Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[abu afak]

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this. A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
Goodbye, and good luck!

You HAVE to stop responding to me because I've DESTROYED you and your "apparent design" BS many times.
(so now it's I-R)
I told you many times and proved to you, COULDN'T debate me.

You are a LAUGHING STOCK here because of Me.
ie
Most proximately Here

My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism

Seymour Flops said: The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theory not involving design, but random processes. Hysterical! I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one. You claim the Designer/god did it. Burden is on You. and second: Proof is a...

www.usmessageboard.com

​

Seymour Flops said:

The apparent design means that the Burden of Proof is on those claiming some Other theory not involving design, but random processes.​

""Hysterical!​

I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one.​

You claim the Designer/god did it.​

Burden is on You.​

​

and second:​

Proof is a false burden in science.​

Evidence is where the meat is.​

"apparent design" is a mere empty personal aesthetic OPINION like 'beautiful.'​

I have to "Prove it's not beautiful??"​

​

In fact, you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere aesthetic opinion.​

Who the F cares!​

vs​

"Actual Evolution" Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.​

Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​

I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE of ACTUAL Evolution.​

​

More BS semantics.​

You are and remain a FRAUD.​

You Cannot debate me.""""​

-- - - - - -​

​

You are blindingly Stupid, and even More DISHONEST.
And you were made a Joke of by Me.

​

`​

 

[Seymour Flops]

You HAVE to stop responding to me because I've DESTROYED you and your "apparent design" BS many times.
(so now it's I-R)
I told you many times and proved to you, COULDN'T debate me.

You are a LAUGHING STOCK here because of Me.
ie
Most proximately Here

My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism

Seymour Flops said: The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theory not involving design, but random processes. Hysterical! I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one. You claim the Designer/god did it. Burden is on You. and second: Proof is a...

www.usmessageboard.com

​

""Hysterical!​

I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one.​

You claim the Designer/god did it.​

Burden is on You.​

​

and second:​

Proof is a false burden in science.​

Evidence is where the meat is.​

"apparent design" is a mere empty personal aesthetic OPINION like 'beautiful.'​

I have to "Prove it's not beautiful??"​

​

In fact, you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere aesthetic opinion.​

Who the F cares!​

vs​

"Actual Evolution" Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.​

​

Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​

​

I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE of ACTUAL Evolution.​

​

More BS semantics.​

You are and remain a FRAUD.​

You Cannot debate me.""""​

-- - - - - -​

​

​

You are blindingly Stupid, and even More DISHONEST.
And you were made a Joke of by Me.

​

`​

I don't believe that that is true, but you are free to believe whatever you choose . . .

 

[Batcat]

It was founded by venal scoundrels wishing to break treaties with the Indians in order to obtain the Indians' lands and to avoid paying for the wars that had protected them against the French and the Indians while basing an economy on unpaid labour. Quite normal, really.

Last week I heard the United States was formed by people trying to preserve slavery in the South. Every week it is something different.

I personally think the United States was founded by a group of very intelligent men who asked themselves.”Why can’t the citizens of a nation run it rather than some monarch or king?’

The idea they came up with ended up creating what is currently the greatest nation in the world. Unfortunately the corruption at the highest levels of our government and in our two major political Parties \will lead to the break up of our nation In a decade or two.

 

[abu afak]

And Seymour Flops just LIED (of course) that he is Not responding to me any more.
yet he just did.


On the last page we see why again.
He's a raging liar.
who gets out on every page in the section. Most, multiple times.

Seymour Flops said:
Do you have a Poll to show that?
Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.

abu afak said:
Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?
""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3].".."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia​

Seymour Flops said:
There you go!
If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!

abu afak said:
Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT, and you were Answered/Crushed again.
It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
In fact, you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!
LOL
Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design"

`

 

[Wyatt earp]

Go ahead and write a paper saying they were different on earth's surface 4 billion years ago.

See who gets laughed at. Hint: it will be you.

Don't have to gravity has been proven to not work everywhere in the universe

 

[Seymour Flops]

And Seymour Flops just LIED (of course) that he is Not responding to me any more.
yet he just did.


On the last page we see why again.
He's a raging liar.
who gets out on every page in the section. Most, multiple times.







