These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists

MyFortress.org ^

[DaveLoneRanger]

By their words we may know them.

[DaveLoneRanger]

(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in matters of Creation vs. Evolution, Creation trumping evolution, and evolutionary fraud. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

---

Can you say "yowza!"?

[Oztrich Boy]

Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology

They don't give Nobel Prizes in Biology, doofus.

[DannyTN]

I always thought it ironic that evo's accuse creationist of argument from incredulity" when most of their arguments are just that.

Likewise, evo's accuse creationists of imagining a "God of the gaps", when their imaginings fit the term "evolution of the gaps" far better.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Thank you for pointing this out and catching it for us, Ozzie. Dr. Wald won the 1967 prize in Medicine, not biology.

[wallcrawlr]

What happened to "Everybody be nice."

[DouglasKC]

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

You know, this just sums it up perfectly. In order to believe that God had no part in creation, you have to believe in a completely unscientific, antiquated notion. Life can not arise from non-life. It takes life to make life. There's no way around it.

[ovrtaxt]

Wow- where'd you get all that?

[Onelifetogive]

Let me be the first to offer the standard proof supplied by evolutionists:

You're stupid if you don't believe in evolution.....

[ovrtaxt]

Ah, that's way too simple. Why, even the average peon can understand that. Surely it can't be that simple, because if it was, the elite pinhead intellectuals, the high priests and keepers of scientific knowledge, would have no pulpit from which to preach.

There must be a highly complex, labyrinthine explanation for the existence of the universe. One that doesn't include such crude, neanderthal concepts as 'God' and 'faith'.

And I'm sure someone will offer it to us here shortly.

[Bringbackthedraft]

If man evolved from Apes why do Apes still exist? (Think what you may but I know my relatives arrived here thousands of years ago on ice ships from outer space, so there!)

[DouglasKC]

There must be a highly complex, labyrinthine explanation for the existence of the universe. One that doesn't include such crude, neanderthal concepts as 'God' and 'faith'. And I'm sure someone will offer it to us here shortly.

I've never heard an explanation on this. They have to believe in a fairy tale that a bunch of non-living components somehow organized themselves and became alive. Kind of like maggots arising spontaneously from rotten meat.

[Oztrich Boy]

What happened to "Everybody be nice."

That's for Evolutionist Threads.

Creationists Threads; When in Rome, do as the Creationists do

[Robert_Paulson2]

well yeah but,
those aren't REAL scientists.

REAL scientists believe in evolution.
In fact, that should be the basis for all science degrees.

< / sarcasm >

[highball]

Sorry, pal.

Anyone who has to resort to a Hitler reference loses the argument.

[highball]

"If man evolved from Apes why do Apes still exist?"

Common fallacy, and an easy misunderstanding to rectify.

Man did not evolve from Apes. Apes and Man both evolved from a common ancestor.

Now that that has been cleared up, any other questions?

[tahotdog]

Apparently, there is a sort of a gap between what real experts such as you quote have to say about evolution, and what the experts-in-their-own-minds whose blatherings you read on these internet forums have to say about it. Interesting, to say the least.

[tallhappy]

Now that that has been cleared up, any other questions?

Why doesn't the common ancestor still exist?

[general_re]

The very first quote in your list, the Wald quote, is an absolute and total fabrication, invented out of thin air. Is there any reason I should continue on to the rest of the list, or is it a complete waste of time also?

[highball]

Do you really not know?

French and Italian both evolved out of Latin. Does it surpise you to hear that no people speak Latin as their first language?

Come on, this is elementary stuff.

[Junior]

Hell, he couldn't be bothered to check out the veracity of these (mis)quotes, what makes you think he'd check out the Nobel prize categories?

[tallhappy]

I see you weren't able to clear this up.

[highball]

I cannot help someone who insists on remaining ignorant.

Perfectly understandable, though. Ignorance is a prerequisite for creationism.

[tallhappy]

I'd think the common ancestor doesn't exist because all the members died off after the ape and human ancestors arose.

I'm not sure why you have such a problem understanding that.

Or that you are unable to answer a question in a straightforward manner.

[Nabber]

Truth: Man killed off all the common ancestors. In other words, the common ancestor was too stupid to live....

[MacDorcha]

Note post 5.

[MacDorcha]

One thing:

Latin isn't spoken as a first language because an outside source (Celts) stepped in and altered it.

The language did not change of itself (heck, the later Roman period saw a revival of "true" latin, in an effort to keep it "correct" and "universal".)

An outside force changed it, and adapted it.

But the fact remains, we still use Latin to this day. (whether or not it is a "first language" the tangible evidence is still there)

So answer the question, especially given your recent answer: Why doesn't the ancestor still exist?

[Junior]

It still calls into question the veracity of the quotes.

