• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

Status
Not open for further replies.

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You mean the mountains of evidence that aren't there.

I love this denial fantasy as a Creationist debate tactic, especially when it comes from people who clearly have no familiarity with the actual evidence.

Here's the Google Scholar results for one very specific area - Caecilian evolution. There's 5,000+ hits meaning there's hundreds of published papers on the subject. I realize you want to believe they're full of nothing but blank space and question marks, but that's just not the case. They are full of evidence for evolution and that's just for one lineage.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=caecilian+evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If the first life was created by a deity, and all life evolved from that first life as described by the theory of evolution, what exactly in the theory of evolution would have to be changed?
I don't think I've ever seen an answer for that question.

Who are you kidding.
ToE describes nothing it just assumes "evolution did it", just meaning mutations survive selection.

Looks like you're still going to be waiting for one WotS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,362
14,061
✟257,467.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This is possibly the best argument from ignorance Gish Gallop I've ever seen. If it wasn't so terrible, it would be admirable.

I've got a day off work, so lets see if I can be bothered to find the answers for these questions:

First cab off the rank is easy.



Mutation, hereditary variation, genetic drift and migration, being acted on by the mechanisms of natural selection.



Science doesn't attempt to answer that question. Save that for philosophy and theology.



Animals. Or, at least the ancestors of animals. The Ediacara biota developed about 600 to 560 million years ago. Its from these, and the rapid morphological diversification of the Cambrian radiation, that many of the first phyla of animals emerged. The first vertebrates and animals with hard shells and bones were well established by about 535 million years ago. What we consider plant life didn't really appear until about 435 million years ago, when shore dwelling algae began to transition from water to land.



Plants descended from earlier C3 pathway photosynthesisers - such as cyanobacteria. They didn't "find a balance", the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have pinged up and down all over the place over the past 200 million years, from as high as 36-37% to as low as 10-12%. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are only steady from our very limited human timescales.



Hydrostatic attraction and gravity. At least initially. As in, that's what formed the planet.

There are a variety of processes that create the three different types of rock.
Igneous rock is formed from vulcanism - heating and cooling of lava and magma in various conditions;;
Sedimentary rock is formed from the deposition of various materials and its compression
Metamorphic rock is formed through the combination of heating and pressure on igneous and sedimentary rock, or on older metamorphic rock



I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the simple answer is "it doesn't". If you look at the history of life on this planet, better than 99% of the species that we've cataloged have gone extinct. The world is subject to all sorts of nasty things, that periodically wipe out most of life.



And the relevance of tides is? Are you suggesting that tidal action on bodies of water is a necessary pre-condition for life on the planet? If there was no moon, a smaller moon, a larger moon, or a closer/further away moon, what would the difference be?

Additionally, what does just right for "our size of bodies of water" even mean? Does this include the Pacific, Lake Victoria and the Caspian Sea?



First insects descended from crustaceans about 475 million years ago. Birds descended from therapod dinosaurs about 150 million years ago.



As insects had been around for ~325 million years by this point, and land arthropods about 375 million years, I don't see any problems here.



Earliest fruiting plants emerged during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.

Are you aware of co-evolution? There is a book 'Birds and Berries' by Barbara Snow, David Snow. Most of it is available on google. It will answer your questions here.



It appears to me that evolution (and geology) has answers to all of these questions, you are just unaware of them, or are refusing to look.
This was beautiful. I'm sorry that it probably won't be read.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Not adaptation actual evolution from one thing into,another.

A bit of friendly advice. You might want to stop before you embarrass yourself.

what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds.[/quotes]

Genetics.

Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?

What sort of rocks are you talking about? The earliest rocks would have been all igneous from which metamorphic rocks would have formed. Some sedimentary rock would have formed from erosion before life got started. After life was around, other sedimentary rock like limestone would have begun forming.

What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds? What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first

Wow, just wow. Do you know what eagles, hawks, secretary birds, herons and penguins eat?

These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution...

Well that's because a number of them, like your questions about geology, have nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps you should learn a little something about the subject before trying to discuss it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They can never answer where the first molecule ever came from and how in some fashion it ever became rocks trees water air life etc. And how did find its way to this round ball floating the precise distance necessary,from THIS sin to be able to produce this incredible nature we have and how our atmosphere was exactly what was needed for this life to grow and become all the things we have in the air on the land and under the see.

Yeah.. you might want to try a different approach to having a discussion. Not sure what would be the best change of course for you, but this isn't working.

Show me a tree turning into an animal or vice versa and I'll be impressed. Or better yet show me an evergreen tree turning into an oak tree.

You appear to have absolutely zero understanding of evolution because those things would actually falsify evolution. Yet again, I suggest learning something about the subject before trying to attack it.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

...Poe? I mean, seriously? Look, "On the Origin of Species" is 157 years old. It's available online, you can read the entire book in full. You obviously didn't get this quote from the original source material, because if you did, you would have read just a sentence further to find that the entire point of the passage is Darwin explaining why this isn't a reasonable argument.

At this point you've been corrected numerous times on your misquotes, and you've pledged to do better, so why didn't you take the extremely basic step of just entering "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances" into google and clicking the very first search result? You could do this with basically any fragment of the quote and find the original source, by the way.

At this point, I'm kind of doubting that you're interested in a good-faith discussion here. You keep repeating the very same mistake over and over and over again. Are you doing it on purpose?

I refuse to believe in evolution.

This is true.

Evolutionists have no answers for my questions ever. They can never answer the how or why.

This is false.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chris B

Old Newbie
Feb 15, 2015
1,432
644
UK
✟27,424.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

Possibly the best-known quote-mining product in the whole history of quote-mining.

