Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[HitchSlap]

I was waiting for one of you to come up with excuses.
It doesn't change the fact though.

The only "fact" I've seen from you is that you're willing to lie for baby Jesus.

 

[Chris B]

This one is nice:

Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.
(A Gefter, "Existence: Why is there a universe?", New Scientist, 2822 p. 27-28 (2011))

Yes. It is. A possibility that actually requires consideration, given what modern scientists know about physics,
and in particular that the nice tidy idea of a perfect vacuum as "nothing", doing "nothing", was drastically, drastically wrong.
In one sense it is "nothing" , but that "nothing" is doing an awful lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Afore mentioned fact.

You mentioned no facts.

So you actually do admit to the fact...
smh...

I am glad that you admit that Billy Bob (Sorry, but his arguments are so weak and so lame they may as well come from an ignorant hayseed from the south) Lane is low hanging fruit too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All because of this shizzle:

Evolution is unproven and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.
(Sir Arthur Keith)

... for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of Demons," the New York Review, Januari 9, 1997,p. 31)

... that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism.
(Steven Pinker "How the mind works" p.162)

So it's religion, and by choice.
And you thought it was science, because that's how they sell it regardlessly.
And now you dislike my topic because it is unacceptable what your prophets have admitted.

And i agree, it IS unacceptable.

"There is no God" and "There was no God" both quotes directly from Psalms. It seems that according to your standards the Bible clearly declares that there is no God.

 

[Cimorene]

"the only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational."
(LT More)

How does that even help creationism?

"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
(US Dist Judge, John Jones)

Is he a scientist or a judge? It really doesn't hurt evolution or help creationism either. It's saying while it may be true (not that it is true at all) it's not science.

 

[Hieronymus]

Correction:
I was mistaking about Dawkins not showing up.
He just declined invitations to debate Craig 1 on 1
Yes, they eventually ended up debating on one occasion as parts of teams.

I wonder though, if people have always had such difficulty with the idea of a Creator.

 

[lasthero]

Not one on one as was the appointment.

What appointment?

Maybe this is why:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

I don't know.

Since William Lane Craig accepts evolution, that can't be the reason.

 

[lasthero]

By the way, since you seem to like quoting things so much and seem to respect William Lane Craig as a source, I found a quote you might find interesting.

"Now when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is really 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think about it."

Guess who said that? Come on. Guess.

 

[Hieronymus]

"the only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational."
(LT More)

How does that even help creationism?

It is a dismissal, because creationism / ID is at least as rational as believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no purpose.
I think creationism / ID is actually much more rational.
But i used to believe naturalist theories too.
It's our default education and it has a huge platform and many 'wise men'.
I believed man descended from apes at a young age already.

"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
(US Dist Judge, John Jones)

Is he a scientist or a judge? It really doesn't hurt evolution or help creationism either. It's saying while it may be true (not that it is true at all) it's not science.

About the same answer as above.
In hindsight, it is not the best example, i have to agree the context is absent, too hacked up.
I think i'll remove it.
Sorry i didn't acknowledge this earlier.

 

[Hieronymus]

What appointment?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ered-scientists.7942332/page-10#post-69517680

Since William Lane Craig accepts evolution, that can't be the reason.

Yes, i forgot , he actually does, doesn't he?
So it would have been about the (non)existence of God.

 

[lasthero]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ered-scientists.7942332/page-10#post-69517680Yes, i forgot , he actually does, doesn't he?
So it would have been about the (non)existence of God.

You could take the man's own word.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a dismissal, because creationism / ID is at least as rational as believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no purpose.
I think creationism / ID is actually much more rational.
But i used to believe naturalist theories too.

And you just showed that you have no understanding of evolution at all. Do you remember whenI made the claim that you were rather ignorant of this science, you just showed that I was right. When you don't understand something the wise thing to do is to ask questions, politely. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the other side is wrong, simply because the problem is too difficult for you.

It's our default education and it has a huge platform and many 'wise men'.
I believed man descended from apes at a young age already.About the same answer as above.
In hindsight, it is not the best example, i have to agree the context is absent, too hacked up.
I think i'll remove it.
Sorry i didn't acknowledge this earlier.

But we no only are descended from apes, we still are apes.

What "miracles" happen in evolution? I don't know of any.

 

[Hieronymus]

You could take the man's own word.

I could, but he has a credibility deficit.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Maybe i'll have a look later.
Thanks.

 

[lasthero]

I could, but he has a credibility deficit.

So does William Lanw Craig.

 

[Hieronymus]

By the way, since you seem to like quoting things so much and seem to respect William Lane Craig as a source, I found a quote you might find interesting.

"Now when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is really 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think about it."

Guess who said that? Come on. Guess.

Sounds like Craig.
Yes, he somehow chooses to subscribe to naturalistic models.
He's a talented philosopher, emphasising on reason and logic.

 

[Hieronymus]

So does William Lanw Craig.

I meant Dawkins 'has an unreasonable and contemptuous way', but i wanted to be subtle...

 

[USincognito]

You didn;t read the quotes then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you just said.

You mean the quotes from non scientists and dishonest quote mines? Why would we read them now? We've seen them a hundred times before.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is unproven and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.
(Sir Arthur Keith)

This one, for example, is simply a lie.

“ Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. ”
This supposed quote is used in an attempt to demonstrate that Sir Arthur Keith simply dismisses creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias.[14] However, in attempting to research this statement, one finds that it usually appears without primary source documentation.[15] In those instances where seemingly original documentation is provided, it is stated to be a Forward for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species.[16] However, several facts show that the attribution of these words to Arthur Keith is erroneous.

Keith died in 1955, some four years before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work, so that he was clearly not available to write an introduction for the centennial edition (this was actually done by William Robin Thompson).[17] Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction to earlier printings of Origin of Species, in use from 1928 to 1958, the words given above do not appear in that introduction.[18] Finally, the last “edition” of Origin of Species is the sixth edition published 1879.[19] It is for this reason that all later publications of Origin of Species are actually reprints of this or earlier editions so that there is simply no “100th edition” of Darwin’s work. In light of the fact that the documentation provided by Creationist publications is specious, one is still left with trying to explain the source of this citation. It is enough to say, however, that since this “quote” lacks valid documentation, it should not be regarded as one that originates with Arthur Keith himself until it can be properly documented.[20]​

 

[USincognito]

Look, Einstein, i'm spreading genuine quotes by the prophets of the church of naturalism (the new mandatory religion of the western world).

Apart from the flaming that should be reported, nothing in this sentence is true. As I just showed with the supposed Arthur Keith "quote", it doesn't exist and all evidence points to it being a fabrication. And everything after "by the" is histrionic hyperbole unrelated to reality.

 

[Cearbhall]

Enjoy the read:

the only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.
(LT More)

This makes sense to me. Creationism can't be disproved, much in the same way that the Matrix can't be disproved. A hypothesis which suggests a being who can mimic the fossil record and all of the signs of evolution could be true, but it would be irrational to jump to such a conclusion.

We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science.
(US Dist Judge, John Jones)

Same as above. No way to prove that it's false, but no reason to believe that it's true.