Darwin's Theory is False
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Darknight1996
Registered Member
I just wanted to know what you all thought about the quotes I never said I thought they were true
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was there is no justification in spouting outdated opinionated quotes in order to somehow dismiss evolution. I went on to state that it is far better to actually study the material in depth and then come to a conclusion based on your understanding and not on the word of someone else.
Refute quotes? Some of the quote makers aren't alive anymore which means I don't see the need in refuting their statements - and the others that are alive probably don't frequent this forum, and even if they did it's unlikely that me providing other quotes is going to change anything.
Certainly. Science does not work by simply quoting people - and that was the very point of my post. K?
Many of these is handily refuted at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html
The superstitious religious nutters who fear the implications that the fact of evolution might have on their patriarchal cults like to scour the internet and libraries for quotes they can cull together in out of context lists as if it means anything.
If one of these guys (they're almost always male) actually had any sort of education on the topic, they would pick the most significant few and be prepared to discuss the quotes in their original contexts.
As an example, Darknight offers this quote from the creation nutter site:
In its original context, however, something else entirely is revealed:
As anyone can plainly see, the context provides something entirely different.
I've seen the same sort of tactics used on creationist nutters websites and blogs for years. Over a year ago, I was on Dembski's weblog where there exist this passage:
But let's use some logic based solely on th passage above: why is Ward not a creationist if he wrote what he did on page 29? What are the significances of the usage of the bolded words above, "seemingly," "how is it," and "if?"
Could it be that Ward is using a literary technique to set the reader up for an eventual explanation? Could it be that, as Ward tells the story of how earlier scientists viewed the Cambrian explosion, he is progressing toward a conclusion that provides a response to this "seeming" contradiction?
As it happened, I had a copy of On Methuselah's Trail, which I picked up for $5.98 at Half-Price Books. Turning to page 36 we find:
If you want to see a creationist dumb-ass at work, visit his own page and see the very quote-mined deception I've outlined above. This is the only tactic that creationist nutters can resort to in order to give their superstitions any sense of being credible: deception.
Their nutty ideas don't stand on their own merits, so they quote-mine legitimate sources and other nutters until they can amass what appears to be a large body of dissent. The reality is almost *no* real scientists give any credibility to the notion that anything but evolution was at work. There is literally tons and tons of evidence. The opposing hypotheses are complete rubbish and unfounded with not a shred of actual evidence to support them.
The superstitious religious nutters who fear the implications that the fact of evolution might have on their patriarchal cults like to scour the internet and libraries for quotes they can cull together in out of context lists as if it means anything.
If one of these guys (they're almost always male) actually had any sort of education on the topic, they would pick the most significant few and be prepared to discuss the quotes in their original contexts.
As an example, Darknight offers this quote from the creation nutter site:
In its original context, however, something else entirely is revealed:
As anyone can plainly see, the context provides something entirely different.
I've seen the same sort of tactics used on creationist nutters websites and blogs for years. Over a year ago, I was on Dembski's weblog where there exist this passage:
Peter Ward said:
But let's use some logic based solely on th passage above: why is Ward not a creationist if he wrote what he did on page 29? What are the significances of the usage of the bolded words above, "seemingly," "how is it," and "if?"
Could it be that Ward is using a literary technique to set the reader up for an eventual explanation? Could it be that, as Ward tells the story of how earlier scientists viewed the Cambrian explosion, he is progressing toward a conclusion that provides a response to this "seeming" contradiction?
As it happened, I had a copy of On Methuselah's Trail, which I picked up for $5.98 at Half-Price Books. Turning to page 36 we find:
Peter Ward said:
If you want to see a creationist dumb-ass at work, visit his own page and see the very quote-mined deception I've outlined above. This is the only tactic that creationist nutters can resort to in order to give their superstitions any sense of being credible: deception.
Their nutty ideas don't stand on their own merits, so they quote-mine legitimate sources and other nutters until they can amass what appears to be a large body of dissent. The reality is almost *no* real scientists give any credibility to the notion that anything but evolution was at work. There is literally tons and tons of evidence. The opposing hypotheses are complete rubbish and unfounded with not a shred of actual evidence to support them.
SW
Well from here it looks like the secular humanist nutters are in denial about anything they can't explain with science.
You claim that belief in the supernatural is irrational.
Logical Proof that the universe was created
Can you disprove the logic?
Well from here it looks like the secular humanist nutters are in denial about anything they can't explain with science.
You claim that belief in the supernatural is irrational.
Logical Proof that the universe was created
Can you disprove the logic?
Last edited:
Alpha already did.
I think logic would indicate no god, obviously the age old arguement is you cant just have a universe that appears from nowhere so it must have been created, but then that leaves a creator just sitting there waiting to create for all eternity meaning he has always existed, so why not take the simpler option of having matter always having existed? I think of it as a line, matter exists in a constant, if you add god into this you're creating a new and unnecessary line.
I think logic would indicate no god, obviously the age old arguement is you cant just have a universe that appears from nowhere so it must have been created, but then that leaves a creator just sitting there waiting to create for all eternity meaning he has always existed, so why not take the simpler option of having matter always having existed? I think of it as a line, matter exists in a constant, if you add god into this you're creating a new and unnecessary line.
The creationist nutters are just tired being called nutters by the rationally minded, so they use the same words back. Its like a retarded kid calling me stupid... I don't get upset because I know he's retarded (note: this was an analogy, obviously Woody isn't retarded. Slow maybe, but not retarded).
Bottom line: the superstitious are getting tired of being the butt of jokes made by the rational, so they try to redirect the ridicule back at the ridiculers. Quite unsuccessfully, I might add.
Bottom line: the superstitious are getting tired of being the butt of jokes made by the rational, so they try to redirect the ridicule back at the ridiculers. Quite unsuccessfully, I might add.
Huwy said:
I think the term "monkey's uncle" is a little closer.
"As a man thinketh, so is he".....
If you believe you came from apes......you probably did.
There are two races alive on earth, as the bible states...
The children of the world, desending from Cain who was fathered by an animal race closest to man..."the subtile beast" refered to as "serpents", and The children of the kingdom (of God), Adam and Eve's true lineage, which are born spiritually today through Christ.
The differentiating factor is the ability to receive revelation from God.
Faith is a revelation.
Science is a religion....people believe in it like a god, it is thier saviour.
Science won't tell you the true history, they have covered it up.
The truth dosen't fit thier therories....
Theorize away, according to science, five hundred years ago, the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth...
Two hundred years ago a french scientist stated;
"If while rolling a ball, the great speed of thirty mile per hour was ever exceded, it would lose gravitation and leave the earth."
You want this for your God....?
The Word is God and He "changes not"
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
what the fuk a i talkin about?Godless said:
i'll tell ya
for thelast 500years via the Enlightenemnt, a mindset has come about which beliees itself to be divided from Nature, and tus tis beieve--cultic belief--justifies to itself it can cut up actual reality, and tis includes consciousness. doing this it has created the most fukin horrendous misery for many many generations. an its legacy is prticularly being felt now. mass spcies extinction, millions of people in povery, and starving, Trees being cut down, concret paving over everwhere, air polluted, depleted uranium poisoning everywhere and peoples and animals genes, Nature's delicate fabric being destroyed, global warming, millions children being forecibly drugged by State so as to believe--or ELSE!!--in their ecocidal philosophy.
do you get me now??
oh and forgot to add. this same mindset wages war, and supports the war against psychedelic sacraments which can heal----ie., as it has enclosed the common land, seas, air. eletromagnetic spectrum, the air, biology, it also tries to wit consciousness itself!.......the later is most important -territory' for thes fascists, because thru mind contol it has thepeople believing they are following 'porgress' when in reality are shitting in teir very nests in a very 'productive' way
SkinWalker said:
You come across as a secular humanist with an attitude. In academia you study among other secular humanists and are well trained in their snobbish mannerisms, but it's all just pride. You're well educated, and that is good, but in many ways academia is detached from the real world. It's a kingdom for the misfits that can't cut it in the real world. Hence they hide in their plastic world and let their liberal minds work against humanity. They aren't motivated by compassion for their fellow man, if they care about others then why aren't they going out in the world like christian missionaries to help people in the third world? Rather they are like the liberal politicians that wan't to help someone at someone else's expense.
My own sister was one, just as you are. In many ways she thought the same way you do. She worked as a counselor with disabled hospital patients. I was her "nutty" little brother that believed in sky daddies. She is a christian now.
Didn't I read somewhere that secular countries / atheists / non-religious people donated more money to charity than the religious?
I don't remember where I read it so I can't give a source.
From what I've seen in my city, the missionaries will help the homeless only if they convert to christianity or read the bible. So they aren't exactly motivated to help others for nothing like their atheist friends would do.