150 years of evolution mantra PART ONE

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Coup d'état, Dec 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Uhh, because he refuses to stop saying things that he knows are not true. He knows they are not true because, if he didn't know such things, that would put his IQ right around 55. I'm willing to, at this point, give him more credit than that and just call him on his dishonesty.
    test
  2. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    But how can you claim what he is saying isn't true? I mean what evidence do you have other then the fact you claim it isn't true?

    or it that to hard of a burden to prove the truth to be wrong?
    test
  3. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I understand this was not directed at me, however, I couldn't help but look at the link and as a result felt compelled to reply.


    An incredible statement without any factual evidence whatsoever, is it because none exists which would support such a claim?

    This statement is absolutely absurd.

    I’m quite astounded at the increasing amount of deceit in this argument. Is he really trying to assert that the diverse and specific fields of science, especially those pertaining to researching the theory of evolution, are devoid of any facts as being an absolute truth? I’m honestly speechless. In the preceding paragraph he contradicts himself when stating that just because one theory may well replace another by correctly interpreting data where the latter didn’t, it does not make the facts pertaining to said theory “go away”. Then in the following paragraph, presumably in an effort to conceal the discrepancy, he makes the ridiculous statement that, “Apples might start to rise tomorrow…” The audacity is quite remarkable. I am questioning whether I really want to continue reading the rest of this duplicitous presentation of such a flawed and fantastical argument. I will most certainly be emailing this gentleman to express my stern disapproval and encourage him to repent.

    This is another complete and utter untruth which is deceptively hidden within a minor actuality. It should instead read, “How far we are from completely establishing the theory of evolution as fact.”

    I would rather not comment on the dishonest Dobzhansky. I will simply say that yet again, the author of this deceptive argument quotes another complete and utter untruth. We could, however, insert micro at the beginning of the first sentence and omit no from the second to present a factual statement.

    Many quotes come to mind when reading this. The first, quite suitably, belonging to a propaganda technique used by Adolf Hitler, although I feel compelled to quote the more appropriate variation of it: “If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap.” At least this quote is true.
    test
  4. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    More claims completely devoid of any evidence.

    I was beginning to think it was beyond him but at last we have some truth. If no life at all existed on an earth that too did not exist 250 million years ago that would undoubtedly include birds and mammals.

    Without any valid syllogism he makes such an incredible presumption it simply beggars belief. Which begs the question, were you quite serious when you linked this page or is it an attempt at sarcasm? I am assuming the latter.

    Yet again we have more deceit dwelling amongst truth. Poor propaganda tactics that will not elude me, I only pray he fails at fooling others.

    I can only surmise that the motive behind the considerable effort to establish how life evolves, on a macro level, is to try and make it a reality and/or to distract from the fact that it is still just a theory as it most certainly is not undisputed fact that macroevolution exists or has ever existed. Perhaps some of the more peculiar propositions purported as to the motives and objectives of such ambitions have some truth or at the very least may not seem so strange in comparison.
    test
  5. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    A correct interpretation as that is exactly what it is. A proposition based on select interpretation of data, that different species have indeed evolved from one common ancestor.

    Please, let us see the Oxford English definition.

    “A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something…”

    And not subscribing to said supposition (see hypothesis) makes me unknowledgeable and biased? I would beg to differ.

    More incorrect assertions evidenced by contradictions within the same quote. Quite remarkably we have more deception embedded in actualities. Fortunately we’re not easily fooled.

    I sincerely pray that there are very few readers of such deceptive newsgroups. Opposition to claims absent of factual evidence should in fact be commended. Admission of microevolution is simply accepting the evidence as it presents itself, but before you can even finish the sentence you resort to misrepresenting the facts yet again: Microevolution can be demonstrated. I would very much like to see the author’s explanation of how evidence supporting microevolution equates to evidence of macroevolution. I can assure you I fully understand the argument, but I will not share your duplicitous representation of said argument.

    We have a rare truth presented by the otherwise deceptive author in the first sentence. Only to be followed by another false one.

    To be simple yet concise: The demonstrable facts support microevolution. The hypothesis which can be accurately described as circumstantial is macroevolution. The rest of the paragraph has already been addressed.

    “Less strong” should read as non-existent. Would you have me believe that due to lack of evidence opposing your lack of evidence, I should subscribe to your hypothesis? Rhetorical question, I apologize.

    Philosophy need not be involved in this debate to support or refute your preposterous claims. You’ve already espoused your belief that evolution is a fact, yet purported that no such fact as it is defined exists in science, and now conceding that even if it approached 99.9999…9% probability it still will not be accepted as fact. The contradictions are remarkable and I’m again chastising myself for having read this far. I could have quoted your last sentence alone, without context, to employ some of the detestable tactics you so viciously use.
    test
  6. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    A fact, as we will kindly exhibit for your perusal, is:

    fact [fakt]
    noun

    1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears haveno basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travelis now a fact.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
    5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event orcircumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect orconsequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.


    The silliness exists in your argument, sir. That is if it’s not pure deception.

    The scientist’s role is invariably different to the philosopher’s which is different again to the theologist. Regardless of this, a fact is a fact, a theory is a theory, a theory is not a fact and evolution is a theory. The distinction is quite clear and now you would have us throw speculation and principle in amongst your absurd and convoluted attempt to stupefy others. The comparisons made, and complete disregard for defining characteristics are abhorrent to say the least. I pray this was not an attempt to deceive others and instead the fruit of your own deception and/or misunderstanding. You may well live to see your universe shake, perhaps if already deceased, you know better than I.

    To be quite frank, I find the content of this page beyond remarkable. It is surely an attempt on your behalf to solicit an irrational reaction or to perhaps draw comparisons between the proponents of each theory. If the former, I applaud you as I am rather concerned and will be contacting the author of this duplicitous misrepresentation.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Cool man. Ima take a trip up that way again. I stopped in vancover on the way to alaska few yeara ago but wasnt there long enough to really do much there. I been thinking bout takin my girl down there so if we do that ima deff hit u up.
    test
  8. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Quote: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.


    Dead*


    Rises again*
    test
  9. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    ahahaha:word:
    test
  10. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Now you're exhibiting gross intellectual dishonesty. Has it become airborne and contagious??:funny:
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    The thread title should be changed to "watch Nightmares sources of information get obliterated in two posts from eashya"
    test
  12. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Good for you.
    test
  13. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    Nightmare X know's in his heart that god is real he just REFUSES to accept...
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well thats not relevent to the convo either:eek:fftopic:
    test
  15. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    The ironies of your insubstantial replies are quite frankly amusing, if not noteworthy.

    Your statement could most appropriately be applied to the argument presented in the link you posted. Although, I suppose considering there was hardly any semblance of intellectual discourse or honesty, I suppose not.
    test
  16. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,439
    Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist from Oxford, and one of the world's most influential intellectuals, isn't without reason nicnamed Darwin's rotweiler. He argues that the only real reason why we exist, is because of evolution and natural selection, mankind has created intelligent design, however it wasn't created by God or a combination of circumstances, such as is mispresented by theists.

    Dawkins in his book The God Delusion initially rejected the hypothesis of God. As a deeply religious unbeliever, God does not exist for him as a scientist and allows only a negligible possibility that he is wrong, the difference between science and religion is simply that science is based on evidence, rational reasoning, whilst religion is based on blind faith in a bearded guy who lives high in the clouds, so to speak.

    For the existence of God there is no conclusive (scientific) evidence, the arguments of Thomas Aquinas do not apply, same goes for the ontological argument, arguments of ones own experience and reasoning, and certainly most clearly nor the arguments of the Bible. Four (selected) Gospels are of the same meaning for Dawkins, as they were explained in The Da Vinci Code: "The only difference is that The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction, whilst gospels are ancient fiction."

    And of course, the first book is now a part of pop culture, while the Bible has had more than 2000 years of fatal impact on human society, although their influence does't mean that it's genuine.

    Dawkins in his much expected tone, dissects the Old Testament, and genocidal atrocity stories in it. Attacks, including the census of Jesus' life, but also recognizes that the New Testament contains some acceptable moral guidance than its predecessor. However, he isn't too impressed by the fairytales. Jesus had to be severly irreverent in his attitude towards his mother, but also disrespectful to the family's of his pupils, since he asked them to leave their homes and follow him. This is identical to what the some of the "new age cults" require.

    It can also interfere with the original sin: "What is ethical philosophy can condemn unborn children to adistant ancestor of sin?" By the way, love your neighbor password was once meant to love each Jew. Love one, those of others, and does not require ... And who are the biggest victims of delusion Dawkins called God? Children. However, not only because of sexual abuse, there are even worse: "Sexual abuse is clearly a horrific act, which in long-term causes a child less damage than a Catholic education in itself ..."

    There is no evidence for the existence of God, there are only ideological worlds, people who're caught in them, and institutions that abuse them. There's also a small pot&pan that politics likes to put out. If there are people in the U.S. that are whispering to the president President that »God says for the U.S. to attack Iraq, I see no good reason that would't alsobe the case in other countries, where individuals whisper to politicians about »God« should get it's »deserved place in society, as is fitting«.

    The only problem is that no one actually knows who this »supposed true God« is and that such politics probably won't be reading Richard Dawkins's book God Delusion. I've read the book on one of my vacay/business trips to Thailand, and I do recommend it to all.
    test
  17. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,439
    The same reason I now can lawfully call you a plagiator, who likes to flaunt with other's work.

    test
  18. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    U
    here ill save eshaya the trouble on this one
    Dr. Frank Turek Shreds Richard Dawkins Book “The God Delusion” | Highest Quality Resveratrol Supplements
    test
  19. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    If an atheist believes that the current used definition of god is incorrect and its not a benevolent being or cognitive being

    but thinks that "god" could be a force in physics that hasnt been discovered yet, such as a molecule that adds a new number to a current physics formula or a new force such as (for arguments sake) "pure energy"

    are they still atheists?
    test
  20. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    pathetic, I see that you too are falling to the dumbshit side...
    look man, i don't know where you guys are getting the science you're refuting from, but all of it seems to be 20+ years old, ALL of the shit you cite as having no factual evidence, actually does now have factual evidence, if you are willing to learn, I don't even ask that you accept it, but, please, watch this video, from NOVA (I know, the devil ahhh!!) but, it at least explains, pretty precisely where the "theory" of evolution CURRENTLY stands, and all of the ACTUAL, under a microscope, in the lab evidence, they now have for it, not the bullshit you idiots are still refuting, but things like...

    this just happened to be on tv a couple days ago
    I honestly think that the airing of this episode recently is so coincidental that I'm taking it as a sign from a higher power to give you the facts you've all been denying in a fairly quick bundle

    EMBRYONIC vestigiality in many different creatures, from snakes to whales to chickens and people (gills that turn to inner ear bones)
    the exploration of the 1% difference in the DNA sequence between man and chimp, some of the actual pieces experimented with

    blue reference coded dna of the different pieces, put in a mouse embryo, show up in multiple places, including the thumbs, big toes, and jawline muscle structure

    how the tiny bits of dna differing can come about to such large changes
    there are three types of dna, and just a couple letters difference in the "Stuff, Switch, or Control" sequences drastically change

    the ONLY differences in our and chimps DNA is in the switches, what genes is expressed when and for how long in the development

    how mutations naturally occur throughout even your lifetime alone in yourself
    how the act of dna combing through reproduction leads to new species

    THE MISSING LINK! not between chimps and humans (we've already found skeletons with manskulls, apish hips and hands/feet...that's the missing link you fucks deny)...but
    between marine and land mammals, yea, the fish with legs, dating back to when mammals started emerging, and the DNA evidence linking them to the paddlefish (still around because shit doesn't evolve like pokemon what a thing came from CAN be around at the same time, and even after the thing it's become)

    Explains how and why having less dna is actually more efficient because a large amount is junk dna that is turned off (we all have a damaged, missing letters, muscular dystrophy gene, but a switch is keeping it off)

    it shows how the SAME sequence of structure DNA is turned on by the same switch, but just slightly altered by a couple letter mutation in the control part (when the gene functions and for how long embryonically) makes the whole difference between a FIN and and ARM AND HAND


    seriously, watch that shit, and at least learn what you dumb motherfuckers should be trying to refute
    your cult-creationist agenda is about 20 years old...same as the science you use
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)