[mikeus_maximus]

Perfectly understandable, though. Ignorance is a prerequisite for creationism.

Less so than arrogant derision is a requisite for filling the logical gaps and promoting macroevolution theory. You're probably not aware of the fact that you're simply following a traditional strategy that was deliberately concocted by "Darwin's Bulldog" (Huxley) to quell public scrutiny of macroevolution theory. That tactic trickled down through our education industry, and you're blindly going along. Does that make you "ignorant"?

[highball]

Cute.

Doesn't change the fact that "creation science" is an oxymoron. We don't need to address Darwinism at all to recognize that.

I'm not saying that Darwinism is perfect, or that it holds all the answers. But it is the only scientific answer that addresses the evidence.

[MEGoody]

They don't give Nobel Prizes in Biology, doofus.

LOL So out of this entire posting, this is all you could find to pick apart?

Very telling.

[MEGoody]

The very first quote in your list, the Wald quote, is an absolute and total fabrication, invented out of thin air.

I presume you can prove this assertion?

[general_re]

Well-trodden ground - mash here.

[Modernman]

Ah, quote-mining. A proud Creationist tradition.

Throw a large number of out-of-context or, in some cases, made up quotes up against the wall in the hopes that they will stick.

[Modernman]

So answer the question, especially given your recent answer: Why doesn't the ancestor still exist?

Because it died out. Maybe there was an environmental change that the species could not adapt to. Maybe other species (such as some of the species descended from the original species) ended up wiping out the ancestor species.

Species go extinct all the time. It's not particularly surprising that one of our ancestor species died out, since the majority of our primate ancestors have died out.

[Oztrich Boy]

LOL So out of this entire posting, this is all you could find to pick apart?

Finding a elementary demonstration of ignorance in the very first quote example of the posting

Very telling.

[tallhappy]

Because it died out.

Highball apparently didn't know this.

[MEGoody]

Finding a elementary demonstration of ignorance in the very first quote example of the posting

I noticed you didn't criticize the quote itself. :)

[MEGoody]

I see. So what you are asking me to do is believe a posting on that site instead of a posting on this site.

Got it

[general_re]

You're always free to settle any controversy you feel may exist by going to the library and looking it up yourself.

[Oztrich Boy]

I noticed you didn't criticize the quote itself. :)

Because quotes by themselves mean nothing. They only serve to highlight a way of looking at an issue as an introduction to discussion.

"Quote-mining" ia an appeal to authority, done by people who neither understand or care about the topic.

Attempting to discuss the actual topic of the quote with a quote-miner is like teaching a pig to whistle.

[MEGoody]

"Quote-mining" ia an appeal to authority, done by people who neither understand or care about the topic.

Ah, rather like people who choose to make an issue out of a little detail in the quote credits.

[MEGoody]

You're always free to settle any controversy you feel may exist by going to the library and looking it up yourself.

Absolutely.

[Oztrich Boy]

Ah, rather like people who choose to make an issue out of a little detail in the quote credits.

You mean people who would impugn the entire credibility of Dan Ra^ther's reporting because of a little sloppiness in source checking?

[mikeus_maximus]

Ah, quote-mining. A proud Creationist tradition.

Ah yes, the old "you're just quote mining" missive. I was waiting for that. Get that from TalkOrigins, by any chance? Feel free to take any of these quotes and provide any "context" you feel would change the meaning of the words these macroevolution proponents used.

At bottom, the "quote mining" charge is just a buzzword that means nothing. It's meant to create a negative emotive reaction to the message and quell objecdtive discussion. But words mean things; so do plain admissions. To suggest otherwise is take a page right out of the Bill Clinton Manual of Dissembling, Diversion and Distraction-- a tactic unworthy of "enlightened and objective" minds searching for truth.

[Quark2005]

At bottom, the "quote mining" charge is just a buzzword that means nothing.

Maybe so. Quotes are irrelevant anyway. The scientific research behind evolution is solid. The science behind creation is crap. That's the bottom line. Read a science book.

[highball]

I knew it, I thought my original response was more than adequate. My mistake.

The fact that the common ancestor is no longer around doesn't mean it didn't exist. It also doesn't matter *why* the common ancestor is no longer around, except as an intellectual exercise.

For my own part, I think that the common ancestor probably died out because it was not as well adapted to changes in its environment as both man and apes. Is that sufficient for you, or would you rather make another snarky comment?

[MacDorcha]

That wasn't to you. I have a firm grasp of the reasons supposed. I was asking highball to clarify his dim point.

[MacDorcha]

Fair enough.

[Quark2005]

Why bother? Trying to explain the integrity of the scientific method to people who still believe dinosaurs and people lived at the same time is like trying to explain advanced vector calculus to someone who hasn't learned to count to ten yet.