Skip to comments.
Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory
Pathlights ^
| Staff
Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520 ... 581-595 next last
To: Quix
Your continued failure to convincingly explain the brilliant folks support of Creationism is noted.More thoughts on this ludicrous creationist non-argument:
Presumably quantum theory and atomic theory and genetic theory are also untrue because Newton and Galileo didn't believe in those things either. (in fact Einstein didn't support quantum theory and it was proposed when he was alive, I guess according to creationists either Einstein was right about quantum theory or he wasn't a great scientist) That is the logical level of this particular creationist argument.
481
posted on
01/20/2005 2:46:32 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
It's not remotely a priority for me to go back over the thread and search out the posts that mentioned current achievements of note of Creationists. Besides that, you are not likely to be influenced by facts in the matter.
Facts are against the dogma of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE--that only altar at which you bow. So, you are obligated to ignore them.
482
posted on
01/20/2005 3:10:32 AM PST
by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: Thatcherite
You are sooooooooooooooooo funny.
Do you have a life outside of rants regarding the RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?
483
posted on
01/20/2005 3:11:38 AM PST
by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: Quix
It's not remotely a priority for me to go back over the thread and search out the posts that mentioned current achievements of note of Creationists. Besides that, you are not likely to be influenced by facts in the matter.As you cannot back up your assertion I will assume that you were making it up, as is normal for those on your side of the argument.
If modern creationists had any achievements to point at that ran counter to mainstream science they'd be shouting them from the rooftops.
484
posted on
01/20/2005 3:15:03 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
Therefore to put people like Newton and Galileo on lists of "Great Creationist Scientists" as if that were an argument against ToE is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Heck, by that standard Darwin himself could be considered a "great (or at least significant) creation scientist". He was still a creationist at the time, for instance, that developed and published an innovative and correct theory of the formation of coral reefs and atolls.
485
posted on
01/20/2005 3:16:36 AM PST
by
Stultis
To: Quix
You are sooooooooooooooooo funny. Do you have a life outside of rants regarding the RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?Failure to response sensibly to my points noted. Technique of "argument by CAPS-LOCK" noted.
486
posted on
01/20/2005 3:16:41 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
Oh, it's quite clear
that your habitual, chronic, highly distorted and otherwise questionable
ASSUMING
is in great form.
487
posted on
01/20/2005 3:23:57 AM PST
by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: Thatcherite
CAPS LOCK
is preferable to
RELIGION OF SCIENCE BRAIN LOCK
any day.
488
posted on
01/20/2005 3:24:38 AM PST
by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: Stultis
Post #483 is really funny, isn't it. Have you noticed, when creationists have their noses rubbed in their fallacies and errors they eventually seem to do one of three things:
1. Disappear from the thread (usually to reappear in another thread some time later repeating the same already refuted arguments, or for the slightly cleverer ones different arguments from the same website (will they ever learn?))
2. Change the subject immediately with a different argument from the same website as the one that has just been thoroughly refuted. (will they ever learn?)
3. Go into insane non sequitur ranting (sometimes CAPSLOCK) (sometimes quoting the bible) mode.
I wonder what the lurkers make of posts like #483. I doubt that it brings many people to the Lord.
489
posted on
01/20/2005 3:29:11 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Quix
Oh, it's quite clear that your habitual, chronic, highly distorted and otherwise questionable ASSUMING is in great form.It is standard form in such debates to require people to back up their assertions. Everyone has the right to draw whatever conclusions they see fit from your failure to do so.
Point out the specific achievement of modern creation science named in this thread if you don't wish people to draw the conclusion that you are unable to.
490
posted on
01/20/2005 3:33:39 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: hford02
The most impressive argument concerned future paleontologists digging up the fossilized skeletons of modern day dog breeds. Surely they would conclude that a Saint Bernard and a Yorky were different species based on the evidence but we know that they are examples of the same species with far more differences than birds cataloged by Darwin with only the most minor of differences between "species". Scientists ignore any logical arguments along these lines as ignorant but offer their own theories without proof at all. Ignore? If you ever did look at a career in anthropology at any time, and ever did read any amount of paleontological literature, you have to know your statement is bogus. Arguments and analysis regarding whether morphological variation in fossil material represents differences between or variations within species is frequent and constant within the literature.
Also it is highly unlikely that future paleontologists would experience the problem you describe with breeds of domestic dogs. You seem to be unaware of it, but domesticated animals are marked by many characteristics that are preserved in skeletal material. For example neotonization (sp? that is the retention in adults of juvenile characters) is always present in domesticated animals. Paleontologists have little problem discriminating between wild and domesticated cattle, for instance, even though the marks of domestication in that case are less pronounced than in the case of canines.