And apart from that it shows a common but sad trait on the internet: not checking the sources of quotes borrowed from intermediate sites to see if they are genuine, unaltered and complete.
This one is lacking its utterly critical tail. (edit; as others have already demonstrated. This is WELL KNOWN.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

Yeah, as others have said, a classic dishonest quote.

Doesnt it bother you that you are are using dishonest tactics?
 
Upvote 0

Chris B

Old Newbie
Feb 15, 2015
1,432
644
UK
✟27,424.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Oh I could. I could,post a bunch,of links. But what's the point. I post a bunch of links, you post a bunch of links and we argue over whose links are right etc etc etc. I've been through this too,many times already. You refuse to believe in God, you,refuse to believe in creation and I refuse to believe in evolution.

Evolutionists have no answers for my questions ever. They can never answer the how or why. They can never answer where the first molecule ever came from and how in some fashion it ever became rocks trees water air life etc. And how did find its way to this round ball floating the precise distance necessary,from THIS sin to be able to produce this incredible nature we have and how our atmosphere was exactly what was needed for this life to grow and become all the things we have in the air on the land and under the see. And how did our waters form precisely in the quantities we have to be able to cleanse and water this planet and the difference of salt and fresh water and how did the moon just happen to be just where we need,a to control the tides and gravity precisely what was necessary to hold the waters in place keep the atmosphere from floating off into space. And how did the atmosphere form in just the right amount of ingredients to provide air for all these things and be thick enough to keep the radiation from the sun from killing us? And what about the other planets. Jupiter is the right size and placement to balance the gravitas of the sun and hold the earth in its place so all these miraculous things could occur. Pure dumb blind chance is always The answer.

Yet evolutionists cannot explain any of it really. Because we cannot have a God. God is a myth therefore all this complexity of the universe and life on this planet must have happened by chance and chance alone.

Yet there is zero evidence for macro evolution. And don't even give me the "well this bacteria transformed into this bacteria in a lab." Big whoop. Show me a tree turning into an animal or vice versa and I'll be impressed. Or better yet show me an evergreen tree turning into an oak tree. Pfft... Its all nonsense.

Like Romans says all the glory and power of God is plainly seen in the things made.

With All of this complexity we Will believe in Blind chance even though there is no proof. But we won't believe in a God. Why? Why won't we believe in a God?



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Unbelievable.

"They can never answer where the first molecule ever came from "

Hydrogen and Helium from the big bang, everything else from fusion in stars which later went supernova (thank you, Fred Hoyle.) We are indeed stardust. Also nuclear waste blown clear from failing fusion reactors.
Molecules formed when temperatures dropped below that needed for a plasma state.

"how did the moon just happen to be just where we need,"

You realise it's drifting away, used to be closer?
(and days used to be shorter too!)

"Jupiter is the right size and placement to balance the gravitas of the sun and hold the earth in its place "

Jupiter has an important role in the solar system, certainly. But nothing that it does perfectly. Mopping up loose pieces of rock, mostly, but the history of the earth and moon bear the scars of ones that got away and found us instead.

Who has been feeding you this stuff you quote? They are criminal.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ah, the pathetic old fine tuning argument. Oddly enough, life developed on a planet where the conditions are right for life to develop. Which is why there is life on Earth but not on Venus. There may be a few other planets in our galaxy which happen to have similar conditions and may also have life.

You might as well say that God perfectly designed that puddle to fit precisely into that hole. It's a nonsense argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris B
Upvote 0

Sultan Of Swing

Junior Member
Jan 4, 2015
1,801
787
✟9,476.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )
You know you've really hit a low when you make a dishonest quote that's too far for Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/didnt-darwin-call-the-evolution-of-the-eye-absurd/
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

Thus, the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
It is possible that this cancellation will be explained in terms of some future theory, the vacuum energy involves arbitrary constants, which must be carefully adjusted to make the total vacuum energy small enough for life to be possible
(Steven Weinberg "Life in the Universe")

[The extreme fine tuning of the Universe represents] a cataclysm for physicists, and the only way that we know how to make sense of it is through the reviled and despised Anthropic Principle.
(Leonard Susskind, "the Cosmis Landscape")

I mentioned this before but maybe you didn't spot it, Leonard Susskin makes no mention of 'fine tuning' in the quote you attributed to him, he actually says "The notorious cosmological constant is not quite zero, as it was thought to be. This is a cataclysm and the only way that we know how to make any sense of it is through the reviled and despised Anthropic Principle".

Unlike you, I'll be honest and say upfront that I haven't read Susskind's book, String theory isn't something I can get my head around. I can use google however and Susskind is firmly against the idea that the universe is fine tuned by a benevolent creator. Not only have 'you' misrepresented his views, you have also added religiously loaded terms to the quote that shouldn't be there, is that honest?

This is from an interview with Susskind in American Scientist in which he quotes another of your quote mine victims Steven Weinberg....

"How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific?

I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. "



Did you read that last line? Your quotes in no way help your fine tuning argument, in fact if you understood the sources of the quotes you'd see that they are both much cleverer men than you or I arguing exactly the oppostite!

It's been explained to you why quote mining is dishonest and yet you continue with this behaviour. Do you really feel it helps your case? I suggest you take a moment to think about the tactics you've been using and what having to resort to such tactics implies. This sort of intellectually dishonesty reflects badly on Christians of all types.

 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't think most of us care if you're sorry, we care that you don't do it again. Seriously, at what point are you going to say, "Hmm, maybe I should stop taking these quotes at their word and actually look up the context"? It should have been 15-odd pages ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.