The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

Oh, look. Waldork is spouting out scripture!

Well, bullshitters should bullshit. It's all he's good for.

Poor Min! Always whining, but too old to debate.

I would expect anyone to complain when a vagrant comes and shits on the lawn.

[Statler Waldorf]

Fallacious analogy? Read it again, you asshat. "With the exception of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy..."

Yes, comparing a belief that people are taught as a child and all relinquish to a belief that many people convert to in adulthood and very few relinquish is a fallacious comparison. Is that really that hard to see?

And you wonder why people don't respond to half the bullshit that you spout.

No…..no…I do not.

You're more than allowed to find some common ground with us; you don't have to refute everything for refutation's sake, nor because a bunch of us here are atheists while you are not.

I do find common ground with many on here, just not you. If you try to make sweeping generalizations about why people believe what they believe I am going to call you out on it. There’s no need to be offended.

Do you interact with your real life peers in this manner?

Nope, but they do not act like you do towards me either.

EDIT: And it wasn't an analogy either. Your perception skills are quite dull. No wonder you cling to fairy tales and myths.

Sure it was, you were making comparisons between different childhood beliefs.

---

I would expect anyone to complain when a vagrant comes and shits on the lawn.

Yes poor poor Min being forced to read my posts. I follow the rules on here.

[Bad Writer]

It's not fallacious. People are taught both Santa is real and God at the same time in many instances. You're right that many cling to the god claim, but you're forgetting the other half of this little equation; there are those that also reject it later on, much like rejecting the notion of the Tooth Fairy.

---

Okay, I concede the fact that I made an analogy with that comparison. But did you see my second analogy? That last one about you shitting on the lawn was analogous to your shitty proceedings here.

---

Sweeping generalizations, is it? And what's it called that you're doing with atheists when you lump us all together into one box?

I can make these generalizations about religion because there is truth in my claim. You claim you know each atheist so well; you call us naturalists, materialists, and other such titles without even checking to see if that's true first. You are a class act asshole, and if your purpose is to sit back and misrepresent this forum's population by trying to tell us what we believe, then I'm pretty sure that's akin to flaming and trolling.

[Statler Waldorf]

It's not fallacious. People are taught both Santa is real and God at the same time in many instances.

It is fallacious, and is often used by atheists. People are also taught that trees grow, the sky is blue, fish swim, 2+2=4, and numerous other things at that same time period. In fact, these are far more analogous to being taught that God does exist because the parents believe these things are true much like they believe God exists. They do not believe that the Tooth Fairy exists. It was a totally fallacious analogy and you’re usually better than that.

You're right that many cling to the god claim, but you're forgetting the other half of this little equation; there are those that also reject it later on, much like rejecting the notion of the Tooth Fairy.

Again, another fallacious analogy. Many healthy people adopt a belief in God later on in life (I.e. Francis Collins), and yet nobody who is healthy adopts a belief in the Tooth Fairy later on in life.

That last one about you shitting on the lawn was analogous to your shitty proceedings here.

Then….don’t….read….them……

[Bad Writer]

Seriously? Is my claim that there are children that are raised religious and reject Santa but remain convinced of god wrong? (You're the one that brought up adult conversion, not I. That is a completely different matter.)

EDIT: Nice attempt at a Strawman argument though.

---

Where's your fucking courtesy, Stat? I thought you took it upon yourself to answer everything? Are you just going to stay silent about how I called you out for misrepresenting the views of this forum's members? C'mon, aren't you going to tell me I'm wrong? Or are you silent because you realized you screwed up and were not honest in your dealings with your fellow man, and now you've gone off to a corner to kneel and pray for forgiveness? Good luck getting anything to respond besides the delusions and voices in your YEC head.

[Bad Writer]

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have presumed to know how you pray. Do you prefer standing to kneeling? Lying on your back?

[RDK]

I think the point has been lost. I am not currently proposing scientific evidence for creation I am proposing the evidence for evolution is not scientific.

And what are YOUR credentials in the science community - where did YOU study science - and in what PEER reviewed science journal did you publish your supporting work?


Sorry - but a theist is NOT a scientist - especially a deluded one.
THe problem is that it was the Catholic church that PROVED that evolution does exist.

It was a group of Catholic Monks in France - who - in order to save their grape crop - which was blighted - Crossed the root stock of disease resistant strains of grapes with the stems of the varieties of grapes they desired to produce a NEW plant - one not created by any god. And the seeds from the new plant would grow a resistant root crop of new grape plants too. This proved Natural Selection. The disease resistant strains survived and the others did not. And this was in the 1850's.

THe problem you have is that you forget what Evolution is - Darwin's book - now called the ORIGIN of the Species - had a much longer original title
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

There is NO question that Natural selection - the now called Survival of the Fittest - DOES indeed happen. In Darwins book - he proposed that there was some way that parents passed traits on to their offspring - in all life - and eventually the exitence of Dna - Rna -and genes proved he was correct in that as well. And these were discovered scientifically - without question.

You are proof it happens - you are a human - similar to - but not exactly like either of your parents - and have dominant traits of both of your parents. Dna research has gone so far as to render claims against evolution to be comical nonsense - and clearly show that animals have evolved.

Sorry - you are simply wrong.

---

This book is written by god because it says in this book that it is written by god. Stop arguing and submit yourself right away.

Then god was a HUMAN - because every single word of the bible was written by Humans

THere is no alternative - no other species on earth writes in language!

So - it is YOU who have to submit!

This may be an older comment made some days ago, but I have to comment on the fallacy or should I say the impossibility for animals to evolve from one to another.
Animals are like automobiles, in that, they only function as complete systems. Any parts that are removed for the function of the system and the car stops moving. All creatures are systematically constructed, not hap-hazzardly assembled from floating parts which are not compatible. A system has to operate with all of its parts in order to live. You do not see most animals with any extra unused parts. These items are already integrated to be a part of its whole system. Those extra pieces are designed to fit the animal to which they are attached.
Now don't just assume that since I take this stand, I don't believe in natural selection. By selective breeding we can produce all different types of dogs, tall ones, short ones, ones who climb on rocks... but they are still dogs. Genetically they can only mate with their own type.
Every animal has its exclusive DNA pattern which prevents it from mating with any but its own kind.
If animals could have come from one another, all animals should be able to crossbread, like that plant that had to be interfered with in order to produce different fruit.
A system (animal) has to have an opposite mate with which to reproduce. The chances that two opposite pairs ,that are required in almost all animals, negates the possibilty, that even with time, pair coupling could be possible by happen-chance.
The system approach to understanding creation should help you realize that none of the individual parts of a creature could be added over time without the animal being able to integrate it into it's body The system only works when all of the parts fuction togeather to give the animal its life.
I think that it is fantastic that an animal can adapt to its surroundings. Just goes to show that creation is not a dead thing, but something which gives an animal an advantage in a new environment. The animal does not know what it needs to survive somewhere else. The animal has been given the ability to modify itself to create the variety of all the various attributes within its own species.

[Drich]

Oh, look. Waldork is spouting out scripture!

Well, bullshitters should bullshit. It's all he's good for.

Poor Min! Always whining, but too old to debate.

Minnie is that really what you look like?

---

Is that skin or a smokers patch?

[Belac Enrobso]

Still waiting for evidence... Drich.

[Bad Wolf]

RDK, please make a thread about your problems with evolution so that everyone can mock you and shake their heads in disbelief of your stupidity