Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you wish to dispute the accuracy of those quotes, I think the burden of research is on you.
I claim that Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe." Now you disprove my assertion.
I was not responding to your post. It is InformedConsent who is trying to lie their way out of admitting they copied and pasted quote mines from a religious website.
I'm not playing your deceitful Einstein quote mining game - it's well known that if anything, he was a pantheist not a theist or even a deist.
This would only be true if you stole the quote from a second hand source.
Of course. Both honest anthologies and dishonest ones... like the one you cut and pasted from.
It's an amazing coincidence that the first 3 quote mines were from the exact same people in the exact same order as the godandscience and y-origins websites.
It's an amazing coincidence that the first 3 quote mines were from the exact same people in the exact same order as the godandscience and y-origins websites.
What are the odds of that?
Oh... I offer no odds. God does not play dice with the quote miners.
Creationists begin with a poorer reputation than atheists (or at least they should). This is because of a long history of crap arguments from creationists defending creationism, such as your earlier statements that at least creationists have an explanation for how things came to be (which they don't) and your earlier statement that the more honest path is the "I'm not sure" path, which is creationism (your removing atheists from the "I'm not sure" club, but letting creationists remain is crap).
If you, at some point in the future, type a statement agreeing that those two above ideas you formerly expressed are indeed crap, that alone would raise your credibility level in my eyes...but that's not really important to me or expected.
Wow, so much there in such a short paragraph. First, if you are assuming that my arguments are based on creationism, you haven't been paying very close attention, as I have made that point abundantly clear that they are not. Secondly, such an overtly biased prejudice regarding your perceived poor reputation of creationists is not very objective, nor reasonable, since it assumes that ALL creationists believe the exact same things. Just like evolutionists have differences of opinions relative to evolution as a whole theory, suffice it to say that the same can be said of creationists ... and even more differences (dramatic) between creationism and ID.
That said, moving on, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt here about your misunderstanding (rather than assume a deliberate distortion) of my point about "at least creationist have and explanation ....". I made the statement in the context of fraudulent claims that evolution disproved creation when it doesn't even address the point of origin of life. Creationists do offer an explanation, while evolution does not. Far from crap ... it is simply a true statement, and at the risk of the dreaded "penalty box" you'll have evolved into a fossil long before I retract. The main point of my entire position is encapsulated in that accurate statement .. that point being that evolution cannot "disprove" something that it doesn't even address ... that being the "origin of living matter"
Furthermore, I did no such thing as you suggest about the "I don't know" answer. For crying out lound man ... make some bloody sense ... think beforw reacting. The question of "how did life come into existence" is the question ... of course the creationist answer is God, and not "I don't know". And I haven't addressed what an atheist might answer when posed that question, for all I know the answer might be "who cares".
The operative point was, tying back to the evolutionists claim of disproving creation without actually addressing the most important point ... the orgin of life ... was that those within evolutionists circles should do as the Intelligent Design crowd does in response to that question, which can only be legitimately answered as "I don't know"!!! But that's not what evolutionists do ... what they do, by direct insinuation in claiming to disprove creation is to answer that question "we don't address the origin of life, but we are certain that it wasn't created".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Point #2: I don't know much about evolution. (Naturally I don't need to in order to shoot down crap arguments like, "Dur...you were created. Therefore you needed a creator. Also, I'm going to go spin in circles for ten minutes, because it's fun to get dizzy, until I vomit all over the floor and feel horrible for an hour, then forget about all the bad parts and start spinning in circles and puking all over the floor again...")
I think if one desires to formulate an informed opinion, then learning about both sides is essential. Certainly, one should at least become familiar with the basics of their own accepted theory before blindly accepting it based on a perception of fault of another opinion. That doesn't make the slight bit of sense. As for the spinning and vomiting, that makes even less sense, and I have no idea what your point was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Therefore, I'm interested in learning more about your ideas. I'm particularly interested in the following sections of your above statements:
My objections are based on facts, and my personal analysis of all available data, some of which I have already mentioned. The idea that genetic mutation and natural selection accounts for all of the diversity of life, plant and animal alike is antithetical to raw common sense, when placed in the context of less complexity mutating into more complex forms, due to the inherent nature of genetic mutation being "subtractive" rather than additive.
The mutation spoken of with genes is most often an error in transcription, which for whatever reason, the corrective mechansims in place fail to correct the error. When this happens, the damaged portion of the code is discarded (subtracting from the information). You cannot expect to move from less complexity, to greater complexity, by subtraction. And there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that such subtractive mutations have ever given rise to an entirely new and different species, let alone account for the countless billions of difgering species of fish, fowl, mammal, and vegetation, with such dramatic biological structural functions.
Do you know of any sources that can further explain this? I've looked for information about DNA losing information after mutations, but it's difficult to find what I'm searching for. I don't know what key words to use, or the terminology for your mentioned loss of genetic information through mutation.
Thanks. If your sources don't make any sense, I'll probably insult you, and place you into the Harrier category. It's a fairly long term penalty box
I would start by looking on YouTube .. I've seen a few very good animated videos of the DNA replication process ... there are similar videos on the functions of living cells, and of cell division.
That will keep you busy for a while, and time well spent. Then you'll be able to discuss the matter in more depth, and understand the answers to questions, even if you don't agree with them. Of course, that requires a lot of work and thinking ... which a number of folks apparently find to much of a burden.
Or, you could just take the easy path, continue operating under false perceptions, and misunderstanding, and cast insults. Your choice ... it's a free country and you have a right to remain blissfully uninformed, or embrace the purpose of your life which is to learn and grow!.
Yes, and I would cite the book/source if I used it as a source.
What's your problem with providing a link to the source of your quote mines?
Do you have even the slightest clue how mind numbing it is to engage in this "source" argumen, rather than address the information itself? You can always identify the non-thinkers by their inane preoccupation with the messenger instead of the message.
And, do you realize that no matter who reports or posts or makes available certain informantion, if it's a quote from Shakespear ... the bloody freaking obvious "source" is SHAKESPERE!! The entity, website or book containing the quote is not the "source".
This is a modern day affliction .... this inane preoccupation with who reported a thing rather than what is being reported. It really is a demonstration of mindlessness.
What if the Christain Science Monitor reported that the Sun was going to rise tomorrow? Would you automatically react ... "ehh ... pssst ... sure it will. And I'm supposed to believe what those religious nuts claim?'
This is the mindless nature of "what's your source" and "got a link?".
There is no first hand knowledge or accounts - except the Bible (IMO).
Hebrews 11:3 -By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Everything else is man made theories and explanations.
Christianity does not have to prove that "God created". It is taken by faith.
The hallucination of parity between those ideas is at best an expression of profound ignorance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
