(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

I guess you guys were smarted then him since he just was an agnostic.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

In your mind things have been debunked.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:25 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

Without recourse to faith or special ways of knowing, how does one detect the supernatural as it's happening?

Have you ever watched the movie, "Ghost Busters?"
"

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

I find myself perplexed that a biblical creationist, particularly a YEC, would use a lack of transitional forms as an argument FOR their side.

In the Noah and the big boat model of reality, the diversity of non-interbreeding populations we see around us demands a period of hyper speciation some time in the last 4k years. Otherwise Noah couldn't have taken 'kinds' rather than species onto the ark and would have run out of room. This geographic radiation and speciation would have happened during a period when people, writing and carbon dating existed. Strangely, nobody noted the sudden diversification of terrestrial life or that somehow the process stopped.

In fact, we found one of the folks of that approximate age. Otzi the ice man

Transitional examples or evidence of sudden appearance of all the currently existing species should be easy to find.

Revelation777, where are your transitional forms? Any idea why the superfast, spontaneous changes stopped?

a poodle and a chawawah

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:25 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

No, it's knowledge. Knowledge changes.

And just because a contradictory book says there's a god doesn't mean there is on.

No supernatural events have been witnessed by enough people to be convincing or tested.

That is what you have been fed, it is a book filled with contradictions. Apologists have answered every supposed contradiction.

Then maybe there was never ever any supernatural events.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

That's because to say so in Victorian England had consequences. Or he believed in God. Either one, makes not one bit of difference to his theory.

And seriously, if you are going to copy and paste from an article, at least give the article credit. That is called plagiarism. And it's against the rules here. And it is even more evidence that you are a person who will lie to further his personal ideology.

If I indeed do that it was not intentional and a misstep. I apologize. I am trying to get through these posts and I cant catch up.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Dear Faith No More,
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator and He is Jesus Christ.

Good for you. Now tell me why, in Odin's name, we should believe in your god just because you're convinced it exists?

Because it is better to believe now then when it is too late and you have to give an account to Him.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:31 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Why do you call them conmen? They have a Creation Museum and they will be building a Noah's Ark replica. I am very impressed with their findings.

Disney has a Land and a World, it doesn't mean that Mickey Mouse really exists, or that you'll find the little mermaid under the sea.

I call them conmen because their business is built on the back of falsehoods and deliberately deceptive practices. For starters, and I can't stress this enough, their website advertises that they will completely disregard all alternative views and will twist things to fit the one they've chosen; that doesn't sound like an objective scientific source to me, which is what they play themselves off as. Not to mention each and every one of their findings is completely, demonstrably false according to science, and you would know that if you went anywhere else to educate yourself, and yet they host those claims there up until the point that the general public finds them so ridiculous that it's embarrassing for them to keep espousing them.

That is the behavior of conmen, not a group that's interested in the truth, no matter what it happens to be.

You might be judging them harshly because you don't like their message.

(April 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Because it is better to believe now then when it is too late and you have to give an account to Him.

(April 23, 2014 at 12:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I am not an expert. Are you?

At detecting assholes? After five years on this board and seeing jesus freak after jesus freak spout the same old tired horseshit about their godboy I can practically smell them as soon as the sign in.

Minimalist,
How are you doing today?

---

(April 23, 2014 at 12:36 am)Chas Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

But you have nothing to offer.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:25 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

There is no evidence of anything supernatural. Do you also believe in unicorns, ghosts, demons, succubi, incubi, ... ?

I appreciate you not using foul language. I have never witnessed any of the above. All I can go by is how my life changed when I became a believer. You might say, well, that was just all in his mind. Well, I believe it was supernatural. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Keep trying, Rev. Min'll come around.

(April 23, 2014 at 12:42 am)Chas Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Dear Faith No More,
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator and He is Jesus Christ.

Let's see, you claim Jesus Christ was born 2014 years ago. Is the universe less than 2014 years old? What manner of deviltry is this?

We believe Jesus, the Son of God, always was. He took on humanity apx. 2014 years ago.

---

(April 23, 2014 at 12:43 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Chuck Wrote: What do you think?

Come on Chuck. Don't ask the Rev to think. He might hurt himself.

Ouch, that hurt.

---

(April 23, 2014 at 1:41 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 12:42 am)Chas Wrote: Let's see, you claim Jesus Christ was born 2014 years ago. Is the universe less than 2014 years old? What manner of deviltry is this?

Remember jesus is god . So therefore god impregnated mary himself with himself so that he sacrifice himself to appease himself.

profound thought

---

(April 23, 2014 at 2:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 1:41 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Remember jeus is god . So therefore go impregnated mary himself with himself so that he sacrifice himself to appease himself.

That makes sense, but evolution? The idea that animals might breed and that the resulting offspring might be different, a process confirmed every time children are born that aren't clones of their parents?

Madness!

I can accept that changes happen over time...from slime to scientist is undigestible

(April 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Beccs Wrote: So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

I guess you guys were smarted then him since he just was an agnostic.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Beccs Wrote: So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

In your mind things have been debunked.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Without recourse to faith or special ways of knowing, how does one detect the supernatural as it's happening?

Have you ever watched the movie, "Ghost Busters?"
"

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm)JuliaL Wrote: I find myself perplexed that a biblical creationist, particularly a YEC, would use a lack of transitional forms as an argument FOR their side.

In the Noah and the big boat model of reality, the diversity of non-interbreeding populations we see around us demands a period of hyper speciation some time in the last 4k years. Otherwise Noah couldn't have taken 'kinds' rather than species onto the ark and would have run out of room. This geographic radiation and speciation would have happened during a period when people, writing and carbon dating existed. Strangely, nobody noted the sudden diversification of terrestrial life or that somehow the process stopped.

