Is God Scientifically Explicable?

[Quantum Windbag]

Science can't "explain" fantasy and superstition.

Yet you keep trying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How typical of creationists to lie.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

[/i]”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”[/i]



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

So....as you nowuse, and see the efficacy of what you formerly objected to, you're not objecting to "cut and paste" any longer?
Are you sure?
Quite a turn-around for you.
No doubt I'll be able to convince you in other areas as well......you know, 'convert' you.



"....the quote is accurate.."

And my other ACCURATE quotes, as well?


So....you admit that you were wrong in writing "There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."

You were totally wrong?


Want to add this:

Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?



Good news: you aren’t steeped in original sin…since you obviously haven’t eaten of the tree of knowledge.

I'm afraid that spamming the thread is not going to allow you to conceal your intentional lies and falsified "quote-mining".

What a shame that fundie whackjobs are so often represented by people such as you who care not a whit for honesty, integrity or truth.

As you have demonstrated, you will resort to any manner of base depravity.

I know you think you had a brainstorm, but it’s actually a mild stroke.


Here's a novel idea: Why don't you actually respond to the post?

 

[Hollie]

1.I notice you attempt to resort to that 'stuttering and mumbling' thing every time your posts are eviscerated.
It's what known as a "tell."


2. And..."pointless prattle" certainly isn't appropriate in response to a post which neatly skewers yours.

See, that's what gives you away as the dim-wit you are....you are unable to respond appropriately, and fall back on the same vapid jargon, no matter the substance to which you are, ostensibly, responding.

That's the result of programming, rather than thinking.


3. "as you hope to retreat for the exits."
I haven't gone anywhere.

See...now you've revealed your fear of my posts, and the hope that I'll stop smashing you. Hardly likely.



4. Enough chit-chat.
To the original point....in light of the fact that I provided evidence that you were incorrect, are you ready to agree you were this statement of yours, as is true of so much of what you write, is totally fallacious?

Here:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


Beat you senseless, again, didn't I?

Ooopps!
Forgot...you started out senseless.

I can see you’re embarrassed at having been exposed as a fraud and a liar.

That’s too bad but the lies, misrepresentations and fraud was of your own doing.

Why would you choose to live your life governed by fear and superstition? Absent rigid and unquestioning adherence to a book that you worship as an alleged “divine word” from a god(s), your superstitions have everything to do with an existence based upon living in fear and trembling before the angry desert deity. As much as you would prefer to resist it, it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.

Just a word of advise: be careful with the falsified "quote-mining". Aside from that tactic making you look like a total bumpkin, it also reflects negatively on the christian notion of possessing those... you know... "higher morals"

Your posting lies tends to reduce the morals, thing.

See, there you go again: "a fraud and a liar"..." lies, misrepresentations and fraud"...

And as you do this, with no fraud, or lies, or misrepresentations are evident, the instability of your mental condition is evident.
You are truly a squirrel’s version of heaven.


And since it is not possible to take you seriously, I must hold you up to ridicule.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

What a shame that you cannot admit to lies and deceit even after being exposed for fraudulently posting falsified “quotes”.

That’s the pattern for fundie whackjobs, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary sciences, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there

 

[skye]

Let's answer short and sweet

The answer is no.

The human intellect can not grasp the concept of a Power greater than itself. The intellect says "this far and no further".

A Power that transcends the human intellect... that it is beyond,how can the human mind understand the concept of Immortality,or the concept of Infinity.... the concept of never have been born and never dying.....

This Supreme Force we call God but it is beyond any name really ..... is a mystery to us all.... a wonderful and beautiful mystery!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can see you’re embarrassed at having been exposed as a fraud and a liar.

That’s too bad but the lies, misrepresentations and fraud was of your own doing.

Why would you choose to live your life governed by fear and superstition? Absent rigid and unquestioning adherence to a book that you worship as an alleged “divine word” from a god(s), your superstitions have everything to do with an existence based upon living in fear and trembling before the angry desert deity. As much as you would prefer to resist it, it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.

Just a word of advise: be careful with the falsified "quote-mining". Aside from that tactic making you look like a total bumpkin, it also reflects negatively on the christian notion of possessing those... you know... "higher morals"

Your posting lies tends to reduce the morals, thing.

See, there you go again: "a fraud and a liar"..." lies, misrepresentations and fraud"...

And as you do this, with no fraud, or lies, or misrepresentations are evident, the instability of your mental condition is evident.
You are truly a squirrel’s version of heaven.


And since it is not possible to take you seriously, I must hold you up to ridicule.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

What a shame that you cannot admit to lies and deceit even after being exposed for fraudulently posting falsified “quotes”.

That’s the pattern for fundie whackjobs, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary sciences, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there

Gee....perhaps it takes you a while to grasp information...you condition and all....

See, you said:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."
Do you recall writing that?



Then, I proved you totally incorrect in this manner:

1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


4. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


And all you've done is obfuscate.
True?


OK...ok....I admit I've had a great deal of fun smashing you in the kisser with these verbal whipped cream pies....

...but still: you are a dunce and a fibber.....

Admit it.


Now....I double dog dare you to respond to this post.

 

[Hollie]

See, there you go again: "a fraud and a liar"..." lies, misrepresentations and fraud"...

And as you do this, with no fraud, or lies, or misrepresentations are evident, the instability of your mental condition is evident.
You are truly a squirrel’s version of heaven.


And since it is not possible to take you seriously, I must hold you up to ridicule.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

What a shame that you cannot admit to lies and deceit even after being exposed for fraudulently posting falsified “quotes”.

That’s the pattern for fundie whackjobs, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary sciences, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there

Gee....perhaps it takes you a while to grasp information...you condition and all....

See, you said:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."
Do you recall writing that?



Then, I proved you totally incorrect in this manner:

1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


4. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


And all you've done is obfuscate.
True?


OK...ok....I admit I've had a great deal of fun smashing you in the kisser with these verbal whipped cream pies....

...but still: you are a dunce and a fibber.....

Admit it.


Now....I double dog dare you to respond to this post.

How sad. Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a shame that you cannot admit to lies and deceit even after being exposed for fraudulently posting falsified “quotes”.

That’s the pattern for fundie whackjobs, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary sciences, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there

Gee....perhaps it takes you a while to grasp information...you condition and all....

See, you said:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."
Do you recall writing that?



Then, I proved you totally incorrect in this manner:

1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


4. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


And all you've done is obfuscate.
True?


OK...ok....I admit I've had a great deal of fun smashing you in the kisser with these verbal whipped cream pies....

...but still: you are a dunce and a fibber.....

Admit it.


Now....I double dog dare you to respond to this post.

How sad. Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Why are you so deathly afraid to respond to a post?


Even one as dense as you provably are must see that simply making false statements such as "Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control" aren't fooling anyone.


C'mon....take me on.

Actually respond to the post.


I understand, you lose either way....but try the honest way.

Prove you don't have a brain the size of a Lithium watch battery.

 

[Hollie]

Gee....perhaps it takes you a while to grasp information...you condition and all....

See, you said:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."
Do you recall writing that?



Then, I proved you totally incorrect in this manner:

1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


4. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


And all you've done is obfuscate.
True?


OK...ok....I admit I've had a great deal of fun smashing you in the kisser with these verbal whipped cream pies....

...but still: you are a dunce and a fibber.....

Admit it.


Now....I double dog dare you to respond to this post.

How sad. Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Why are you so deathly afraid to respond to a post?


Even one as dense as you provably are must see that simply making false statements such as "Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control" aren't fooling anyone.


C'mon....take me on.

Actually respond to the post.


I understand, you lose either way....but try the honest way.

Prove you don't have a brain the size of a Lithium watch battery.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber




It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How sad. Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Why are you so deathly afraid to respond to a post?


Even one as dense as you provably are must see that simply making false statements such as "Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control" aren't fooling anyone.


C'mon....take me on.

Actually respond to the post.


I understand, you lose either way....but try the honest way.

Prove you don't have a brain the size of a Lithium watch battery.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber




It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

Good.


Now....why do you insist on inserting the claim that there are 'lies,' when there aren't.


Why not admit that your original statement was over the top, and that there are some problems with Darwinian evolution.

Wouldn't that be correct?

 

[Hollie]

Why are you so deathly afraid to respond to a post?


Even one as dense as you provably are must see that simply making false statements such as "Your sad diseased lies having been exposed, you're now left to spamming the thread is desperate attempts at damage control" aren't fooling anyone.


C'mon....take me on.

Actually respond to the post.


I understand, you lose either way....but try the honest way.

Prove you don't have a brain the size of a Lithium watch battery.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber




It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

Good.


Now....why do you insist on inserting the claim that there are 'lies,' when there aren't.


Why not admit that your original statement was over the top, and that there are some problems with Darwinian evolution.

Wouldn't that be correct?

I do think it’s important to expose creationist lies and deceit.

The embarrassment you undertook was of your own making. Of course, your prattling on is just more evidence of your incompetence. Simply repeating the canards and slogans of the fundie xtian ministries makes you an accomplice to their idiocy.