`

You liar!

Here's what I said:

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.

I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this. A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!

I did not say that I am NOT responding to you anymore.

I just don't want to be accused of contributing to your imminent mental collapse.

Do you plan on accusing me of that? Yes, or no?

 

[abu afak]

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
I see Now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.
A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!

That IS a no-further-response sign OFF you LIAR.
You can't stop LYING!
Paraphrasing: (('you had stopped responding, and restarted, BUT you "see now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "don't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
and say 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))

Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past!!!! except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps.' LOL, News to me!
You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.
.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That IS a no-response sign OFF you LIAR.
You can't stop LYING!

Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past.. except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.
.

You post in that awkward grammatical style to cover up that you have another account, I take it?

 

[abu afak]

You post in that awkward grammatical style to cover up that you have another account, I take it?

Another Deflection (to grammar) because you were caught LYING Again!!
(about not responding to me/Signing off to further replies.)
I elaborated/Outed Another one of your LIES.
At least HALF your posts, and ALL of them to me are Lies.
Flops has made 495 posts and about 700 Lies.
Sociopath.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Another Deflection (to grammar) because you were caught LYING Again.
(about not responding to me/Signing off to further replies.)
I elaborated/Outed another one of your LIES.
At least HALF your posts, and ALL of them to me are Lies.
Flops has made 495 posts and about 700 Lies.
`

What's the actual counts?

 

[abu afak]

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
I see Now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.
A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!

You liar!
I did not say that I am NOT responding to you anymore.
I just don't want to be accused of contributing to your imminent mental collapse.
Do you plan on accusing me of that? Yes, or no?

That (the first above) IS a no-further-response sign OFF by Pathological liar/sociopath Flops.
He can't stop LYING! Even about what he just said on the same page!
Paraphrasing: (('Flops had stopped responding and Regrets he restarted, And he "sees Now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "doesn't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
and says 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))

Not only that, (Another LIE!) he Didn't stop responding to me in the past!!!! except when he was 100% Refuted/Stumped/Porked.
Otherwise he tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps' (and lots of deflections). LOL, News to me!
Flops has no choice but to Deflect (ie, to "grammar") because I refute him 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.

Pure Sociopath.
Worst case I've seen.
Every sentence is a lie or deflection from getting caught in one. (or five)
He's panicking now because he has been outed.
They are used to lying hourly, but verbally.
Here/recorded format, they can be Confronted/outed with their own words of even minutes ago.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

That (the first above) IS a no-further-response sign OFF by Pathological liar/sociopath Flops.
He can't stop LYING!
Paraphrasing: (('you had stopped responding, and restarted, BUT you "see now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "don't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
and say 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))

Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past!!!! except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps.' LOL, News to me!
You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.

mm-hmm . . .

 

[Colin norris]

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.

He didn't set out to prove God didn't exist. He already knew that like you

 

[Colin norris]

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

Yes I do. I not only believe it. I know it because evolution and DNA is proven fact.

 

[james bond]

argumentum ad populum

The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
Then it's called a consensus.
In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.

`

I got my evidence and facts through faith, seven days of creation, creation science and the Bible. With that I have why the universe, Earth and everything in it are here (and only here), creation, the global flood, i.e. separation of the OT people and NT people, Jesus coming the first time, dying for our sins, and being Resurrected. I also have the future with the second coming of Jesus and the Faithful receiving eternal life and happiness. Thus, the truth is either with God or with human experts. I have the majority consensus on God, the Bible, creation and what I stated in the above, i.e. it's not just argumentum ad populum. It means you are wrong once more in your post saying that.

What in terms of evidence and facts do you have with your experts, let alone a consensus, and evolution?

I keep asking for that and all I get are excuses and complaints about creationism.

 

[james bond]

He didn't set out to prove God didn't exist. He already knew that like you

You continue to be WRONG lol.

"Bookshops and the internet are well-stocked with discussions of Darwin’s views and the implications of his theory of evolution for religion. Many religious writers today accuse Darwin of atheism. Some popular proponents of atheism also enlist Darwin to their cause. Even while Darwin was still alive there were widely varying descriptions of his religious opinions - which he kept mostly private. In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!”. The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin’s copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) - no doubt it amused Darwin as much as the German attempt to capture the Kentish accent through phonetic spelling.


