| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nerd Gerl" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 02:41:08 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
.... Darwin admitted that the fossil record as it was known in his day
contradicted the general theory of
evolution. The ... record teaches away from general evolution, not
towards it. ...
www.gvn.net/~tstout/cs/pog_7.shtml
Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution quotes: History #3: Darwin's
Origin of Species
My History: Darwin's Origin of Species page of my creation/evolution
quotes, which are mostly by evolutionists. ... Was speculative. Darwin
admitted was "grievously hypothetical" ...
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/histry03.html
Archive: Darwin's Eye - Forums
.... there is not a designer. Even Darwin admitted the eye was too
complex for evolution to explain. ... which is something the
anti-evolution crowd as perfected to a near ...
www.cygnus-study.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/19991215-2-000043.html
Is evolution theory universally accepted
.... People generally think that evolution is not merely a theory but a
proved fact ... the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that
"evolution was not an established theory but ...
www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
Fossils Was Darwin right
A site devoted to Scientific arguments in favour of Ceation ... Darwin
admitted that the fossil evidence was one of the weakest aspect of the
Theory of Evolution (see also ... this in itself does not prove
Evolution to be true ...
www.wasdarwinright.com/Fossils.asp
Stephen E. Jones: creation evolution quotes, darwinism (including
neo-Darwinism) #4,
E. Jones. Creation/Evolution Quotes: Darwinism #4 ... Darwin admitted
it seemed "absurd in the highest
degree" that the eye could have been formed by natural selection ...
www.members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin04.html
Science that is not so Scientific
.... historical context of evolution helps one to ... evolution could
ever create anything so complicated as life. He took as his example
the eye which Darwin admitted made ...
www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/zimmerreview112101.htm
Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!
Common Sense for Today - A Christian Perspective on Today's Tough
Issues. ... I assume that all college
professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact ...
www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: DARWIN, A BIBLICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE
.... paraded the fossils they found as evidence for evolution... ... In
the early 1970's, when it ... These led to ...[what Darwin admitted
himself were]..absurd conclusions, but if ...
www.biblestudymanuals.net/darwin.htm
LaVergne Church of Christ | The Other Side of Evolution
.... The Other Side of Evolution (continued) ... Evolution, of course,
is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it
was unproved and unprovable.8 ...
www.lavergnecoc.org/study/evolution/evolution4.html
.
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 01:33:56 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It
just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think
of a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent
reason why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it
is completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in the
face, but you won't change facts.
Well you certainly weren't that time.
And your opinion counts for what exactly?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 08:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net>, Message ID:
<cIS3jK5QLsw245ED57FFvbVSm5zio9bb@everyonesagricultural.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It
just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of
a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in the
face, but you won't change facts.
True. The objective supporting evidence indicates you get outsmarted by
water.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
06 Mar 2004 05:40:48 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net>, Message ID:
<cIS3jK5QLsw245ED57FFvbVSm5zio9bb@everyonesagricultural.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It
just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think
of a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent
reason why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it
is completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in the
face, but you won't change facts.
True. The objective supporting evidence indicates you get outsmarted
by water.
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
06 Mar 2004 07:08:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net>, Message ID:
<cIS3jK5QLsw245ED57FFvbVSm5zio9bb@everyonesagricultural.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It
just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think
of a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent
reason why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it
is completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in the
face, but you won't change facts.
True. The objective supporting evidence indicates you get outsmarted
by water.
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Every post you've ever made.
duh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 04:23:35 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Every post you've ever made.
What? All 100,000+ of them? And that's without my regular
socks on. Oh well, you'd better start posting the evidence.
And, no, links to google are not acceptable. I don't take
links as being acceptable evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 05:50:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Every post you've ever made.
What? All 100,000+ of them? And that's without my regular
socks on. Oh well, you'd better start posting the evidence.
And, no, links to google are not acceptable. I don't take
links as being acceptable evidence.
Lame try little theist troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 06:08:05 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Every post you've ever made.
What? All 100,000+ of them? And that's without my regular
socks on. Oh well, you'd better start posting the evidence.
