Evolution is a Lie

[Split Rock]

I know why -- I've only been saying it for 5 years.

Science is myopic -- and it's easier to deny than assume, then have to spend money to hunt for something you can't find.

Do you even read what you write? Of course we do not spend money and time looking for "something you can't find." Aren't you the one going off on SETI all the time because it is a waste of money?

Then why is rape against the law?

It certaintly isn't against biblical law... unless the woman is married (then only because it is adultery).

(I can't believe I'm discussing this.)

Neither can I.

 

[sandwiches]

Dude, you're the one who brought up angels, you're the one that asked the question. I was just trying provide an answer to your question. Sorry if you don't like that answer.

I think you should just wait for him to produce this angel of his before telling him anything. Otherwise, that's just playing into his nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise, that's just playing into his nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

 

[rjc34]

It certaintly isn't against biblical law... unless the woman is married (then only because it is adultery).

Hell according to biblical law if you want a wife just rape a virgin!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

According to the reference in the bible fifty shekels is about 575 grams of silver. Going by the current price of silver that's about $675...

Pretty cheap for a virgin wife I think.

 

[Tomatoman]

Then why is rape against the law?

Gosh, I can't imagine.

If an xx Homo sapiens turns down an xy Homo sapiens' attempt to procreate, is the xxHs fighting the preservation of favoured races?

No, she's showing sexual selection in choosing the best genes available. She gains more by being choosey about who she has sex with as she has a bigger time investment, whereas a man has different criteria, and isn't quite as choosey. A man, as you know, has a sex drive designed to find healthy, fertile females attractive (which means young and pretty) and given the right circumstances, will mate with a many as he possibly can.

This is a huge and fascinating subject. A survey of human ball size (which is correlated to the level of polygamy in ape species) reveals that our testicles are slightly bigger than they would be if we were an entirely monogamous species. There has, therefore, been a history of polygamy in our species. A chimpanzee's testicles, on the other hand, (so to speak), are relatively much bigger as they have more sex with different females so need to produce a lot of competitive sperm.

(I can't believe I'm discussing this.)

You're actually discussing something real for once. Sex is the basis of most things, as you would know with your thorough knowledge of evolution.

 

[Hespera]

Hell according to biblical law if you want a wife just rape a virgin!



According to the reference in the bible fifty shekels is about 575 grams of silver. Going by the current price of silver that's about $675...

Pretty cheap for a virgin wife I think.

i must not be very biblical, if that happened to me, id put a knife in his heart first chance.

 

[sandwiches]

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

I see excuses but no angels. Get back to us when you have produced an angel.

 

[Delphiki]

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

I'm fairly certain that if we asked you where science should look, you'd tell us to look in the bible. Your biggest roadblock is not being able to recognize that doing so would be religion and not science. You have to take the bible on faith to believe it. The universe, itself, is the book of science. We read it and understand it. That is science.

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

If something, nor it's effects cannot be observed, nor explained by any plausible means, it's simply not going to be science. If the evidence pointed toward a 7-day creation, then that would be science.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

Maybe these "internet scientists" are simply tired of repeating themselves to brick-wall creationists that spew strawman arguments and fallacies. If you lot didn't listen the first hundred times, what's the point in telling you again. Hell, if we argued like you, we'd just link you to the thread where the answers to your ignorance was provided, but instead, we actually have the courtesy to explain ourselves and the ToE over and over again on most occasions. It's clear that most of you most of the time aren't even going to bother to listen because you've been trained all your life to abandon common sense, ignore evidence, and deny reality, or whatever is necessary to avoid admitting that your bible is simply wrong about how the universe really works.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

Things like angels, AV? Existed where?

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

They're filtered out because they don't exist -- your desperation notwithstanding.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

You were never a point-of-interest, AV -- only ridicule.

 

[Split Rock]

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

If you know this, then why do you keep asking us to explain them?

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

As science, no they are not. That does not mean that some scientists do not find them points of interest.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

I guess "internet scientists" will continue to see these as points-of-ridicule as long as "internet creationists" ask silly questions, like: "did angels evolve?"

 

[gaara4158]

The fact of the matter is that there are things which do [and did] exist that science can't begin to explain -- let alone know where to even start to look for.

Thus, science "conveniently" manufactures rules and regulations that filter out these unknowns so effectively, that they aren't even a point-of-interest anymore.

Internet scientists then take it a step further and make these points-of-interest into points-of-ridicule.

The way your denial persists is both beautiful and tragic...
First you start out with an extraordinary claim -- that there are "things" out there that science can't explain. Okay, this is true, albeit vague. We don't know everything about the universe, and you know we'll acknowledge that. Will you try to claim that because there are known unknowns, your unfalsifiable claim must be true?

You go on to claim that science "filters out" what it can't explain. This isn't true... at all. In fact, cosmic background radiation (one line of evidence for the big bang) was discovered by a scientist using the scientific method to figure out something he originally couldn't explain. He didn't filter it out, he figured it out. That being said, Angels don't even fall into the category of "science can't explain," they fall into the category of "ill-defined mythological beings." But that doesn't stop you from blaming science for the inefficacy of your arguments.

And now the best part: After you've lied about science and made false equivocations to mythology... after you move the goal posts three times in a single thread... you've got the nerve to complain when you're not taken seriously! Your posts may look like arguments, AV, but just like your angels, they're supported by nothing. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, AV, and even that's remarkable.

 

[AV1611VET]

You go on to claim that science "filters out" what it can't explain. This isn't true... at all.

If you're going to claim 'this isn't true... at all', then you're going to have to come up with something better than cosmic background radiation; scientists had a reason for suspecting it.

But when it comes to angels, the Bible says that we can even entertain some people, while in reality, we're entertaining an angel and not even knowing it.

Truth of the matter is, most scientists today are nothing more than neo-Sadducees.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

 

[Tomatoman]

If you're going to claim 'this isn't true... at all', then you're going to have to come up with something better than cosmic background radiation; scientists had a reason for suspecting it.

But when it comes to angels, the Bible says that we can even entertain some people, while in reality, we're entertaining an angel and not even knowing it.

Truth of the matter is, most scientists today are nothing more than neo-Sadducees.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Angels don't exist.

Next.

 

[Split Rock]

Truth of the matter is, most scientists today are nothing more than neo-Sadducees.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Truth of the matter is, most creationists today are nothing more than neo-Pharisees.

Luke 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Truth of the matter is, most scientists today are nothing more than neo-Sadducees.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Truth of the matter is, most creationists today are nothing more than neo-Pharisees.

Luke 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

I could demonstrate my point with a poll, can you yours?

 

[gaara4158]

But when it comes to angels, the Bible says that we can even entertain some people, while in reality, we're entertaining an angel and not even knowing it.

What's the Bible got to do with anything? We're discussing evolution, not literature. You are required to provide an example of science "filtering out" what it cannot explain.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the Bible got to do with anything? We're discussing evolution, not literature.

Evolution has its literature as well.

Ever heard of The Preservation of Favoured Races?

 

[gaara4158]

Evolution has its literature as well.

Ever heard of The Preservation of Favoured Races?

That's part of a title of a book written about evolution. What does your book have to do with evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

What does your book have to do with evolution?

Its very first page pwns evolution and atheism both.

 

[rjc34]

Evolution has its literature as well.

Ever heard of The Preservation of Favoured Races?

You mean Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

Why yes, I have. It provided the groundwork for what is now one of the greatest scientific theories ever conceived. It has been attacked by thousands of scientists, real and armchair such as yourself, since its inception. Although the only attacks nowadays are from neo-creationists with bogus degrees (ala Kent Hovind) and real scientists with a religious agenda (ala Michael Behe). The corroborating evidence between all fields of science is unambiguous in its conclusions.

The problem is 'published scientific literature' =/= 'holy books making unfalsifiable claims for the supernatural'.