|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2010 : 07:11:00 [Permalink]
|
| Are you going to answer my post on dating or not? |
 |
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 07:25:01 [Permalink]
|
| Filthy, that picture you displayed is very offensive to me, (Im not a subscriber to PC so display as you will, just letting you know that i dont like it)even if it is a modified catholic version. ( im www.hillsong.com ) What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 07:40:47 [Permalink]
|
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 08:57:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Are you going to answer my post on dating or not? |
Are you going to address my answer to your post on dating or not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 09:13:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
You are only demonstrating here your ignorance of what a "transitional fossil" is. Your claim, that a transitional fossil is "a record of part of the transition from a lower evolved species to another" is factually wrong, and despite careful correction, you cling desperately to the lie you've been taught. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 09:30:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional.
|
Matt36, FYI...read CC200 Transitional Fossils at the Talk Origins "Creationist's Claims. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 09:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
This is the mantra of the creationist. Because once he admits that a whale with legs, or a dinosaur with feathers, or one of the hundreds of other transitional's that do exist are transitional, it's game over. Matt can't go there. We could parade obvious transitional's in front of him for ever, and he will never admit to what they are.
The number of fakes and frauds (and actually, I can only think of one. The others were mistakes as far as I know and mostly due to the fact that they were not examined by qualified scientists) can be counted on one hand, and every one of them was discovered not by creationists but by evolutionary scientists. And that's against literally thousands of fossils that are considered clearly transitional.
Also, Matt probably accepts forensic science when it is used to catch criminals, but simply rejects it when it challenges his belief in his literal take of Genesis. He does accept "proof" of that which was not directly witnessed, accept for when it is not convenient for him to do so. Otherwise, he should also be pushing to have the results of criminal science investigations removed as evidence and let a whole lot of people out of prison because they were wrongly imprisoned.
Matt Is too closed minded to consider the facts. Plus he is under the false impression that people like Henry Morris or Ken Ham would not lie.
Here are some links for you to look at Matt. I doubt that you will, but I must at least make the attempt to educate you on the subject so that I can further my case that you are simply too far gone to consider what is right in front of your face.
List of transitional fossils
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils.
I could go on but Matt will not care. Creationists prefer to keep themselves unencumbered by the facts.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 10:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Matt:
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
This is the mantra of the creationist. Because once he admits that a whale with legs, or a dinosaur with feathers, or one of the hundreds of other transitional's that do exist are transitional, it's game over. Matt can't go there. We could parade obvious transitional's in front of him for ever, and he will never admit to what they are.
Matt Is too closed minded to consider the facts. Plus he is under the false impression that people like Henry Morris or Ken Ham would not lie.
Here are some links for you to look at Matt. I doubt that you will, but I must at least make the attempt to educate you on the subject so that I can further my case that you are simply too far gone to consider what is right in front of your face.
List of transitional fossils
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils.
I could go on but Matt will not care. Creationists prefer to keep themselves unencumbered by the facts.
|
 |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 11:23:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. (re funny cartoon)
|
I think the cartoon represents your line of reasoning fairly well. Remember that you have also written:
| It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 13:13:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by matt36
What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. (re funny cartoon)
|
I think the cartoon represents your line of reasoning fairly well. Remember that you have also written:
| It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. |
|
There is no global flood in the geological record.
But hey...
Yeah. The whole creationist thing is an attempt to force fit the evidence to fit the biblical version of creation. Their science is almost non-existent and consists mainly of attacking those particulars of science that threatens their version of religion.
It’s grossly dishonest. But what has always intrigued me about it is how they diminish their all-powerful God. They interpret their bible in a way that puts God into a box of their own creation by insisting that there can be only their interpretation of Genesis, and all others are wrong. So even from a theological standpoint they are on very shaky ground. The moment they agreed that the earth revolves around the sun, they took that part of the creation and made it allegorical. So some parts are to be taken literally, and some parts, not so much.
For example, God made the light of day and the darkness of night on the first day “1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” But he didn’t get around to creating the light of the Sun and the Moon, to light up day, and to a lesser extent, the night, until the fourth day. That's what it says in the bible. But the moon is not a light. It only reflects the light of the sun and the earth. Plus, the moon is often visible in the daytime and sometimes not at night at all. So if you take chapter four of Genesis literally, God messed up!
He created the heavens, also meaning the stars. And while doing that he created trillions of stars and galaxies that couldn’t be seen without the aid of a telescope. Why would he do that?
In the meantime, on the third day, he created the fruit trees and grasses and such. They depend on the as-of-yet-non-existent sun for nourishment. And so on…
Just throw all of your science books away. Because if you use the Genesis story as a literal history of creation, everything we have ever learned about nature is wrong. The version of the Christian God that Matt believes in (there are other Christians who see Genesis as allegorical) is asking us to not use the brains that God supposedly gave us. To subscribe in a literal take of Genesis is to be willfully ignorant, and with people like Matt, to defend that ignorance in the face of all of our accumulated knowledge.