And, no, links to google are not acceptable. I don't take
links as being acceptable evidence.
Lame try little theist troll.
You mean that you are unwilling to pick out just one of
my arguments and take a contrary stance? Shame on you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 12:08:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx>, Message ID:
<CwI60mlJIhjD13AB939885AA9229RIuyyxkv7mJA@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
alt.atheism;
stoney wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net>, Message ID:
<cIS3jK5QLsw245ED57FFvbVSm5zio9bb@everyonesagricultural.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It
just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think
of a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent
reason why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it
is completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in the
face, but you won't change facts.
True. The objective supporting evidence indicates you get outsmarted
by water.
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Your posts.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 04:50:25 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx>, Message ID:
<CwI60mlJIhjD13AB939885AA9229RIuyyxkv7mJA@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
alt.atheism;
stoney wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:18 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net>, Message ID:
<cIS3jK5QLsw245ED57FFvbVSm5zio9bb@everyonesagricultural.com> wrote
in alt.atheism;
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical
argument as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.
It just so happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot
think of a logically valid reason why God should not exist
What god?
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent
reason why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint,
it is completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
There's no reason to.
duh.
DUH! There most certainly is. Just because you're too stupid to
figure it out doesn't make you right.
You aren't very smart are you?
LOL
Laugh all you like. I know for a fact I'm far smarter than you. You
can believe that or not and you can deny it until you're blue in
the face, but you won't change facts.
True. The objective supporting evidence indicates you get
outsmarted by water.
Then provide the objective supporting evidence.
Your posts.
How pathetically lame that is. Pick out one my arguments and argue your case
against it, nitwit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 09:50:25 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx>...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason why God
should not exist is quite valid, especially if the atheist asserts that
there is no God. Would you assert such a thing?
Define your god.
There "is" no logical reason why your god should exist, other than
YOU want it to be so.
Well, there is ample argument to show that to deny the possible existence of
any metaphysical X is irrational.
He didn't deny the possible existence of your god. He said there is
no logical reason why your god should exist. The christian god, for
example, is logically contradictory; it is therefore logical to assume
the christian god does not exist.
There possibly IS a supreme force in the universe, but I gravely
doubt that it's your petulant, attention craving idol.
I'd take the matter up with you in more detail but the cloven hoof of your
irrationality just popped out for all to see.
Ah, did you mean to expose your bias against all gods but your own?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 05:55:49 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx>...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason why God
should not exist is quite valid, especially if the atheist asserts that
there is no God. Would you assert such a thing?
Simply put - if you have two choices, go with the one that doesn't
require magic. This is a simple principle of science. We have two
choices (according to you) one is science the other is pure magic.
Since magic doesn't exist outside of fiction the answer is obvious.
Good enough for ya?
jwk
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 06:46:08 PM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx>...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid, especially if the atheist
asserts that there is no God. Would you assert such a thing?
Simply put - if you have two choices, go with the one that doesn't
require magic.
Since you are clearly an atheist, I can understand your innate need
to classify logical argument as some for of mysterious magic.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:06:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:59:05 +0000 (UTC), "sparkup"
<junksender888@hotmail.com> wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason why God
should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
It's the theists' premise, not ours. We would never come up with it to
say it doesn't exist.
It is dishonest of them to rub their religion in our faces and when
told to put or shut up, demand we prove it doesn't exist.
When it is in fact irrelevant to us. Merely somebody else's religious
belief that is no different than eg an ancient Greek's Zeus belief.
especially if the atheist asserts that
there is no God. Would you assert such a thing?
There "is" no logical reason why your god should exist, other than
YOU want it to be so.
Well, there is ample argument to show that to deny the possible existence
of
any metaphysical X is irrational.
Denying the possibility of existence is different from assuming
non-existence.
They can't tell the difference. Likewise, they can't tell the
difference between belief, knowledge, conclusion, observation, claim
and a whole slew of other words that all mean different kinds of
belief.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 11:34:56 AM |
|
|
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason why God
should not exist is quite valid, especially if the atheist asserts that
there is no God. Would you assert such a thing?
