| 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: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 04:02:57 AM |
|
|
"Nerd Gerl" <nerdgerl@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com...
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
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
To continue the quote "... When it was first said that the sun stood still
and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the
doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every
philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. "
You really shouldn't just accept the lies told to you by your controllers,
Nerd.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 11:49:29 AM |
|
|
(Nerd Gerl) wrote in
news:c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com:
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
Well, a theory is not just "merely" anything. It's a promoted hypotheses,
something which no religion ever was or ever will be.
Biological evolution is so well supported that it can almost be considered
a fact.
Also, what one person supposedly admitted doesn't matter one bit regarding
the validity of a theory.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:46:40 PM |
|
|
(Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com>...
Archive: Darwin's Eye - Forums
... there is not a designer. Even Darwin admitted the eye was too
complex for evolution to explain. ...
The text from 'The Origin of the Species' reads as follows:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be
sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself
originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in
which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it
does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their
sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed
with this special sensibility.
In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species
has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal
progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to
look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the
collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the
state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw
light on the steps by which it has been perfected.
The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic
nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin,
but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however,
according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find
aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision,
without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the
above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only
to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small
depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are
filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent
gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea
in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an
image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their
perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the
first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a
true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked
extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies
deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right
distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed
on it.
In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic nerve
simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of
pupil, but destitute of lens or other optical contrivance. With
insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of
their great compound eyes form true lenses, and that the cones include
curiously modified nervous filaments. But these organs in the
Articulata are so much diversified that Muller formerly made three
main classes with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main class of
aggregated simple eyes.
When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with
respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in
the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the
number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have
become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing
that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an
optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane,
into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of
the Articulata class.
He who will go thus far, ought not to hesitate to go one step further,
if he finds on finishing this volume that large bodies of facts,
otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of modification
through natural selection; he ought to admit that a structure even as
perfect as an eagle's eye might thus be formed, although in this case
he does not know the transitional states. It has been objected that in
order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument,
many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is
assumed, could not be done through natural selection; but as I have
attempted to show in my work on the variation of domestic animals, it
is not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all
simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and gradual. Different
kinds of modification would, also, serve for the same general purpose:
as Mr. Wallace has remarked, "If a lens has too short or too long a
focus, it may be amended either by an alteration of curvature, or an
alteration of density; if the curvature be irregular, and the rays do
not converge to a point, then any increased regularity of curvature
will be an improvement. So the contraction of the iris and the
muscular movements of the eye are neither of them essential to vision,
but only improvements which might have been added and perfected at any
stage of the construction of the instrument." Within the highest
division of the animal kingdom, namely, the Vertebrata, we can start
from an eye so simple, that it consists, as in the lancelet, of a
little sack of transparent skin, furnished with a nerve and lined with
pigment, but destitute of any other apparatus. In fishes and reptiles,
as Owen has remarked, "The range of gradation of dioptric structures
is very great." It is a significant fact that even in man, according
to the high authority of Virchow, the beautiful crystalline lens is
formed in the embryo by an accumulation of epidermic cells, lying in a
sack-like fold of the skin; and the vitreous body is formed from
embryonic subcutaneous tissue. To arrive, however, at a just
conclusion regarding the formation of the eye, with all its marvellous
yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the
reason should conquer the imagination; but I have felt the difficulty
far to keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the
principle of natural selection to so startling a length."
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
If you think I've written this text myself I'm flattered, but you can
check it against a copy of the 'Origin' which you can download from
the project Gutenberg site at http://www.gutenberg.net/find.shtml.
Now, having read that, will you retract your assertion that "Darwin
admitted the eye was too complex for evolution to explain"? It is
quite simply untrue.
Perhaps you will also recognise that the authors of the web page who
posted this assertion were not only in error but knew they were
deliberately intending to decieve when posting it?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Root" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 08:36:06 AM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
The text from 'The Origin of the Species' reads as follows:
(snip)
In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species
has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal
progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to
look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the
collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the
state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw
light on the steps by which it has been perfected.
Which technique is also used by linguists in attempting to derive unattested
ancestor languages or forms.
If you think I've written this text myself I'm flattered, but you can
check it against a copy of the 'Origin' which you can download from
the project Gutenberg site at http://www.gutenberg.net/find.shtml.
Now, having read that, will you retract your assertion that "Darwin
admitted the eye was too complex for evolution to explain"? It is
quite simply untrue.
Perhaps you will also recognise that the authors of the web page who
posted this assertion were not only in error but knew they were
deliberately intending to decieve when posting it?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 07:52:44 PM |
|
|
(Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com>...
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. ...
Tell me, what is it like to be an idiot?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stew dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:29:01 PM |
|
|
(Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com>...
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.
<rest snipped>
It really doesnt matter if Darwin wrote a book called 'Evolution?
Sorry I was on drugs.' Evolution works very well both as a theory to
explain how we got here and a fact that is used areas such as biology
and computer science.
Did you know Newton was into alchemy?
Stew Dean
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: "stew dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:31:46 PM |
|
|
(Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com>...
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
... Darwin admitted that...
And please - no more quote mining. I recognise a couple here and know
they are quoted out of context. I think there's a quote mining section
on the talkorigins site you might want to check.
Cheers
Stew Dean
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 10:09:39 AM |
|
|
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Your AHLs and intentional dishonest misquotings don't become true no
matter how often you regurgipost them.
--
UNWRITTEN RULES OF (PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical, psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion", but whenever followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 05:35:12 AM |
|
|
In article <c45b61ca.0403010046.3f724c1f@posting.google.com>,
[Nerd Gerl] wrote...
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
[snicker]
... Darwin admitted that the fossil record as it was known in his day
contradicted the general theory of
evolution.
No, he didn't, since it didn't then and and doesn't now. [What's
"the general theory of evolution"? Is it somehow different from the
usual version?]
The ... record teaches away from general evolution, not
towards it. ...
Nope. [again with the "general evolution" Rather an odd phrasing]
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" ...
Your quotes all seem badly mangled, more even than is usual for such
creationist-mined "quotes". Why all the ellipses?
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.
Sorry, that's another outright lie [again, not necessarily yours, but
one you're credulously repeating]. He "admitted" no such thing, and
in fact explained eye evolution rather well in the same section that
so often gets misquoted. You'd better recheck your sources.
.... 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
Again, what's with the tiny fragments?
Is evolution theory universally accepted
... People generally think that evolution is not merely a theory but a
proved fact ...
It's both, of course. It's a fact that it occurs, and there
are scientific theories explaining how and why it occurs.
the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that
"evolution was not an established theory but ...
This is some parody of creationist quote-mining, right? Try
looking up their "quotes" in their original context and you
might have your eyes opened.
Or you might not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
etc.
www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
Fossils Was Darwin right
A site devoted to Scientific arguments in favour of Ceation
An empty site, presumably?
[snip]
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erwin Moller" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:31:16 AM |
|
|
Interesting.
I want to point out that the fact that current evolutiontheory is based on
Darwin, doesn't mean that everybody today believes excactly what Darwin
wrote.
Science evolvelves too, you know. :-)
Modern evolutiontheory includes a lot more than what Darwin wrote down.
To name a few obvious additions:
1) the discovery of DNA as the molecule that actually carries instructions
on how to code the proteins. This was an unknown substrate for Darwin.
2) Dawkins additions (Selfish Gene and such), which gives you tools to study
evolution in more detail and on a whole new level (genelevel).
If you want to tackle evolutiontheory for some (religious) reason, be sure
you know what the current state of science is, and drop Darwin himself for
that matter. He started this all, but that is a long time ago.
Even is Darwin himself is proven wrong on some details, that doesn't
disprove anything for modern evolutiontheory.
He wasn't perfect, just a very good scientist with new ideas.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 02:05:41 AM |
|
|
Erwin Moller wrote:
If you want to tackle evolutiontheory for some (religious) reason,
I don't, so your "advise" is irrelevant. What is in question here
is the propensity of certain morons to assert scientific theory as
scientific fact, whilst completely forgetting that evolution is
indeed a theory, which just happpens to explain certain observed
facts. Any reasonable thinker knows full well that there is no such
thing as scientific fact and that it is absurd to even assert a
theory that best explains certain facts as a fact.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 07:58:49 AM |
|
|
Erwin Moller wrote:
Interesting.
I want to point out that the fact that current evolutiontheory is based on
Darwin, doesn't mean that everybody today believes excactly what Darwin
wrote.
Science evolvelves too, you know. :-)
Modern evolutiontheory includes a lot more than what Darwin wrote down.
To name a few obvious additions:
1) the discovery of DNA as the molecule that actually carries instructions
on how to code the proteins. This was an unknown substrate for Darwin.
2) Dawkins additions (Selfish Gene and such), which gives you tools to study
evolution in more detail and on a whole new level (genelevel).
If you want to tackle evolutiontheory for some (religious) reason, be sure
you know what the current state of science is, and drop Darwin himself for
that matter. He started this all, but that is a long time ago.
Even is Darwin himself is proven wrong on some details, that doesn't
disprove anything for modern evolutiontheory.
He wasn't perfect, just a very good scientist with new ideas.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Funny thing is that these fundies complain bitterly that science(s) must be
wrong because they keep changing, while the religious "facts" remain "true"
and unchanging (LOL!)[1], while at the same time they build strawmen based on
ideas (even those misunderstood by them) conceived in 1850's and evolved *much*
since then.
Seppo P.
[1] If science(s) evolved like fundie religions, there would be thousands of
different cults of physics, thousandes of different sects of biology,
universities would be hurling insults at each other and fundamentalist
chemists would be suicide bombing competing chemistry labs...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 03:58:12 PM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> writes:
Funny thing is that these fundies complain bitterly that science(s) must be
wrong because they keep changing, while the religious "facts" remain "true"
and unchanging (LOL!)[1], while at the same time they build strawmen based on
ideas (even those misunderstood by them) conceived in 1850's and evolved *much*
since then.
I heard something awhile ago that pertains to this.
Science may be wrong for decades, but the Bible is wrong FOREVER.
--
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 03:03:06 AM |
|
|
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.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 04:53:02 AM |
|
|
"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.
There "is" no logical reason why your god should exist, other than YOU want
it to be so.
There possibly IS a supreme force in the universe, but I gravely doubt that
it's your petulant, attention craving idol.
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 05:12:54 AM |
|
|
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.
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.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 05:59:05 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,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:09:20 AM |
|
|
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
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
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:15:09 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
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
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindly be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:12:44 PM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
C) If B) is true then it is wholly valid to request that the
the atheist who demands evidence first establish that he
has a coherent position.
One way of establishing coherency and consistency is to
request a coherent reason as to why God should not exist.
Thus it is wholly valid to force the atheist to establish
coherency of argument, unless one enjoys "logical discussion"
with the blatantly incoherent and irrational.
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view,
kindly be quiet.
D) It is not logically possible for anyone to assert their own
rationality and remain consistent.
If A) is correct, B) naturally follows
If B) naturally follows then C) is valid
D) is a corollary of A)
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable. Either that or
you can shut the ***** up yourself.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 02:16:20 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the farting
badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
If it cannot be proved, or even a single shred of credible evidence
produced, why believe it to be true?
That is illogical.
C) If B) is true then it is wholly valid to request that the
the atheist who demands evidence first establish that he
has a coherent position.
The coherent position is that there is no evidence for the existence of a
god, therefore there is no reason to believe in a god (AKA an atheistic
position).
One way of establishing coherency and consistency is to
request a coherent reason as to why God should not exist.
You still haven't paid me that million Euro you owe me.
Thus it is wholly valid to force the atheist to establish
coherency of argument, unless one enjoys "logical discussion"
with the blatantly incoherent and irrational.
It is completely irrational to conduct a discussion in this manner.
If it was rational, ANYTHING could be claimed, because it had not been
disproved.
We could discuss the "farting badger" theory of the creation of the
universe, and all I would have to do is demand that you disprove it in order
for it to be a rational position (in your opinion).
If you cannot see the problem with your "reasoning" at this stage, you are a
troll or a lost-cause.
While the farting badger theory "could possibly" be true, it is still an
irrational positin to take because there is no evidence to support it.
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view,
kindly be quiet.
D) It is not logically possible for anyone to assert their own
rationality and remain consistent.
What kind of nonsense is that?
If A) is correct, B) naturally follows
If B) naturally follows then C) is valid
D) is a corollary of A)
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable. Either that or
you can shut the ***** up yourself.
Here is my refutation....again.
You owe me a million Euro.
The universe was farted out of a giant badger.
Disprove these things.
If you cannot, both of these statements are perfectly rational.
Gimme my money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 11:40:04 PM |
|
|
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor disproved.
Yet in the very same breath, you ask why it can't be proved? Pardon
me for a moment, please...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *WHEEZE* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 03:58:58 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor disproved.
I presumed that you meant that there was no *available* evidence for the
existence of god.
I have no idea whether god can be proved or disproved (not that it needs to
be disproved).
Why can god not be proved?
What is your reasoning for this statement.
Yet in the very same breath, you ask why it can't be proved? Pardon
me for a moment, please...
I am still asking the question.
Why can god not be proved?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *WHEEZE* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*
Was that your brain finally packing in?
Now, explain how my theory of the "farting badger" universe is untrue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 04:48:04 AM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
I won't answer any of your other questions. What stands above
is evidence enough that you don't have the faculties to grasp
anything much at all.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 05:05:14 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it right now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why do you bother discussing god, with people who need evidence, when you
say that it is not possible to give the evidence required, and indeed, deny
the need for any evidence?
I won't answer any of your other questions. What stands above
is evidence enough that you don't have the faculties to grasp
anything much at all.
Blah blah.
A fairly pathetic evasion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 05:33:32 AM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it right
now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why would I want answers? I have the answers.
Why do you bother discussing god, with people who need evidence,
Blah blah.
A fairly pathetic evasion.
On the subject of blah and evasion, would you mind giving a bit more blah
about what's below? You seem to have evaded it earlier. Your assertion that
"the universe was farted out of a giant badger" just doesn't stack up to
what is required from a logical argument. Thank you.
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 05:41:18 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:CokR4CrbGkiPDEE1014113C6F8C6yBs7MGRBezZs@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it right
now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why would I want answers? I have the answers.
Answer the first question instead then?
Why do you bother discussing god, with people who need evidence,
Blah blah.
A fairly pathetic evasion.
On the subject of blah and evasion, would you mind giving a bit more blah
about what's below? You seem to have evaded it earlier. Your assertion
that
"the universe was farted out of a giant badger" just doesn't stack up to
what is required from a logical argument. Thank you.
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable.
I have no need to debunk these points.
I have already debunked points B C and D in other ways.
D was actually self-debunked as it made no sense whatsoever to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 02:55:21 AM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:CokR4CrbGkiPDEE1014113C6F8C6yBs7MGRBezZs@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as
the farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical
X. Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it
right now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why would I want answers? I have the answers.
Answer the first question instead then?
Just because I have the answers doen't I want to give you
the answers.
Why do you bother discussing god, with people who need evidence,
Blah blah.
A fairly pathetic evasion.
On the subject of blah and evasion, would you mind giving a bit more
blah about what's below? You seem to have evaded it earlier. Your
assertion that "the universe was farted out of a giant badger" just
doesn't stack up to what is required from a logical argument. Thank
you.
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable.
I have no need to debunk these points.
I have already debunked points B C and D in other ways.
Oh well. That sorts that then.
*plonk*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 03:56:43 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:doDiyDgdOfZm0C3BEECA7A364A5FLR7l82Vhd31Y@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:CokR4CrbGkiPDEE1014113C6F8C6yBs7MGRBezZs@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as
the farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical
X. Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it
right now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why would I want answers? I have the answers.
Answer the first question instead then?
Just because I have the answers doen't I want to give you
the answers.
ROFL!!
You are a sad individual.
You claim to have all of the answers.
You claim that god is unprovable.
You claim that god needs no proof.
You claim that god cannot be disproved.
Yet...
.....here you are in an atheist NG arguing with some people about proofs of
god.
And you call US irrational!
Why do you bother discussing god, with people who need evidence,
Blah blah.
A fairly pathetic evasion.
On the subject of blah and evasion, would you mind giving a bit more
blah about what's below? You seem to have evaded it earlier. Your
assertion that "the universe was farted out of a giant badger" just
doesn't stack up to what is required from a logical argument. Thank
you.
For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html
It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable.
I have no need to debunk these points.
I have already debunked points B C and D in other ways.
Oh well. That sorts that then.
*plonk*
By the way, there is more to killfiling someone than just putting the word
*plonk* at the end of your post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 04:13:43 AM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:doDiyDgdOfZm0C3BEECA7A364A5FLR7l82Vhd31Y@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:CokR4CrbGkiPDEE1014113C6F8C6yBs7MGRBezZs@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:0mXwkUXDRcNd4BF8B128E75DDCA1cJy2pksHyami@kadaitcha.cx...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:HqSnEjPLENM6F8EA4CA8JyTSAtvcpqhI@bill.entertainmentblvd.com...
Sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
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
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the
positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as
the farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any
metaphysical X. Thus no metaphysical X can be either
proved or disproved.
I agree.
B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence
of something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Why can it not be proved?
<shakes head>
You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor
disproved.
I presumed
Real meaning: You didn't read or you didn't think.
So, now you are saying that god is unproveable....have I got it
right now?
Why are you here?
What answers do you want?
Why would I want answers? I have the answers.
Answer the first question instead then?
Just because I have the answers doen't I want to give you
the answers.
ROFL!!
You are a sad individual.
You claim to have all of the answers.
No. I said I have the answers. I didn't say I had all of them.
You claim that god is unprovable.
You claim that god needs no proof.
You claim that god cannot be disproved.
Yet...
....here you are in an atheist NG arguing with some people about
proofs of god.
And you call US irrational!
Yes. Ironic, isn't it?
*plonk*
By the way, there is more to killfiling someone than just putting the
word *plonk* at the end of your post.
Yes. So?
*plonk*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