I have no issue at all exposing your silly cut and paste nonsense as yet more fraudulent deception from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed “quotes” you hoped to pass off as legitimate. Of course they are not. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies wherein they phony-up fraudulent “quotes”.

But then again, When you’re involved in a pyramid scheme type syndicate, personal integrity and honesty is of little concern.

Wouldn't that be correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber




It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the mentality that lies and deceit are acceptable because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.

Good.


Now....why do you insist on inserting the claim that there are 'lies,' when there aren't.


Why not admit that your original statement was over the top, and that there are some problems with Darwinian evolution.

Wouldn't that be correct?

I do think it’s important to expose creationist lies and deceit.

The embarrassment you undertook was of your own making. Of course, your prattling on is just more evidence of your incompetence. Simply repeating the canards and slogans of the fundie xtian ministries makes you an accomplice to their idiocy.

I have no issue at all exposing your silly cut and paste nonsense as yet more fraudulent deception from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed “quotes” you hoped to pass off as legitimate. Of course they are not. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies wherein they phony-up fraudulent “quotes”.

But then again, When you’re involved in a pyramid scheme type syndicate, personal integrity and honesty is of little concern.

Wouldn't that be correct?

Why so afraid of honest discussion?
Because you lose every time?

There are no lies or deceit from my side....only the claims of such from yours.

You post...I blow your post out of the water...you scream "lies and deceit....mumbling and stumbling...." ...."whatever..."


Grow up.

 

[Hollie]

Good.


Now....why do you insist on inserting the claim that there are 'lies,' when there aren't.


Why not admit that your original statement was over the top, and that there are some problems with Darwinian evolution.

Wouldn't that be correct?

I do think it’s important to expose creationist lies and deceit.

The embarrassment you undertook was of your own making. Of course, your prattling on is just more evidence of your incompetence. Simply repeating the canards and slogans of the fundie xtian ministries makes you an accomplice to their idiocy.

I have no issue at all exposing your silly cut and paste nonsense as yet more fraudulent deception from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed “quotes” you hoped to pass off as legitimate. Of course they are not. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies wherein they phony-up fraudulent “quotes”.

But then again, When you’re involved in a pyramid scheme type syndicate, personal integrity and honesty is of little concern.

Wouldn't that be correct?

Why so afraid of honest discussion?
Because you lose every time?

There are no lies or deceit from my side....only the claims of such from yours.

You post...I blow your post out of the water...you scream "lies and deceit....mumbling and stumbling...." ...."whatever..."


Grow up.

So, I see you have abandoned any attempt at claiming your fraudulent “quotes” are anything but shameless attempts at furthering your lies and deceit.

Lies and deceit are promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements. Of course you won’t do so. Instead, you will simply scour creationist websites for edited, parsed and manufactured “quotes”. You will make no effort to confirm the accuracy of those “quotes” because in the creationist mindset, lies and deceit are acceptable means to further the religion.
Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the "I can lie for the sake of my religion, safe room. Don't you agree?

You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

Isn't that correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do think it’s important to expose creationist lies and deceit.

The embarrassment you undertook was of your own making. Of course, your prattling on is just more evidence of your incompetence. Simply repeating the canards and slogans of the fundie xtian ministries makes you an accomplice to their idiocy.

I have no issue at all exposing your silly cut and paste nonsense as yet more fraudulent deception from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed “quotes” you hoped to pass off as legitimate. Of course they are not. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies wherein they phony-up fraudulent “quotes”.

But then again, When you’re involved in a pyramid scheme type syndicate, personal integrity and honesty is of little concern.

Wouldn't that be correct?

Why so afraid of honest discussion?
Because you lose every time?

There are no lies or deceit from my side....only the claims of such from yours.

You post...I blow your post out of the water...you scream "lies and deceit....mumbling and stumbling...." ...."whatever..."


Grow up.

So, I see you have abandoned any attempt at claiming your fraudulent “quotes” are anything but shameless attempts at furthering your lies and deceit.

Lies and deceit are promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements. Of course you won’t do so. Instead, you will simply scour creationist websites for edited, parsed and manufactured “quotes”. You will make no effort to confirm the accuracy of those “quotes” because in the creationist mindset, lies and deceit are acceptable means to further the religion.
Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the "I can lie for the sake of my religion, safe room. Don't you agree?

You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

Isn't that correct?

Don't you realize that sticking to the truth would support your position?

As it is, your fabrications are evident, and you appear no more than the run-of-the-mill nut job.


Don't be afraid to present your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.



For the record....I never lie.
Ever.

Learn that.

