just have a different take on things... huh? No. See. Einstein is backed by reams of experimentation and scientific evidence.

Newton versus Einstein. Get educated my friend!!

Quote:

This web page has nothing. Just a bunch of claims. Do you grasp the difference between a claim and a hypothesis that is tested with experimentation and eventually becomes a theory because the lines of evidence are too compelling?

Great I must have missed the burl you gave me where it shows that theobald has tested evolution in his lab and has clinical evidence to back his claim!
Please send me that URL again. Or you tube video so I can see the eye evolving in stages, or molecular evidence to prove his theory.. I mean these guys that you worship have done experiments haven�t they?
They have published their evidence haven�t they? Rolling Eyes

NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PICK A WINNER as of 2008!!!

Quote:

Now any claims on that page you find compelling?

All of it shows theobalds theory to be wrong! These claims are showing a different perspective which is just as good as the ones you believe...
So again... the thousands of books and papers you can read all ends up at the same LOGICAL conclusion... WE JUST DONT KNOW!! Believe the viewpoint which you want.. And argue your belief until you turn blue.
Im arguing the logical stand point.. NOT EVIDENCE to PICK SIDES!

Quote:

Further, which part addresses the molecular evidence? It's pretty disingenuous to claim there is no evidence, be shown the evidence, and then simply hand wave it away without tackling it head on. Hot air.

Hot air?! What you think you are blowing buddy!! EVIDENCE?? hahahahaa
Again... this debate is still going on in the world by the people really fighting the fight in the labs, doing research and still are not at a conclusion... its still going on..
Because the jury is still out!! Pro evolution will take their stance..
And pro creation, ID evolution will that theirs.. Still not enough evidence to pick one side... HOT AIR?? hahahaah TRUTH MORE LIKE IT!!!

Quote:

Anyway, I see nothing that tackles the molecular evidence?[/code]

Dude I can regurgitate thousands of scientist�s claims as you are which tackles anything you put in front of me.. WHY?? Because their is still not fact to decide if evolution is ID or chance.. Go to amazon.com and see all the books on sale all trying to claim... still no winner.. Don�t worry!! The world will stand still when the evidence is presented!! Until that day , it�s all claims!! And scientists and the rest of them all are trying to cash in...

Here is one for you..

In the publication, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, the authors explain: �As the ability to sequence the nucleotides [chemical �letters�] making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.�[2]

The evolutionary histories constructed from various kinds of molecular information, it is said, closely match and corroborate those histories based on fossils and morphology (anatomical structure).

This claim is simply untrue. It is well known in scientific circles that molecular histories often conflict with those based on fossils. Indeed, in an article for Nature, one of the world�s most prestigious science journals, science writer Trisha Gura surveys the long-running debate over whether �bones, molecules � or both� yield the most accurate evolutionary histories.

Gura reports, �Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species.�[3]

Molecular histories even contradict each other, with different molecules producing different evolutionary trees. Biologist Michael Lynch observes, �Clarification of the phylogenetic [i.e., evolutionary] relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:29 am Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

itaewonguy wrote:

But because I am neutral and open minded I remain open to either..

you are claiming it..
why you wish to not sound so stupid now and say you are open to the possibilities of a god?? ok ill give you a chance..

are you?

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:27 am Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

Quote:

Newton versus Einstein. Get educated my friend!!

You're trying to say what here?

Quote:

Great I must have missed the burl you gave me where it shows that theobald has tested evolution in his lab and has clinical evidence to back his claim!

Yes, you did miss it. I gave you the 29+ Evidence for Evolution link with all the scientific testing referenced.

That URL again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote:

All of it shows theobalds theory to be wrong! These claims are showing a different perspective which is just as good as the ones you believe...

It's not "theobalds theory". It's the theory of evolution. The 29+ evidences page gives an over view with references to the actual scientific research that support evolution. Your page offers no science.

Quote:

So again... the thousands of books and papers you can read all ends up at the same LOGICAL conclusion... WE JUST DONT KNOW!!

We do know. The molecular evidence.

Quote:

Because their is still not fact to decide if evolution is ID or chance.. Go to amazon.com and see all the books on sale all trying to claim... still no winner..

Lots of books too on why space aliens are visiting earth, why the brain is not the seat of consciousness and why vaccinations are not safe or effective. That doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

This claim is simply untrue. It is well known in scientific circles that molecular histories often conflict with those based on fossils. Indeed, in an article for Nature, one of the world�s most prestigious science journals, science writer Trisha Gura surveys the long-running debate over whether �bones, molecules � or both� yield the most accurate evolutionary histories.