Other commentators were more generous in their interpretations of Darwin’s religiosity. The modern myth of a timeless conflict of science and religion was far from the reality experienced by Victorian readers who first turned the pages of Darwin’s Origin of Species and Descent of Man (1871). It is now widely forgotten that the scientific debate over the theory of evolution was over within twenty years of the publication of Origin of Species. Yet how could that be given that the Victorians were, by and large, far more religious than people generally are today and the scientific evidence for evolution was far less complete than it is now? The explanation is that for very many Victorians the choice was not between God and science, religion or evolution, but between different notions of how God designed nature. It was already widely accepted that fixed natural laws (or secondary laws) had been discovered that explained natural phenomena from astronomy and chemistry to physiology and geology. Darwin, it was believed, had simply discovered a new law of nature designed by God. And it seems this was how Darwin himself viewed at least part of the religious implications of his evolutionary theory. This also makes it all the more understandable that Darwin was buried by the nation in Westminster Abbey in 1882.

A few of Darwin’s private letters referring to religion were published near the end of his life and more after his death. These have been very widely quoted in the voluminous discussions of Darwin’s religious views. Searching for other material which might have bearing on the question of his religious views, I turned to Darwin Online, an online repository of Darwin's corpus where it is possible to search the works by key term. Putting in terms like 'atheist' and 'atheism' I found what seems to be a previously unknown discussion of this question by Darwin himself. The passage occurs in Darwin’s lengthy 1879 “Preliminary notice” to the English translation of Ernst Krause’s biography of Darwin’s freethinking paternal grandfather, the poet and physician Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). Darwin addressed the question of whether his grandfather was an atheist:




Dr. Darwin has been frequently called an atheist, whereas in every one of his works distinct expressions may be found showing that he fully believed in God as the Creator of the universe. For instance, in the 'Temple of Nature,' published posthumously, he writes: "Perhaps all the productions of nature are in their progress to greater perfection! an idea countenanced by modern discoveries and deductions concerning the progressive formation of the solid parts of the terraqueous globe, and consonant to the dignity of the creator of all things." He concludes one chapter in 'Zoonomia' with the words of the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?

Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief.

publicdomainreview.org

 

[Quasar44]

AFrench2

Waste of time
Just respect what they think even through evolution is as factual as the laws of thermodynamics and gravity

 

[Colin norris]

You continue to be WRONG lol.

"Bookshops and the internet are well-stocked with discussions of Darwin’s views and the implications of his theory of evolution for religion. Many religious writers today accuse Darwin of atheism. Some popular proponents of atheism also enlist Darwin to their cause. Even while Darwin was still alive there were widely varying descriptions of his religious opinions - which he kept mostly private. In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!”. The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin’s copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) - no doubt it amused Darwin as much as the German attempt to capture the Kentish accent through phonetic spelling.


Other commentators were more generous in their interpretations of Darwin’s religiosity. The modern myth of a timeless conflict of science and religion was far from the reality experienced by Victorian readers who first turned the pages of Darwin’s Origin of Species and Descent of Man (1871). It is now widely forgotten that the scientific debate over the theory of evolution was over within twenty years of the publication of Origin of Species. Yet how could that be given that the Victorians were, by and large, far more religious than people generally are today and the scientific evidence for evolution was far less complete than it is now? The explanation is that for very many Victorians the choice was not between God and science, religion or evolution, but between different notions of how God designed nature. It was already widely accepted that fixed natural laws (or secondary laws) had been discovered that explained natural phenomena from astronomy and chemistry to physiology and geology. Darwin, it was believed, had simply discovered a new law of nature designed by God. And it seems this was how Darwin himself viewed at least part of the religious implications of his evolutionary theory. This also makes it all the more understandable that Darwin was buried by the nation in Westminster Abbey in 1882.