 

[Hollie]

Why so afraid of honest discussion?
Because you lose every time?

There are no lies or deceit from my side....only the claims of such from yours.

You post...I blow your post out of the water...you scream "lies and deceit....mumbling and stumbling...." ...."whatever..."


Grow up.

So, I see you have abandoned any attempt at claiming your fraudulent “quotes” are anything but shameless attempts at furthering your lies and deceit.

Lies and deceit are promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements. Of course you won’t do so. Instead, you will simply scour creationist websites for edited, parsed and manufactured “quotes”. You will make no effort to confirm the accuracy of those “quotes” because in the creationist mindset, lies and deceit are acceptable means to further the religion.
Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the "I can lie for the sake of my religion, safe room. Don't you agree?

You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

Isn't that correct?

Don't you realize that sticking to the truth would support your position?

As it is, your fabrications are evident, and you appear no more than the run-of-the-mill nut job.


Don't be afraid to present your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.



For the record....I never lie.
Ever.

Learn that.

I can appreciate your tacit admission of posting edited, parsed and falsified “quotes”.
It’s a small step, albeit an important one to admit that lies and deceit will not further your argument. Don’t you agree?

The underlying question remains, however: why do fundie zealots feel a need to lie for the sake of their religion? As with your case of posting falsified “quotes”, the lies are eventually discovered, isn’t that correct?

What I can do is provide overwhelming evidence, that evidence being provable, testable and verifiable that natural causes and events have fully rational and explainable causes. As for facts, I can point you to a hundred different web sites containing factual data on science, chemistry, evolution and physics. All can provide testable proof of natural explanations for naturally caused events. Genesis is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.

Therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism. The point being, theism does not allow for options -- it can’t be emphasized enough that from a christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given that fact that we continue to survive, it is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does self-hate serve? Is it extraneous and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. Assuming that evil acts are borne out of the influence of religion, is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

Your need for lies and deceit to further your fundie beliefs is self-defeating. Wouldn’t you agree?

For the record, you are a pathological liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, I see you have abandoned any attempt at claiming your fraudulent “quotes” are anything but shameless attempts at furthering your lies and deceit.

Lies and deceit are promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements. Of course you won’t do so. Instead, you will simply scour creationist websites for edited, parsed and manufactured “quotes”. You will make no effort to confirm the accuracy of those “quotes” because in the creationist mindset, lies and deceit are acceptable means to further the religion.
Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the "I can lie for the sake of my religion, safe room. Don't you agree?

You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

Isn't that correct?

Don't you realize that sticking to the truth would support your position?

As it is, your fabrications are evident, and you appear no more than the run-of-the-mill nut job.


Don't be afraid to present your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.



For the record....I never lie.
Ever.

Learn that.

I can appreciate your tacit admission of posting edited, parsed and falsified “quotes”.
It’s a small step, albeit an important one to admit that lies and deceit will not further your argument. Don’t you agree?

The underlying question remains, however: why do fundie zealots feel a need to lie for the sake of their religion? As with your case of posting falsified “quotes”, the lies are eventually discovered, isn’t that correct?

What I can do is provide overwhelming evidence, that evidence being provable, testable and verifiable that natural causes and events have fully rational and explainable causes. As for facts, I can point you to a hundred different web sites containing factual data on science, chemistry, evolution and physics. All can provide testable proof of natural explanations for naturally caused events. Genesis is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.

Therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism. The point being, theism does not allow for options -- it can’t be emphasized enough that from a christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given that fact that we continue to survive, it is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does self-hate serve? Is it extraneous and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. Assuming that evil acts are borne out of the influence of religion, is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

Your need for lies and deceit to further your fundie beliefs is self-defeating. Wouldn’t you agree?

For the record, you are a pathological liar.

Now, be sure to come back when you're an adult.

 

[Polk]

She expressed a different opinion from you in a calm and rational manner. You're the one who is acting childish by dismissing her arguments and refusing to address any of the points.

 

[Polk]

Also, just posting reams of quotes without saying something of your own isn't really an argumentation style as much as it's just spam.

 

[Hollie]

Don't you realize that sticking to the truth would support your position?

As it is, your fabrications are evident, and you appear no more than the run-of-the-mill nut job.


Don't be afraid to present your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.



For the record....I never lie.
Ever.

Learn that.

I can appreciate your tacit admission of posting edited, parsed and falsified “quotes”.
It’s a small step, albeit an important one to admit that lies and deceit will not further your argument. Don’t you agree?

The underlying question remains, however: why do fundie zealots feel a need to lie for the sake of their religion? As with your case of posting falsified “quotes”, the lies are eventually discovered, isn’t that correct?

