Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 100

Thread: Which came first?

  1. #71
    Natarian Knight owning's Avatar
    Join Date
    23.01.2009
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    If you really believe that, then you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists do not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
    In this regard, you only mirror the many contradictory statements of the many evolutionists themselves.
    So, of course, it makes no sense to you.
    But scientists cant belief what the bible says about sience if they want to be good scientists. If they assume god did something before they proof it they are not good scientists.
    Evolution makes sense to me, it doesnt to you?

  2. #72
    Natarian Knight Woden87's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.10.2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spy-der View Post
    If we're assuming that God exists and he's omnipotent, than it's totally possible.
    That's the entire problem, though: God only makes any sense whatsoever if you start with the assumptions that God is necessary and that God already exists. Anything that does not begin with both of those assumptions makes the whole idea fall to pieces, as evidenced by the "Who created the creator?" question (the point of said question being, if nothing can come about except by a creator, then even that creator would require an infinitely recursive string of creators before it).

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    Ever tried it? 'Nuff said.
    No, but I've been pretty consistently pessimistic for years now, and am doing rather well for myself, so that still works as a disproof of the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spy-der View Post
    Recnic talking about God being omnipotent is him assuming he's real. For us both to be talking about the same scenario I'd have to assume God is real and omnipotent also. If God wasnt real, than we wouldnt even be arguing about whether he's omnipotent or not.
    And, even assuming that God is omnipotent, there are illogical possibilities that suggest that he would not, in truth, be omnipotent (such as the famous "set an impossible task for himself" scenario, exemplified by such questions as "Can God create a boulder so big that he cannot lift it?"). If God can create a situation that is impossible for him to resolve, then that situation shows him to not be omnipotent under a basic definition ("all-capable," the Latin definition of the word); likewise, if he is unable to create the situation, he is still failing to meet that definition, and is therefore not omnipotent.

    Omnipotence is an inherently contradictory idea, and as such is illogical.

    Furthermore, you can't make the cop-out of saying things like "He can't lie, it's not in his nature," as omnipotent means "capable of everything," not "capable of a lot of things, but only the stuff that is in his nature." Either he is all-capable, and can do anything (whether or not he does do things, or the frequency with which he does, is another matter entirely), or he is not omnipotent.

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    But ever since I learned about it, my life's been better in general...
    Your life, most likely, has not been better, but rather just seems better because you have a more positive attitude. The "Law" of Attraction has not once produced a measurable result outside of the believer's body.

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    If I assume the only question you asked there is "Where is your concrete evidence?", so I'm gonna answer that. Testimonials of people who saw a change in their life (possibly through coincidence, we can't be sure) but it's better to believe in something than nothing, I guess, n'est-ce pas?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

    * Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: falsifiability)[32]
    * Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.[33] Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)[34]
    * Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[35]
    * Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).[36]
    * Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[37] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
    * Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[38]
    * Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to explain negative findings.[39]
    That's just one section of the general trends and "warning signs" of pseudoscience. The "Law" of Attraction is a pretty classic example of pseudoscience, meeting a very large number of the criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    It's like the existence of God: If you don't believe in anything you're just a person. If you believe in a religion, you have a "chance" to go to Paradise, which is a good thing Have fun bro.
    That's just a restatement of Pascal's Wager.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

    Sums up the argument against this idea very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    but it's better to believe in something than nothing, I guess, n'est-ce pas?
    And how would you know, having never tried believing in nothing? I am a highly skeptical person, believing in nothing supernatural, be it deities, ghosts, or psychic powers, and I am perfectly content with that aspect of my life. Indeed, I would say that some of my qualities are better, by the general consensus on what things are important, than would be if I were religious; an example being that, because I do not believe in an afterlife, I place a very high importance on life. After all, if we only have one short period of life, that life becomes much more important than it is when overshadowed by an infinite existence afterward.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    a "theory"
    Learn the terms before you further make a fool of yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    A scientific theory is the strongest classification of predictive models, which are supported by a large number of tests from different researches. They are not even remotely similar to the layman's theory, which is often used to mean something like "an idea I just pulled out of my hindquarters without any justification."

    Quite frankly, your misuse of the term shows that, if you have even taken any science classes, you most likely failed them. That is one of the first things they teach you.

    Taking the idea a little further, would you brush aside the theory of gravity as "just a 'theory'"?

    Note: There is both a Law of Gravity (which, basically, states the tendency of objects to fall "down", and provides no basis for prediction past that) and a Theory of Gravity (which provides all the predictive information that has been used in things like ballistics, engineering, and many other fields).

    Also, fun fact: the Theory of Gravity has been discarded as incorrect. It was replaced with the Theory of General Relativity, although the Theory of Gravity is still used in many instances because the math is so much simpler while still giving a very similar result.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    But to me, the more I examine nature and it's intrinsic design, the more reasonable conclusion is an intelligent Creator.
    Okay, I've got to bite at this point. Do you believe that God has a blindspot in His vision, as we were created in His likeness? And no, such a blindspot serves no purpose; cephalopods (squids, octopi, etc.) have eyes that perform very well, and are similar in their general characteristics to ours, but lack the blind-spot because the optic nerve attaches to the back of their retina, rather than to the front.