491
posted on
01/20/2005 3:35:19 AM PST
by
Stultis
To: Thatcherite
Help yourself to your assumptions.
You clearly are in the habit of assuming long lists of things beinc such a dyed-in-the-wool devotee to the RELIGION OF SCIENCE AND
THE RELIGION OF THE SUB-CULT OF EVOLUTION.
I am my own steward of my own time and energy and I'll do on these threads what suits me--not particularly what suits you!
Assume what you will. And be wrong, as usual.
I have my own fun for my own reasons.
I have absolutely NO need or desire to conform to your rules of the game nor to necessarily try much at all to disuade you from all your assumptions. What a fuitle exercise that would be.
If you want to find the posts above about the current Creationist scholar's achievements--help yourself. But I suspect that you are blind enough on the topic that it would be a major breakthrough achievement for you to succeed at finding the posts.
hehe.
492
posted on
01/20/2005 3:40:32 AM PST
by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: Quix
Continued and persistent failure to name a single technical achievement of modern creation science noted.
Ability to rant noted. Possession of CAPS-LOCK key noted.
493
posted on
01/20/2005 3:43:04 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
494
posted on
01/20/2005 4:01:54 AM PST
by
Bellflower
(A NEW DAY IS COMING!)
To: carumba
> Abiogenisis is based on a false premise.
That being?
To: Oztrich Boy
So your criteria is that if you can find one person supporting a position who is "wrong," then that entire position is wrong. I imagine I can find at least one
atheist evolutionist who is wrong.
Have you noticed all the highly respected scientists on that list?
The problem is that noting all these scientists (on either side) is logically irrelevant, an "appeal to authority"....
496
posted on
01/20/2005 6:28:15 AM PST
by
Theo
To: Quix
Yeah, I know. I apologized for that post. It was a bad formatting day.
497
posted on
01/20/2005 6:43:54 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: ValenB4; dmz; King Black Robe; Bigh4u2; All
Evidently you like the current system which requires public schools to teach evolution with no disclaimer that it is an unproven theory. Evidently you like the current system which requires in public schools that only one side be given on the topic of evolutionary theory.
And you are dead wrong on comparing me to the likes of Stalin. The system he helped create forced people in Soviet Socialist Russia to hear only one side of evolutionary theory, THE ONE IN FAVOR OF IT. Not having both sides is what is authoritarian and dictatorial. My approach ensures that there will be no one sided approach to evolution.
You evidently have no problem with the public school system being required by law to teach only one side on evolutionary theory.
You see, my approach gives people choices. My approach is the one that lets the people have a voice in what their children are taught, that says that fairness, balance, and equity will be required by law, instead of the one you evidently favor that requires by law that only one side be given on the topic of evolutionary theory. You favor the authoritarian approach, and try and spin it around to make it look like I am the one who favors that approach. Please, you are the one who sounds most like the authoritarian Muslim Fundamentalist.
To: Thatcherite
And again, pick any modern achievement. The achievement cannot avoid riding on the back of a great creation scientists inspired brilliance.
The achievements today are only made because the understanding of the physical laws that technology is based were overwhelmingly formulated by Creationists.
As Bill O'Reilly asked the scientist opposed to evolutionary disclaimers and including ID theory in classrooms, "What if God really did create the world?" he asked. "Wouldnt that be science?"
499
posted on
01/20/2005 7:47:29 AM PST
by
bondserv
(Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
To: All; Bigh4u2; King Black Robe
This will be my last post on this thread topic. I have no desire to post any more on this one. I just wanted to make the information at this site available for mass consumption.
As well, when the evolutionists state stuff like "quote mining.", what they are engaged in could be termed "quote avoidance."
Saying "quote mining" is just an attempt by the evo's to avoid quotes given by evolutionists themselves who are having serious doubts about evolutionary theory. Within these quotes evolutionists themselves are stating, in their own words, that the THEORY of evolution is still a hole-riddled theory.
And don't fall for that line of "you are taking that quote out of context." The quotes say what they say, but to an evolutionist, the quotes evidently require their translation of it, or most surely it will be taken "out of context."
Finally, the evo's might state that many of the quotes at the site have nothing to do with evolution. See the quotes for yourself. Do a little digging at the site. You will see that the quotes have alot to do with the hole-riddled theory of evolution.
I can guarantee you that if the quotes at this site gave information that the evo's agreed with, they most certainly would have sang its praises.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520 ... 581-595 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson