Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, why do you waste your time with idiotic sources like that? Real sources always link to the source of their original quotes or science. If they don't that odds are that they are lying or quote mining, which as you should know is a form of lying.

They are sort of nice since they give you hundreds of claims that you can post at once. The problem is that the claims are worthless or bogus. For example, Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. That was shown with Social Newtonism, it does not matter if no one uses the term, it still illustrated the logical fallacy of Social Darwinism.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, why do you waste your time with idiotic sources like that? Real sources always link to the source of their original quotes or science. If they don't that odds are that they are lying or quote mining, which as you should know is a form of lying.

They are sort of nice since they give you hundreds of claims that you can post at once. The problem is that the claims are worthless or bogus. For example, Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. That was shown with Social Newtonism, it does not matter if no one uses the term, it still illustrated the logical fallacy of Social Darwinism.

we all know and anticipate the classic "subduction zone dodge" that entails a shallow response regarding sources, however we are fairly certain that you have never read the books, the science journals, and other history documents sourced here today. But thank you for, trying. Now would you please avoid the temptation to dodge every post, and answer with facts please. Now if you were honest you would dig up some quotes to rebut these ones, but nah, your not honest. I can prove it. You told me you were on Christian forums to talk about evolution, yet in earlier posts today you were talking about your unbelief in the Bible, unbelief in Christianity, and unbelief in religion in general. So again, why are you here? We all know that you don't answer fact with fact, it's mainly dodging and hitting below the belt. But just so you know trying to convert people to atheism is taking advantage of the forum leniency policy. Their nice enough to let you post here, but us users don't have to put up with your 100% negative comments. So again, are you here to convert to atheism, or just make fun of Christians? We all know it's one or the other.

Shall I make a deal?

I will lay off of your motives for being here, if you debate honestly and reply with facts.

Answer either the last post regarding the violence trends of darwinism in history with facts/quotes, or answer how other evolutionary mechanisms have proof. Namely macro evolution.

Do you have any evidence of macro evolution?

I have asked this of you and others for 10 years, and no answer. Just dodges.

so, take your time responding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

we all know and anticipate the classic "subduction zone dodge" that entails a shallow response regarding sources, however we are fairly certain that you have never read the books, the science journals, and other history documents sourced here today. But thank you for, trying. Now would you please avoid the temptation to dodge every post, and answer with facts please. Now if you were honest you would dig up some quotes to rebut these ones, but nah, your not honest. I can prove it. You told me you were on Christian forums to talk about evolution, yet in earlier posts today you were talking about your unbelief in the Bible, unbelief in Christianity, and unbelief in religion in general. So again, why are you here? We all know that you don't answer fact with fact, it's mainly dodging and hitting below the belt. But just so you know trying to convert people to atheism is taking advantage of the forum leniency policy. Their nice enough to let you post here, but us users don't have to put up with your 100% negative comments. So again, are you here to convert to atheism, or just make fun of Christians? We all know it's one or the other.

Shall I make a deal?

I will lay off of your motives for being here, if you debate honestly and reply with facts.

Answer either the last post regarding the violence trends of darwinism in history with facts/quotes, or answer how other evolutionary mechanisms have proof. Namely macro evolution.

Do you have any evidence of macro evolution?

I have asked this of you and others for 10 years, and no answer. Just dodges.

so, take your time responding.

If you want me to cooperate you should not lie.

When I use sources they are valid sources. Your source was not valid. How am I supposed to check their quotes?

I tell you what. Think about your last post and post it again without the lies.

When I list a source at least it has links to its sources. That is unless it is settled science. You hardly need a source to confirm g = GM/r^2.

An apology would help too. You should not put on an act of false outrage when you are caught pushing bovine end product.

 

[dad]

When I use sources they are valid sources. ...

'Valid' is a subjective term, and is not restricted to the narrow confines of outdated religious sites falsely called science you like to spam dishonestly.

 

[dad]

You screwed up and did not admit it.

Everybody knows what you are. I will still eventually post the verse, but I am still going to give you a chance to recover a smidgen of respect.

And no, you showed nothing about those verses being from the future. Your lame excuse "If I am wrong then the Bible is false so I must be right" Deja Moo will not fly.

Your claim of a flat eath in the bible is a lie, and your babble about a stationary earth was soundly defeated by showing the clear and actual context of the verses you foolishly offered thinking they supported you. Howl at the moon all you like, that is how it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Valid' is a subjective term, and is not restricted to the narrow confines of outdated religious sites falsely called science you like to spam dishonestly.

No, there is a perfectly good working definition of valid. With a valid source you can check to see if the information given is correct. That book was loaded with quotes and without linkage they are by definition quote mines or lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim of a flat eath in the bible is a lie, and your babble about a stationary earth was soundly defeated by showing the clear and actual context of the verses you foolishly offered thinking they supported you. Howl at the moon all you like, that is how it is.

Wrong and wrong. Only in your poor deluded mind did you show that that supposedly refers to some future state.

One more time, pick a verse that I supplied from the Old Testament. Without any blasphemous retranslation show that it refers to a future state. It has to be clear, it has to be in context.

dad, you have never ever defeated anyone, you have been defeated many many times. Hop to it.

 

[dad]

No, there is a perfectly good working definition of valid. With a valid source you can check to see if the information given is correct. That book was loaded with quotes and without linkage they are by definition quote mines or lies.

There are many sites that use quotes from scientists. Before calling it all lies, which is a term you bandy about wildly in every second post or so almost it seems, why not quit squawking and check it out or be quiet?

If I see a site that says Dr so and so, on page 64 of a certain book said such and such, I might check if there was such a book or such a Dr etc. If you find that there really was not, and that the quote was truly not there fine. Meanwhile find a cork.

 

[dad]

Wrong and wrong. Only in your poor deluded mind did you show that that supposedly refers to some future state.

Again you display stunning ignorance of the most basic concepts. The time when God will reign on earth is prophesied all through Scripture, and is easy to recognize.

Trying to take something out of time and context to supposedly support some whiny little blasphemous railing accusation against the Almighty God and His word is a knavish endeavor, and one that is easily dispelled by the light of Scripture wielded by one who does so honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many sites that use quotes from scientists. Before calling it all lies, which is a term you bandy about wildly in every second post or so almost it seems, why not quit squawking and check it out or be quiet?

If I see a site that says Dr so and so, on page 64 of a certain book said such and such, I might check if there was such a book or such a Dr etc. If you find that there really was not, and that the quote was truly not there fine. Meanwhile find a cork.

dad, you are wrong again. I don't use the word "lie" wildly. I use it when someone has been shown to be lying. Quote mining is lying. Creationists make a regular practice of it. In fact most of the so called "300 prophecies" of Jesus are actually quote mines. They are verses taken out of context. And in case you did not know what a quote mine is here is an example of one:

"The Bible says 'There is no God' Psalms 14:1"

Now if you check out that quote you will see that it is correct. You will also see that it is out of context. That makes it a quote mine or a lie. Since creationists have been caught quote mining scientists time after time there is a rule that they must provide links to the source or what they have is a quote mine until they prove otherwise. In general, in any debate, if a person quotes his foe he must provide a valid link. If I quote the Bible I must provide a link or at the very least a verse number that can easily be looked up.


Meanwhile you use the word "lie" wildly. You use it whenever you disagree with someone about the Bible but cannot make your case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again you display stunning ignorance of the most basic concepts. The time when God will reign on earth is prophesied all through Scripture, and is easy to recognize.

Trying to take something out of time and context to supposedly support some whiny little blasphemous railing accusation against the Almighty God and His word is a knavish endeavor, and one that is easily dispelled by the light of Scripture wielded by one who does so honestly.

No, only crazy people think that. Prophesies of the future have to be clear otherwise they are worthless as prophesy. That is what Nostradamus did, he wrote thousands of vague prophesies. Given enough time they seem to have come true. You again try to devalue the prophesies of the Bible and make them no better than those of a two bit Italian "prophet".

Good job dad, you just debunked your own beliefs.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you want me to cooperate you should not lie.

When I use sources they are valid sources. Your source was not valid. How am I supposed to check their quotes?

I tell you what. Think about your last post and post it again without the lies.

When I list a source at least it has links to its sources. That is unless it is settled science. You hardly need a source to confirm g = GM/r^2.

An apology would help too. You should not put on an act of false outrage when you are caught pushing bovine end product.

every quote was posted with a book, article, or scientific publication name, author and date.

Are you telling me because it didn't originate in a webpage that it's not scientific?

Please, another dodge.

So my quotes are just fine

secondly according to one of your own atheist webpages, when you ask for valid sources you are committing a

"argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument... Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

thirdly, you have no evidence my sources (some from scientific publications) are not valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

every quote was posted with a book, article, or scientific publication name, author and date.

This Bible verse is properly referenced.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

I guess David was an atheist, right?

 

[createdtoworship]

This Bible verse is properly referenced.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

I guess David was an atheist, right?

well according to subduction zone, the quote in your signature is not valid, because it is not linked to an internet site from where it came.

When I list a source at least it has links to its sources.

you can easily see how silly the claim is.

besides, I did post the site from where they came.

(what he means is every example to trace it out and see if it is legitimate, however that part is done in lue of the citation itself), if he doesn't agree with the citation, then he needs to dig it up and give a reason why. We won't do his homework for him.

 

[Loudmouth]

well according to subduction zone, the quote in your signature is not valid, because it is not linked to an internet site from where it came.

You didn't even address my post.

This Bible verse is properly referenced.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

I guess David was an atheist, right?

(what he means is every example to trace it out and see if it is legitimate, however that part is done in lue of the citation itself), if he doesn't agree with the citation, they he needs to dig it up and give a reason why. We won't do his homework for him.

If you are the one using a quote, it is YOUR job to make sure the quote is in context. That is YOUR homework. Given the number of times you have used out of context quotes to twist the words of others, you do not have our trust, nor do you deserve it.

 

[createdtoworship]

You didn't even address my post.

This Bible verse is properly referenced.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

I guess David was an atheist, right?

sorry that is a quote out of context, and we know this from the whole of the Bible, but that is not the point.

If you are the one using a quote, it is YOUR job to make sure the quote is in context. That is YOUR homework. Given the number of times you have used out of context quotes to twist the words of others, you do not have our trust, nor do you deserve it.

so then these quotes on a atheist site are invalid, because he didn't go and check everyone and post his results?

Great quotes

or this site:

http://www.askatheists.com/atheist-quotes

or these:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/atheism

even talk origins has not "quote mine proofed" their quotations of thomas paine on this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

secondly, it's the job of the citation that does that, whoever disagrees needs to do their homework and find out why the citation is flawed, talk origins has a quote mine project where the do this nearly every day. Quote Mine Project: Contents
Now I know you can do it to. So guys, do your homework.

 

[Loudmouth]

sorry that is a quote out of context, and we know this from the whole of the Bible, but that is not the point.

It is the point.

Those words come from Psalm 14:1, and they are properly referenced. According to you, that makes it a valid quote.

so then these quotes on a atheist site are invalid, because he didn't go and check everyone and post his results?

It is YOUR job to make sure the quotes YOU use are in context. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you against personal responsibility?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is the point.

Those words come from Psalm 14:1, and they are properly referenced. According to you, that makes it a valid quote.




It is YOUR job to make sure the quotes YOU use are in context. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you against personal responsibility?

again, see my last post it's updated, in order to make this claim you have to accept that even talk origins and other websites are invalid that submit online quotations with simple citation and not proof of non quotemining.

now in order to be intellectually honest I want you to contact those site webmasters and tell them the same thing you told me, and get back to me. Then I will know you are serious. The hoops that are good enough for me to jump through are also good enough for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

every quote was posted with a book, article, or scientific publication name, author and date.

Are you telling me because it didn't originate in a webpage that it's not scientific?

Please, another dodge.

So my quotes are just fine

secondly according to one of your own atheist webpages, when you ask for valid sources you are committing a

"argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument... Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it."

Common fallacies

thirdly, you have no evidence my sources (some from scientific publications) are not valid.

This is the internet age. There is no excuse for using that sort of source. You want others to do your homework for you. Again, use proper sources.

 

[Loudmouth]

again, see my last post it's updated, in order to make this claim you have to accept that even talk origins and other websites are invalid that submit online quotations with simple citation and not proof of non quotemining.

now in order to be intellectually honest I want you to contact those site webmasters and tell them the same thing you told me, and get back to me. Then I will know you are serious. The hoops that are good enough for me to jump through are also good enough for you.

Do you understand the concept of trust?

Of all the quotes that I have checked on talkorigins, they check out. They are accurate representations of the material they come from. To my knowledge, no one has found a single quote at talkorigins that is taken seriously out of context.

Can the same be said for the quotes you have given us? Absolutely not. The quotes you post are taken way out of context. They are lies. You and the sites you copy and paste from have given us zero reasons to trust them, and every reason to distrust them.

Do you understand this concept of trust? Do you understand why your behavior in the past gives us zero incentive to trust you?

Also, given your ability to lie about things that can be easily checked, what trust do you think people should have in your ability to truthfully describe God, or anything for that matter?