There "is" no logical reason why your god should exist, other than
YOU want it to be so.
Well, there is ample argument to show that to deny the possible existence of
any metaphysical X is irrational.
===>What is "irrational" is to proclaim an open mind to the existence of
any postulated extra-cosmic super-natural, i.e. unobservable and untestable
entity. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 10:22:59 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.
Illogical twits.
You need to be concerned about the state of your own immortal soul. Anger is
one of the seven deadly sins, and so is pride, and there are more kinds of
lust than merely lusting after flesh.
Consider this from Umberto Eco in The Name of the Rose:
"But how can a necessary being exist totally polluted with the possible?
What difference is there, then, between God and pimigenial chaos? Isn't
affirming God's absolute freedom with regard to His own choices tantamount
to demonstrating that God does not exist?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 03:02:45 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
You need to be concerned about the state of your own immortal soul.
Who said I was angry?
Anger is one of the seven deadly sins, and so is pride, and there are
more kinds of lust than merely lusting after flesh.
Who said that?
[snip]
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 11:33:11 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it?
What other option do I need, when by your own admission I already have
the BEST one?
Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses.
Oh hello Mr Dishonest Christian, nice to meet you _again_.
Given that your real audience is the Christians at alt.bible, why do
you lie to them? Here, you have presented them with the old lie that
in science, ideas progress from hypothesis to theory to fact. Yet, no
one disputes that Relativity _Theory_ is true and no one claims
Quantum _Theory_ is unproven; indeed Quantum _Theory_ is considered
the most thoroughly tested _theory_ in science.
No a theory isn't an idea which has which hasn't been proven, it is an
idea which is used to describe a dynamic process. It is a moving
picture to explain relationships between a series of events.
A fact is a static thing like a photograph, it can only show that
something is, like a car having wheels or a particular team winning
the World Series. It doesn't explain _why_ anything happens; to answer
why questions, you need a _theory_.
Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:
I have read Origin four times and in the limited sense this says,
indeed Darwin doesn't explain the origin of life; but the book isn't
titled The Origin of Life, it is titled The Origin of _Species_ and in
describing the process of how new species evolve from old ones, it is
spectacularly successful. This often repeated accusation is simply
misleading.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
It is well known that by the time Darwin wrote these words, he was an
atheist. The death in 1851 of his daughter Annie, had wounded Darwin
such that he - like many people of conscience - could no longer
reconcile reality with the idea of a god of love.
Darwin wrote those words out of consideration for his wife Emma, who
was still devout. How typically Christian, that you should try to
exploit that.
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.
One arguement for the non-existence of God is called Ockham's Razor,
after Wlliam of Ockham - a medieval Franciscan monk. It states that
you should not introduce more factors into an explanation than are
necessary to account for the phenomenon in question. As the well known
idiot Peirre Laplace said to Napoleon: "I have no need of that
hypothesis, Sire."
It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
How intellectually slovenly. Most atheists fail, so all atheists are
idiots. This conclusion wouldn't follow from the premise, even if it
were true.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.
Oh if only God's problem was merely invisibility. You Christians are
so parochial and narrow minded that you don't realise that there are
completely different religions out there which are equally devoutly
held. There is no reason to prefer yours and plenty of reason to
abandon them all.
Illogical twits.
This is what Christians are reduced to: a pathetic rhetorical war. If
you have the truth you claim, then why do you resort to distortion
when representing the views of others?
You aren't even Honest.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 02:08:48 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 10:59:58 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
Hmmm, so far your argument consists of a maniacal laugh and an ad
hominem... verrrrrry convincing.
You're not real good at this troll business, are you!
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at their
'scientific' and 'philosophical' points, they would be helpless and a
laughing-stock if that were all they had. It is religion that recruits
their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor
understand the actual arguments for - of even against - evolution,
march in the army of the night, their Bibles held high. And they are a
strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against,
the feeble lance of mere reason." -- Isaac Asimov (1981)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 11:14:55 PM |
|
|
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
Hmmm, so far your argument consists of a maniacal laugh and an ad
hominem... verrrrrry convincing.
You're not real good at this troll business, are you!
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient absurdities?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 10:19:48 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<PYA7BUvkR5lI75AF3920mjfWxjPjFNST@auctionssale.com>...
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
Hmmm, so far your argument consists of a maniacal laugh and an ad
hominem... verrrrrry convincing.
You're not real good at this troll business, are you!
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient absurdities?
Wow, you own a dictionary, as well. What makes you think I'm not
capable of "perceiving salient absurdities"? I apprehended you, didn't
I? LOL!
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy
nailed to two pieces of wood." --George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 10:35:09 PM |
|
|
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<PYA7BUvkR5lI75AF3920mjfWxjPjFNST@auctionssale.com>...
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why
species evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
Hmmm, so far your argument consists of a maniacal laugh and an ad
hominem... verrrrrry convincing.
You're not real good at this troll business, are you!
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient
absurdities?
Wow, you own a dictionary, as well. What makes you think I'm not
capable of "perceiving salient absurdities"? I apprehended you, didn't
I? LOL!
You didn't attend to the question at hand. It stands. Answer it.
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient
absurdities?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
07 Mar 2004 05:32:09 PM |
|
|
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:<RMtgoY78c34IC183F56A709CFD99DrBi4RDBWRQM@kadaitcha.cx>...
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<PYA7BUvkR5lI75AF3920mjfWxjPjFNST@auctionssale.com>...
Eros wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why
species evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
Hmmm, so far your argument consists of a maniacal laugh and an ad
hominem... verrrrrry convincing.
You're not real good at this troll business, are you!
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient
absurdities?
Wow, you own a dictionary, as well. What makes you think I'm not
capable of "perceiving salient absurdities"? I apprehended you, didn't
I? LOL!
You didn't attend to the question at hand. It stands. Answer it.
If I admit to not being very good at "this troll business", will
you admit to being totally inacapable of perceiving salient
absurdities?
Oh, but did answer it, my perception-challenged 'friend'. You just
didn't get the joke... and it's on you. Let me give you a hint;- one
meaning of apprehend is "to perceive". LOL! (or as you would put it
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!)
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You get to insert a chapter or two about 'Creationism' and
'Intelligent Design' into our science books, BUT ONLY IF I can insert
a couple of chapters about evolution in the Bible...say...right in
between Genesis and Exodus!" -- Gaellyn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 10:59:32 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Hello Mr Crisis of Conscience. I know what a moral coward you are.
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
As a fellow Brit, you will recognise the following: Sticks and stones.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 06:51:17 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Hello Mr Crisis of Conscience. I know what a moral coward you are.
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
As a fellow Brit, you will recognise the following: Sticks and stones.
I have no care for those who are unwilling to actually think about
what is being said and what the implactions of my statements are.
I have not one care in the world. Not because of any reason other
than my willingness to actually discuss with people who can think
is there for all to see. If you choose to ignore the facts, that's
your problem. End of story.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 02:19:36 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<mBPyIsuxGVRe19ACE2CC42AF09526e0qDq7dUwAn@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Hello Mr Crisis of Conscience. I know what a moral coward you are.
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
As a fellow Brit, you will recognise the following: Sticks and stones.
I have no care for those who are unwilling to actually think about
what is being said and what the implactions of my statements are.
I have not one care in the world. Not because of any reason other
than my willingness to actually discuss with people who can think
is there for all to see. If you choose to ignore the facts, that's
your problem. End of story.
When it comes to ignoring facts, I stand in awe of your vacility.
I listen to what you say and can well understand its implications, but
I have two problems: firstly that I simply don't believe your
doctrines. However, far more important is that, because you lay hidden
behind a silly nom de guerre, your provenance is doubtful. There is
only one reason why liars hide their identity, to avoid the
consequences of their lies being uncovered.
