Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[rusra02]

Yes you did, but you must know by now how creationists work.

It's an essential part of the creationist modus operandi to make what they think is a killer point, have it taken apart and its absurdity exposed, then to put it back into storage for a while until it's judged safe to bring it out again.

If creationists didn't do this they'd quickly run out of material: there are only so many scientists' quotes you can distort.

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context, but anyone who reads them for themselves can determine the truth. Evolutionists seem to think if you quote an evolutionist making a statement of fact, that fact is not repeatable. Why? Because the person making it believes in evolution. Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted. That's utter nonsense, but part of the evolutionist propaganda arsenal. I'm sure many scientists and others sincerely believe in evolution, especially since no other explanation for life is taught in schools, and especially not the evidence for creation. Get ready for a quote, fellas:
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place- and in recent years this has ned to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82 p.19
No wonder many evolutionists so fanatically attack anyone who dares question their faith.

 

[McBell]

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context, but anyone who reads them for themselves can determine the truth. Evolutionists seem to think if you quote an evolutionist making a statement of fact, that fact is not repeatable. Why? Because the person making it believes in evolution. Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted. That's utter nonsense, but part of the evolutionist propaganda arsenal. I'm sure many scientists and others sincerely believe in evolution, especially since no other explanation for life is taught in schools, and especially not the evidence for creation. Get ready for a quote, fellas:
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place- and in recent years this has ned to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82 p.19
No wonder many evolutionists so fanatically attack anyone who dares question their faith.

I have to ask...
Who is it that you are trying to convince?
I mean, you have been repeatedly shown how you are flat out wrong yet you continue to spew the exact same bull ****.

One wonders if it is actually your self you are trying to convince...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Here are the spokesmen for "Creationism"
This explains quite a bit on creationist thinking.


"Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!" - Bill O'Reilly

"Behold the atheist's nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find on the far side there are three ridges..." - Ray Comfort

'The story of evolution continues in Gen. 9:22, “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.” - Ken Hovind

"When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them - Ken Hovind

 

[johnhanks]

... Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted...

OK, tell us a fact mentioned in your treasured quotes that, quite literally, "gives the lie to evolution". We won't be impressed by David Raup or anyone else discussing the pros and cons of specific mechanisms of evolution, or Carl Sagan musing that organisms could be the product of a (non-intelligent) designer (but almost certainly aren't); and certainly not by a newspaper article dramatising academic differences about mechanisms as "open war".

Just for once put your money where your mouth is and give us what you're promising: a fact that unequivocally shows evolution to be false.

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK, tell us a fact mentioned in your treasured quotes that, quite literally, "gives the lie to evolution". We won't be impressed by David Raup or anyone else discussing the pros and cons of specific mechanisms of evolution, or Carl Sagan musing that organisms could be the product of a (non-intelligent) designer (but almost certainly aren't); and certainly not by a newspaper article dramatising academic differences about mechanisms as "open war".

Just for once put your money where your mouth is and give us what you're promising: a fact that unequivocally shows evolution to be false.

He has none.
Which is why he has to rely on the dishonest tactic of quote mining rather than presenting objective empirical evidence supporting creationism.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context, but anyone who reads them for themselves can determine the truth.

Yes, they can. The truth is you quote-mined Carl Sagan.

Evolutionists seem to think if you quote an evolutionist making a statement of fact, that fact is not repeatable. Why? Because the person making it believes in evolution. Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted. That's utter nonsense, but part of the evolutionist propaganda arsenal.

Gibberish.

I'm sure many scientists and others sincerely believe in evolution, especially since no other explanation for life is taught in schools

Science accepts evolution because that's where the evidence points. If the evidence pointed to creation, as you so frequently insist that it does, then science would accept that.

and especially not the evidence for creation.

There is no evidence for creation. If you believe there is then present it.

Get ready for a quote, fellas:

Despite the fact that I already explained why quotes aren't evidence.

"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place- and in recent years this has ned to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82 p.19

And? An English journalist makes a claim about evolution? Big deal.

