(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: The principle reason I personally attack the evolutionary nonsense is because it is false.
The substitution of one preisthood and view of life for another.

*principal

Man up and admit you simply don't understand that some people are not sheep, and do not need a priesthood of authority figures to tell them what to think.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: The high preisthood of Darwin revels in social power, takes decades to admit their hoaxes - all those bent over, cave- men to men caricatures we saw all those years- were fake.

Source? You thought reconstructed drawings were photos?

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: The "Lucy" scam where they substituted straight finger bones for the missing parts the monkey didn't have in their pictorial prints of the bones, while monkey hand bones are curved.

Source? Nothing like that here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: They have a huge monetary vested interest in maintaining the money flow. Who are you kidding?

Sounds like you're getting science mixed up with the church buisiness. I don't know of many millionaire scientists.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: These guys operate like a herd.

Says the flock member basing everything he knows about science on what he learned in church.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: Nobody wants to stick their face out and admit the BS.
We are called fairyoligists while you guys, having a similar position get away with it?

That is the exact opposite of how science operates. Hypotheses are formed, experiments are made to test the hypothesis, then theories are formed.

Religion reads a book, denies the need for evidence, and then makes empirically unverifiable statements.

Much like your username: Nobody believes you're a professor of anything but ignorance.

(March 18, 2014 at 11:58 am)shep Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 11:43 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Before I answer, are you refuting evolution?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24716-po...#pid627248 (I'm not sure if that means he refutes it though)

He sounds like he accepts it and accepts Genesis. Genesis is nothing more than a poorly written allegory for supposedly a moral code we should all live by. Nothing scientific or historic about it whatsoever. To even mention it as a rebuttal to science is absurd. Even some Christian denominations don't take it literally.

So, if that is a Christian's only rebuttal to evolution, their argument has no true merit.

People can think what they wish, it is when that dysfunctional thinking carries over into the public school system, or our government, is where it becomes a problem.

It is the main reason I left Christianity, because of Genesis being touted as literal and then not literal, when the church realized it was up a creek when Darwin's theory started gaining wide acceptance.

And so, I happen to think that the whole religion is built on lies to keep a very powerful church...powerful.

Sorry to ramble.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: He sounds like he accepts it and accepts Genesis.

You can accept Genesis and still find ways to fit evolution in. After all, it tells us that god created a single couple from which all mankind is descended, which means that the diverse human races evolved from a single pair. This can be applied to the other organisms described and then stretched to cover the stuff that wasn't known at the time. The problem is that it doesn't read like evolution, but there is enough ambiguity to fit it in.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: He sounds like he accepts it and accepts Genesis.

You can accept Genesis and still find ways to fit evolution in. After all, it tells us that god created a single couple from which all mankind is descended, which means that the diverse human races evolved from a single pair. This can be applied to the other organisms described and then stretched to cover the stuff that wasn't known at the time. The problem is that it doesn't read like evolution, but there is enough ambiguity to fit it in.

I did not know that Adam and Eve were single-celled organisms. But it explains a lot, doesn't it.

Swing low, sweet Eukaryote,
coming forth to carry me home ...

(March 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Tonus Wrote: You can accept Genesis and still find ways to fit evolution in. After all, it tells us that god created a single couple from which all mankind is descended, which means that the diverse human races evolved from a single pair. This can be applied to the other organisms described and then stretched to cover the stuff that wasn't known at the time. The problem is that it doesn't read like evolution, but there is enough ambiguity to fit it in.

I did not know that Adam and Eve were single-celled organisms. But it explains a lot, doesn't it.

Swing low, sweet Eukaryote,
coming forth to carry me home ...

LMAO!! That's funny! I seriously burst out laughing.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Alex K Wrote: I did not know that Adam and Eve were single-celled organisms. But it explains a lot, doesn't it.

That's the great thing about how open to interpretation it is, you can reduce the examples to almost anything. Funny that they ask people in court to swear upon a Bible, just before they start offering the most convoluted explanations and laughable rationalizations in order to convince people to accept a really zany story about what happened.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: He sounds like he accepts it and accepts Genesis.