In fact, we found one of the folks of that approximate age. Otzi the ice man

Transitional examples or evidence of sudden appearance of all the currently existing species should be easy to find.

Revelation777, where are your transitional forms? Any idea why the superfast, spontaneous changes stopped?

a poodle and a chawawah

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Beccs Wrote: No, it's knowledge. Knowledge changes.

And just because a contradictory book says there's a god doesn't mean there is on.

No supernatural events have been witnessed by enough people to be convincing or tested.

That is what you have been fed, it is a book filled with contradictions. Apologists have answered every supposed contradiction.

Then maybe there was never ever any supernatural events.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: That's because to say so in Victorian England had consequences. Or he believed in God. Either one, makes not one bit of difference to his theory.

And seriously, if you are going to copy and paste from an article, at least give the article credit. That is called plagiarism. And it's against the rules here. And it is even more evidence that you are a person who will lie to further his personal ideology.

If I indeed do that it was not intentional and a misstep. I apologize. I am trying to get through these posts and I cant catch up.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: Good for you. Now tell me why, in Odin's name, we should believe in your god just because you're convinced it exists?

Because it is better to believe now then when it is too late and you have to give an account to Him.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Disney has a Land and a World, it doesn't mean that Mickey Mouse really exists, or that you'll find the little mermaid under the sea.

I call them conmen because their business is built on the back of falsehoods and deliberately deceptive practices. For starters, and I can't stress this enough, their website advertises that they will completely disregard all alternative views and will twist things to fit the one they've chosen; that doesn't sound like an objective scientific source to me, which is what they play themselves off as. Not to mention each and every one of their findings is completely, demonstrably false according to science, and you would know that if you went anywhere else to educate yourself, and yet they host those claims there up until the point that the general public finds them so ridiculous that it's embarrassing for them to keep espousing them.

That is the behavior of conmen, not a group that's interested in the truth, no matter what it happens to be.

You might be judging them harshly because you don't like their message.

Have to go to bed but this is a warning expect me to give you evidence and detailed explanation on evolution.

(April 23, 2014 at 4:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 3:03 am)Minimalist Wrote: You have nothing to offer except silly ancient shit. Grow up. Time to join the 21st century.

You're asking too much. Let's work on getting Rev up to the 14th century and see how that goes...

Boru

Folks you are forgetting one thing

Lol, I was wondering how long it would take you to find that.

(April 23, 2014 at 5:40 am)Tonus Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:31 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Why do you call them conmen? They have a Creation Museum and they will be building a Noah's Ark replica.

Looks like you answered your own question.

Tonus,
You don't have to buy a ticket if you are not interested.

Revelation in purple.
Esquilax in black.

(April 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 10:43 am)Revelation777 Wrote: What about what these scholars have said?

"transitional fossils have not been found because they don't exist" (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University).

Okay, now you've gone and made my blood boil. This is nothing more than a lazy con job, or a deliberate lie, Rev. The Gould quote is a fairly common creationist quote mine, and it's horrendously dishonest on its own, but I'll admit, I actually had to go and check out the Schwartz one myself, something you should have done before you posted it. Do you know what I found? Do you know why he said that?

I do, because I bothered to look.

Quote:Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."

Schwartz might disagree on certain aspects of evolution, but he does agree that it happens. Would you not agree that attempting to characterize is as though he thinks otherwise is dishonest, Rev? Don't you think you should retract these statements of yours, and apologize if it turns out that you were just so lazy that you took your creationist source as gospel without bothering to research?

And if that's the case, what does it say about the source you used, that it really did outright lie like that?

Oh, and just to cut you off ahead of schedule, you might be tempted to focus on the last line of that quote I posted here, about there not being a missing link. Don't. For one, it says that for Schwartz there is no missing link, and the opinion of one guy- who's already going against the scientific consensus- is not automatically reality. In fact, there's numerous transitional forms on the path toward humanity, more than enough, and I posted a link to all of them way back at the start of this thread. Don't lie again by saying you've not been shown them.

*Drops the mic.*

---

Hold on just one cotton pickin' minute! You guys are putting me in a no win situation here.

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.
2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.
3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.
4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus
5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals
6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

what gives?

continued...

(April 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: what gives?

Actually, yeah, we do need to stop for a moment and deal with an important issue; it's really very hard to get creationists to take responsibility for the things they do and say, so I'm not going to let up on this until we get an answer from you.

You presented us quotes from Stephen Gould and this Schwartz fellow. Did you look them up yourself, or did you get them from a creationist source? If it's the latter, which source did you use?

When we looked up those quotes, what did we see, Rev? We found, in the former case, that the quote was part of a larger paragraph of text that represented a complete thought, and what you posted was that thought torn in half so that it said the opposite of what Gould meant. There was no way for the person who took that quote to avoid seeing that he wasn't finished talking, Rev. They had to have known that they were misrepresenting what Gould said.

With your Schwartz quote, it took me only a few seconds on google to find that he does accept evolution, which means that your quote, attempting to make it seem as though he was a creationist was wrong too. You posted two quotes that had been manipulated into saying exactly the opposite of what those quoted actually meant.

So what I want you to do is admit that those quotes you posted were wrong. If they came from a creationist source that isn't you, I want you to admit that those sources lied to you, and to us.

Shouldn't be hard for you, since that's what did happen. Just observe where you were in error and were misled, and we can move on. You are genuinely here to find the truth, right? Well, you've just been shown that something you posted wasn't that, so it's time to retract what you said and take responsibility for that.

Well?