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990. He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer, asbestos and the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Source

*gasp* He doesn't accept evolution, and he's talking about it! The horror, the horror.

No wonder many evolutionists so fanatically attack anyone who dares question their faith.

We're still waiting for that evidence that supports creation. Are you any closer to presenting it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context, but anyone who reads them for themselves can determine the truth. Evolutionists seem to think if you quote an evolutionist making a statement of fact, that fact is not repeatable. Why? Because the person making it believes in evolution. Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted. That's utter nonsense, but part of the evolutionist propaganda arsenal. I'm sure many scientists and others sincerely believe in evolution, especially since no other explanation for life is taught in schools, and especially not the evidence for creation. Get ready for a quote, fellas:
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place- and in recent years this has ned to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82 p.19
No wonder many evolutionists so fanatically attack anyone who dares question their faith.

Evolution has been observed and is a tested theory (i.e. it is comprised of a set of facts that have been tested for verification). No one chooses to "believe" science; it is the way things are and what the evidence points towards. This is also the way that other fields of scientific study operate; I don't see why the field of evolutionary biology should be looked at any differently just because it leads to certain observations that many people may not like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context,

No, he didn't feel you took Carl Sagan's quote out of context. You did take Carl Sagan's quote out of context. The context was provided, and it was proven that the quote you presented was intentionally misleading. You tried to imply that Carl Sagan was a critic of evolution theory, when he is not. That means you are demonstrably dishonest, and a liar.

I've told you this a dozen times, stop using quotations to support your argument. They don't mean a thing. And most of the quotations you use are quote-mines, which means that you are incredibly dishonest.

 

[shawn001]

You may feel I took Carl Sagan's comments out of context, but anyone who reads them for themselves can determine the truth. Evolutionists seem to think if you quote an evolutionist making a statement of fact, that fact is not repeatable. Why? Because the person making it believes in evolution. Therefore, the fact they mention that gives the lie to evolution is not to be quoted. That's utter nonsense, but part of the evolutionist propaganda arsenal. I'm sure many scientists and others sincerely believe in evolution, especially since no other explanation for life is taught in schools, and especially not the evidence for creation. Get ready for a quote, fellas:
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place- and in recent years this has ned to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82 p.19
No wonder many evolutionists so fanatically attack anyone who dares question their faith.

"Johannesburg The Star, 4/20/82"


1982?

Its 2012

Rusra, did you watch Cosmos?

Did you bother to take a look at this?

Carl also put together this

"Imagine that the entire history of the universe is compressed into one year - with the Big Bang corresponding to the first second of the New Year's Day, and the present time to the last second of December 31st (midnight). Using this scale of time, each month would equal a little over a billion years. Here's a closer look at when important events would occur when we imagine the universe in one year:

Cosmic Calendar


So your quoting someone who totally disagree's with your position.


Facts don't seem to matter to you at all. Your understanding of science and evolution is completely blind and its not science that is forming your beliefs, but your culture and beliefs.

Carl Sagan On Evolution

[youtube]gl89HIJ6HDo[/youtube]
Carl Sagan On Evolution - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

"One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience



Start denying Rusra.

 

[camanintx]

You should write it down, get it peer reviewed, and lose your tenure or your grant money, or your job. (See movie Expelled for actual examples of how to do this.)

If you hired someone to remodel your kitchen, wouldn't you fire them if the started digging a pool in your back yard? Do a little research before you make silly claims like this. None of the people featured in Expelled were fired for studying creationism. They were fired because they wouldn't do the job they were hired to do. If they want to do research on creationism, they should go to work for the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research.

 

[shawn001]

If you hired someone to remodel your kitchen, wouldn't you fire them if the started digging a pool in your back yard? Do a little research before you make silly claims like this. None of the people featured in Expelled were fired for studying creationism. They were fired because they wouldn't do the job they were hired to do. If they want to do research on creationism, they should go to work for the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks created and maintained by the National Center for Science

"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks


Scientific American

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed

A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust

Ben Stein's Expelled : No Integrity Displayed: Scientific American


Ben, read one book on Hitler for his research for the movie. Not any books on evolution or biology or any real research on evolution.

 

[rusra02]

I have to ask...
Who is it that you are trying to convince?
I mean, you have been repeatedly shown how you are flat out wrong yet you continue to spew the exact same bull ****.

One wonders if it is actually your self you are trying to convince...

That's the way, attack the person if you can't attack the idea. Good evolutionist...

 

[rusra02]

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks created and maintained by the National Center for Science

"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks


Scientific American

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed

A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust

Ben Stein's Expelled : No Integrity Displayed: Scientific American


Ben, read one book on Hitler for his research for the movie. Not any books on evolution or biology or any real research on evolution.

Now, how would you expect the evolution faithful to respond to the scathing exposure of Expelled? I would expect relentless attacks against the movie, in an attempt to discredit it. There are websites that present a balanced view of the documentary to those interested in a balanced view.

 

[rusra02]

If you hired someone to remodel your kitchen, wouldn't you fire them if the started digging a pool in your back yard? Do a little research before you make silly claims like this. None of the people featured in Expelled were fired for studying creationism. They were fired because they wouldn't do the job they were hired to do. If they want to do research on creationism, they should go to work for the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you sincerely believe what you are saying. However, you are wrong, of course. And anyone who views the documentary can see that.

 

[rusra02]

No, he didn't feel you took Carl Sagan's quote out of context. You did take Carl Sagan's quote out of context. The context was provided, and it was proven that the quote you presented was intentionally misleading. You tried to imply that Carl Sagan was a critic of evolution theory, when he is not. That means you are demonstrably dishonest, and a liar.

I've told you this a dozen times, stop using quotations to support your argument. They don't mean a thing. And most of the quotations you use are quote-mines, which means that you are incredibly dishonest.

Of course, I did not imply that Carl Sagan was a critic of evolution theory. But I would not accuse you of being demonstrably dishonest, and a liar.

 

[rusra02]

Evolution has been observed and is a tested theory (i.e. it is comprised of a set of facts that have been tested for verification). No one chooses to "believe" science; it is the way things are and what the evidence points towards. This is also the way that other fields of scientific study operate; I don't see why the field of evolutionary biology should be looked at any differently just because it leads to certain observations that many people may not like.

No, evolution is not an observed and tested theory. Molecular biologist Michael Denton described the theory of evolution as "more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious..scientific theory." Yet it is presented as irrefutable fact, and woe to anyone who dares question the big lie. When evidence for creation is presented, evolutionists pretend that it hasn't been presented.
Time and again, persons in this forum and elsewhere have pointed to the engineering genius found in all living things as proof of an intelligent Creator. Only a mind can produce such wonders as the human eye or brain, or even a single cell. (Hebrews 3:4) And time and again, such evidence is ignored by those blinded by a "scientific" theory that cannot explain life, much less it's complexity and diversity in any meaningful way. "It just...happened, due to natural selection.." What man cannot recreate with all his acquired knowledge and intelligence, 'is the product of blind chance'. "Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man" - Nobel laureate Christian de Duve.

 

[johnhanks]

Time and again, persons in this forum and elsewhere have pointed to the engineering genius found in all living things as proof of an intelligent Creator. Only a mind can produce such wonders as the human eye or brain, or even a single cell. (Hebrews 3:4) And time and again, such evidence is ignored...

Yet again you demonstrate that you do not know the difference between personal incredulity and evidence.

 

[McBell]

That's the way, attack the person if you can't attack the idea. Good evolutionist...

since you have not presented anything that has not already been thoroughly shown to be complete bull ****....

Interesting how you ignore the fact that that is all you do...repeat the same bull **** over and over regardless of how many times you are presented with the how and why you are flat out wrong.

 

[McBell]

Now, how would you expect the evolution faithful to respond to the scathing exposure of Expelled? I would expect relentless attacks against the movie, in an attempt to discredit it. There are websites that present a balanced view of the documentary to those interested in a balanced view.

Thank you for demonstrating my point......again.