@anthony1312002,
The anti-evolution propaganda that you have copied and pasted has been floating around multiple websites for several years. As rosborne said, the same propaganda has been refuted over and over again.
@rosborne979,
Fair go Ros, copying and pasting is much easier than thinking. Anthony isn't lazy, he's efficient.
@anthony1312002,
Take no notice of ros anthony. He gets out that **** every time a rubber hammer taps his kneecap just below the bone.
He's been doing it so long I shouldn't be surprised if he can do it in his sleep.
@rosborne979,
What a hotly debated subject this. I truly enjoy such discussions because the foster thought. Well, I guess my closing comments can be summed up by what Richard Lewontin stated. He said: "that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
Those are my final thoughts my friends. Take care.
@anthony1312002,
Quote:Those are my final thoughts my friends. Take care.
Before you go would you be kind enough to explain to others why this should not be seen as a cowardly exit to dodge a debate?
Quote:What a hotly debated subject this. I truly enjoy such discussions because the foster thought
If you were being intellectually honest with yourself and others do you think that you would have made the below quote?
Quote:Those are my final thoughts my friends. Take care
@wandeljw,
They come here to preach, not discuss.
@edgarblythe,
At least his last post cited a source....
A lot of odd comments from a lot of folk who do some pretty fancy dancing to avoid some equally contentious issues.
@anthony1312002,
anthony1312002 wrote:If you are to accept the teaching of evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
That's not true. We don't have to believe anything, all we have to do is understand it. And some of us do.
@anthony1312002,
anthony1312002 wrote:
What a hotly debated subject this. I truly enjoy such discussions because the foster thought. Well, I guess my closing comments can be summed up by what Richard Lewontin stated. He said: "that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
Those are my final thoughts my friends. Take care.
....like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, then flies away to brag that it won.
My metaphor is not original. It has also been floating around the internet in "debates" with anti-evolution propagandists.
What appals me most is how casually they lie. He claims not to have been motivated by a creationist world view; he claims he is not religiously motivated. Nevertheless, he cannot long stay away from the subject of religion in, or left out of, science. If you look at his other posts here, he is obviously a deeply religions christian. I've got no problem with that--it's the dishonesty which disgusts me. They lie so casually . . .
And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
Mark, Chapter 14, verses 66-72, in the King James version. Lies like theirs make Baby Jesus cry.
@Setanta,
Quote:The only thing Republicans seem to favor regulating are women's bodies and women's reproductive choices.
That's not even true. It is also meaningless due to the "seem". And the grammar is incorrect so it lacks gallantry by perpetuating firefly's mistakes, weasel words and gross error.
But it also begs the question, indeed it invites it-- who is in favour of no regulation and what would no regulation involve?
Setanta is just soothing himself with specious and spurious platitudes which have no reference to reality.
@rosborne979,
Quote: We don't have to believe anything, all we have to do is understand it. And some of us do.
Oh yeah!! If ros "understands", an unscientific assertion, then why doesn't he explain to me where I am going wrong instead of hiding away from my posts.
He is claiming to be an expert. He understands. You had better believe it or else he won't converse with you. And the site is called Ask an Expert.
Why are ros's assertions more valid than anybody else's assertions?
When somebody claims he understands something are we not entitled to an explanation? Isn't it a dogma otherwise?
@edgarblythe,
Quote:They come here to preach, not discuss.
What do you want to discuss ed? I'm game. Start the ball rolling.
Why do fairies, elves, flying spaghetti monsters etc have nothing to say about regulating sexual behaviour? Are you in favour of the deregulation of sexual behaviour?
Asking you those things is not preaching. Who is preaching here if it isn't you atheists?
@spendius,
You've had your chance spendi. Why not clear the court and make room for someone with something to offer? You have filled hundreds of posting spaces with innocuous blather for years. Frankly, I don't know how even you stand it.
@edgarblythe,
That's innocuous blather ed. Answer the ******* questions eh? Ignorant ranting sits ill on a site called Able to Know.
@spendius,
You ought to know. You are an expert on ignorant ranting. The difference between you and me, I keep mine to a minimum. You want to be a turd stirrer of the first magnitude.
And I have explained before that I come to this topic to read what the well informed have to say, to further my knowledge, for they say what I would say, but from an educated perspective. It is a turn off to wade through the spewing mess that you call counter information, the drivel that can only be called the stuff of trolling. None of it is appreciated or taken seriously by anybody I could name.
@edgarblythe,
I put spendi on Ignore, and peek in once in awhile to challenge his opinions that lacks any content or common sense.
