Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Clueless Morgan]

You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

But you are arguing as though it does matter how many people believe a thing, and in the case of scientific experts who accept the theory of evolution, not laymen, the numbers are wholly, unflinchingly and categorically against you.

Arguing from your parameters (that the number of experts who accept a thing is true has some bearing on it actually being true), you have been squashed like a bug by a factor of at least 10.

If this were a valid way to evaluate evidence (by popularity), than you should defending the theory of evolution, not arguing against it. The fact that you think 650 scientists going on record as believing in a 6-day creation actually means something tells the rest of us that you don't have the first clue about how fallacious your arguments are, though I think the rest of us knew that all along.

Once you understand why appealing to the number of experts you agree with you doesn't matter (as many people have done, read the posts preceding mine here for the explanation), then you'll understand why appealing to the number of experts who believe a majority position doesn't matter. All that matters is the evidence, not how many people you can get to stand behind you on the playground, and in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the theory.

[Mister Agenda]

As long as you give proper citation and expand on the material you present (such as why you think it's relevant or how you think it helps your case) then go for it. If all you're going to do is build a wall of copypasta in a game of "so-and-so says", then what would be the point?

Oh, and part of the game is that you respond to your critics in a meaningful way. You know, sort of like a discussion.

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

It's yet another plea for substantive discussion.

---

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

Now airplanes are designed by computer and highly computerized.

Not that your statement made any kind of point in the first place.

---

You make it sound that straightforward and simple, but it is not.

Translation: I'm not going to get it no matter how well or simply you explain it.

---

Ahh, but God has chosen even a fool as I to confound the wise.
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty" I Cor 1:27

Making yourself and anyone who agrees with you seem like an idiot is not 'confounding the wise'. Add 'confounding' to the growing list of words you think you understand, but actually don't.

Have you considered the possibility that you chose yourself, and that's why you're amusing us with your lame-brained antics instead of confounding us?

---

No, you guys dismiss my arguments and me.

You'd have to actually make an argument for us to dismiss it. We really don't want to dismiss you, but your posts make that impossible.

You guys like to divert from the issue set forth in several ways:

There's no issue to divert from. You still haven't read links posted on the first page. You're not really participating in the discussion, leaving us with nothing to do but amuse ourselves between your posts in the faint hope that you'll someday actually make an argument and actually use your own words.

1. Insult and mock me

You ask for it by refusing to engage honestly.

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

Why should we accept sources known for not being credible, such as those that use quote mines? The real question is why do you keep using sources after it's been proven that they engage in quote-mining?

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

If your dishonesty is some kind of compulsion, trying your best still doesn't make you honest if you don't succeed at it. How hard you try to be honest isn't relevant to how honest you are. How honest you are is the only thing that is relevant to how honest you are. Signing a forum agreement to engage in substantive discussion and then doing...this...is dishonest. Using sources you know can't be trusted because it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are using dishonest practices...is dishonest. If you want us to consider you honest, why don't you just start being honest?

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

How many quote mines do you think you should be able to post without being accountable for it?

5. Say I don't refer to the posts when I get bombarded with replys...there are like 50 of you and one of me.

You don't seem to have trouble responding to ones with silly gifs or 'foul language'. No one here is going to chide you for not responding to childish posts, but those are the ones to which you're most likely to respond. You could carry on a good conversation if you focused only on the posts most challenging to your position, and that, by-the-way, would be the most honest way to have this conversation. And you could always request a one-on-one debate.

6.You guys patronize me like I am a 5 year old boy with a lollipop and you pat my head and send me on my way.

Try acting more grown-up.

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

Scientific theories are made of facts. A scientific theory is not an 'educated guess' like the word 'theory' is used in colloquial terms. A scientific theory is a set of related falsifiable hypotheses which have withstood attempts to falsify them. If you presented a scientific theory in support of your position, it would be a huge improvement over what you've been shovelling us.

8. Dismiss the Bible

The Bible is a claim, not the evidence for the claim. It's no more germane to an argument about evolution than the Qu'ran is. What would your response be if we started referring to the Qu'ran in support of our contentions about evolution?

9. Stereotype all Christian together

When you think comments about you are comments about all Christians, you are the one stereotyping all Christians together.

10. Posting gifs that insinuate that I am a complete failure or that what I write is like cow manure
I'll stop there.

At least gifs get your attention, unlike the links to evidence on the first page that you haven't bothered to read yet. Are you going to make a list of examples of you whining like a little bitch in each of these threads?

And even with all this I proceed forward to seven arguments.

