Actually I said that,Gedanken.
Edited by - irongland on 29 October 2002 22:8:18
Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?
by Gedanken 63 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Gedanken
Iron Gland,
Apologies - yes you did and I stand corrected. Good points btw.
Gedanken
-
rem
Pomegranate,
Ever heard of the Catholic Church? Whole bunch of Evolutionists right there. Last time I checked, those darned Catholics believed in god.
rem
-
AlanF
To jjrizo,
After reading Pomegranate's comments on this thread, if you can't see the truth of my comments about him and about mindless creationists in general, you are to be pitied.
Gedanken has been very patient with this mindless creature, and has taken pains to explain his points clearly. Pomegranate has almost entirely ignored every point Gedanken has brought up. Can't you see him try to wiggle away from every point G. makes?
I've been arguing online with mindless creationists for more than a decade. They never change. They bring up exactly the same old, disproved "arguments" time after time because that's what creationist leaders keep feeding them. They have nothing new -- just like present Watchtower leaders have nothing new.
Read some good books, man! And if you don't want to educate yourself on this issue, then don't make yourself look foolish by commenting on what you're admittedly and deliberately ignorant of. You've done a lot of good work in other areas -- don't spoil your image. I say this as someone who has known you a long time.
AlanF
-
pomegranate
Of course discussions always end up like this - when confronted with total irrationality then frustration sets in.
Then if you feel you cannot comprehend the position of the opposing side. SHUT UP with the insults. Otherwise, you LOOK LIKE A LOSER. Brilliant debaters let the evidence and facts do the speaking.
The trouble is that you haven't read Ridley's article.
Where do you get off calling me a liar now? More intellectual proof?
Do you really think that a person could contradict themselves so blatantly in an article and get away with it?
I said it was ONE of two things. Him contradicting or you misunderstanding. Maybe it's both?
In fact, do must think that evolutionary biologists as a class are all insane; claiming that their evidence for evolution doesn't exist but that they believe it anyway. These people live in universities where they interact with physicists etc. Are they all insane?
If ALL bioligists were evolutionists then I would say they were all insane. But there are many many in the same fields of science who do NOT concur with evolution. So, the same question can go back to you, are these just as educated and brilliant creationists insane?
I am re-reading Ridley's book and he does not attempt to use the fossil record to discredit special creation (so you again misrepresent the issue.)
Then Ridley should never reference the fossil record at all. What is the purpose of referenceing the record if it is not to SUPPORT what belief or proof he is trying to convey? Surely he doesn't have to use the fossil record to prove to another evolutionist to believe in evolution, does he? Of course not, that one already believes. So everytime he goes to the record, it is surely to prove his point for there is no other reason to reference the record than to PROVE HIS POINT.
No matter how complete the fossil record is, a creationist could argue that God had created every gradation. In other words, any physical evidence whatsoever can be explained by resort to miracles.
First, the record is blatantly void of ALL transitions. Second, you are in the land of pure postulation and speculation when arguing what a creationist would say IF the record showed something different.
Evolution does not depend on the fossil record.
Then, prove evolution to me WITHOUT it. How will you proceed? What do you SEE with your eyes in order to start off your explaination?
If you have read Ridley's article as you say then please comment on the three areas that he puts forth as compelling evidence for evolution - do you know what a ring species is? Let's start there.
A speculative evolutionary quirk where interbreeding between species may be a possiblity.
Let me ask you this, does your faith depend on the english translation of the bible that you use? Yes or no?
My faith does not depend on any book english or otherwise. So, yes or no does not apply.
If no, does that mean that your Bible provides no support for your beliefs?
You are mixing things up. Faith and beliefs are two different things. They are related to each other, but they are not the same. For instance, I can have faith in God and not know what to believe about Him because I have no knowledge. Belief is based on knowledge, faith, well, personally, I believe that comes from God and is based solely on God.
i alos not that you have no comment on the total demolition of your argument that evolution is false because people have faked data. How can you go through life like this - ignoring anything that upsets your world view and rusjing on to the next "proof."
I don't recollect any demolition of an argument I have presented. If I did not respond, there was probably good reason for it. See my first paragraph above.
Finally, I wasn't insulting you - no more than charging a man with a crime is insulting.
Let the reader now decide who is the liar regarding you not insulting me:
"But I'm more concerned with your basic level of honesty at this point."
"you are as guility of intellectual dishonesty as is the WTS."
"Or is misquotation OK when it suits your own ends?"
"Let's first decide if you are capable of objectivity and honesty"
"It's an old WTS trick - as is intentionally misquoting people to make a point as pomegranate is in the habit of doing."
"I seem to remember that Revelation has some nasty things to say about people who are liars - and Job 13 shows that this includeslying for God."
"the fundamental dishonesty of fundamentalists in these areas."
"related specifically to pomegranate's dishonesty."
"Why would anyone want to debate with a poster who tell lies?"
"Watch out pom, you might stumble someone - that's why lying is wrong."
"Rarely have I seen what I presume is a "grown man" act in such a fashion - dear me poemgranate, how old are you, 15?"
"You were fooled by the WTS I take it - well, you have been fooled again by the fundies. No doubt as a dub you were, let me guess, equally "compelling" in your argumentation and rhetoric?"
"Can you wrap your pea-brain around such a concept"
"it is far to long for you and it might take yo the rest of your life if you tried"
"then your lack of comprehension of plain english - written for a lay audience too - is gargantuan indeed."
"The issue, pomegranate, is your dishonesty"
"Po,egranate, it is people like you who are ultimately responsible fo rthe emergence of religions lik ethe WTS."
"I'd rather face God as an evolutionist (since that does not contradict belief in God) than as someone like you who will lie to prove that their way is the only way."
"Your concept of creation - and your argumentfrom ignorance - is very Watchtower-like by the way"
It mioght insult _you_ because you don't like it - but you are, intentionally or not, a liat and the type of "true believer" who gets cults started. Or did you think that evil geniuses started cults.
Goes beyond that. I believe you take the cake in the most insults in one thread. Good for you!
Face it pomegranate, you are totally out of your deoth and too arrogant to learn why. Listen to your buddy Francois - you really are far gone.
Insult after insult. Man, I think you are the king.
Can't you calm done and consider the possibility that you are wrong - after all, you were wrong about religion once already.
Me calm down? I believe you're the one with his pants all up in a ball. I believe I even missed an insult or two when reviewing the thread.
That your fundy friends misquote scientists should be a warning signal. I don't care if you agree or disagree with evolutionary scientists, but to misquote them because you imagine a conspiracy theory of evolution is nothing short of insanity.
It wasn't misquoted, it is perfect evidence of the contradiction of evolution. It goes like this: We don't need the fossil record to prove evolution, we only need it to prove evolution.
As for belief in God, Ridley himsef fpoints out that evolution should not be inconsistent with anyone's religious beliefs. But then again, you haven't read his stuff have you?
It surely gets in the way of God creating everything. And that's my belief.
Hey, any more insults?
Edited by - pomegranate on 29 October 2002 22:45:19
-
rem
Pomegranate is the king of the Red Herring. When he's short on facts he always goes to the "your insulting me" defense and tries to side-track the real debate. lol
rem
-
pomegranate
Let the reader now decide who is the liar regarding Ged not insulting me:
"But I'm more concerned with your basic level of honesty at this point."
"you are as guility of intellectual dishonesty as is the WTS."
"Or is misquotation OK when it suits your own ends?"
"Let's first decide if you are capable of objectivity and honesty"
"It's an old WTS trick - as is intentionally misquoting people to make a point as pomegranate is in the habit of doing."
"I seem to remember that Revelation has some nasty things to say about people who are liars - and Job 13 shows that this includeslying for God."
"the fundamental dishonesty of fundamentalists in these areas."
"related specifically to pomegranate's dishonesty."
"Why would anyone want to debate with a poster who tell lies?"
"Watch out pom, you might stumble someone - that's why lying is wrong."
"Rarely have I seen what I presume is a "grown man" act in such a fashion - dear me poemgranate, how old are you, 15?"
"You were fooled by the WTS I take it - well, you have been fooled again by the fundies. No doubt as a dub you were, let me guess, equally "compelling" in your argumentation and rhetoric?"
"Can you wrap your pea-brain around such a concept"
"it is far to long for you and it might take yo the rest of your life if you tried"
"then your lack of comprehension of plain english - written for a lay audience too - is gargantuan indeed."
"The issue, pomegranate, is your dishonesty"
"Po,egranate, it is people like you who are ultimately responsible fo rthe emergence of religions lik ethe WTS."
"I'd rather face God as an evolutionist (since that does not contradict belief in God) than as someone like you who will lie to prove that their way is the only way."
"Your concept of creation - and your argumentfrom ignorance - is very Watchtower-like by the way"
-
Grunt
Why is it that evolutionists are so insulting? Calling people names and such is not impressive and only hurts the validity of any other statements you make. I guess when you can't prove your point you have to resort to namecalling. Sad.
Evolution is as much a faith doctrine as any religion is. You can say I may be wrong and I say yeah, I might be. If I say you might be wrong you are insulted. Try to develop an open mind. Try to demonstrate a little tolerance and to avoid school yard insults that don't help anyone.
Grunt
-
JoRiz
>>Here is Cotne's article in full. Reading it demonstrates the objectivity of the scientist as opposed to the emotional gut reaction of the average creationist. The consistent attempt to portray prominent evolutions as having doubts about evolution is nothing but dishonest.>>
My two cents. About that moth article and those big words. You know what? The moth is still a moth!! It didn't EVOLVE into a cow or a bird. And it will never anytime soon. Get my point?
If evolution isn't 100 percent proven then it is an opinion.
Opinions are not science. They are opinions.
JoRiz
-
Gedanken
pomegranate,
So, to conclude you originally quoted Ridley to prove that evolution has no basis in the fossil record and now you are saying that he should never have referenced the fossil record at all. So why did you quote him?
You stand condemned as a liar for (a) misquoting someone to prove a point that was actually opposite to what he was saying and (b) being too arrogant to accept that you did that.
This has nothing to do with evolution - it would be equally reprehensible were I to deliberately misquote a Creationist.
All the histrionics in the world from you and the brothers rizo won't change the fact that not only are your arguments in this area inane, they rely on dishonest methods.
As for species - explain to JoRizo what a ring species is - take the California salamander as an example. After all, you have read Ridley's article? Right?
Gedanken