If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[DutchGuy]

Anyway, a true Christian does good as a result of having God in their lives, not just because God exists.

Well, clearly that's not the case.

Although the US is full of christians they give far less than the most atheist countries in the world.

 

 

I'd like to know where you got this information.

 

Well, just search for developmental aid per country...

 

 

 

Anyway, maybe they're trying to, "buy" their ticket to self-righteousness?

Well then, not having god in your life makes you a better person charity-wise.

 

Again, where do you get such information? Define wealth? To me, these poor countries that are crammed full with, "religous" people are probably a heckuva lot wealthier than you or even I.

 

Gays in Iran

 

Child labour in India

 

Growing up in South America.

 

And I'm even afraid to post something that shows the horrors of the Israeli-Palestinian war.

 

We all know the images of the misery of deeply religious people.

Please don't act like I'm making this up here or blow it out of proportion.

These kids don't need god, they need a descent meal, a safe home and proper scholing. They need aid. Aid that other believers clearly won't provide.

[Moose]

Well, clearly that's not the case. Although the US is full of christians they give far less than the most atheist countries in the world.

Obviously, you don't like to read between the lines. I clearly said, TRUE Christians. As for your remark right afterwards, you will pay for that! I can gaurentee you that!

Well, just search for developmental aid per country...

Developmental aid is in the hands of the government, not Christians!

 

As for the rest of your post, sounds like a lot of aid could be useful in your home town.

[Moai]

Unfortunately' date=' I don't have the answers you seek and you seem hellbent on dissecting my beliefs based on your on philosophy and it just doesn't work that way.[/quote']

 

Says you. I am not looking for any answers, from you or anyone else.

 

This all started with my explanation of what I thought of blind faith. If you believe that you have actually stayed on topic when you have changed the subject to that of astrology, the "word of God", and the like, then it is you that cannot understand simple English. A good discussion doesn't have as many tangents as you have followed.

 

I appreciate the banter, but I am done hashing this out with you.

 

Enjoy your evening.

 

No....

 

And as is typical, the rhetorically weak position quits the field. I did not "go on tangents" or anything of the sort. You made baseless, fallacious assertions and I called you on them. That's how debates work.

 

I suggest that you read through the thread and follow Moose's posts, as he is rhetorically closest to your position and can follow the direction of a discussion. I mean no offense by that, it is just a suggestion.

 

Enjoy your holiday.

[Moai]

So is that fact about, "evolution"......show me a skeleton, "or skeletons", that literally jumped from one species to another.......can't be done.

 

Just wanted to jump in on this quick point. Evolution does happen in species (obviously) but the differences in species is generally not skeletal. For example, there is a frog indigenous to Louisiana that has been transplanted to upstate New York, and now the New York variety cannot reproduce with the Louisiana variety--the definition of a species. That is observable speciation that has happened in our lifetimes (actually, a fraction of our lifetimes). Visually the two species are identical.

 

Speciation happens all the time. You don't need a skeleton, there are live animals that demonstrate this.

 

On the higher taxonomic levels, we have mountains of transitionals.

 

I hope that you are having a good holiday season so far!

[Moai]

The same could be said with the history books in our own Schools, yes?

 

To an extent, yes. But I accept what those books (all books, really) provisionally.

 

What's the difference from a little over 2000 thousand years ago?

 

There are a great many things that happened even further back than 2000 years ad we have evidence for them. None for many of the events in the Bible.

 

So the above is null and void, and then so should be all history books?

 

Not at all. History books and the "facts" in them are the result of investigation and evdence, ot revelation. Big difference.

 

I totally agree with this statement, and you'll get no arguement from me.

 

[spock voice]That is wise.[/spock voice]

 

I don't subscribe to that thinking. Simply because I've been witness to far greater than, "probability".

 

Which is a whole nother topic, but there is a difference between what you PERSONALLY witness and its meaning and taking the word of another about what He witnessed.

 

I have read many posts from you about how you value your personal experience, and you'll get no argument from me about that.

