Hi I'm back

[Guest Thegoodbook]

EVOLUTION, only empty words of fantisy.

DOCUMENTED: These scientists did accept a Creator God of The Bible as their inspiration even though they new of evolution beffore Darwin.

 

It is well documented that THEY developed about 75 plus of the Major Science Disciplines.

 

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow,Agassiz.

 

Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin.

 

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.

 

Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder.

 

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

 

Below are the quote-minded voices of leading evolutionists. Quote mining reveals the truth of the situation.

 

DARWIN:Origin of Species:

 

The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

 

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done." Introduction to Origin of Species (1859)

 

THE 1980 NEW YORK MEETING, Wistar For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation.

 

"In October 1980. A conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies.

 

Why?The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."-*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55.

 

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers. Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.

 

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself.

 

The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

 

A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote:

 

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened. . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

 

Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."

 

The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists.

 

Even if those who are die hard evolution atheists, do not find evidence for their theory, they can never admit they are wrong.They have to answer to GOD HIMSELF one day.

[Clergicide]

We can play the scientist quoting game. Here's a goodun:

 

Nobel Prize Winners Speak Up to Support Evolution

By The Associated Press

 

posted: 16 September 2005

03:11 pm ET

 

 

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.

 

The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''

 

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

 

That increasingly popular idea argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

 

Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.

 

"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma,'' Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.

 

The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.

 

Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.

 

In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.''

 

The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.''

[HadouKen24]

Below are the quote-minded voices of leading evolutionists. Quote mining reveals the truth of the situation.

 

Um... you're admitting to quote-mining?

 

Very well. You've just destroyed your own credibility. Well done!

 

Other than that... I'd consider it bad form to quote a long article like that as "proof" of anything on a forum discussion. As a topic for discussion, sure, but not as your own position. For that, you should actually take the time to write it yourself.

[Mike D]

I thought this was a debate forum, not a copy/paste spam and run forum?

[Ouroboros]

We can play the scientist quoting game.  Here's a goodun:

With the only difference that the first was related to an event 25 years ago, while yours were quite a bit newer. Fresh from the press. Holy Schmoly. Why do anti-evolutionists always use documents and data that's 25 years or older to prove their idea?

[Asuryan]

Holy Schmoly. Why do anti-evolutionists always use documents and data that's 25 years or older to prove their idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ehh, they quote the bible too to prove their ideas.

How's that for documents older than 25 years? I won't sink so low as to call the bible "data" of course!

[Amethyst]

Please learn how to spell. Fantasy has two a's and no i's.

 

That aside, there is evidence for evolution. Why don't you read a few books on the subject instead of looking for quotes that only support your point of view?

[crazy-tiger]

Well done...

 

Give us a list of quotes that have been mined so that they now say the exact opposite of what they really say, and link to a website that was created to defend the ICR.

 

 

 

 

 

With that kind of start, this thread can only get better...

[Clergicide]

With the only difference that the first was related to an event 25 years ago, while yours were quite a bit newer. Fresh from the press. Holy Schmoly. Why do anti-evolutionists always use documents and data that's 25 years or older to prove their idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The quoting game can go on all day..but what's the point?

 

Certain ontological debates could actually result in the possibility of supernatural event in causality...but what Christians fail to realize is they can't make that huge leap and connect it to their bible writing, burnt goat-fat scent loving, jealous, adulterer-stoning, figtree smiting God. No evidence whatsoever exists to be presented to close that gap and win that case.

 

Though Christian scientists do try.

 

I was listening to a local Christian radio broadcast the other day and they brought on a Creation-scientist to talk about radiometric dating. Basically the case was this: Since we can measure the rate of isotopic decay, we can also date when igneous rocks crystalized to create the isotopes. The Creation-scientist was claiming that the oldest datings were 1.5 billion years(in fact it's 3.6) because God wanted the 'appearance of age'. He claimed that, in fact the date of the earth was 6000 years and that God simply accelerated the rate of decay during the flood. Further, the flood waters protected Noah from the radiolical fallout of God's tinkering. And he claimed all of this could be proven by the rate of the release of helium from the same samples. He of course failed to account for the fact that the rate of helium diffusion can only be used to measure time since cooling, and NOT time since cystalization or mineral growth.

 

It's sillyness.

[Java]

 

.... Oh wait. You're being serious.

 

 

...Lemme laugh louder.

 

 

The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

 

In what acid trip world does a 1980 non-scientific magazine make conclusive evidence pointing to the invalidity of evolution?

 

Allow me an analogy here: You are a man trying to cover up a gigantic picture of a nude by clipping on paper clothing to it. Doesn't change the fact of the painting, and it's really easy to rip away the coverings.