When you can face me on equal terms I will listen to you, but until
you can, you will be subject to my generosity of spirit in responding
cogently to your writings. Unitl then you are nothing but a dishonest
invader in my forum; like so many Christians who don't let honesty get
in the way of their behaviour.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 05:15:32 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<mBPyIsuxGVRe19ACE2CC42AF09526e0qDq7dUwAn@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<COY4nbfBRurt07F2A8E0F2C04401LuIo6AIVylaw@kadaitcha.cx>...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why
species evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!! A TRUE theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Hello Mr Crisis of Conscience. I know what a moral coward you are.
You aren't even Honest.
You aren't even sentient.
As a fellow Brit, you will recognise the following: Sticks and
stones.
I have no care for those who are unwilling to actually think about
what is being said and what the implactions of my statements are.
I have not one care in the world. Not because of any reason other
than my willingness to actually discuss with people who can think
is there for all to see. If you choose to ignore the facts, that's
your problem. End of story.
When it comes to ignoring facts, I stand in awe of your vacility.
I listen to what you say and can well understand its implications, but
I have two problems: firstly that I simply don't believe your
doctrines.
What doctrines?
However, far more important is that, because you lay hidden
behind a silly nom de guerre, your provenance is doubtful.
Ah, the old posting name/posting host invalidates the argument
lame.
Here, chew on this...
*plonk*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:26:22 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
===>Modern biology has improved a lot on Darwin's theory,
since now we have genetic evidence. -- L.
=====================
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it?
What other option do I need, when by your own admission I already have
the BEST one?
Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses.
Oh hello Mr Dishonest Christian, nice to meet you _again_.
Given that your real audience is the Christians at alt.bible, why do
you lie to them? Here, you have presented them with the old lie that
in science, ideas progress from hypothesis to theory to fact. Yet, no
one disputes that Relativity _Theory_ is true and no one claims
Quantum _Theory_ is unproven; indeed Quantum _Theory_ is considered
the most thoroughly tested _theory_ in science.
No a theory isn't an idea which has which hasn't been proven, it is an
idea which is used to describe a dynamic process. It is a moving
picture to explain relationships between a series of events.
A fact is a static thing like a photograph, it can only show that
something is, like a car having wheels or a particular team winning
the World Series. It doesn't explain _why_ anything happens; to answer
why questions, you need a _theory_.
Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:
I have read Origin four times and in the limited sense this says,
indeed Darwin doesn't explain the origin of life; but the book isn't
titled The Origin of Life, it is titled The Origin of _Species_ and in
describing the process of how new species evolve from old ones, it is
spectacularly successful. This often repeated accusation is simply
misleading.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
It is well known that by the time Darwin wrote these words, he was an
atheist. The death in 1851 of his daughter Annie, had wounded Darwin
such that he - like many people of conscience - could no longer
reconcile reality with the idea of a god of love.
Darwin wrote those words out of consideration for his wife Emma, who
was still devout. How typically Christian, that you should try to
exploit that.
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.
One arguement for the non-existence of God is called Ockham's Razor,
after Wlliam of Ockham - a medieval Franciscan monk. It states that
you should not introduce more factors into an explanation than are
necessary to account for the phenomenon in question. As the well known
idiot Peirre Laplace said to Napoleon: "I have no need of that
hypothesis, Sire."
It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
How intellectually slovenly. Most atheists fail, so all atheists are
idiots. This conclusion wouldn't follow from the premise, even if it
were true.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.
Oh if only God's problem was merely invisibility. You Christians are
so parochial and narrow minded that you don't realise that there are
completely different religions out there which are equally devoutly
held. There is no reason to prefer yours and plenty of reason to
abandon them all.
Illogical twits.
This is what Christians are reduced to: a pathetic rhetorical war. If
you have the truth you claim, then why do you resort to distortion
when representing the views of others?
You aren't even Honest.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:51:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 03:56:22 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.
You're right, there is no "proof". There's just lots and lots of evidence
suggesting such a thing. Similarly, there's no "proof" for gravitational
theory.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Christopher Byron (cbyron@nypost.com) thinks that a video game is
"10,000 times worse" than child molestation: http://tinyurl.com/37j8f
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
