Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Chris B]

Re:
"Chris B said: ↑
Possibly the best-known quote-mining product in the whole history of quote-mining."
Yes, apparently...

Good on you.
Not everyone manages to do that

 

[Hieronymus]

The Fine Tuning argument is at least 100 years old.

O, okay, but the evidence for it isn't, at least, it seems to keep adding up.
It is quite certain that it is fine tuned.

 

[Hieronymus]

The Fine Tuning argument is at least 100 years old. I'm not about to start calling that youthful, are you?

Silly of me to take the bait...
Because what kind of an argument is "it is old" anyway?
Mathematics are also "old".
Truth doesn't become less true with time.
But hey, if you want to dismiss the argument of the universe being fine tuned, be my guest.

 

[Hieronymus]

I love this denial fantasy as a Creationist debate tactic, especially when it comes from people who clearly have no familiarity with the actual evidence.

There is no evidence for evolution beyond kinds, only proof for 'special evolution', within the kind.
It's a non sequitur (i think) to say that's the explanation for the origin of species (or kinds rather).

 

[The Cadet]

There is no evidence for evolution beyond kinds, only proof for 'special evolution', within the kind.

Define "kind".

 

[VirOptimus]

O, okay, but the evidence for it isn't, at least, it seems to keep adding up.
It is quite certain that it is fine tuned.

Heh, no, it is not "fine tuned". The whole argument is a massive flaw on many levels.

Fine tuned presupposes a tuner for one (no evidence for that).

And secondly, how does a out of tune universe look like?

Thirdly, fine tuned for what?

 

[Hieronymus]

Define "kind".

You know what a kind is.

 

[VirOptimus]

You know what a kind is.

We do? Then you can easily define it for us.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh I could.

Obviously, you can't.

Evolutionists have no answers for my questions ever.

The irony is noted. Notice how you can't answer my questions.

Also, Gene2memE answered all of your questions quite nicely.

And how did find its way to this round ball floating the precise distance necessary,from THIS sin to be able to produce this incredible nature we have and how our atmosphere was exactly what was needed for this life to grow and become all the things we have in the air on the land and under the see. And how did our waters form precisely in the quantities we have to be able to cleanse and water this planet and the difference of salt and fresh water and how did the moon just happen to be just where we need,a to control the tides and gravity precisely what was necessary to hold the waters in place keep the atmosphere from floating off into space. And how did the atmosphere form in just the right amount of ingredients to provide air for all these things and be thick enough to keep the radiation from the sun from killing us? And what about the other planets. Jupiter is the right size and placement to balance the gravitas of the sun and hold the earth in its place so all these miraculous things could occur. Pure dumb blind chance is always The answer.

The same way that the ping pong balls hit each other extremely precisely so that a specific person wins the Powerball. If conditions were different, so would life be different. You are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole.

 

[Hieronymus]

Heh, no, it is not "fine tuned".

Take it up with the scientists who conclude this.
Obviously, it is the evidence that strongly suggests it.
It eliminates accidental (pointless) coming into existence of the universe.
The chances for accidental occurence is practically zero.

It's not my problem that you can't have a divine foot in the door.
But is is your bias, just like it is for the scientific community.
Insisting on naturalistic scenarios says nothing about the validity of super-naturalistic scenarios.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmm....
Alright, but he just says it would seem absurd, not that it is absurd.
None the less, i came across the quote by chance actually, but i guess it didn't do justice to the context, so i shouldn't have used it.
Sorry.

What worries us more is the complete lack of effort to make sure the quote is in context. As others have noted, all you had to do is a Google search, and you didn't even do that.

Have you learned your lesson? Have you learned just how dishonest the professional creationists are?

 

[Loudmouth]

Take it up with the scientists who conclude this.

Is this the part where you fall back to your dishonest quote mines?

Why should we trust a word you say when it comes to what other scientists conclude, given your track record of misrepresenting their conclusions?

 

[VirOptimus]

Take it up with the scientists who conclude this.
Obviously, it is the evidence that strongly suggests it.
It eliminates accidental (pointless) coming into existence of the universe.
The chances for accidental occurence is practically zero.

It's not my problem that you can't have a divine foot in the door.
But is is your bias, just like it is for the scientific community.

There are so much wrong with this post.

Which scientists? Where are the evidence?

Accidental? Chances? Divine foot? All of theese assertions and no evidence. Come on, if you want to be taken seriously you must be able to show the evidence, something that supports your position, not just empty rethorics.

 

[rjs330]

Instead of Gish Galloping straw men and utter misunderstandings, you really should learn something about the subject before trying to critique it.

