Creationists

[daws101]

Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.

more of your ignorance come shinning through.

ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic ( showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution ) repesentations of events and creatures
the practice still goes on today.
so as always you are talking out your ass.

Daws my bible contains no artistic renditions. Care to point out the ancient manuscripts that contained artistic renditions.

already have

but if I must :The Bible moralisée.[2] is a later name for the most important example of the medieval picture bibles, called in general "biblia pauperum", to have survived. They are heavily illustrated, and extremely expensive, illuminated manuscripts of the thirteenth century, and from the copies that still survive it is clear that they existed in at least two versions with different contents. They were similar in the choice and order of the Biblical texts selected, but differed in the allegorical and moral deductions drawn from these passages.

Though large, the manuscripts only contained selections of the text of the Bible, along with commentary and illustrations. Each page pairs Old and New Testament episodes with illustrations explaining their moral signicance in terms of typology.

There are seven surviving manuscripts of the Bible moralisée group;[3] all date from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries and were designed for the personal use of the French royal family.[4] Four were created in the early thirteenth century,[5] when church art dominated the decorative arts. As common in stained glass and other Gothic art of the time, the illustrations are framed within medallions.[6] The text explained the theological and moral meanings of the text.[5] Many artists were involved in the creation of each of the Bibles moralisées, and their identities and shares of the work remain unclear.[7]

Bible moralisée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw before you try to "move the goal posts" the first copies of the bible had no illustrations but there is lot of depicted bible stories on christian church walls. so none of you guys every owned a family bible aka a coffee table bible they all have pictures none of which are accurate depictions of events or people.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, reality escapes you.

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....

 

[daws101]

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, reality escapes you.

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

You're projecting.

 

[pjnlsn]

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.

From Wiki:

Pasteur and Darwin

"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

None of this contradicts the post which it quotes.

It may have been a simple mistake, and, offhand, there's nothing in particular that's inherently wrong below the first line, but most commonly, in this context, evolution refers to the changes in sexually reproducing organisms, and not a change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

 

[UltimateReality]

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

You're projecting.

You're a liar and a fake RT.

 

[UltimateReality]

The "angry fundie", persona.

Ain't they cute?

The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?

That would define your claims to gods which cause you to react with childish responses when required to support your groundless claims to supernaturalism.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.

You should follow you own advice.

... You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution.

 

[Hollie]

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

You're projecting.

You're a liar and a fake RT.

Your arguments are failures and you're an angry, frustrated fundie. Your inability to offer a rational argument is a function of an irrational belief.

Your layers of lies upon lies have caused you to become reactive and to lash out.

Such are the wages of fundie'dom.

 

[UltimateReality]

"So where are we at, now? We now have a multiverse which is radically contingent (as shown by the fact that it had a beginning) and which therefore seems to require an explanation beyond itself. What’s more, the multiverse itself appears to have been fine-tuned to produce a universe like ours, which is capable of supporting life and whose underlying physics is unexpectedly elegant and beautiful, since there would be absolutely no reason to expect this happy confluence of life-friendliness and mathematical beauty, if the multiverse that generated it had not been fine-tuned. Of course, the theist has a ready explanation for these striking facts: our multiverse was produced by an Intelligent Agent, Who made a choice to produce the kind of world that could not only support life, but also support intelligent life-forms who could appreciate its underlying beauty. That’s the conclusion argued for by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards, who contend in their book The Privileged Planet (Regnery Publishing, 2004) that conditions on Earth, especially those that make human life possible, have also been optimized for scientific investigation. In short: “the correlation between habitability and measurability” is a remarkable coincidence, which constitutes “a signal revealing a universe so skillfully created for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extraterrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we’ve been willing to expect or imagine.”

Libby Anne: Portrait of an atheist feminist | Uncommon Descent

"Fortunately, there exists such an effect: the proteins we find in living things. They’re my third and final “big fact.” Proteins, which are made up of amino acids, are fundamental components of all living cells and include many substances, such as enzymes, hormones, and antibodies, that are necessary for the proper functioning of an organism. They’re involved in practically all biological processes. To fulfill their tasks, proteins need to be folded into a complicated three-dimensional structure. Proteins can tolerate slight changes in their amino acid sequences, but a single change of the wrong kind can render them incapable of folding up, and hence, totally incapable of doing any kind of useful work within the cell. That’s why not every amino-acid sequence represents a protein: only one that can fold up properly and perform a useful function within the cell can be called a protein."

This is presented for the Theist who frequent this thread. I have no expectation that Hollie, Loki, or Daws could actually take the time to read this, understand it, and present facts to support a logical rebuttal to the principles presented. However, my reasonable expection is the same, tired references to "cut and pasting" from "Haran Y" and "ICR" totally devoid of any and all thought processes actually required for a real, logical rebuttal.

 

[newpolitics]

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

 

[UltimateReality]

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

Strawman.

 

[newpolitics]

So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

Strawman.

Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make. I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.

 

[newpolitics]

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....

UR, this is an argument from ignorance.

You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHoKnrw9I7Q]Doors of Perception... Out of the jar....mash up by eots - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....

UR, this is an argument from ignorance.

You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.

The argument from ignorance seems to define so much of the creationist argument. They are forced to attack Charles Darwin specifically not understanding that his theory and subsequent testing over the last century have borne out the fact of evolution.

It is the stereotypical appeals to ignorance and the promotion of misinformation that characterizes the creationist agenda.

 

[ima]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.

In other words. you don't know.

I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.