Because God forbid you change your approach based on reactions to it.

Then I might leave and go to another atheist forum and see if am I better received. Till then, good day my atheist friends.

I don't know of any atheist forums where your style of willful ignorance and mendacity would be well-received, but best of luck in your search. Despite your attitude here, I assume you're kind to children and puppies and bear you no personal ill-will. If you ever change your approach, you'll find my attitude toward you changing as quickly. I expect if you re-visit your posts in ten years, they'll make you cringe. We've all been there.

Ahhhh...mock on, mock on. What if #3 makes you a believer? How great would that be?

If number 3 is better than 1 and 2, why did you lead with the ones that make you look stupid? Doesn't that make it harder to keep an open mind towards the good ones?

Here's why I like having you here: I think that to someone on the fence, you are doing more to tip that person over to scientific skepticism than any one of us who are already skeptics could on our own. It's often not enough to make good arguments, it really helps to have someone demonstrating how truly awful the other side's arguments are.

---

Who are you to question God?

Questioning what people claim is not questioning God. God would have to be making the claim for us to be questioning God. Saying God said something is itself a claim by a person.

Who are you to speak for God?

---

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Did you really think that comment was cogent? If so, why?

---

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.

You're not respectful of our beliefs that quotes should not be mined and sources should be credible, and people with an argument should be able to make it in their own words, so why do you expect us to treat your beliefs with more respect than you treat ours?

---

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.

Who are you to tell people what they believe? It's hard to imagine a way to be more disrespectful about someone's beliefs than to declare that they don't actually believe them. Hypocrite.

---

You've confounded two things. Jack and shit.

As a red labeled member, let me encourage you to set an example on this forum for proper decorum.

I think you may actually like 'foul language'. You can't be so stupid as to not know that telling people not to use it only provokes them to use it more. Does it give you that special 'Christian martyr' feeling down to your toes?

[Mister Agenda]

Why should any of us here be respectful of your beliefs when your beliefs are not respectful to us as atheists? Do you have any idea what the people says to do to people that leave the religion? Well the first the old testament tells us that you should burn down the whole fucking town if someone is a atheist in another town, it says that if your ducking mother or wife deconverts you should stone them to death,


So no, your pitiful beliefs do not deserve respect.

In 1999, Dr. Stephen Taylor wrote,

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

1 Ashton, In Six Days (1999) Page 284

See evolution is not as clear cut as you think.

Science is determined by evidence, not consensus, but if were determined by consensus, 10,000 scientists on your side vs. a couple of million on ours would mean the science is on our side. Your own arguments work against you.

In fact if you read the book, "In Six Days" you may be left with more questions about your beliefs than ever before. So please be open minded to creation.

Have YOU read it?

"Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution." http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sa...#footnote1

Science is something you can demonstrate, not just assert. If the science was actually against evolution, they could demonstrate it, and collect their Nobel prizes in short order for overturning a foundational scientific theory and altering the course of biological science profoundly.

---

I just want you to know there are and were brilliant men and women who embrace a God. That is all from those quotes.

Nobody here didn't already know that, and your use of such quotes has been addressed before, so you KNOW we already know that. Still mystified about why we think you're dishonest?

What if there is dishonesty among atheists?

When we discover an atheist being dishonest, we call them on it. When you discover a Christian being dishonest, you pretend it didin't happen, make excuses for it, or distance yourself from it.

---

My name is Stephen and I am not part of this group.

Are you a scientist in a field relevant to evolution? If not, you don't belong on the list.

You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

And you keep saying it does...except when it's inconvenient. Your own arguments working against you would cause an honest person to either realize they're wrong or that the argument is invalid, but a dishonest fuck will blithely carry on.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Mr. Agenda! I've seen a few of your posts! Pathetic!

[Revelation777]

Who are you to question God?

Who are you to claim there is a god? Or to assert his characteristics?

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

[Foxaèr]

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

Can you prove Jesus' claim without accepting it merely on blind, fallible faith?

[Esquilax]

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

How do you know Jesus existed?

[Lemonvariable72]

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

How do you know Jesus existed?

Because he talks to jesus remember? Funny, you talk to some dude that lived 2000 years ago, your a christian. Talk your mother that died 2 years ago your nuts.

[Anomalocaris]

Who are you to claim there is a god? Or to assert his characteristics?

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

His parentage is as doubtful as his claim is hollow.

[Angrboda]

Who are you to claim there is a god? Or to assert his characteristics?

Jesus made the claim He is the Son of God.

Were you there when it happened?