    This oddity is one of many that clearly supports chance over intelligent design.

    Furthermore, speciation has been caused by humans, repeatedly, in our domestication of plants. One example:

    Last edited by Woden87; 03.12.2010 at 21:25. Reason: Fixed a typo.

  3. #73
    Natarian Knight REDSHEILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    18.07.2008
    Location
    Castor Prime; Capital Building
    Posts
    5,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    REDSHEILD

    Seriously, are you wanting a play on words?
    I was poking fun at the idea of omnipotence and how easy it is for one to spot the logical flaws in it.
    "SUUM TANTUM A PULPA VULNUS"-footman.
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpy View Post
    A message for Ramrod: Don't reproduce, ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpy
    To REDSHEILD, if he happens to see this: I suppose I am a Grammar N*zi at heart.
    <(-_-)><(@-@)><(o.0)> <dragons.

  4. #74
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    If you really believe that, then you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists do not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
    In this regard, you only mirror the many contradictory statements of the many evolutionists themselves.
    So, of course, it makes no sense to you.
    Your not coming up with any reasons why your right, your just declaring yourself correct and accusing everyone else of bias. Firstly my lab based examples of speciation are totally black and white, they were event that occurred under lab conditions that fulfilled the usual definition of speciation, this is not a question of interpretation. Secondly if you want to provide an alternative explanation for why the pattern of neutral mutations correspond to that predicted by phylogenetic trees I'd love to hear it. If I may ask what evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is correct?

    Did you ever think that considering about 35% of scientists are Christian and that the 95% of scientists accept either god-guided or unguided evolution that there is maybe something to this whole idea?
    If it some terrible athiest conspiracy why do almost all informed Christians also accept it?

    This whole thing is starting to reminds me of a quote: "But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab!"

    *The numbers are based on studies done in the late nineties by nature and Gallup I couldn't find any more recent numbers.
    *Also in fairness I should probably point out that the above diagram does not actually show a speciation event, the above are cultivar groups. There are however many examples of directly observed speciation, some of which I have already referenced. I'm mainly saying this to preempt Zeno from saying something along the lines of "That isn't speciation, therefore my argument is right" when he returns.
    Last edited by Utisz; 04.12.2010 at 02:27.

  5. #75
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    You can try to insult me personally, but this is not about me. I really don't care. This is a debate about a long debated, controversial subject. I only respond out of boredom and the fact that mind games are so interesting.

    As for the terms and definitions used, they can be verified by looking them up in a dictionary or reference work online. (Please, Woden...try following your own advice)
    Admittedly, the English language can be rather confusing to some with words having multiple definitions and usages. So take it up with Webster.

    It's interesting what some evolutionists have to say on this matter of debate:

    "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 13



    "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)



    "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)



    "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)



    "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



    "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)



    "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?" (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 15



    "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



    "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)



    "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)



    "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)



    "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)



    "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)



    "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 8



    "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)



    "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)



    "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture


    "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)


    After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?

    Hmmm. Something to chew on.

  6. #76
    Natarian Knight Woden87's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.10.2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    As for the terms and definitions used, they can be verified by looking them up in a dictionary or reference work online. (Please, Woden...try following your own advice)
    lolwut?

    I do not think this even deserves to be dignified by a response, but I shall give you one nonetheless, in case English is not your primary language. In English, many words that have multiple meanings have context-sensitive meanings; the word will not mean the same thing when used in a business setting as it will when used in a science setting, or in a household setting, etc. Therefore, it is important to select the correct context of the word when looking it up in a dictionary. The only scientific context for theory is the previously-explained definition, which is one requiring a large body of evidence and repeated testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    It's interesting what some evolutionists have to say on this matter of debate:
    This makes it rather ironic that many of the people you then proceed to quote are not "evolutionists."

    I have also found a lot of them mentioned in the tak.origins webpages discussing quote mines:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/part1-4.html

    Your list appears to begin at #59, and they debunk quite a few of them, perhaps even all of them.

  7. #77
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    I'm not insulting you personally (well at least not much), but the argument you are making. For example when I said "your talking nonsense" this is not a personal attack but targeted at your arguments. Likewise most of Woden's comments such as "learn a term before you make a fool of yourself" are also directed at your arguments.

    Secondly your point that you are not misusing terminology is clearly not correct, as an example (that has already been made I might add) you have stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    "theory", meaning only speculation, conjecture, a guess; not a proven fact.
    When if you followed your own advice and looked it up in a dictionary you will find (and this is the first definition that comes up when you search google I might add) "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".

