Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never said they think it's a religion. They think it's science. I said it's a religion. I don't mean,it's a religion with a church and pastors,etc. I mean it's a faith system. A belief. A dogma. Evolution is true in their eyes even though it's an unproven and unprovable theory. That is a belief system much like a religion is a belief system. I can't prove the eternal existance of God, yet I believe in the eternal existence of God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But you still said that evolution is a religion. Which is something you cannot back up, only claim.
Although to be honest, I don't know why I should bother. You're obviously not going to accept any evidence we show to you out of hand because of your own dogmatic views. You can't even actually show that the evidence is wrong, you'll just keep saying that it's wrong no matter what.

 

[Hieronymus]

I believed it was allegorical but none the less Truth at first.
But it is refered to and repeated throughout the Bible as factual and historical.
In the mean time "mitochondrial Eve" seems to be identified as factual and historical.
And the tight bottle-neck of the Flood too.
In Genesis 10 we find the Table of Nations (after Babel), which turns out to be accurate.
"Junk-DNA" turns out to not to be junk and the evolutionists present a lemur as our ancestor..

What is so attractive about God not existing?
Would mankind suddenly live in peace?
Can we make up for the natural decay of the premises for existing at all?

...but that's off-topic here.

And i'm sorry i got worked up and cynical in an hostile way today..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In Genesis 10 we find the Table of Nations (after Babel), which turns out to be accurate.

Any evidence that the Table of Nations is correct?

 

[Hoghead1]

That's the wrong question. The right question is why do you exist?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The problem I have with such posts is this: Why should I take your word for it over and against what the scientists, the truly qualified experts, have to say? Do you honestly believe that any sane, rational person is even going to consider the possibility that you, a lay person, really are so much smarter and wiser and insightful than all these scientists? I say the heck with popular public opinion, the heck with what the vast, uneducated masses have to say, the heck with what unqualified, uneducated self-appointed authorities have to say. I listen only to the advice I receive form the true experts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes he did. When he said it was,an hypothesis that's what he's saying. An hypothisis is not a fact.

An hypothesis is not a fact,until proven. And since it can't be then evolution remains a hypothesis.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Well, but that is just your own opinion, certainly not that of the scientific community. Given that I have a choice here, I'll go with the experts, not the laity.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ahh... Now you,are getting it! We know these things Because they are provable by observation and experimentation. Evolution does not have that. By their own,admission they cannot observe their theory because it takes so long to take place. Its an,impossibility. And no matter how hard one tries you can't turn one thing into something else. So it can't be proven by experimentation. Evolution is not true science. Its a belief system.
.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

That isn't correct. Evolution has been created and observed in the lab, with bacteria, for example. Also, there has been a long-term experiment going in in Russia to se of foxes can be turned into dogs. So far, the results are promising. Foxes are taking on definite dog traits, such as tameness. Also the fact science entertains concepts that cannot be directly observed does not mean they are all up in the air. Yes, science does have to speculate, but these are based on solid observations of hard data. Given the tons of hard data available, evolution is the best explanation for them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are Christians who believe in evolution. I am not one of them obviously.
I believe the Genesis account to be the accurate account of creation. I have not seen or heard any evidence that has convinced me otherwise. I'm order for believers to believe in evolution you must discount the Genesis account and believe it is allegory and not truth. I rather put my faith in what the Bible says rather than what man believes.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

In contrast, other people view observation as more reliable than the biblical texts that demands belief without evidence. I would love to believe what the bible says over being an atheist, but it doesn't meet the standard of evidence required for me to do that, no matter how much I want to.

 

[Hoghead1]

I never said they think it's a religion. They think it's science. I said it's a religion. I don't mean,it's a religion with a church and pastors,etc. I mean it's a faith system. A belief. A dogma. Evolution is true in their eyes even though it's an unproven and unprovable theory. That is a belief system much like a religion is a belief system. I can't prove the eternal existance of God, yet I believe in the eternal existence of God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Again, I have trouble with the authority issue here, with the kind of authority you attribute to yourself in these matters. It appears you, as an untrained lay person, are claiming and asking us to believe that your are so much smarter and insightful than are all these poor deluded scientists. If you think any sane, rational person is going to by that, you are in for a rude awakening.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I believed it was allegorical but none the less Truth at first.

Allegories can be true? I guess in the message they try to send...

But it is refered to and repeated throughout the Bible as factual and historical.

Indeed it is.

In the mean time "mitochondrial Eve" seems to be identified as factual and historical.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. Biblical Eve would be the most distant ancestor of all living humans. Even if creationism was absolutely true, these are two different women. Also, the title of mitochondrial Eve is not stable at one individual. Say, for example, that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000 years ago, but a more recent candidate that lived 50,000 years ago only doesn't qualify due to a small island of people not descending from her. If a tsunami were to wipe out that island and kill everyone, then the position of mitochondrial Eve would move to the woman that lived 50,000 years ago, as now she is the most recent common female ancestor of all living humans.

And the tight bottle-neck of the Flood too.

Actually, the only species that reflects experiencing a bottleneck like the one that would result from the biblical flood is the cheetah. They are so genetically similar to each other than any given cheetah can serve as a viable tissue donor to any other cheetah. Obviously, humans and the vast majority of other species don't share that degree of genetic similarity between members of their own species.

In Genesis 10 we find the Table of Nations (after Babel), which turns out to be accurate.

Hmm, I don't recall anything by that name. Would you mind elaborating?

"Junk-DNA" turns out to not to be junk and the evolutionists present a lemur as our ancestor..

Some of it is demonstrably junk, given that we have artificially reactivated some of it to see what it does. Some of these junk sequences would code for things like gills and fins if they had the proper start codons. Obviously, they don't serve a function like that in humans. Also, I don't think that anyone has said that a lemur is a human ancestor. We share ancestors with lemurs, but that shared ancestor in and of itself was not a lemur. Just like we share ancestry with chimpanzees, but we did not evolve from chimpanzees, or you share ancestry with your cousin, but your cousin is not one of your ancestors.

What is so attractive about God not existing?

To most people, not much. People aren't atheists because they find comfort in it or prefer that deities not exist. I'm sure there are some really stupid atheists that use really illogical reasoning behind their atheism, but every crop has its tares.

Would mankind suddenly live in peace?

Nope. I don't think our species will ever remain indefinitely in a state of peace. I'm not even sure there has ever been a point in human history in which no equivalent of a war was being waged somewhere by our species.

Can we make up for the natural decay of the premises for existing at all?

I am not sure what you mean by that. Physical decay is caused by bacteria and other microorganisms. Hypothetically, it is possible that one day in the future, we could have the capacity to preserve biological matter so that it never decays. Oh wait, the preservatives in McDonald's french fries seem like good candidates

...but that's off-topic here.

And i'm sorry i got worked up and cynical in an hostile way today..

You call this hostile? Hahahahahaha XD

 

[PsychoSarah]

Also, if you guys want a truly easy atheist to quote saying stupid stuff that has some degree of prominence, PZ Myers exists. You don't even have to quote mine this guy, he's legitimately tactless and astoundingly idiotic for a person with his level of education.

I don't personally know any atheists that are into what he has to say, but he does have a following. Great for damning quotes on feminism too. Here's a link to his blog, have at it http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

He's also what I like to call a allegorical cannibal; he likes to prey upon the works of other atheists he doesn't like for emotional reasons or differences of opinion to an excessive degree. As in, more than the average career creationist.

 

[Gene2memE]

Also, if you guys want a truly easy atheist to quote saying stupid stuff that has some degree of prominence, PZ Myers exists. You don't even have to quote mine this guy, he's legitimately tactless and astoundingly idiotic for a person with his level of education.

I don't personally know any atheists that are into what he has to say, but he does have a following. Great for damning quotes on feminism too. Here's a link to his blog, have at it http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

He's also what I like to call a allegorical cannibal; he likes to prey upon the works of other atheists he doesn't like for emotional reasons or differences of opinion to an excessive degree. As in, more than the average career creationist.

I used to like PZ. I read his blog quite avidly for a couple of years. He's gone off the rails in the last 24 months or so though. A tragic combination of ego and group think, along with aligning with some questionable political/social ideologies and refusing to apply critical thinking/skepticism to such.

Then again, the whole 'Atheism Plus' thing left me cold in the first place. That's what Humanism is for.

 

[The Cadet]

Yeah, between PZ Myers and Thunderf00t, you kinda get the whole SJW spectrum of tactless stupidity, from "If you aren't a hardline SJW I won't interact with you" to "I probably belong on /r/redpill instead of youtube".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah, between PZ Myers and Thunderf00t, you kinda get the whole SJW spectrum of tactless stupidity, from "If you aren't a hardline SJW I won't interact with you" to "I probably belong on /r/redpill instead of youtube".

Meh, at least Thunderf00t's science experiment videos and scientific fraud debunks are still worth a watch. They also tend to be relatively short, though.

But seriously, all these truly foolish atheists to quote, and yet people seem to insist on using quote mines instead. I can't fathom why, it isn't as if people like PZ Myers have absolutely no following. Why quote mine Dawkins to make it sound like he treats atheism as a religion as much as Christians view theirs as such, when you can quote someone that legitimately does try to apply atheism like a religion, complete with ideologies and other nonsense, and the people that act like the strawmans one constructs have weirdly large followings?

 

[lasthero]

You know you can quote that piece of nonsense all you want and it still,doesn't prove evolution. Its still full of supposition and assumption. Dolphins with legs and reptile birds are just two of them. Dolphins don't have legs but it is supposed that the fetal,process shows evolution Reptile birds are assumed to be proof while there is no evidence of the evolution. They just appear and it is assumed they evolved.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Dolphins actually still have the DNA to make legs, and chickens have the DNA to make teeth. It's turned off, of course, except for rare cases, but it's there.

Don't you think it's a little odd that dolphins would have the DNA to make legs and chickens would have the DNA to make teeth if they didn't come from ancestors that had legs and teeth?

 

[Jimmy D]

Well like I said earlier. The quotes made are true quotes and even taken in context still make admissions. The admissions are not necessarily that evolution is false. They can be admissions of the difficulty of the theory. It doesn't mean they don't believe in the theory or think it's a hoax but they are going to believe anyway. I believe they genuinely believe in the theory. Even with the difficulties. But at that point they cling to the idea that it's science because that's what they believe. Where as it's not real sciencebitsa. Belief system. A dogma.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Please pick one of the quotes, we can discuss it in more detail and find out exactly what the quotee (is that a word?) meant.

 

[Jimmy D]

And evolution is not supported,by one shred of evidence,either. As spoken by the judge quoted,earlier scientists and decided what they would accept as science. Thus ruling out creationism. Yet then they go on to completely ignore their own definitions of true science. Science has not been able to,prove evolution yet it's proclaimed as fact. They assume much and use these assumptions in all they do without even,knowing if their assumptions are true.

My point is not that creationism is science as defined by scientists. My,point is evolution is no more science either. Its a belief system not based on fact but by supposition and assumption.

Without wishing to sound rude it's time for you to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

Talking in these generalities will get us nowhere. A good example, yet to be refuted it seems, of the evidence for evolution is presented on Loudmouth's Retrovirus thread (It's only one example of course examples could be provided relating to many subjects from the viruses to the fossil record). I suggest you have a read through it and come back and tell us why we can't specifically accept it as evidence.

 

[Derek Meyer]

That's the wrong question. The right question is why do you exist?

It's the right question. Why does God exist?

 

[SteveB28]

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

You wasted 35 years.

 

[SteveB28]

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.
The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.
Birds have the flying app with feathers etcetera, things like that.

What 'kind' is a platypus? How about an echidna?

 

[SteveB28]

I said, ability to breed is a positive indicator.
Maybe it's not an English term, but it means that when they can breed, it is the same kind.
When they can not breed, they still could be the same kind, but you'll have to look at other characteristics to determine it.

And you actually believe that gibberish?