[mwc]

Okay, you've destroyed the entire theory of evolution with your posting. Now tell me how your god, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is the one that did it all. Since you want to replace the theory of evolution please make sure that your explanation is testable using the scientific method (sorry, no faith-based explanations in the world of science and reality).

 

To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."

This sure sums up why gods, including your own, were invented in the first place doesn't it?

 

mwc

[Mr. Neil]

Can we have at least one creationist visit these forums who isn't incompetent?

 

Put your hand down, Gerbil.

[Razor]

Hi guys,

Im back too, I was not away long eh!

I dont know what it is about this place but it draws me like a Magnet.

 

No matter what I read or see here, I would never even come close to questioning my Faith in God.

 

Perhaps he wants me here?

 

Oh well I must look into a thread to dive into!

 

Peace

[LadyFeline]

Oh, look, another thread to use this in...

 

 

 

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Razor]

This one will do,

 

 

I have heard the Big Bang and Creationist theories argued many times before.

Arguement is all there will ever be...

 

There is evidence in the acheological record for Evolution, and absolutly no evidence at all for what actualy created that initial Big Bang ( unless you are a Christian that believes God initiated the Bang if you catch my drift)

 

My own personal opinion, On evolution, what better way to show the handy work of God than in the record of the Earth itself.

 

On the Big Bang theory, somthing had to create the explosive situation for it too happen in the first place, so how did that come about ?

 

How do you proove that to anybody?

 

Why do you partake in the folly of even initiating discussion on somthing you cannot resolve?

 

Peace

[Mr. Neil]

Evolution is a theory of biology and has nothing to do with the big bang.

[crazy-tiger]

On the Big Bang theory, somthing had to create the explosive situation for it too happen in the first place, so how did that come about ?

On creation theory, someone had to create god for god to exist in the first place, so how did that come about?

How do you proove that to anybody?

 

Why do you partake in the folly of even initiating discussion on somthing you cannot resolve?

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Checkmate]

Hi guys,

Im back too, I was not away long eh!

I dont know what it is about this place but it draws me like a Magnet.

 

No matter what I read or see here, I would never even come close to questioning my Faith in God.

 

Perhaps he wants me here?

 

Oh well I must look into a thread to dive into!

 

Peace

Oh puh-leeze, cut the fucking bullshit! You did not "come back". You never left. You never had any intention of leaving. Just be honest for once in your misbegotten life and quit trying to hide behind "god told me so" bullshit.

 

"God" also told your sorry ass to "GO into the WORLD and PREACH", but I don't see you doing THAT. Instead you're wasting time on this forum debating with heathens who already told you to go fuck yourself.

 

And why? Because you're addicted to debating. You find it much easier to engage in a war of words safely behind your computer screen, thus pretending you're doing the "lord's will".

 

People like you may me sick. If you're going to hang around us, fine. Stay. Pull up a seat and make an absolute ass of yourself. Just spare me your sorry ass excuses and rationalizations. "God" hasn't told you shit. You just like wasting time fucking with us.

[Razor]

Oh puh-leeze, cut the fucking bullshit!  You did not "come back".  You never left.  You never had any intention of leaving.  Just be honest for once in your misbegotten life and quit trying to hide behind "god told me so" bullshit.

 

"God" also told your sorry ass to "GO into the WORLD and PREACH", but I don't see you doing THAT.  Instead you're wasting time on this forum debating with heathens who already told you to go fuck yourself.

 

And why?  Because you're addicted to debating.  You find it much easier to engage in a war of words safely behind your computer screen, thus pretending you're doing the "lord's will".

 

People like you may me sick.  If you're going to hang around us, fine.  Stay.  Pull up a seat and make an absolute ass of yourself.  Just spare me your sorry ass excuses and rationalizations.  "God" hasn't told you shit.  You just like wasting time fucking with us. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well the creator of this Forum, left the the door open for debating with Christians.

 

Why on Earth would that be done on a site promoting Anti Christ, perhaps it is because you seek to weaken a persons belief in God.

 

That could never happen to me, be assured.

 

As a Christian I spend my time with both those who know they are Righteouse, and those who dont know they are already Righteouse ( yet)

 

 

If you decide to spew out of your mouth at that, how is that of any consequence to me, other than to leave me wondering does your head spin around afterwards?

 

(chortle)

 

Peace

[Checkmate]

blah, blah, blah.  drool, drool, drool.

Quote mining. An appeal to authority. An appeal to numbers. An appeal to celebrity. Outdated data that has been disproved and debunked.

 

Do I need to go any further?

 

And THIS, your post, thegoodbook, is supposed to prove what? That you don't have any legitimate arguments? If so, then WELL DONE!

 

In the immortal words of that great sage, "YOU are the weakest link. GOOD-BYE!"

[Checkmate]

Well the creator of this Forum, left the the door open for debating with Christians.

 

Why on Earth would that be done on a site promoting Anti Christ, perhaps it is because you seek to weaken a persons belief in God.

 

That could never happen to me, be assured.

 

As a Christian I spend my time with both those who know they are Righteouse, and those who dont know they are already Righteouse ( yet)

If you decide to spew out of your mouth at that, how is that of any consequence to me, other than to leave me wondering does your head spin around afterwards?

 

(chortle)

 

Peace

My, how nicely you tap dance! Your teacher must be proud.

 

I wasn't speaking about our "open door" policy, but about YOUR bullshit, psuedo-rationalizations for REMAINING here.

 

YOU said you were done with us. An obvious lie. Since you are still here. I called you on it. And rather than be honest and just admit you enjoy our company, and you prefer to waste time with us, you prance around and say "But I was invited! "

 

(I'm certain that you've also been "invited" to go fuck yourself, but I'm sure you wouldn't take anyone up on that. Or would you?)

 

I have been "invited" to post on Christianforums.com, but I have yet to do so. And I probably won't. And why not? Because it would be pointless and fruitless. I'm not into banging my head against brick walls and wasting my words (pearls before swine) AND getting banned for speaking ill of god and Jesus.

 

Besides, YOU people love your "Jesus". It is not MY place to go into YOUR forum and shit on the rug, bad mouthing YOUR faith. THAT would be rude.

 

Unfortunately, YOU "Christians" don't share the same level of respect and honesty that WE non-believers possess. And THAT is why YOU are here. You are a dickhead. Just be honest and admit it.

 

Razor, you lack "honesty" capital. I'd suggest you go to "Jesus" to receive some, but that would be fruitless, since there is no "Jesus".

[webmdave]

Whether or not evolution is a complete theory has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true.

 

Well, let me rephrase that, if evolution is true then Christianity is definitely flawed, at least in its teachings regarding the creation story and original sin. I believe that this, and this alone, is the reason Christians are desperate to prove evolution false.

 

Even if evolution is false, Christianity doesn't, by default, become true.

 

Personally I left Christianity because of the history of Christianity, because of the contradictions in the Bible, because Christians act like arrogant shits and other reasons stated in my testimony.

 

Evolution was never a major topic for me until recently when fundamentalists started aggressively trying to get creationism recognized as science, which it plainly is not. Creationism (ergo ID) is religious ranting, nothing more.

[white_raven23]

Well the creator of this Forum, left the the door open for debating with Christians.

 

Why on Earth would that be done on a site promoting Anti Christ, perhaps it is because you seek to weaken a persons belief in God.

 

I'll just stop you right there. We are former christians. Meaning we used to believe in that particular religion. Now we don't. For this site to be Anti-Christ (a not-so-subtle insult ), we would have to agree there was a "christ" to be against in the first place.

 

Get it? For us to be against christ, we'd have to believe he existed.

 

And we are NOT here to weaken people's belief in a god. We ARE here to encourage critical thinking as opposed to "listen and obey" sheepism encouraged by religion. If someone's belief in god goes by the wayside as well, that is entirely up to them.

 

It's people like YOU who have religion and the idea of a supreme being so tightly wrapped, that you cannot conceive of anyone seperating the two, so you assume everyone here is automatically throwing the baby (supreme being) out with the bath water (religion).

 

And with posts like this one, you try to make it out that that is the insidious purpose of this website. It's not.

 

But you go on thinking it is if you want.....hold on to those unsubstantiated beliefs as tight as you can, you can't think without someone telling you how anyway.

 

 

 

I'll be over here.....shopping for my Anti-Christ robe (sparkly purple)

[Asuryan]

Whether or not evolution is a complete theory has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true.

 

Not only he's absolutely right.

He also has the hottest eye I've ever seen!

[Ouroboros]

EVOLUTION, only empty words of fantisy.

I have no clue what "fantisy" is. If you mean fantasy, the sentence makes sense, but yet not, because how can you have empty words of fantasy???

 

Empty Words, means something that doesn't have a meaning.

 

To talk about a fantasy with words that doesn't have a meaning, then it's not a fantasy either.

Just to explain that a bit; a fantasy has to be described in one way or the other, if it is described with empty words, it doesn't become a fantasy, it only becomes nothing, a no-sense. Just like the title of this topic! It's a non-sense title on this topic! A fantasy needs to be described with words of contents, and not gibberish. Empty words are words without meaning or context. The topic title is just another evidence of how religious people think in contradictions and paradoxes, which they never can see themselves and never can explain.

 

But to get to the issue if Evolution is only empty words or if it is a fantasy, that's beyond ludicrous and insane to even claim such a thing. Such statement only proves the incompetence and ignorance of the author.