Evolution is a Fact

[TerranceL]

And why are you evolutionists so very angry? Why can you not just allow people to differ from you?

If creationists didn't feel the need to push their religion on the schools most of us wouldn't care.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for the drawings of Microraptor, the dimensions, the feathers, the shape, everything apart from colouration is exactly as the fossils suggest.

Just don't accuse us of [wrongfully] espousing "god of the gaps", when you guys are doing the same thing.

And don't think for one hertz of time that I'm not noticing the fact that my question about that lizard he was carrying wasn't answered.

Even Haeckel would not have done that --- or would he?

 

[TerranceL]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot. If no one disagreed with you, you'd be an awefully bored lot.

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you a Martyr.

It doesn't matter that she's not been attacked, all that matters is that she wants to be.

 

[CoderHead]

Quotes?

This is the only one I could find. And, while it may have seemed to Ursie that she was being called a moron, the truth is that it was her behavior in posting PRATTs in this thread that was being called moronic.

Also, seeing Ursie come in here asking why everyone assumes that Creationists are morons and then proceeding to act like a moron was pretty funny.

 

[BananaSlug]

Just don't accuse us of [wrongfully] espousing "god of the gaps", when you guys are doing the same thing.

And don't think for one hertz of time that I'm not noticing the fact that my question about that lizard he was carrying wasn't answered.

Even Haeckel would not have done that --- or would he?

Based on the photograph of Microraptor gui's fossil, is it a bird or a dinosaur?

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationists didn't feel the need to push their religion on the schools most of us wouldn't care.

LOL --- you guys certainly are a prime example of why we should have the Bible taught in school.

You don't even understand the basics.

I used to say that you guys couldn't understand anything beyond Genesis 1, but you've shown me that you can't even understand Genesis 1.

Now, I just say you guys can't understand anything beyond, "God did it" --- but I'm beginning to wonder about that now, as well.

 

[BananaSlug]

LOL --- you guys certainly are a prime example of why we should have the Bible taught in school.

You don't even understand the basics.

I used to say that you guys couldn't understand anything beyond Genesis 1, but you've shown me that you can't even understand Genesis 1.

Now, I just say you guys can't understand anything beyond, "God did it" --- but I'm beginning to wonder about that now, as well.

I understand it, I just don't believe it. Big difference. If you want to teach the Bible in school then allow us to teach about atheism in church.

 

[Sanguis]

Just don't accuse us of [wrongfully] espousing "god of the gaps", when you guys are doing the same thing.

There's so much fail in that sentence.

Firstly, yes, you do believe in a God of the gaps. You use the supernatural entity to answer things that not knowing scares you.

Secondly, no. We're not. The only "God of the gaps" in that drawing was the colouration.

]And don't think for one hertz of time that I'm not noticing the fact that my question about that lizard he was carrying wasn't answered.

Even Haeckel would not have done that --- or would he?

OK, let's use another picture. This one's more accurate.

The initial point that you're so desperately trying to deter us from, was that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and Microraptor is the perfect example of a species in between them both.

Whether you accept that or not, whether you like that or not, it happened. I couldn't honestly give a rat's behind what you believe, because so far, all you've shown us is that you believe absolute, and total nonsense. Whether you lie, twist words and invent new meanings for them to trick yourself, or others, into believing this nonsense is irrelevant. It doesn't make it any less absurd.

 

[CoderHead]

And don't think for one hertz of time that I'm not noticing the fact that my question about that lizard he was carrying wasn't answered.

Ummm, it's a drawing? It's a representation of what the animal looked like while it was alive based on its fossilized remains. It's not an elaborately deceitful "fossil" intended to suggest that predator and prey were stuck in rock mid-flight.

But, since we're being so literal, perhaps you would care to produce the basis for this painting:
<staff edit>

Is it your opinion that this scene actually happened as pictured? Or that this is what God actually looks like? I mean, we already know that you believe Adam was a European white male of generous musculature (but apparently, very modest endowments) because you "prefer artists' renditions."

I'm still waiting for your answer about this humongous double-standard you have.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the only one I could find. And, while it may have seemed to Ursie that she was being called a moron, the truth is that it was her behavior in posting PRATTs in this thread that was being called moronic.

Hey, give the girl some time.

If she can go three and a half years here without being called almost everything but what's in her profile, you might have a point.

 

[Sanguis]

Haha.

Oh n0es, Av, what's this?

Is that... is that a... belly button? On Adam?

This is clearly a Haeckel painting.

Lulz.

 

[AV1611VET]

Based on the photograph of Microraptor gui's fossil, is it a bird or a dinosaur?

I don't know --- 354.

And as I understand it, you guys think birds are dinosaurs.

(But only when you're claiming dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.)

 

[Skaloop]

Haha.

Oh n0es, Av, what's this?

Is that... is that a... belly button? On Adam?

This is clearly a Haeckel painting.

Lulz.

Plus, Adam's left-handed. How... sinister.

 

[Freodin]

I don't know --- 354.

And as I understand it, you guys think birds are dinosaurs.

(But only when you're claiming dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.)

Usage of language, AV, usage of language. Something I know you have difficulties with, but also something that is really really usefull when talking with other people instead of at other people.

 

[CoderHead]

I don't know --- 354.

Mmmm, Hostess Ding Dongs! Oh wait, was that not the point of that post?

(But only when you're claiming dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.)

They're not --- 419. I can do it too!

 

[pgp_protector]

The conclusion I come to, after engaging in this conversation is one I've come to before. It is impossible to have an honest debate between parties who've already made up their minds.

We are clearly on different pages, that is going to have to be okay. Do you all ever wonder what is the point of these discussion that we humans have? I know that I do. I think we're all looking for someone who agrees with us, but usually we can't find such a person.

Well, that's a philosophy discussion. Thanks for the discussion. It has certainly been interesting. Blessings to all of you!

Is your mind already made up?

 

[TerranceL]

LOL --- you guys certainly are a prime example of why we should have the Bible taught in school.

You don't even understand the basics.

I used to say that you guys couldn't understand anything beyond Genesis 1, but you've shown me that you can't even understand Genesis 1.

Now, I just say you guys can't understand anything beyond, "God did it" --- but I'm beginning to wonder about that now, as well.

I'm sorry but are you confused that your mythology is difficult to understand?

 

[MoonLancer]

That is known as the missing link fallacy. I show you a fossil, species B, that is temporally and morphologically intermediate between species A and species C and you require two more fossils between A and B, and B and C. What you are demanding is that we show you every single generation tens of thousands or even millions of them. But fossilization is very rare.
Nevertheless, we have very complete fossil records of some transitions., the philosophy of science or how science operates?

Another problem one will have to convince Ursie
is that if if the fossils presented are too close together in time, no change will be apparent, if the fossils have too much of a gap it will be claimed that these are separate species.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you a Martyr.

It doesn't matter that she's not been attacked, all that matters is that she wants to be.

New fallacy: Argumentum ad martyrdom -- I perceive that they don't like me, therefore I am correct.

 

[Hawk007]

Quite!



God is outside of time. Quite. So why would He even think twice about letting the universe unfold over billions of years? Billions of years or six days make no difference to him. Factor in the relative nature of time and the observed nature of the universe and it is obvious that He did not create it six thousand years ago during a six day period. It doesn't matter to Him anyway, right?

Furthermore, if you read the bible literally like you claim we must, how then do you explain the following:
I Samuel 2 starting at verse 8:
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Clearly, by your logic you MUST read this verse as the earth being placed on pillars.

Or what about: Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Even if you read this in Hebrew it becomes clear that the circle is indeed a coin like circle, not a ball. So again. The world MUST BE FLAT.

Add to that Job 37:18
can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

and it is clear that a literal interpretation of the bible leads to belief in a flat world built upon pillars with a hard, forged sky above. We know all the above to be false. So either:
a: the bible is wrong
b: the bible is not meant to be read that way.

I opt for b.
Especially given my experiences which dictate that God must exist. Yet also clearly illustrate that a literal interpretation of the bible is both harmful and inconsistent with reality.

I never said that the Bible is 100% literal, when it is not it is very easy to understand that it is not literal, but that what I quoted does not suggest it is something other than literal.....