Pathetic…
But hey, Matt thinks he knows the mind of God. And even though there are warnings in the bible about doing that sort of thing, he is willing to go out on that limb…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2010 : 13:49:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. |
That's your say-so. But I think you're full of shit, and hence I don't take your word for it.
But I do like to see EVIDENCE for your claims. If you can give me a reasonable explanation to your position, I'm willing to consider it. I don't want to be wrong, so I'm prepared to change my mind if the evidence and the reasoning is sound enough.
But you just wave your hands... You don't give us anything of substance.
No proof exists for a transitional.
|
Here you go again with that word... "Proof"
Didn't we tell you that "proof" and science don't belong together? Are you intellectually impaired since you continuously fail to understand what we are telling you?
A theory have evidence backing it up, making it a more reasonable explanation than competing hypothesis.
If you go to wikipedia's evolution article and make a word search for "proof" you'll get zero hits. That's because the concept of "proof" is not applicable to science.
But as long as you demand absolute truth, and absolute proof, you will fail to understand science. And you will continue to wallow in ignorance.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 14:25:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Filthy, that picture you displayed is very offensive to me, |
Your refusal to read(?) and comment on the evidence we have presented in links and quotes from reliable sources is very offensive to me. Especially in the light of you just keep writing falsehoods when we have already pointed them out to you as false, and given you the opportunity to educate yourself on them.
Consider the birdie-jesus tit-for-tat.
| Im not a subscriber to PC so display as you will, just letting you know that i dont like it |
At least you understand the importance of freedom of speech, expression, and religion. That's more than some of your fellow believers-in-Christ. I give you credit for that.
What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation.
|
Here's something else you don't seem to understand. Let me explain it to you:
First of all, science is not a "teaching" comparable to the teachings of your bible. Science is a method of collecting knowledge about the natural world. It's a process that we use to figure out how stuff works. Scientific knowledge is a body of information that is always undergoing revision as new evidence comes in. Our understanding of the scientific process have made us come to the conclusion that science is the best method to learn about our world. As such, we are partial to science. But to call it prejudice is misguided. Our experience is our guide when choosing between science or divine revelation, for acquiring knowledge. Science rocks and faith sucks.
Secondly, Filthy has no need to demean opposing views of science. Religious doctrine (like the literal interpretation of Genesis or other parts of the bible) is demeaning by its very existence: It forces you to hold views contradictory to reality, and denies you your right, and your duty, to question what you're being told.
Believing in fairy tales and fantasizing is all good and well and can serve some purpose, but when you start acting upon them in the real world despite contradictory evidence, you're in trouble. That's when religious people get pathetic all by themselves, with no help from anyone. I even think that's the very definition of being delusional (of course I may be wrong on that, I have no formal education in psychology).
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 15:11:37 [Permalink]
|
Matt36.....
| Filthy, that picture you displayed is very offensive to me, (Im not a subscriber to PC so display as you will, just letting you know that i dont like it)even if it is a modified catholic version. ( im www.hillsong.com ) What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. |
Matt I'm delighted at the offense that you take to Filthy's delightful portrait of Jesus giving the world the finger. The fact that you don't like it is a perfect validation of idiocy of your creationist beliefs. What's not to like? It is a perfect mockery of a preposterous myth. God says he loves you, but all he does is fuck you over. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is no god, and bad things happen to people without any supernatural causation or protection. Capisce? |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 15:23:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
I say: "The sum of all my memories between 1959 and 1970 is that the 1960's definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. Further, there are gaps in historical records, therefore history is bunk."
Now show me how that statement is even one iota more irrational and pigheaded that what you wrote.
matt36, you either refuse to read the scientific material that has been handed to you on silver platter, or you refuse to accept science because of your religious prejudices, or you are deliberately lying for your god, or you are harbor some kind of crazy-quilt combination of the above in lieu of rational thinking.
You are not engaging people here in a dialog, but instead poking your fingers in your ears while continuing a monologue of standard and long-demolished Creationist falsehoods.
Scientists and critical thinkers stand on the shoulders of giants and reach toward the stars. You are standing on the shoulders of the likes of Kent Hovind and can't even reach the bars over his cell window.
Nobody here seriously thinks any longer that you will do some reading and thinking of your own. The only reason anyone here bothers trying to argue with you is to expose your Creo nonsense to the many casual lurkers we get here. We recognize that if you ever had an original critical thought in your head, you'd run to a preacher to have yourself exorcised. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/01/2010 15:39:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