You can accept Genesis and still find ways to fit evolution in. After all, it tells us that god created a single couple from which all mankind is descended, which means that the diverse human races evolved from a single pair. This can be applied to the other organisms described and then stretched to cover the stuff that wasn't known at the time. The problem is that it doesn't read like evolution, but there is enough ambiguity to fit it in.

Well, there's that whole "missing link" idea...
lol

Evolution is the star of the show, it shouldn't be sharing the stage with nonsense.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm)professor Wrote: The principle reason I personally attack the evolutionary nonsense is because it is false.

We have observed it happening in the lab, in nature, and can observe it happening live. Just ask me to show you some examples and I will, though I suspect your inevitable objections to them will showcase how little you understand the theory you've decided is false.

Quote: The substitution of one preisthood and view of life for another.

There are plenty of christians who accept the fact of evolution.

Quote: The high preisthood of Darwin revels in social power, takes decades to admit their hoaxes - all those bent over, cave- men to men caricatures we saw all those years- were fake.

It's really hard to discuss this without sources; could you point to some hoaxes? As for caricatures, we no longer need them: This is what the lineage of ape-to-human fossils looks like now.

Quote: The "Lucy" scam where they substituted straight finger bones for the missing parts the monkey didn't have in their pictorial prints of the bones, while monkey hand bones are curved.

Gotta say, big red flag right here: there is so much wrong with what you just said. First of all, Lucy wasn't a monkey: she's an Australopithecus afarensis, so there's simply no reason to expect that monkey features would carry across. Second of all, there's no scam here; it's a matter of public record that the Lucy skeleton is only about forty percent complete, and this has been known since her discovery. You are simply mistaken here. Moreover, we have more specimens of Australopethicus than just Lucy. I don't know what creationist bilge pump you got this stuff from, but you're so very wrong, here.

Quote: They have a huge monetary vested interest in maintaining the money flow. Who are you kidding?

I see, and you don't think that there would be more money in disproving evolution, in so doing turning the entire science of biology on its head and changing over a century of research? That kind of worldview altering discovery made the names of some of the greatest scientists in human history, and you're saying that here it's so very obvious... and yet no scientist, in any culture and of any religious stripe, has opted to publish the peer reviewed findings that would net him or her a Nobel prize at least? That sound reasonable to you?

Not that you actually demonstrated your premise or anything. You just asserted it baselessly.

Quote:These guys operate like a herd.

When the smart cows know where the grass is, there's no shame in sticking with them.

Quote: Nobody wants to stick their face out and admit the BS.
We are called fairyoligists while you guys, having a similar position get away with it?

Considering your apparent inability to actually present evidence that disproves evolution, I think we're far smarter for sticking with the trained scientists who actually know what they're talking about, don't you?

(March 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Evolution is the star of the show, it shouldn't be sharing the stage with nonsense.

I don't think that it does. But there are some unruly hecklers in the hallway. :p

(March 18, 2014 at 11:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 10:38 am)discipulus Wrote: Two things. The theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. It is provisional.

Oh, Discipulus, you were making so much sense up to this point. You correctly warned us agains blanket statements and proclaimed how you don't attack evolution...then you say something ignorant about evolution. In colloquial English, a theory is an educated guess, a conjecture. What in science would be a hypotheisis. In science (except for theoretical physics, which should be re-named hypothetical physics) your ideas don't rise to the level of a theory until they've proven robust enough to stand up to intense efforts to disprove it.

The theory of evolution is as provisional as the germ theory of disease. It's made of facts, explains those facts, and we can make predictions based on it and actually observe it in action.

'It's just a theory' is a phrase that can never be properly applied to an actual scientific theory.

Like I said, the theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. Thus it is provisional and subject to ammendment. Many scientists may agree that it is the theory or hypothesis that best explains available data. But to say that this makes it a fact is to reason fallaciously.

Secondly, scientists are the ones who "explain the facts" "make predictions" and so on and so forth.

---

(March 18, 2014 at 11:43 am)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 10:38 am)discipulus Wrote: Two things. The theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. It is provisional.

Second, the claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection is evidence the Bible is nonsense is a claim to knowledge. So I would be very interested in you telling me how you came to possess this knowledge.

Before I answer, are you refuting evolution?

No. But I am waiting to hear you explain to me why the T.E.N.S is evidence that the Bible is nonsense.