What I can do is provide overwhelming evidence, that evidence being provable, testable and verifiable that natural causes and events have fully rational and explainable causes. As for facts, I can point you to a hundred different web sites containing factual data on science, chemistry, evolution and physics. All can provide testable proof of natural explanations for naturally caused events. Genesis is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.

Therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism. The point being, theism does not allow for options -- it can’t be emphasized enough that from a christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given that fact that we continue to survive, it is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does self-hate serve? Is it extraneous and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. Assuming that evil acts are borne out of the influence of religion, is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

Your need for lies and deceit to further your fundie beliefs is self-defeating. Wouldn’t you agree?

For the record, you are a pathological liar.

Now, be sure to come back when you're an adult.

Think of my time being donated to you as your opportunity to improve yourself.

Do you find it at all disturbing that your behavior includes tactics such as lies and deceit? Do you have no issue at all with Christian creationists lacking such character and integrity that lies and deceit are acceptable in furthering their agenda of pressing Christianity? Quite clearly, such lack of morals and integrity defines so many of the of hacks and charlatans who are immersed in ID/creationism.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. There are some things in the universe that are not scientifically explicable.
Can anyone argue that this is not true? If so, they would have to argue that they believe that at some future time, science will be able to explain everything.
“Believe” becomes the operative term, and such an explanation nudges science into the realm of faith. And it becomes a religion.




2. Which brings to mind this, from Arthur Conan Doyle: ‘Napoleon's question to the atheistic professors on the starry night as he voyaged to Egypt: "Who was it, gentlemen, who made these stars?" has never been answered. To say that the Universe was made by immutable laws only puts the question one degree further back as to who made the laws. I did not, of course, believe in an anthropomorphic God, but I believed then, as I believe now, in an intelligent Force behind all the operations of Nature--a force so infinitely complex and great that my finite brain could get no further than its existence.” The New Revelation, by Arthur Conan Doyle; Chapter I: The Search Page 1

3. Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

b. The Greek philosopher Epicurus: ‘ It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’
What if science can never explain certain things?





4. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see.
Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers.
What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
Sensitivity of Human Ear
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!





5. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.

6. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?

Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?





a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,… proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton. The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless. He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin

b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.
Covered in chapter nine of "The Genesis Enigma," Parker.



‘It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

Science addresses physical processes in the natural world. People like you address the supernatural, and try to bend science to do the same. After being bent, it is no longer science.

 

[hoosier88]

1. There are some things in the universe that are not scientifically explicable.
Can anyone argue that this is not true? If so, they would have to argue that they believe that at some future time, science will be able to explain everything.
“Believe” becomes the operative term, and such an explanation nudges science into the realm of faith. And it becomes a religion.

2. Which brings to mind this, from Arthur Conan Doyle: ‘Napoleon's question to the atheistic professors on the starry night as he voyaged to Egypt: "Who was it, gentlemen, who made these stars?" has never been answered. To say that the Universe was made by immutable laws only puts the question one degree further back as to who made the laws. I did not, of course, believe in an anthropomorphic God, but I believed then, as I believe now, in an intelligent Force behind all the operations of Nature--a force so infinitely complex and great that my finite brain could get no further than its existence.” The New Revelation, by Arthur Conan Doyle; Chapter I: The Search Page 1

3. Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

b. The Greek philosopher Epicurus: ‘ It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’
What if science can never explain certain things?

4. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see.
Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers.
What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
Sensitivity of Human Ear
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!

5. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.

6. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?

Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?

a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,… proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton. The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless. He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin

b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.
Covered in chapter nine of "The Genesis Enigma," Parker.

‘It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

Your questions raise more questions:
Isn't it possible 9even likely) that it was God who produced the Big Bang, making both God and the Bang real? And what existed before the Bang?
Finally, if everything in the universe is finite isn't it possible that God, too, is finite (and perhaps gone)?
Oh, and why would you do this to me first thing in the morning?

I'd say that the accepted definition of God doesn't include 'finite.'



"Oh, and why would you do this to me first thing in the morning?"
It's why we both come here....isn't it.

(My bold)

Now you're just making Kant's argument - from categories. In this case, the popular Western attributes of God. But there's nothing to say that some other culture's attributes of God would be the same, different, or totally other. In fact, there's no proof one way or the other that the common attributes of God are in fact His (?) attributes. It's just cultural history that makes most of us accepting of - if not precisely comfortable with - this enumeration of virtues.

You run into the same problem as Kant - What is the necessary relationship between this list of virtues & the actuality of the Godhead?