So what? Maps made today with satellites don't match the maps sailors made in the 17th century. Doesn't mean America doesn't exist.

Got anything else that disputes the molecular evidence? Take your time.

(blows on finger nails)

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:06 am Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

ED209 wrote:

itaewonguy wrote:

But because I am neutral and open minded I remain open to either..

you are claiming it..
why you wish to not sound so stupid now and say you are open to the possibilities of a god?? ok ill give you a chance..

are you?

I don't need a chance, I've stated for myself several times throughout this thread.

Now I'll grace you with a second chance to answer my question
"Do you really see Genesis and Evolution as having an equal chance?"

(If there is a problem with this question then please explain what that may be).

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

Now I'll grace you with a second chance to answer my question
"Do you really see Genesis and Evolution as having an equal chance?"

Equal? NO! whats that got to do with me??? Im not a christian and I havent once preached the bible.. but they doesnt mean that this world as we know it wasnt created for us...
and you cant prove that...

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Newton versus Einstein. Get educated my friend!!

You're trying to say what here?

I am saying the greatest thinkers of our time have been proven wrong. and peoples theories are challenged everyday and being proven wrong everyday.. so why close the book on it!

Quote:

Yes, you did miss it. I gave you the 29+ Evidence for Evolution link with all the scientific testing referenced.

That URL again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Im sorry again I must of missed the part where it shows the actual EXPERIENMENT! with the photos of reproducing the monicule and showing the stages of the eye being reproduced..

left-handed amino acids in proteins.. EXPLAIN! (blows on fingers)

Since natural selection was unable to operate before accurate duplication, and since no way has been found to account for the exclusive use of left-handed components in proteins, chance is all that is left,
and chance is a theory just as strong as ID..
as I say. missing links...and it all might be microsoptic links and that might be the link of ID.. (god) as of 2008 we just cant be sure..
fungus to man! anythings possible....

Quote:

We do know. The molecular evidence

yes we do.. I havent disagreed. but that doesnt prove their is no god..
I am also not disagreeing that we didnt evolve.. im just saying we cant be 100% sure of this.. but evidence sure does show we did.. but their is still a good arguement that ID is at work.. and that cant be disputed with the current data we have.

Quote:

Lots of books too on why space aliens are visiting earth, why the brain is not the seat of consciousness and why vaccinations are not safe or effective. That doesn't mean anything.

IT means everything! it means that we still dont have evidence of one pure winner.. so you believe the one that best fits your character..
you choose no GOD.. and Ill choose well I cant be sure..
you choose evolution with no god.. and Ill choose ID evolution is possible too though.. so I remain 2008 I dont know...

Quote:

So what? Maps made today with satellites don't match the maps sailors made in the 17th century. Doesn't mean America doesn't exist.

thats right.. and thats my point data is always changing.... and facts be disproven all the time..

Quote:

Got anything else that disputes the molecular evidence?

that depends on what you mean? you mean by trying to tell me their is no god becuase we have molecular evidence ??? then YEAH!!!

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:47 am Post subject:

itaewonguy wrote:

Im sorry again I must of missed the part where it shows the actual EXPERIENMENT! with the photos of reproducing the monicule and showing the stages of the eye being reproduced..

Then you need to read the referenced papers.

Quote:

left-handed amino acids in proteins.. EXPLAIN! (blows on fingers)

No theory explains everything. Argument from ignorance is no argument.

Quote:

We do know. The molecular evidence

Okay define ID, how do you decide what is ID and what is the product of natural selection. Simply saying "nah that could never happen" is not science.

Quote:

thats right.. and thats my point data is always changing.... and facts be disproven all the time..

The fact that the American continent exists sure hasn't changed, albeit we have refined our knowledge.

Quote:

Got anything else that disputes the molecular evidence?

that depends on what you mean? you mean by trying to tell me their is no god becuase we have molecular evidence ??? then YEAH!!!

How does showing how lightening results from a static electricity build up imply there's no god? How does showing how species diversified over time show there is no god? You're not talking sense.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:23 am Post subject:

Didn't the pope and some famous scientist (maybe Hawkings) have some discussion or interaction at some point. The pope said that science was great and could explain everything it wanted to after the instant the big bang occurred but that science was to leave that which happened before it to religion? I guess this would be before science starting trying to speculate about what happened before. I'm not sure if my story was just a joke or something I dreamed or reality. I guess the point is that two intelligent people should realize that their beliefs have no reason to not exist in harmony. I agree with Itaewonguy in that there is insubstantial evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. I agree with whoever else that there is substantial evidence to support evolution. Why must the two be exclusionary? Maybe I'm missing the point entirely: I'm drunk

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:48 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Maybe I'm missing the point entirely

No you are not.. Its just that mind me too wants 100% evidence to show intelligent design to prove me wrong.. But he doesn�t have 100% evidence of only evolution by natural selection.. But he has made up his mind that their is no god. He advocates for atheism and that�s it.. He doesn�t want to hear anything else...