I most,likely know more,about this nonsense than you do. I've been studying and looking at this subject for 35 years. Its all hogwash and based on assumptive reasoning and scientific dogma. Belief in evolution is nothing more than blind faith. Everything is done with a presupposed ideology and unproven and unprovable theories. Aging methodology is based on assumptions and predefined ideology. Anything that contradicts that is summarily dimissed as it doesn't fit the prescribed narrative.

And when you start to question specifics such as where are the transitional species they have no answer. Take the insect population as an example. How many different kinds of insects are there. Evolution would have you believe that all insects evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution decided that insects would develop six legs. Why not four or three? Why develop wings on some and none on others? How did that happen? A mutation into a wing would have to develop over time. An ant didn't suddenly hatch with two fully formed wings. It developed a wing. Slowly over time. But why would it evolve to do so. If the first incarnation of a wing wasn't helpful why would nature choose to continue why not discard it? And did nature by chance come up with two wings or one and later develop two? Why would there be spiders? The myriad of insects all happening by chance is foolishness. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest and the need of animal kind to evolve for betterment. Then if something was surviving just fine why evolve? There's no proof of any of it. No evidence of any of it. And no scientific experimentation that can verify any of this nonsense.





Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This thread is a mad house.

 

[Loudmouth]

I most,likely know more,about this nonsense than you do. I've been studying and looking at this subject for 35 years. Its all hogwash and based on assumptive reasoning and scientific dogma. Belief in evolution is nothing more than blind faith.

In 35 years, you have never been shown these 29 pieces of evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Why would we need faith when we have mountains of evidence?

And when you start to question specifics such as where are the transitional species they have no answer. Take the insect population as an example. How many different kinds of insects are there. Evolution would have you believe that all insects evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution decided that insects would develop six legs. Why not four or three? Why develop wings on some and none on others? How did that happen? A mutation into a wing would have to develop over time. An ant didn't suddenly hatch with two fully formed wings. It developed a wing. Slowly over time. But why would it evolve to do so. If the first incarnation of a wing wasn't helpful why would nature choose to continue why not discard it? And did nature by chance come up with two wings or one and later develop two? Why would there be spiders? The myriad of insects all happening by chance is foolishness. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest and the need of animal kind to evolve for betterment. Then if something was surviving just fine why evolve? There's no proof of any of it. No evidence of any of it. And no scientific experimentation that can verify any of this nonsense.

One possibility out of many occurs because the arrow of time moves forward. It's a simple concept.

Why does one person win the lottery and not another? Because there had to be one result out of hundreds of millions. The same for evolution.

The mistake you are making is in assuming that the outcome we see now is the only one that could occur. That is false.

 

[The Cadet]

You know what a kind is.

A baby word for people unwilling to define their terms clearly.

 

[rjs330]

In 35 years, you have never been shown these 29 pieces of evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Why would we need faith when we have mountains of evidence?



One possibility out of many occurs because the arrow of time moves forward. It's a simple concept.

Why does one person win the lottery and not another? Because there had to be one result out of hundreds of millions. The same for evolution.

The mistake you are making is in assuming that the outcome we see now is the only one that could occur. That is false.

Yep, I read that. Still,offers no proof of one thing actually evolving into something completely different. Dolphins with legs? Oh yeah they are sucked,back into,the body. It is assumed they are legs and not just part of the,fetal development process.

Reptile birds? How do we know they just weren't reptile birds that didn't develop from,anything? They were still fully formed,reptile birds that went extinct. You see it is all supposition and assumption. This creature has charateristics of bird and reptile. THEREFORE it must have evolved. With no evidence of its actual evolution. The assumption is there is macro,evolution therefore this must be proof of it even,though there is no evidence of its actual evolutionary process.


More evolutionary nonsense. Still no,record of anything but fully formed things that suddenly appear. None of it is provable.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, I read that.

Then how can you claim that we operate by faith when we have mountains of evidence?

Still,offers no proof of one thing actually evolving into something completely different.

I can't open your eyes for you.

Still no,record of anything but fully formed things that suddenly appear.

That's exactly what we should see if evolution is true. Evolution doesn't produce half formed species. Fossils don't fade in and out of existence as you look at them.

 

[rjs330]

Then how can you claim that we operate by faith when we have mountains of evidence?



I can't open your eyes for you.



That's exactly what we should see if evolution is true. Evolution doesn't produce half formed species. Fossils don't fade in and out of existence as you look at them.

And it's exactly what we should see if the Bible is true. I can't open your eyes for you either.

What I am trying to get across is that belief in evolution is faith based. It is not based on anything that is provable. You choose to put your faith in something that cannot be proven and in fact is quite incredulous as chance. Whereas I choose to,put my faith in an almighty God that creates everything. We can look at anything around us and say,it must be designed. Everything except nature and the universe which is far,more complex than anything we can create and we call that luck.

Seems to be foolish to me.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk