Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Do you understand the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism?

Of course.
But we're discussing the history of our origins here, remember?

 

[Hieronymus]

These quotes are either not that revealing, saying reasonable things that you've clearly taken to mean something else, or quite possibly just taken out of context.

No.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No.

You ignored the second part of my post over whether you had read the original sources, which is ironic considering I was saying it's important for an open and honest discussion... So have you read them?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

delete

 

[Hieronymus]

For me, I always find it entertaining, to see how folks who deny well evidenced reality, try to support their position.

I think you fail to grasp what is at hand here.
Not that i expected anything other than denial

You ignored the second part of my post

No, i just disagree with all of it.

 

[bhsmte]

I think you fail to grasp what is at hand here.
Not that i expected anything other than denial
No, i just disagree with all of it.

LOL!

You are a funny guy.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No, i just disagree with all of it.

Do you understand you appear very irrational right now?

Did you read the original sources for those quotes or not?

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you understand you appear very irrational right now?

No.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No.

Are you a teenager? Or a child? I'm not sure how an adult can act like this.

Did you read the original sources for the quotes?

 

[Hieronymus]

Sorry folks, but you all have nothing but lame excuses to dismiss what the prophets of the church of naturalism have admitted in public.
You're defending what they have you believe, while they confess their dishonesty.
Take it up with them, not with me.

 

[Hieronymus]

All quotes in the OP are genuine and speak for themselves.
Have fun imagining a context in which it means something other than what it says.

Obviously i post this on a CHRISTIAN FORUM for some perspective on the naturalistic gospel of our origins.
It is not based on evidence, it is decided a priori.
So much for man's endeavour to seek truth by means of gathering and analysing evidence.

Bye.

 

[florida2]

Was this supposed to be yet another thread that's supposed to destroy evolution through a few quotes rather than science?

So...how's that working out?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Sorry folks, but you all have nothing but lame excuses to dismiss what the prophets of the church of naturalism have admitted in public.
You're defending what they have you believe, while they confess their dishonesty.
Take it up with them, not with me.

All quotes in the OP are genuine and speak for themselves.
Have fun imagining a context in which it means something other than what it says.

Obviously i post this on a CHRISTIAN FORUM for some perspective on the naturalistic gospel of our origins.
It is not based on evidence, it is decided a priori.
So much for man's endeavour to seek truth by means of gathering and analysing evidence.

Bye.

I am a Christian and am just trying to help a brother out. You should really read the original sources of quotes you find to ensure they are in context and mean what you say they mean. Random internet websites can have all sorts of biases and really shouldn't be trusted.

 

[Hieronymus]

Was this supposed to be yet another thread that's supposed to destroy evolution through a few quotes rather than science?

Did you even read the quotes?
The naturalist prophets admit their biasses and their refusal to consider anything else regardless of the evidence.
I can understand evolutionists have a problem with that, but they'll have to take it up with them.

So...how's that working out?

Rather good actually.
Predictable, but good.

 

[Hieronymus]

I am a Christian and am just trying to help a brother out.

With what?
With defending naturalist prophets who admit their dishonesty?

You should really read the original sources of quotes you find to ensure they are in context and mean what you say they mean.

What are you suggesting here?
That they didn't mean it?
That the sentences around it will indicate they're just joking?

Random internet websites can have all sorts of biases and really shouldn't be trusted.

As i said, the quotes are genuine.
If you have a problem with the content, take it up with them.

 

[florida2]

Did you even read the quotes?
The naturalist prophets admit their biasses and their refusal to consider anything else regardless of the evidence.

Wow, just wow at the bolded part. I am in awe of your ability to put so much irony in a post.

Also, it's fascinating how you keep resorting to religious terminology as insults. Very telling.

I can understand evolutionists have a problem with that, but they'll have to take it up with them.

Problem with what, some quotes? Firstly, they're not all from scientists and certainly not 'revered' scientists as your thread header claims which immediately casts doubt on the veracity of the remainder of the thread.

Of course you've read the source material for each one to check the quote in context...haven't you?

Rather good actually.
Predictable, but good.

Is copying a pasting a load of quotes out of context really the best you can do? I'm disappointed - I expected more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry folks, but you all have nothing but lame excuses to dismiss what the prophets of the church of naturalism have admitted in public.
You're defending what they have you believe, while they confess their dishonesty.
Take it up with them, not with me.

You seem to be very confused. There are no "prophets of naturalism". This is the second time I have had to correct you on that error. And are you talking about those quotes taken out of context? Quotes taken out of context are worthless in a debate. If you think that they are of any merit then you would have to agree that there is no God since the Bible states that 12 times. Worse yet if the Bible does not mean that "There is no God" then it seems according to your standards the Bible is being dishonest.

Or perhaps you could do the wise thing and admit that taking quotes out of context is a dishonest way to debate.

 

[Hoghead1]

So you see, joshua there are more options than naturalistic or theistic evolution.

Incorrect labels. Theistic evoution is never labeled " naturalistic." Where did you get the idea? I and other theologians do not think of terms such as natural vs. supernatural, we think of God as supra-natural, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation, as per supernaturalism.

 

[USincognito]

Isn't it?They are revered by the flock.

What "flock" is that?

 

[USincognito]

Why do the natural sciences work?

Laws of physics my friend.

Non sequitur.