How cute that one you religotards created an alt account and tried to think all at the same time.
Personal attacks are not allowed in DC
Perknose
Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator:
How cute that one you religotards created an alt account and tried to think all at the same time.
Personal attacks are not allowed in DC
Perknose
Forum Director
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
Your god is 'man'. Good luck with that...
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."-Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme..."-Dr. Karl Popper
""What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... 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..."-Dr. Francis Crick
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."-Sir Fred Hoyle.
Last edited:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,690
- 6,255
- 126
Start at post 1, don't expect anyone to converse with you when everything you just posted since you have "arrived" has been shown to be wrong.
LOL Post 1:
yes the earth is blah blah old, the universe is even older. That is sure showing someone. No wonder you guys believe in weird stuff.
Here is your next 'undeniable truth' people will be forced to believe...
"A massive ancient ocean once covered nearly half of the northern hemisphere of Mars making the planet a more promising place for alien life to have gained a foothold, Nasa scientists say. Unveiled by Nasa on Thursday, the compelling evidence for the primitive ocean adds to an emerging picture of Mars as a warm and wet world in its youth, which trickled with streams, winding river deltas, and long-standing lakes, soon after it formed 4.5bn years ago."
Yes, NASA knows how old Mars is... and Alien life exists, because we found out through knowing what is deep inside the sun... We KNOW all of this...
The age of the sun can be inferred with helioseismic studies.[16] This is because the propagation of acoustic waves <b>deep within the sun</b> depends on the composition of the sun, in particular the relative abundance of helium and hydrogen in the core. Since the sun has been fusing hydrogen into helium throughout its lifetime, the present day abundance of helium in the core can be used to infer the age of the sun, using numerical models of stellar evolution applied to the Sun (Standard solar model). This method provides verification of the age of the solar system gathered from the radiometric dating of meteorites.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Man I wish I had this type of faith... I could move mountains.
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
People are not forced to believe science or scientific theory; they are given a set of tools and taught how to learn. The information is there for anyone to read. Likewise faith is a distraction; if the only way you can accept something is through faith then you're admitting it doesn't have enough merit to stand on it's own feet.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,690
- 6,255
- 126
moonbogg
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2011
- 10,731
- 3,440
- 136
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Ya, game, set, match. For believers such as you, I would expect such a statement over one 'generalized' sentence of rubbish.
You followers of the evolutionist faith remind me of the great attorney Darrow who got Leopold and Loeb out of the death chamber due to “diminished responsibility.” As the book of athiests states, "If there is no God, all things are allowed."
The Leopold and Loeb case raised, in a well-publicized trial, Darrow’s lifelong contention that psychological, physical, and environmental influences—not a conscious choice between right and wrong—control human behavior. The public got an education in psychology and medicine and, because Leopold was an admirer, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
And Darrow’s philosophy is evident in his moving speech for Leopold and Loeb: “Closing argument: The State of Illinois v. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, delivered August 22, 1924″. I’ve put part of it in bold because it seems so prescient, as if Darrow realized that science itself rules out any kind of free choice:
Darrow states:
“Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood.
. . . I know, Your Honor, which every atom of life in all this universe is bound up together. I know that a pebble cannot be thrown into the ocean without disturbing every drop of water in the sea. I know that every life is inextricably mixed and woven with every other life. I know that every influence, conscious and unconscious, acts and reacts on every living organism, and that no one can fix the blame. I know that all life is a series of infinite chances, which sometimes result one way and sometimes another. I have not the infinite wisdom that can fathom it, neither has any other human brain. But I do know that if back of it is a power that made it, that power alone can tell, and if there is no power then it is an infinite chance which man cannot solve.”
The plea above was not a rhetorical strategy: Darrow really did believe that. As, I am sure, guides your moral lifestyle. It is 'the way' to keep God at bay. To me, evolutionists, who deny the existence of God, are partakers of the greatest lie in history. And one, that you freely disseminate due to your belief in pieces of a puzzle, far too large for any man to fathom.
“Conscience” is now a favorite word among liberal Christians, (i.e. pretend evolutionists I call them) but it is used not in the classic sense of a faculty that relentlessly calls the individual to account, but in precisely the opposite sense—the faculty that constantly flashes a green light, constantly reassuring the individual that what he wants to do is morally right for him. More often than not, “conscience” is now not a voice encouraging right conduct but the power excusing wrong conduct, so that one’s sins actually become the basis of one’s self-righteousness.
Remember this, It is appointed unto man to live 70 years, and after this, the judgment. You will most likely not know the truth of this statement until that time, if you don't get killed in a traffic accident, or disease, or the hundred other ways that life is cut short, but you will know it.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear, "let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your answering, and might overcome when you are judged."
It is really incredible how little you guys have to offer, and how quickly you turn to bashing religion...
I have only heard the stories about how little tolerance weak minded people whose faith is evolution have. I never believed it until I began to pick apart your religion and saw how quickly you resort to name calling, and belittling.
A couple of comments, and reply comments I have heard somewhat intelligent people say on other forums.
"If you're implying that the only empirical data that would be relevant would be to watch a singularity expand into a universe, i.e. taking the "were you there" approach, then I'm going to call BS on that. Like all scientific theories, the big bang theory allows us to create models that can make predictions."
How do you generate a computer model of nothing creating something? How do you this while ignoring the Law of Thermodynamics? (answer, you can't so you must have faith in your ideology)
"There you go. When science gets something wrong, it's science that works out that they got it wrong"
So then why are so many of the "supposed" evolutionary claims that science has proven false, still printed in text books?
"No I don't. They will never know. There are a number of hypotheses currently being tested but none have been confirmed so far, although they are a great deal further along than pretty much any theist would have admitted was possible not that long ago."
Nonsense. They aren't any closer now then they were when Darwin first proposed his theory and printed his book.
More 'unexplainable information' you won't read because it interferes with your religion of evolution:
THE MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAW
The unity of the human race is further established by Mendel's Inheritance Discovery on which evolutionists so much rely. G. Mendel, an experimenter, found that when he crossed a giant variety of peas with a dwarf variety, the offspring were all tall. The giants were called "dominant"; the disappearing dwarfs, "recessive". But among the second generation of this giant offspring, giants and dwarfs appeared in the proportion of 3 to 1. But when these dwarfs were self-fertilized, successive generations were all dwarfs. The recessive character was not lost, but appeared again. Experiments with flowers likewise show that the recessive color will reappear.
Also experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similar results. The recessive or disappearing characteristics, or the disappearing variety, will appear again, in some subsequent generation, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails widely in nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominant traits. "If rose-combed fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, the offspring were all rose-combed, but when these rose-combed fowl were mated, the offspring were again rose-combed and single-combed If gray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were all gray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generation were mated, the progeny were again grays and blacks--God or Gorilla--p. 278. The recessive character always reappears.
Apply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessive alleged brute ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear in some generations, i£ not in many. We would expect many offspring to have the recessive character of the ape, and we ought not to be surprised, if some recessive stock became permanent.
Following analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings that had degenerated into apes. That we find no such recessive characteristics even among the most degenerate savages, and no such ape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man never descended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics, according to the Mendelian Law, would be sure to appear. We would also find monkeys and apes--the recessive species--descended from man.
The surface marks on the earth point to much shorter periods of time since the earth was a shoreless ocean than those required by evolutionists, who are so reckless in their guesses and estimates. They help themselves to eternity without stint. Charles Lyell, a geologist of Darwin's time, set the example when he said, "The lowest estimate of time required for the formation of the existing delta of the Mississippi is 100,000 years."
According to careful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other U. S. officers, the time was 4,400 years a disinterested decision. In the face of these three arguments, it is a bit reckless to say the earth has existed, 1,600,000,000 years--nearly 100 times as long as proven possible by mathematical calculation. And still more reckless is the estimate of Prof. Russell, 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years, founded on the radio-activity theory. All these wild estimates are out of the question.
The recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only 7,000 to 11,000 years. It required only 8,000 years for the Mississippi River to excavate its course.
Prof. Winchell estimates that the Mississippi River, has worn a gorge 100 feet deep, 8 miles long, back to the Falls of St. Anthony in about 8,000 years. The whole thickness of the Nile sediment, 40 feet in one place, was deposited in about 13,000 years. Calculations by Southall and others from certain strata have fixed man's first appearance on the earth at 8,000 years, in harmony with Scripture.
LeConte, in his Geology, p. 19, says, "Making due allowance for all variations, it is probable that all land-surfaces are being cut down and lowered by rain and river erosion, at a rate of one foot every 5,000 years. At this rate, if we take the mean height of lands as 1200 feet, and there be no antagonistic agency at work raising the land, all lands would be cut down to the sea level and disappear in 6,000,000 years."
More valid thoughts you will refuse to read:
The atheists' theory that life began by chance on Earth was well presented by George Wald in his book “Origin of Life” when he wrote:
“The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.”
George Wald goes on to write:
“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”
In other words, atheist George Wald and all other atheists postulate that life began by chance and the existence of life was accidental and there is no God or Creator.
Using George Wald's logic, if life was formed by chance, then God could have also been formed by chance, and therefore there could very well be a Creator.
The above paragraphs were written by 'unreligious' scientists. But they have realized they cannot discount God as a factor. That alone makes them more realistic about life's questions.
More falsities to promote the religion of evolution:
Neanderthal Man
Piltdown Man
Java Man
Nebraska Man
"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to. " -Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3
" "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, <u>preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man</u>. " -John Reader-photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
" A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman' ".
" The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. " -Dr. Tim White -anthropologist, UC, Berkeley
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Geographical Distribution, another witness claimed by the evolutionists, bears testimony, which they are bound, in law, to receive.
We find animals whose power of locomotion is very limited, scattered all over the world; like the mollusks and crustacea, embracing a large number of families, genera and species. It is incredible that these all originated in one place, and from one germ, and migrated to distant parts of the world. The oyster, for example, is found in Europe, Africa, North and South America. There are over 200 species, found in all warm tempered climates, but none in the coldest regions. How could they cross the ocean and be distributed along all continents? They are soon attached to solid rocks, or other supports, and do not move at all. And if they do, how could they cross thousands of miles of ocean barren of all food?
Dr. George W. Field, an expert authority, says the oysters of Europe are unisexual, but in America, they are double-sexed. How could one be derived from the other? Even the oyster is too much for the evolutionist. The same argument applies to a great multitude of species, that have little or no powers of locomotion.
If all plants and animals originated from one germ in one place, how can plants, indigenous to a single continent, or hemisphere, be accounted for? Why, for example, was there no maize, or Indian corn, in the old world? Or tomatoes, potatoes, or any other plants indigenous to America? If these once existed in the old world, as they must have done, according to the theory, why were they found in America alone?
Here we quote from Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest authorities the world ever knew: "I will, therefore, consider the transmutation theory of species as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
Last edited:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,690
- 6,255
- 126
The ironic thing is how you have belittled us by trying to paint Evolution as merely a position of Faith. The very thing that a Creationist has to rely on. The problem with that position is that Evolution does not require Faith at all. It is the result of looking at the Evidence present in the natural world around us.
So in essence, you are criticizing us for faith (erroneously) when it is faith that you are also using for your acceptance of Creationism. Is Faith a virtue or is it not?
ThinClient
Diamond Member
- Jan 28, 2013
- 3,977
- 4
- 0
I would argue that he's feeding the poor and needy in this very thread. The intellectually poor and the intellectually needy.
CT is my hero.
ThinClient
Diamond Member
- Jan 28, 2013
- 3,977
- 4
- 0
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,800
- 10,444
- 147
Cerpin Taxt, Paul98, ThinClient: I must remind you all that only substantive arguments are acceptable in DC. Your posts commenting on/discussing the OP and/or how to react him are infractionable here. Please post accordingly.
Perknose
Forum Director
Perknose
Forum Director
Quite right too. I shall try to be 'substantive'.
This is addressed to hercolator.
Hercolator, your often lengthy offerings here are clearly borrowed from a standard 'Creationist' text. You quote from secondary sources you obviously have not read. You make the most basic of errors and are prey to confusions.
To pass-off the work of others without acknowledging the source is plagiarism. The arguments you make are consequently meretricious and false. This is intellectually dishonest.
Some examples are in order:
In post 252 you refer to 'Charles Hitchens' (sic). The man you mean is Christopher Hitchens. You have heard of him but clearly never read his work.
In post 254 you quote a short text from Dr. Robert Ethridge. He died in 1903. It is true that he struggled with aspects of the fossil record. He died 50 years before we knew about the structure and function of DNA and its role in sexual reproduction, inheritance and mutation.
He worried about "intermediate forms". Not to worry, I am one, and if you are white with a European gene line, you are too. We both have about 2-4% Neanderthal DNA. (There are numerous articles in the journals 'Nature' and 'Science', published in 2014, covering this topic. Get back to me for the full refs)
You quote Sir Karl Popper as hostile to evolution. He was actually most impressed by Darwin's work. He said so in the very next sentence after the one you selectively and misleadingly copied out. (See Wiki, if you doubt this).
Further on you say that Dr.Francis Crick believed that life was "almost a miracle". He was speaking metaphorically. He did not believe in the sort of miracles you believe in. He thought that life is extraordinary. It is.
Finally, you use Sir Fred Hoyle's 'steady state' theory in support of your creationist ID viewpoint. Hoyle's theory has since been disproved by the work on 'expanding universe' models such as Hawking's and several others. Most cosmologists are now in the Hawking camp. Science changes, that is natural. A change might falsify a theory but not the scientific method.
Your biblical literalism replaces the scientific method with desperate, shouted, 'revealed' mistaken assertions.
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Fair enough, but it should be noted that our dear hercolator is not making any attempt at having a discussion in the first place. His entire post is simply copypasta stone throwing itself. See:
This is C&P'd directly from here.
This is C&P'd directly from here.
This is a C&P from here.
This is C&P from here.
If it is discussion that hercolator wants, let him participate himself. Otherwise, I feel his posts are met appropriately with the derision they deserve.
Much of the problem lies in the assumption that life is a somehow magical separate phenomenon from the inanimate qualities of all non-living existents that make up the universe. Life is simply something that exists in the universe when conditions favor its appearance. Life isn't special or magic or divine or remarkable. It's just another existent in an infinite space of existents. God believers seem to equate life from non-life as some fantastic spontaneous existence or some cosmic violation of causality that requires imagining a God to explain. It is not, it does not, and silly Gods or retarded Creationistic fantasies are not necessary or desirable to explain anything about the formation and transformation of life.
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some in the Creationist/Intelligent Design camp accuse people who accept the theory of evolution as accepting it on "faith". Accepting it as faith would mean that there isn't mountains of evidence bearing out the theory and more being discovered everyday. Why would one need faith to accept what happens in front of ones eyes?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter