creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

Originally posted by melatonin

No, darwinism would best be described as an individual who holds strongly to common descent by natural selection. That is one major process that is part of the many processes available to evolutionary theory.

Darwinian processes are inextricably linked to evolution, and if you want to propose otherwise, then you are being deceptive.

Another smokescreen to cover the fact that your atheistic philosophy is more important than the evidence.

As you like to point out, there are theistic evolutionists - they are not Darwinists. They do not believe in in the blind natural selection fallacy.

Darwinism refers to evolution by blind natural selection which is atheistic. It is inextricably linked to naturalism and materialism. It is now a political ideology as well. It also happens to be false.

The problem is that people like you, whammy, like to misuse Darwin to associate it with atheism. I couldn't give a fig about D'Souza. He's slimey fool*.

I suppose that wasn't an ad hom attack on D'Souza either.

He spanks you "liars for Darwin" like the little intellectual cripples you are.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Another smokescreen to cover the fact that your atheistic philosophy is more important than the evidence.

As you like to point out, there are theistic evolutionists - they are not Darwinists. They do not believe in in the blind natural selection fallacy.

Darwinism refers to evolution by blind natural selection which is atheistic. It is inextricably linked to naturalism and materialism. It is now a political ideology as well. It also happens to be false.

Eh? Don't be silly. There are actually few people who would self-define as darwinists anyway, evolution is much more expansive than the one selective process. It is a label that people like you want to misapply, attempting to frame it as atheistic.

I'm as much a darwinist as Ken Miller. Ken Miller is a theistic evolutionist, and likes to write books about 'Darwin's god'. And for another we could add the theistic Francisco Ayala, who also writes books focusing on 'darwin's gift to science'.

I know you like to make up your own meanings, but darwinism is not atheistic. So give up on the deception, some might say sophistry, dude.

I suppose that wasn't an ad hom attack on D'Souza either.

No, that was an ad hom, well done. I can't be bothered with him. However, I actually examined the claim that darwinism as ideology issue earlier, so why bother repeating myself.

He spanks you "liars for Darwin" like the little intellectual cripples you are.

Ra! Ra! Ra!

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I just addressed it in the other thread. But evolution is not Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory Darwinism is the atheists religious spin on it. I'm not just making up my own meaning its a widely accepted definition. It's unfortunate for Chucks good name but it's solely a result of atheists using his theory to try to discredit God.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

I just addressed it in the other thread. But evolution is not Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory Darwinism is the atheists religious spin on it. I'm not just making up my own meaning its a widely accepted definition. It's unfortunate for Chucks good name but it's solely a result of atheists using his theory to try to discredit God.

"Chucks good name???????????????" Chuck will go down in galactic history as a vile, hate filled moron...............Who's hate for God inspired a form of lunacy that is called "evolution".......it is pure insane BS........

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

I just addressed it in the other thread. But evolution is not Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory Darwinism is the atheists religious spin on it. I'm not just making up my own meaning its a widely accepted definition. It's unfortunate for Chucks good name but it's solely a result of atheists using his theory to try to discredit God.

"Chucks good name???????????????" Chuck will go down in galactic history as a vile, hate filled moron...............Who's hate for God inspired a form of lunacy that is called "evolution".......it is pure insane BS........

I beg yout pardon? the man was a scientist.. there is nothing about him that has ever made me think he was a hate filled moron. Your refusal to respect what he has contributed to the world intellectually makes it seem like you are the one with those kind of issues. His disbelief/'hate' for god [which is obviously just in your own mind] had nothing to do with ToE.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


except that you're outright lying. crick never ever ever ever ever voiced any problems with evolution and the only way you can is by cutting out huge parts of his statements

Methusela meet Madness, Ill tell you all about larry and moe after I am finished reversing these desperate accusations made by Mel and Mad in what is their customary tactic used to cover up embarrasing dissent of Darwinian lunacy Atheisms answer to Intelligent Design,
or as I like to call it, Dumb Luck.

You see Mel will often use demeaning sarcasm, is a notorious name dropper usually just nice enough to link you to some other Darwinian ninny, mentioning as he did with dbates that "the halls of academia are filled wonderous information" as if current texts still teaching lucy , piltdown and many other fantasy fallacy of failed Darwinian mis-fortune.

Darwinists are to this day, still using Icons of evolution that were busted for being hoax after hoax.

Where they get the audacity to make points about dishonesty is a level of arrogance and spite that only begins there but goes all the way to emotional extortion, extreme measures for mis-leading the public and ruining careers for exercising your freedom of scientific opinion if it is not in line with the Darwininian taliban or Atheist politboro.

I have link here giving Dave what he can only brag about but never produces regardless of numereous requests to back up his bravado, he challenged my allegations as to the claims I was making that I knew nothing and was making up these wild aspersions about the Science Community. So I gave it to him.

You will find that link very interesting Methy. As it really goes right to the heart of this threads title just who it is that should really be admitting defeat for Darwinian lunacy as Helios so accurately said it, is already quite dead as a viable theory, it has been so butchered, any additional alterations, I doubt you could call it Darwin anymore.

Not even famous Zoo Keeper, Dick Dawkins can explain Darwinian lunacy
Anyone is welcome to try but I know what he says here and it implies just what I came up with www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, meth, Notice if you would be so kind and observant, the added embellishment to the Crick dilema Madness seems to be having.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is typical when one exploits any sacred cow of Darwinian lunacy.
In this case, the name Francis Crick is one they can't afford to have sell out. You see madness rush to judge me a out and out liar using superfluous use of the word "ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever" as if it adds any more credence to his astonishment.

I am sure you will agree methy., it adds nothing but drama and the lie he in fact is making, is that I have said Crick had a problem with evolution when in fact the quote takes nothing from evolution but what both Mel and mad pre-suppose suggests miracles as in the kind God makes.

This cannot be substantiated no more than his false accusation I am lying or the over used over rated act of quote mining by a group of cult like quasi fundamentalist religious atheists who avoid apology like the plague and abandon threads where you have completely boxed them into a corner, because he will neither prove I am lying and apologise for calling me one when I already know, one is past due and now another makes two.

the reason mel has to constantly call out quotemines is because they're dishonest.

I know what they are maddness but that has nothing to do with me and your suggesting I am lying is charge you better prove or shame on you for saying so.

i could randomly pull out quotes from the bible to make it seem like the bible supports atheism

Oh I don't doubt that one bit madness I have seen your skill at spin when it suits you to confuse others and being spun when you seem to lose your grasp of any english that binds and convicts your worldview for the NWO and Globalist desires.

You go right ahead and do it if it makes you feel better. I am sure we can convince anyone what your intentions are. I mean after all the idea occured to you in a knee jerk reaction as if you have experience doing just what you threaten as a counter measure to another point you have totally mistaken as a deliberate lie. Your secret agenda to get Con banned is well know now Madness and whether I know Christian investors who have shares of ATS Stock is something of a reach, even for the many banned atheists at your "other" forum who claim I did something to them.

Ill have you know, that in the time I have been here I have hit that alert button twice and both times was in 911 threads. I have heard via a freind of a freind, you go on about me for something weeks at a time. I forget about you the moment I am done and on to the next one. I suggest you try that maddness.

In fact madness you can copy paste that quote to google and get a rather long list of pro darwin scientists who have quoted crick no differen't than I have and in the same light.

- Con






[edit on 14-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by melatonin
It was nice to get away from talking evolution.

Creationists/IDists spend way, waaay too much time focused on this subject. Almost to a fault. Personally I think that both sides have their camp set up and just aren't going to change. You say ancient fossils and I say Cambrian explosion. What we need is a tie-breaker of some sort.

We need to be careful not to forget the other areas that tie into this subject. Subjects like cosmology and mathematics are an interesting diversion that could shed light into the subject from a different angle.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
When Evolution can actually answer anything 'useful', then we can discuss its 'power'.

I think it undoubtedly does.

When we wanted to find Tiktaalik (a transitional form for fish>tetrapod), we didn't consult a leader in divination, we used scientific findings from an evolutionary perspective.

We found it.

Now show me the other few hundred transitional forms for Fish > Tiktaalik and the other millions of transitional forms for the other thousands of species on this planet. I'll settle for 2 transitional forms for each species. Not much to ask for hey? I remember a book about evolution I got at a library many years ago. They showed a detailed illustration with many transitional forms of how a fish evolved into a bird. I presume they stated "that's how it probably happened". Anyone with a high school education can tell you that is fiction. WHY do we have many fossils of fully formed birds and fish but NO fossils of Fish > Bird transitions?

To me the biggest nail in the Evolutionary coffin is the fact that MANY species share the same environment that they have been sharing for thousands if not millions of years. If change of environment is crucial to interspecies evolution how do you explain that?

I am yet to find a definition for myself as I believe in a Universal Consciousness / soul / entity, but I'm still making up my mind whether this Entity created everything, came into existence at the same time or existed in steady state (theory that the universe never "began", but always existed?). I am anti-religion and I am anti-macro-evolution and only proof will sway me either way.

Originally posted by Lannock
WHY do we have many fossils of fully formed birds and fish but NO fossils of Fish > Bird transitions?

OK, I was taking you serious until this part.

We have absolutely no fossils of fish>bird transitions. Not one. Not even a sliver of an inkling of such a thing. Oh no, that must mean evolution is false.

Maybe we do have living fossils of flying fish. They're pretty cool, no?

lulz. You're new to me, I apologise - sorry.

There are transitionals/intermediates for various major groups that are expected in the real-world. Fish > land lubber, reptile > bird, ape > human ape, reptile > mammal etc. If you look around, you'll find them. The '29+ evidences' page on talk origins has a summary of some of it.

If that and the other 29 confirmed hypotheses of common descent are not sufficient. Oh well. I guess that apparently means we have to hold scientific claims to a much much much much much much (x many muches) higher standard than claims such as a universal consciousness.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by riley


Chuck was a theology school drop-out............his hate for God was maifested in evilution...........

reply to post by melatonin


Please provide physical proof of evolution without "speculation" between the so called changes in species. This silly mess is the ultimate "connect the dots" BS when the dots are unrelated.

There has never been an actual "missing link" found in any evolution evidence...........

Originally posted by heliosprime
Please provide physical proof of evolution without "speculation" between the so called changes in species. This silly mess is the ultimate "connect the dots" BS when the dots are unrelated.

There has never been an actual "missing link" found in any evolution evidence...........

Hello helios.

Just so you didn't think I was ignoring you, I'm making this post to tell you that I am not really bothering to answer the content of your post, and therefore I am actually going to ignore you in a way - a bit of a paradox, I guess. I have memories of you. I'm sure if you read my post a bit better, you might find clues to some of your issues.

Cheers.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by riley

 

Chuck was a theology school drop-out............his hate for God was maifested in evilution...........

..and einstein was a clerk. If you are going to argue a point.. provide actual evidence that supports it other than just your own biggotry and hatred.
Evilution? Wow thats original; Just because someone accepts and respects a scientific theory doesn't mean they are evil.. not only are you calling darwin evil but christians that accept ToE as well.

I have NEVER heard of darwin saying he hated god.. where did he say this? I think you're just making it up as you go along.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by heliosprime
"Chucks good name???????????????" Chuck will go down in galactic history as a vile, hate filled moron...............Who's hate for God inspired a form of lunacy that is called "evolution".......it is pure insane BS........

Projection is a wonderful thing.

Vile? Well, he refused to let the servants clean his study. It was pretty smelly.

Hate-filled? Against whom? How do you know this?

Moron?

No.

But thanks for keeping to the thread topic and admitting your defeat.

reply to post by melatonin


Dont really care, and a bit arrogant for you to assume. You never could answer the hard questions, only provide "hot air" for the ignorant to lap up.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hate filled against the God "HE" rejected.
Evolution was chucks destiny to provide arrogant human idiots with ignorant answers to questions they didn't want to understand. Those who believe in darwins ignorant ramblings are just lost uneducated children. Lost children who make up stories to fill their empty lives with meaning. They can not believe in something greater than their pathetic lives, so therefore, there can be no God to judge their evil. It is easier to live in fantasy than trust in truth.............

reply to post by heliosprime

So you couldn't actually prove that darwin hated god so have decided to offend anyone who accept ToE instead. :shk:

Again.. ease up on the hate and please provide some actual evidence of your assertions about darwin and 'evolutionists'. Thus far all you've done is abuse people which is counter productive.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by riley]

Darwin was a very religious man, he didn't hate god! In fact he would never have published his work if it hadn't been for Wallis writing him a letter in which he had made the exact same discovery as was going to publish his idea. The reason Darwin waited so long was that he thought he would get a lot of agro from people who take the bible literally. And look he still is?

Do you realise that it took geologists a long time to finally convince scientists that the earth is billions of years old because theology kept getting in the way of reason?

He was at some point, monkey, but he became agnostic later in his life. He was never an atheist though.

But he did sit on his ideas for a while. He knew what the response of some would be. Indeed, it hasn't stopped since him and Wallace broke the bad news.

Originally posted by monkey_descendant

Do you realise that it took geologists a long time to finally convince scientists that the earth is billions of years old because theology kept getting in the way of reason?

Ok, monkey, how old is a sword? A sword is created by a master sword maker. Is the sword only as old as the day it was created and beaten into shape, or it is as old as the iron in it? Which date is correct?

The materials the earth is formed with may be billions, but can you state that the earth in its present form is as old as the materials that make it up?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by heliosprime]