He only looks for answers of no god in molecules, atoms, DNA, proteins etc.. ..

but it just shows how low level minded he is because he is stuck only in molecular biology and believes all the answers to no god lies there..

He doesn�t think about spirit, the complexity of the consciousness, philosophy, cosmology, spirituality, free will, physics, and neurobiology
And so many other areas which have unexplained answers which all lead to possibilities of a creator.. Now im not saying ohh because science hasn�t proven it means its god!
All I am saying is.. Give god a chance! He has been in the game from the time man questioned life till right now.. So why throw him out of the race!
Just because men are looking into science for answers doesn�t mean their is no god..
He is a pessimist.. And I am an optimist..

I live my life with the door open! he lives his with a closed one!

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:03 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Then you need to read the referenced papers.

I didn�t see any reference to a page taking me to a scientific reproductive experiment showing an EYE evolving! Or still haven�t seen any reference to where a scientist has claimed to have all the evidence of evolution in man.. Im sorry I keep missing it, could you be so kind of send me a link of a scientist who has claimed this and has done an experiment an eye and capturing its evolution process.. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

No theory explains everything. Argument from ignorance is no argument.

B I N G O now go look in the mirror..!!

Quote:

Okay define ID, how do you decide what is ID and what is the product of natural selection. Simply saying "nah that could never happen" is not science.

I never said NAH that couldn�t happen... I said it�s possible but so is ID...
The reason I advocate for ID is because scientists haven't answered all the questions. AND!! So many scientists say the complexity of the human body is so overwhelming that it shows signs of a watch maker!
still so many unexplained processes in the brain,body etc and microscopic biology that shows impossibilities for evolution by chance that�s why this debate will go on long after you and I have passed...

OK.. why ID for me?
Not only is the fossil record lacking in the number of transitional forms that evolutionary theory requires, but the sudden appearance of complex, multi-cellular life is even more problematic for Darwinian gradualism.

The physical structure of DNA is enormously complex, and scientists have no idea how such a molecule could have physically originated by natural processes alone. But the real mystery lies in the origin of the coded instructions on the DNA molecule. These instructions are of a fundamentally different nature than the physical molecules on which they are carried. The molecules and chemical reactions are material (i.e. physical) in nature. But the instructions are non-material. The instructions are carried by the chemical components of DNA, but the instructions are not physical entities. The instructions cause the molecules of our cells to do specific things, so they can obviously influence and affect the physical world. But the instructions are non-physical, non-material.

So my point is with uncertainties like this still around how can we just choose one side?

and I will quote Carl sagan becuase I believe he is write when he says..

Quote:

Carl Sagan wrote the following concerning the question of atheism, God, and science:

An [dogmatic] atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists

Quote:

How does showing how lightening results from a static electricity build up imply there's no god? How does showing how species diversified over time show there is no god? You're not talking sense

Now that�s THREE!!
First Ed, then seoulturian and now you..
You have all changed your stance from first saying there is NO GOD!
Now to saying its possible! But I believe their isn�t..
You don�t make any sense.. my arguement all along is prove their is no god! and you want to change words to save face.. ok..what ever.,.
It�s more like somehow in your consciousness you have manifested so long to hate god! Or denounce the possibilities of god from your experiences until now in life to say absolutely their is no god! But still part of you knows that you don�t have all the facts but dispute the possibilities that their is a god ! Stop believing in DAWKINS and hitchens.. Those guys would say anything to get paid! They are riding the trail and cashing in!! If they stop saying what they do they will loose MILLIONS!! You do realize they are millionaires don�t you?? chit I would go on TV and say their is NO GOD too if I was getting a million dollars a year!! Im sure you would go on TV and say I LOVE JESUS if someone offered you 10.000 dollars!
Fact is they just don�t know! But they have to admit it, so they dont look stupid, but they say, it�s a .00001 chance in my book! OF COURSE THEY SAY THAT! They have to or they won�t be controversial and won�t be in demand anymore!
They advocate atheism because it�s a hot topic now! And they are cashing in!!

Do your own research cross the line and read what the other guys are saying and approach it with an open mind.. Life is too short to live close minded. I keep telling you the jury is out.. but you seem to think its a slam dunk! hahahahahaha..

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 27, 28, 29 Next
Page 28 of 29

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe