Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[BobRyan]

On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.

Sorry, quote mines are so common in debates, be they intentional or not, I didn't consider the idea that you would think that such a thing was so improbable that I would need to demonstrate it myself before you would be willing to do any reading on your own.

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

However, consider this: even if your quote wasn't a quote mine, why should I care? There are always people that disagree with the mainstream science

I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".

But is this taken out of context as well? What site are you getting these quotes from? I can imagine tons of situations that would get a response like that out of a person that wouldn't even be related to the topic of this thread.

No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

But it seems that in the above you are admitting that you are lying if just one of your quotes was used dishonestly. Is that what you are saying? By the way if you want to claim that anyone has made false accusations against you then the burden of proof is yours again.

Why?? Because --no proof is needed for false accusations to be acceptable to atheists and agnostics???????

You seem to be admitting that the principles of evolutionism pervade your entire thinking - in general. Are you saying that such a transparent MO on your part would be acceptable to Christians?? Ever??

Quote mines are exceedingly common. It would be nice if you linked your sources for your quotes, that way, I could determine if they are quote mines or not.

Wait a minute -- I thought the evolutionist/atheist position was to come to conclusions and accusations on a totally factless basis.

Sorry, quote mines are so common in debates, be they intentional or not, I didn't consider the idea that you would think that such a thing was so improbable that I would need to demonstrate it myself before you would be willing to do any reading on your own.

See the accusation there? it feels no need of data -- informed opinion -- accusation alone is "sufficient" apparently.

If they aren't, I'll apologise, and personally endorse you as reliable and trustworthy. If they are and you made a mistake, I'll show you the error so you don't make it again. The only possibility that would make you scared of fact checking is if you were quote mining on purpose.

A. these statements have been out there for a long time ... I would not even know where to find some of them any more.
B. I have a lot of material for each one - but I rather enjoy the fact that atheist evolutionists will be so easily inclined to insult whoever posts something that is not flattering to evolutionism - that they freely admit they do no research on the quote, they just issue insults.
c. They themselves are more than willing to demonstrate this behavior/mindset all day long and I find it "instructive" and "informative" for the unbiased objective readers.

All you would need to do is copy and paste them into the search bar of Google. The reason I don't do this myself is that I would rather know what type of source you consider reliable.

An interesting "reason" for not "looking" at the data.

Because the flip-flop to that is

We want the material so that we can read it, and confirm that what you say is accurate. This isn't us accusing you of lying or being dishonest

Hey - wait - that is my argument -- thanks!
(Atheist evolutionists here don't make it, for them it is always "ad hominem first", "false accusation first" and never letting inconvenient details get in the way of a good insult --> and we are simply 'not supposed to notice' ??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Loudmouth]

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

We see through your con. You are twisting the words of others.

What Patterson was saying is that we can't determine if a fossil is a direct ancestor of any other species. What he never said is that there are no transitional fossils. Ancestral and transitional are different things. The only mistake Patterson made was using imprecise language in the presence of dishonest creationists.

 

[BobRyan]

We see through your con. You are twisting the words of others.

What Patterson was saying is that we can't determine if a fossil is a direct ancestor of any other species. What he never said is that there are no transitional fossils.

Is this the part where you are "about" to quote something I said and show it to be incorrect????

Have another "try".

 

[Loudmouth]

Is this the part where you are "about" to quote something I said and show it to be incorrect????

Have another "try".

Is this the part where you use the same Patterson quote mine over and over and over?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wait a minute -- I thought the evolutionist/atheist position was to come to conclusions and accusations on a totally factless basis.

Atheism and evolution are unrelated. In fact, science in general has no comment on whether or not deities exist, and anyone that tells you otherwise is either ignorant, or lying.

Also, I cannot tell if you are being serious, or making some kind of jab.

See the accusation there? it feels no need of data -- informed opinion -- accusation alone is "sufficient" apparently.

Look, all I want is the sources YOU use to get the quotes from. Is that too much to ask? Why do you have a problem with me wanting to look at them for myself? Even if I were to outright trust your word on everything you have said, I doubt that you have parroted every bit of information in your sources. I am not trying to insult you by asking, but if you do get insulted from that, you are going to have a rough time on this site.

Also, do you want me to link you to instances where people have quote mined on this site?

A. these statements have been out there for a long time ... I would not even know where to find some of them any more.

That's fine if you didn't keep tabs on them. Google searching the quotes themselves should get you some sources, if not the exact word for word ones you initially found. I don't expect you to spend any more than 10 minutes to find sources you think are acceptable. It would be nice if you had the exact ones you initially took the quotes from, but as I said before, I will accept substitutions. After all, it is not uncommon for multiple sources to contain essentially the exact same material, and when it comes to quotes, it should be out there somewhere.

I just don't want to be the one to pick the source, for fear you'll think my choice is biased.

B. I have a lot of material for each one - but I rather enjoy the fact that atheist evolutionists will be so easily inclined to insult whoever posts something that is not flattering to evolutionism - that they freely admit they do no research on the quote, they just issue insults.

But I haven't insulted you... well, I guess I did forget to say please, sorry about that. Would you be so kind as to share some of your sources with me, please? If you really want to hold them away from the other atheists on here that aren't being very nice, you can PM them to me, and I swear on my life that I will not post them here for all to see. Although, I do not expect you to take those words seriously, there is not much more I can say. Have faith that this agnostic atheist seeker will keep her word... or not. The choice is yours.

c. They themselves are more than willing to demonstrate this behavior/mindset all day long and I find it "instructive" and "informative" for the unbiased objective readers.

Some people on here are really rude, and even restrained with their sources. Some are just tired of trying. However, I always make an effort to share mine, and go above and beyond to post sources when others won't. I don't always have the spare time to do it, as I don't keep a lot of sources saved, and some of my sources are first hand from lectures, but I will always try to find sources if I can.

Reciprocating bad behaviors you have observed doesn't make you look very good, though.

An interesting "reason" for not "looking" at the data.

You haven't brought me any to look at. Mostly, you have quoted people, not experimental results. I do try to search for unbiased journal articles that support creationism from time to time, but organizations such as Answers in Genesis bog down the search engine. If there are honest creationism supporting articles, they have been made nearly impossible to find thanks to these organizations with known dishonest reputations getting all the attention. If you have any, it would be great if you shared.

Hey - wait - that is my argument -- thanks!
(Atheist evolutionists here don't make it, for them it is always "ad hominem first", "false accusation first" and never letting inconvenient details get in the way of a good insult --> and we are simply 'not supposed to notice' ??

in Christ,

Bob

If that is your argument, then why aren't you sharing your sources that you do have, even if it only covers a fraction of the quotes you have posted? Especially since I promised that if you were telling the truth, that I would back you up on your word, and that would lead to many of the aggressive people on here to treating you with more respect.

A lot of people on here are quick to judge and dismiss thanks to the many people that have lied and ignorantly misquoted people on here in the past. I wouldn't take it to heart, but rather prove them wrong. The behavior isn't good, but there is a reason behind it, so I understand why people react as they do to unsourced quotes.

And, on the chance that you are accidentally misquoting, wouldn't you want to know it so that you don't keep making the same error?

Also, you don't need to include pieces of way older posts in your responses. I don't know if that is on purpose or by accident.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ron, when you copy and paste quote mines from lying sources you are sadly lying by proxy. You may not understand that you told a lie. You are like a little child that trusts the bad kid and repeats a lie as if it were the truth. Did the little kid know that he was lying? Probably not. How do you keep him from doing this again?

Seriously Bob, you should know better by now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ron, when you copy and paste quote mines from lying sources you are sadly lying by proxy. You may not understand that you told a lie. You are like a little child that trusts the bad kid and repeats a lie as if it were the truth. Did the little kid know that he was lying? Probably not. How do you keep him from doing this again?

Seriously Bob, you should know better by now.

I don't consider spreading falsehoods unintentionally to be lying, because the person doing so is not purposely being deceitful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't consider spreading falsehoods unintentionally to be lying, because the person doing so is not purposely being deceitful.

It is not the same as outright lying. But now that Ron's quote mining has been explained to him rather thoroughly does he have any excuse if he quote mines again?

 

[BobRyan]

Ron, when you copy and paste quote mines from lying sources you are sadly lying by proxy. You may not understand that you told a lie. You are like a little child .

these little fictional stories fit in quite well with blind-faith-evolutionism because the model for a true devotee to evolutionism is "fact-optional" - they simply "say it" so it must be so. Thus with their factless accusations "they say it -- so it must be so" no facts needed.

Sad.

 

[BobRyan]

So then rather than having that false-accusation story-telling continue on in to next month -- let's talk about the actual OP

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

I think you have been given some marvelous help from your fellow evolutionist-atheists as of late as they try to demonstrate just where this is going.

===========================

Ever notice how much "runnin' away from the OP" there is among evolutionist devotees on this thread?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

these little fictional stories fit in quite well with blind-faith-evolutionism because the model for a true devotee to evolutionism is "fact-optional" - they simply "say it" so it must be so. Thus with their factless accusations "they say it -- so it must be so" no facts needed.

Sad.

The theory of evolution is not blind faith, rather it is evidence based. For example, you yourself have, in your body, a broken vitamin c gene, that is broken in the same way in other primates. That shared break is overwhelmingly improbable except as explained by the notion of common ancestry.

 

[Loudmouth]

these little fictional stories fit in quite well with blind-faith-evolutionism because the model for a true devotee to evolutionism is "fact-optional" - they simply "say it" so it must be so. Thus with their factless accusations "they say it -- so it must be so" no facts needed.

Sad.

We have the facts:

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

 

[-57]

The theory of evolution is not blind faith, rather it is evidence based. For example, you yourself have, in your body, a broken vitamin c gene, that is broken in the same way in other primates. That shared break is overwhelmingly improbable except as explained by the notion of common ancestry.

You better be careful Paul....if the chance of a human common ancestor has the same broken gene is overwhelmingly improbable....then the chance of adding to another gene that increases the informatuon in the DNA code to the point that something such as the dolphins echo-location system is "evolved" becomes more than improbable but rather imossible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You better be careful Paul....if the chance of a human common ancestor has the same broken gene is overwhelmingly improbable....then the chance of adding to another gene that increases the informatuon in the DNA code to the point that something such as the dolphins echo-location system is "evolved" becomes more than improbable but rather imossible.

Are you not aware that normal mammalian hearing allows rudimentary echo location? In fact, humans can do it.

Anyway, you suggestion about echo-location is an excellent way to further test the common ancestry notion of evolutionists. We could examine the genetic underpinning of echo-location skills across various species. The evolutionary prediction would be that the genetic underpinning among whales and dolphins would be very similar. There is no creationist prediction, of course; common design might rule or individual creative variation might rule, depending on the goal of the Creator.

So it might be worth a shot to evaluate the genetic underpinning of echo location skills in dolphins and/or whales . . . and even compare them to the echo location skills in bats, which evolutionists would believe to have evolved independently, and therefore unlikely to be so closely linked to the ways dolphins and whales developed their abilities.
Here would be a place to champion the cause for common designer using common solutions!

(And what about those BATS that have a broken vitamin c gene?)

 

[bhsmte]

Are you not aware that normal mammalian hearing allows rudimentary echo location? In fact, humans can do it.

Anyway, you suggestion about echo-location is an excellent way to further test the common ancestry notion of evolutionists. We could examine the genetic underpinning of echo-location skills across various species. The evolutionary prediction would be that the genetic underpinning among whales and dolphins would be very similar. There is no creationist prediction, of course; common design might rule or individual creative variation might rule, depending on the goal of the Creator.

So it might be worth a shot to evaluate the genetic underpinning of echo location skills in dolphins and/or whales . . . and even compare them to the echo location skills in bats, which evolutionists would believe to have evolved independently, and therefore unlikely to be so closely linked to the ways dolphins and whales developed their abilities.
Here would be a place to champion the cause for common designer using common solutions!

(And what about those BATS that have a broken vitamin c gene?)

It is quite clear, he is not aware (or simply denying) a lot of things.

 

[-57]

Are you not aware that normal mammalian hearing allows rudimentary echo location? In fact, humans can do it.

We can stop right there....

Normal mammalians don't have a oily melon in the forehead inwhich to transmit from. Normal mammalian don't hear through their jaw.
They don't have those features. Once again...they don't have those features.

The rudimentary echo location is nothing like a dolphin. Then again you already knew that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We can stop right there....

Normal mammalians don't have a oily melon in the forehead inwhich to transmit from. Normal mammalian don't hear through their jaw.
They don't have those features. Once again...they don't have those features.

The rudimentary echo location is nothing like a dolphin. Then again you already knew that.

Clearly there has been some evolutionary enhancement of the general mammalian echo location ability, in dolphins.

 

[-57]

Clearly there has been some evolutionary enhancement of the general mammalian echo location ability, in dolphins.

Clearly? Such as?

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is not blind faith, rather it is evidence based. For example, you yourself have, in your body, a broken vitamin c gene, that is broken in the same way in other primates. That shared break is overwhelmingly improbable except as explained by the notion of common ancestry.

Animals have teeth - we have teeth - so also do Dolophins. We did not come from Dolphins. Those tiny "edge" stories do not prove anything except that we can find similarities. Air-breathing life forms - come in many forms - that does not make us all related to one single plant a long long time ago. That sort of argument is a rabbit trail among a great many when it comes to "similarity stories"

==============================================
(or were you trying to make the case that we descend from guinea pigs ??)

The loss of activity of the gene for L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) has occurred separately in the history of several species. GULO activity has been lost in some species of bats, but others retain it.[4][5] The loss of this enzyme activity is responsible for the inability of guinea pigs to enzymatically synthesize vitamin C. Both these events happened independently of the loss in the haplorrhini suborder of primates, including humans.

The remains of this non-functional gene with many mutations is, however, still present in the genomes of guinea pigs and humans.[6] It is unknown if remains of the gene exist in the bats who lack GULO activity. The function of GULO appears to have been lost several times, and possibly re-acquired, in several lines of passerine birds, where ability to make vitamin C varies from species to species.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Animals have teeth - we have teeth - so also do Dolophins. We did not come from Dolphins. Those tiny "edge" stories do not prove anything except that we can find similarities. Air-breathing life forms - come in many forms - that does not make us all related to one single plant a long long time ago. That sort of argument is a rabbit trail among a great many when it comes to "similarity stories"


==============================================
(or were you trying to make the case that we descend from guinea pigs ??)

You seem to be a bit confused about the shape of the tree of life. Of course we don't come from Dolphins. Dolphins did come from the first, early mammals, as did we. And the evidence for the common descent of all life is, indeed, not that air breathing life forms come in many forms. Why you suggested that IS the evidence is a mystery to me. Are you interested in understanding the actual evidence?

Seems to me you are repeating the same mistake so many creationists repeat over and over . . . completely misunderstanding what evolution theory even says, and then saying it doesn't make sense the way they understand it.