    This is clearly the meaning in which the term theory is used in the evolutionary context, your entire point in regard to this is a total non sequitur. I might as well say "evolutionist claim that flukes and amphibians are related, but to suggest frogs and a type of anchor are related is crazy!". Your statement (whether you knew it or not) was a total abuse of terminology based around misuse of a homonym. The fact that you cannot accept this suggests a lack of maturity on your part.

    Finally I am not interested in what a group of mostly deceased creationists and/or scientists have to say on the matter, especially since most of the scientists seem to have been intentionally taken out of context to distort there meaning by omitting clarifying infomation. From the fact that 95% of scientists accept the theory, with an even higher rate of acceptance amongst biologists it should be obvious that I can produce an even more impressive list of quotes both in terms of length, credentials and that does not involve brazen misrepresentation. However such an exercise would prove little either way.
    This list is simply a shallow tactic designed to drown us with information to the point where we cannot be bothered responding and are forced to throw up our hands in resignation and walk off. To say the least it is an extremely intellectually lazy tactic and unfortunately one that is so popular among creationist's it actually got given its own name the Gish Gallop. Personally I'll stick to a few good examples that you can't refute rather then trying to smother you with a torrent of nonsense.

    However as I'm lame I'll show how the first three of your quotations are either incorrect, irrelevant or otherwise flawed simply for the sake of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 13
    Firstly this quotation provides no evidence or reason as to why I must accept the premise that "living matter is not caused by etc....". Simply put I do not accept this premise. This quotation without its proper context is totally worthless at making the point it is trying to. Furthermore he is not even a biologist and considering that the entire point of his essay is an argument for special creation calling him an 'evolutionists' is stretching the truth to put it mildly. Furthermore he later apparently clarified his position and outlines what exactly he had meant ."Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record. H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337." In essence he is arguing against natural selection but believe in a form of god guided evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
    Firstly I went to look up who E.J.H. Corner to check his credentials I found him to be well qualified. However surprise, surprise he has been taken completely out of context in order to explicitly misrepresent the meaning of this passage. Here it is in a more complete form:

    "The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"
    Allow me to explicitly state the point he was trying to make; That one the popular interpretation, among scientists fifty years ago of the fossil records of plants was incorrect. Two that there was little point continuing to dig around in Europe for fossils when that wasn't the location where most of plant evolution took place. I.e. that the European fossil records showed little evidence for evolution of plants because that's not were the vast majority of plant evolution bloody took place and there was ample supporting data to study plant evolution in tropical regions. Furthermore there is torrents of non-plant fossil related evidence, which Corner clearly believed showed evolution to be correct considering he spent much of his career developing the Durian theory.

    The fact your getting information from sources prepared to deliberately distort and outright deceive there readers, by misrepresenting the meaning of passages they quote by selectively removing key contextual information should make you at least pause and question, that this isn't a good source of information. Taking passages out of context and editing separate sections of quotes together in order to emit unfavorable details and deliberately misrepresent the original intent of the author, is not and will never be proof of any position whether that position be true or false. It is simply a demonstration of a total lack of both integrity and basic honesty on the part of the original compiler of the list.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
    Again where is the beef, this is a statement not argument. All this tells me is that a Christian physicist who again wasn't an 'evolutionist' but a Lamarckian (please look this word up to see how crazy it is your using this as evidence for anything) and who lived ninety years ago, believed evolution to be a load of nonsense. If you want to convince me you need to tell me WHY it takes so much faith to believe in evolution. Not just misquote a lot of dead scientists and/or attempt to pass off creationist as 'evolutionists' in the hopes we won't be bothered to respond against the sheer volume of nonsense.
    Last edited by Utisz; 05.12.2010 at 03:12.

  8. #78
    Natarian Knight owning's Avatar
    Join Date
    23.01.2009
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    tons of quotes
    Spontaneous creation makes a lot more sense that divine creation.
    Anyway it's better having a person believeing that god made evolution that having a creationist to debate.

  9. #79
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    24.07.2008
    Location
    Duh, where I live
    Posts
    1,916

    Default

    Either way God prefers atheists to theists if he does exist

    1 Atheists are good. Not because they fear Hell in the afterlife, but because they want to be
    2 Atheists sort out their own problems instead of whining to God, i've got news to you. He doesn't give a toss
    3 They don't fight and murder because of him
    Quote Originally Posted by The Chaz View Post
    "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain..." - Colonel Jessep
    Quote Originally Posted by Spy-der View Post
    >_>' yeah yeah. I got it the first time when haz told me XD
    I'm wrong.... so.... shut up now XD

  10. #80
    Natarian Knight Woden87's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.10.2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HAZ94 View Post
    Either way God prefers atheists to theists if he does exist

    1 Atheists are good. Not because they fear Hell in the afterlife, but because they want to be
    2 Atheists sort out their own problems instead of whining to God, i've got news to you. He doesn't give a toss
    3 They don't fight and murder because of him
    That last one is debatable; the Old Testament God would seem to prefer it if people did fight and murder in his name, based on my reading of it.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •