A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[Subduction Zone]

so what you are saying is that you have read the mind of the maker of the video and know for a fact that He/she is not mistaken, and has in fact mal-intent to deceive on purpose? Please prove that these are liars. If not, then we have refuted another comment of yours.

I am not a fool. The maker of your video attempts to make fun of Dawkins for his answer. That only demonstrates that the maker of the video was extremely ignorant and as shown by his quoting methodology, very dishonest too.

The very fact that he did not include a link to the source is more than enough evidence to conclude that he is a liar. What excuse did he have for not including that link?

And please, no false statements. You have never refuted one single claim of mine. Plus your logic is extremely faulty, even if I did not "prove" that the dishonest maker of that video is a liar, that would not mean that you had refuted any of my claims.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, Dawkins is correct in most, if not all of what he said.

Now watch the video and I will answer any questions that you have on it. You seem to think that a universe out of nothing is a crazy idea, yet you probably believe the same thing.

It is rather like people trying to claim that life cannot come out of non-life when they believe that life came out of non-life themselves.

average college students have common sense enough to realize that "nothing", can't perform actions, and "nothing" can't blow up, can't explode, or can't implode. Nothing can't do anything. Because it's nothing. IF you don't understand this point then there is not much I can do for you. But you yourself agree that nothing caused everything, as Dawkins argues. IF so, please ponder these thoughts.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not a fool. The maker of your video attempts to make fun of Dawkins for his answer. That only demonstrates that the maker of the video was extremely ignorant and as shown by his quoting methodology, very dishonest too.

The very fact that he did not include a link to the source is more than enough evidence to conclude that he is a liar. What excuse did he have for not including that link?

And please, no false statements. You have never refuted one single claim of mine. Plus your logic is extremely faulty, even if I did not "prove" that the dishonest maker of that video is a liar, that would not mean that you had refuted any of my claims.

no links needed, they were eye witness accounts of the quotations. Many many quotations saying the exact same thing, over and over again. You have not point here.

 

[createdtoworship]

What makes you think that Wikipedia is error prone? It is actually a very accurate source, if used correctly. And didn't you ask for a definition without a source?

But here is a very reliable source that explains quote mines and how they are abused, and refutes many of them for you:

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

quote mines are a fabrication of liberal scientists, it does not exist in any dictionary accept wiki related dictionaries with have no screening of qualifications for answers on issues. For example I can create a page on wikipedia, or rationalwiki and say that purple elephants exist. Now many moderators may refute this and deny the edit. But if they are all of like mind as me (believers in purple elephants), then my page gets posted on wikipedia as authoritative. So that is why I believe it's error prone, but I can give examples upon demand of errors if you want.

 

[createdtoworship]

What makes you think that Wikipedia is error prone? It is actually a very accurate source, if used correctly. And didn't you ask for a definition without a source?

But here is a very reliable source that explains quote mines and how they are abused, and refutes many of them for you:

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

but quoting out of context is an acceptible reply, or misquote. But how can it be a misquote if I posted a video of Dawkins actually saying it? It seems you have no real reply to these videos, and now you have to post pretend terms that don't really exist in any official dictionary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

average college students have common sense enough to realize that "nothing", can't perform actions, and "nothing" can't blow up, can't explode, or can't implode. Nothing can't do anything. Because it's nothing. IF you don't understand this point then there is not much I can do for you. But you yourself agree that nothing caused everything, as Dawkins argues. IF so, please ponder these thoughts.

Yes, "average college students" are not terribly bright. You need to delve more deeply into this topic. I thought that you were going to watch that video.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no links needed, they were eye witness accounts of the quotations. Many many quotations saying the exact same thing, over and over again. You have not point here.

That is simply wrong. When someone quotes someone else there is no excuse not to provide a link these days. Especially when such a dishonest technique is used.

And since you cannot and apparently are not willing to learn what the quote meant you are in no position to judge either.

Once again, you promised to watch the video that I linked. I see no sign that you watched it. If you did you did not understand it at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

quote mines are a fabrication of liberal scientists, it does not exist in any dictionary accept wiki related dictionaries with have no screening of qualifications for answers on issues. For example I can create a page on wikipedia, or rationalwiki and say that purple elephants exist. Now many moderators may refute this and deny the edit. But if they are all of like mind as me (believers in purple elephants), then my page gets posted on wikipedia as authoritative. So that is why I believe it's error prone, but I can give examples upon demand of errors if you want.

Wrong again, and the source that I gave to you proved that. I do not post links for no purpose at all.

And no, you simply can't make a page that easily on Wikipedia. Nonsense is quickly cleaned up. People have to work a bit to be members of Wikipedia. Few of them are willing to risk that membership by posting false information on purpose. I knew another poster that made similar claims to you. He had a Wikipedia membership and finally edited an article to "prove" that it could be done. The only problem was that he made a valid edit. He refused to put garbage in because that would threaten his membership He actually made my point for me.

And yes, I would like to see a scientific article that has a serious error in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but quoting out of context is an acceptible reply, or misquote. But how can it be a misquote if I posted a video of Dawkins actually saying it? It seems you have no real reply to these videos, and now you have to post pretend terms that don't really exist in any official dictionary.

No, quoting out of context is never an acceptable reply I did not say "misquote" I said"quote mine". Or do you think that it is correct to say that the Bible claims that there is no God?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, "average college students" are not terribly bright. You need to delve more deeply into this topic. I thought that you were going to watch that video.

IF I know, by common sense, that it's a contradiction. And a freshman in college knows by common sense that it's a contradiction, then what does it say for the intelligence level of your argument that you believe nothing can cause everything? (comparing the intelligence to a basic freshman in college)

 

[createdtoworship]

That is simply wrong. When someone quotes someone else there is no excuse not to provide a link these days. Especially when such a dishonest technique is used.

And since you cannot and apparently are not willing to learn what the quote meant you are in no position to judge either.

Once again, you promised to watch the video that I linked. I see no sign that you watched it. If you did you did not understand it at all.

I never promised to watch the video. Thats a lie.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong again, and the source that I gave to you proved that. I do not post links for no purpose at all.

And no, you simply can't make a page that easily on Wikipedia. Nonsense is quickly cleaned up. People have to work a bit to be members of Wikipedia. Few of them are willing to risk that membership by posting false information on purpose. I knew another poster that made similar claims to you. He had a Wikipedia membership and finally edited an article to "prove" that it could be done. The only problem was that he made a valid edit. He refused to put garbage in because that would threaten his membership He actually made my point for me.

And yes, I would like to see a scientific article that has a serious error in it.

talk origins is biased and liberal, I asked for a dictionary or encyclopedia that had the words quote mine in them. (non wiki sourced) And you didn't provide it. So I win.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, quoting out of context is never an acceptable reply I did not say "misquote" I said"quote mine". Or do you think that it is correct to say that the Bible claims that there is no God?

bringing the Bible into this discussion is non sequitur, and a red herring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF I know, by common sense, that it's a contradiction. And a freshman in college knows by common sense that it's a contradiction, then what does it say for the intelligence level of your argument that you believe nothing can cause everything? (comparing the intelligence to a basic freshman in college)

Sorry, but in this case you just don't know. Once again, you are basing your opinion on your lack of education.

Why didn't you watch the video? You said that you would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never promised to watch the video. Thats a lie.

You said that if I answered a question for you that you would watch that video. Do you want me to quote you?

And claiming that someone else lied is a big no-no here. Remember, I don't need to lie. The evidence is all on my side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

bringing the Bible into this discussion is non sequitur, and a red herring.

No, it isn't. You don't seem to know what those terms mean. I gave you an example of quote mining using the Bible. You knew that that would be a lie if I was serious. The use of the Bible was pertinent to the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

talk origins is biased and liberal, I asked for a dictionary or encyclopedia that had the words quote mine in them. (non wiki sourced) And you didn't provide it. So I win.

No, it is not biased. It is not liberal. It is science based and is neutral. And you are in no position to make excessive demands. Wikipedia is more than good enough until you can show a major flaw in it. Talk origins was an excellent source since it not only identified quote mines, it also show exactly what that person meant.

You have only used an extremely flawed source and I showed you why.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, but in this case you just don't know. Once again, you are basing your opinion on your lack of education.

try again, this is not a response. What did I miss? You believe everything came from nothing. What could that guy possibly add? Either everything does not mean everything, or nothing does not mean nothing. Either way, he would be a liar. By your own admission. (that we can spot liars by the misinformation of their quotes)

 

[Subduction Zone]

try again, this is not a response. What did I miss? You believe everything came from nothing. What could that guy possibly add?

Actually it was a proper response. Get back to me when you have watched the video that you said that you would watch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

when you answer my question I will watch your video. Do you, or do you not agree with richard dawkins, at this point you will say, "in what manner." and my response would be, in any manner, do you agree with richard dawkins? Answer this, then we can move on.

By the way, I did answer this question of yours. You then made a bogus prediction. I did not say "in what manner". I answered your question, you have not kept your word.