A few of Darwin’s private letters referring to religion were published near the end of his life and more after his death. These have been very widely quoted in the voluminous discussions of Darwin’s religious views. Searching for other material which might have bearing on the question of his religious views, I turned to Darwin Online, an online repository of Darwin's corpus where it is possible to search the works by key term. Putting in terms like 'atheist' and 'atheism' I found what seems to be a previously unknown discussion of this question by Darwin himself. The passage occurs in Darwin’s lengthy 1879 “Preliminary notice” to the English translation of Ernst Krause’s biography of Darwin’s freethinking paternal grandfather, the poet and physician Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). Darwin addressed the question of whether his grandfather was an atheist:





Dr. Darwin has been frequently called an atheist, whereas in every one of his works distinct expressions may be found showing that he fully believed in God as the Creator of the universe. For instance, in the 'Temple of Nature,' published posthumously, he writes: "Perhaps all the productions of nature are in their progress to greater perfection! an idea countenanced by modern discoveries and deductions concerning the progressive formation of the solid parts of the terraqueous globe, and consonant to the dignity of the creator of all things." He concludes one chapter in 'Zoonomia' with the words of the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?

Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief.

publicdomainreview.org

Again, he was investigating evolution and it is now a known fact. Religion has rejected it but of course They would.
If anyone choses to believe in some celestial dictatorship, that's fine but they are wrong.
Btw. That was well plagairised.
Stick with your bible and let intelligent people do the leg work

 

[james bond]

Again, he was investigating evolution and it is now a known fact. Religion has rejected it but of course They would.
If anyone choses to believe in some celestial dictatorship, that's fine but they are wrong.
Btw. That was well plagairised.
Stick with your bible and let intelligent people do the leg work

You keep getting it backwards. Evolution isn't science as scientific experiments nor observation backs it up. It's more a religion except the atheist scientists kept writing papers on it in order to get accreditation and continued funding. Those who think of themselves as atheists bought those papers. It's just BS that kept on growing. There are no facts with evolution. You can't even provide one. There isn't any history associated with evolution except for Judy. She's a chimpanzee. Where's her mate? How many kids did they have? You can't even explain how sex came to be when there was only a female chimp. Lol, just give up on science now. You probably will do better in religion with evolution and atheism.

I had to lmao when you said let intelligent people do the work. I just did with the paragraph above. Just admit you are a loser with science and stick to evolution in the religion section. Why don't you start a thread on it on dumbasses bought into evolution and came up with atheism lmao?

 

[Colin norris]

You keep getting it backwards. Evolution isn't science as scientific experiments nor observation backs it up.

Nothing to support it but evution itself and DNA, fossils and carbon dating. Yep. Definately nothing to support it.

It's more a religion except the atheist scientists kept writing papers on it in order to get accreditation and continued funding.

You have no evidence of that but rely on your ignorant religious beliefs.

Those who think of themselves as atheists bought those papers. It's just BS that kept on growing. There are no facts with evolution.

The fact you are here is fact although with your ignorance regarding it, you will go by the wayside like the other dinosaurs.

You can't even provide one. There isn't any history associated with evolution except for Judy. She's a chimpanzee. Where's her mate? How many kids did they have? You can't even explain how sex came to be when there was only a female chimp. Lol, just give up on science now. You probably will do better in religion with evolution and atheism.you are exhibiting in public

Stop bring childish. You're so ficked in the head you've lost all your curiosity for the truth.

I had to lmao when you said let intelligent people do the work. I just did with the paragraph above.

The arrogance of your Jesus junkies to think your faith without evidence is a match for scientific discoveries. Are you mad? Do really think that is an intelligent statement? You've got an over inflated opinion of your intelligence.

Just admit you are a loser with science and stick to evolution in the religion section. Why don't you start a thread on it on dumbasses bought into evolution and came up with atheism lmao?

Where is the religious part of evolution? You're becoming irrational and nearly incoherent. Have some valium you fool before you blow a gasket.

There is no God and never has been. There isn't even a reason to have one. It's all explained. The likes if you who fear death and expect an afterlife as a reward for being a fool, have absolutely nothing to base it on. Evolution is a fact and not one part of it is attached to religion or your filthy God.
If you have evidence, produce it now or shut up. You Are a fraudulent charlatan and should be charged for peddling that shit you little kids. what and brain dead despicable wicked human being you are.
Laugh now dickhead.