Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Lemonvariable72]

Fyi rev, in science theories are comprised of facts.

[The Valkyrie]

[hide]
Red Herrings? I think Rev owns the cannery

---

So, all you can do to counter my argument is to post bullshit?

Gotcha.

So let me respond in kind: He hath fucked up thins so royally that he is ashamed to showeth his face and dependeth upon the uneducatedeth to defendeth his incompetence - eth.

Who are you to question God?

I am an intelligent, self aware being thtat he apparently made this way knowing I'd be curious. I am a person who works in a field where I get to see your deity's failings on a daily basis.

I am a human.

I am a woman.

I am a doctor.

I am me.

Who is your god to question me? For I KNOW that I, at least, exist.

[Jackalope]

Am I seriously going to have to explain this to you step by step? Jesus, okay...

Rev, do we know more things today than we did fifty years ago? Has technology improved in fifty years?

Let's start there, okay?

Of course technology has improved in 50 years for a computer hasn't morphed into an airplane.

Time for a little tough love, Rev.

If you ever wonder why you get mocked, look no further than this post. Esquilax was trying to help connect the dots for you, and you responded with.... ....something mind-bendingly stupid.

You're ignorant, led by people who are deceiving you, and you are blind to it. It's apparent you don't care.

Notice all the other Christians coming to your defense? Oh, wait, they're not - and we certainly have plenty of them here. Why do you think that is? I suspect they're embarrassed.

[Sejanus]

Who are you to question God?

Who are you to question Thor?

[Esquilax]

2. Attack my sources - if it is Christian based it gets dismissed even though it is factual or if is an older quote it gets dismissed as out dated

Are they factual? How do you know? How do you test that, especially when the real science, done by real trained scientists who have actually done the tests, says something completely different?

What method do you have for demonstrating the factual nature of your sources? See, that's the important thing: the scientists have exhaustively cataloged references and methodologies laid down, where the creationists just have claims made out of the blue that only poke holes in the science, as though poking those holes makes their god claims true by default.

It doesn't. That's an argument from ignorance, even if they were legitimate holes.

3. Call me a liar even though I try my best to be honest.

When you post deliberate misrepresentations of other people's quotes, and then refuse to even accept that your sources were wrong or lying, then you become guilty of lying yourself. All you'd have to do is say "yes, I accept that the source I gave was a misrepresentation, and that I have been led astray by my source," and all would be forgiven, at least to me. But you never do that, and more importantly, you never stop to question why your sources have so many lies studded throughout them.

4. Accuse me of quote mining when I am simply copying and pasting what I discovered.

You are copying and pasting quote mines, though. That's the problem. You're doing that, and then you're not retracting those quotes when they're shown to be quote mines. Hence, you're tacitly endorsing it.

7. You speak like your science is fact when most if it that you present is theory

And we showed you in your first thread how a scientific theory is made up of facts. It's a constellation of facts working together, it's not like the common usage of the word theory. It's really frustrating seeing you discard everything we've worked so hard to teach you, because it doesn't align with what you want to be true.

You accuse us of patronizing you, but what else would you call what you're doing, when you ignore us in favor of preaching?

[Revelation777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_A._Kerkut


This is the best you can do? Really? Oh my.


And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for your argument is?


Straw man argument, since that is not what the science says, and not how evolution works. Evolution works in populations, not with individuals. Whether or not life originated via abiogenesis or some other means is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. Moreover, there are huge volumes of evidence that support the conclusion that all life on Earth is interrelated and that modern life ultimately originated from the earliest forms of life on the planet. What you are doing here is willfully ignoring that massive amount of data and simply quote mining from a 54 year old textbook that nobody uses any more (and that many have never even heard of) in order to further a religious agenda. I was taught in my youth by my religious parents that such behavior is a violation of the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Was there a religion-confab that was convened that I don't know about where it was decided that 'lying for Jesus' was now acceptable behavior in the Christian community? Because I am certain that my very religious, though scientifically literate family never got that memo.

Bump

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Revelation777]

Bored now. This worshiper of a mother fucking, cock sucking god is not worthy of interaction.

I have not place any member on ignore yet but if you continue with like this you leave me no choice. Please be respectful of my beliefs even if you disagree with them. Thank you in advance.

[Jackalope]

Who are you to question God?

Who are you to question Sithis?

[Revelation777]

No, sir, no. My hope is in Jesus.

Then why don't you get your Jesus to help your case a little bit? Give you some intelligent and REAL arguments to bring to us. Oh, that's right. He doesn't exist.

You believe He existed once and He still awaits your return.

[Foxaèr]

Who are you to question God?

I always question that which has no evidence to support its existence.