[Moai]

Actually, you may want to find a better source. Many so called transitional fossils are speculations based on a few bones. The theory of evolution (or ToE) needs these as transitional, so they become transitional. The horse transitions have been debunked as incorrect a long time ago. Many other supposed transitional forms from the past have been debunked. I am sure even more will be debunked. Many of your so called transitional forms on wiki have been shown not to be so transitional.

 

False. Post references or retract it. I am not going to respond to the inanity of the rest of your post, especially given that it is totally, completely false. I don't care about "wiki" or otherwise, show me a list of "debunked" transitionals, and let's see who debunked them.

 

These threads always seem to degenerate into your posting misrepresentations of what the science actually asserts, and then things spin off track and the thread dies. Not this time.

 

I am not going to take the time 9yet again) to educate you on modern biology. It seems you have no real interest in actually understanding evolution at all, and that is fine. But when you post things as fact, I want evidence. Now.

 

So let's see it.

[Moai]

And when I read Dawkins, I see his many remarks that shows his ignorance of theology. In fact, he feels it isn't even necessary to study theology...yet he loves to deride it. Many of the phrases used by atheists here...I have seen in his books. But neither of these is relevant. Who cares? Is it ignorance to use catch phrases...especially when they may be accurate?

 

Well, I will respond to this.

 

Where does Dawkins demonstrate an ignorance of theology? Give me one quote. If you have read any of his stuff (essays or The God Delusion) it should be easy.

 

I'll bet you can't, because you haven't read it. Other people have made the claim that you have (in reviewing his book) and in so doing show THEY HAVEN'T READ IT EITHER.

 

This fact is discussed at length and with great humor at http://www.richarddawkins.net.

 

He is not a theologian by trade, and certainly doesn't profess to be. But not one thing in his books or essays is wrong about what Christians believe. Maybe some sects don't or shade it differently, but the point isn't to address each of the 25,000 sects of Christianity, but religion in general. He uses Christianity because that is the religion that he and his readership are most familia

[Moose]

Just wanted to jump in on this quick point. Evolution does happen in species (obviously) but the differences in species is generally not skeletal. For example, there is a frog indigenous to Louisiana that has been transplanted to upstate New York, and now the New York variety cannot reproduce with the Louisiana variety--the definition of a species. That is observable speciation that has happened in our lifetimes (actually, a fraction of our lifetimes). Visually the two species are identical.

 

Speciation happens all the time. You don't need a skeleton, there are live animals that demonstrate this.

 

On the higher taxonomic levels, we have mountains of transitionals.

 

I hope that you are having a good holiday season so far!

Yes, I am....thanks for asking! I hope you and yours are doing well!

 

That's interesting.....I wonder if the New York Frog developed an accent as well??

 

Joking aside, I'm curious then, if evolution doesn't happen within a species, why do most evelutionists claim that we came from primates? Or a shrew, (rodent).....Or am I missing something?

 

>>Forgive my ignorance<<

[JamesM]

False. Post references or retract it. I am not going to respond to the inanity of the rest of your post, especially given that it is totally, completely false. I don't care about "wiki" or otherwise, show me a list of "debunked" transitionals, and let's see who debunked them.

 

First, if you must begin by name calling or simply labelling my posts as a means to discredit them, then so be it. You may want to learn some manners here. One thing that can be said for the majority of my posts is that they respect the individual who I respond to. Please take the time to show courtesy to those here. I have many times been impressed with your information but saddened and now angry to see your disregard for those who post responses against you. You do your viewpoint a great disservice when you disrespect those who disagree with you.

 

And yes, I will post references, but I am well aware that any reference I use will be simply dismissed or discredited by you for one reason...these individuals do not accept the party line of evolution. But to humor you, I will do so.

 

First, let me post the details about transitional fossils as reported on the volunteer website known as Talkorigins. Yes, I do take the time quite often to research the opposing view point. Despite what you think (and little do I care), I have read a number of books that support evolution. And yet I still find that it is much speculation. Yes, it is speculation by educated individuals, but it is still speculation.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

 

Here is a response to each one of the points.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_Vertebrate_Fossils_FAQ

 

Again, I find this hardly worth my time as you have long decided that your viewpoint is correct and the rest of us are simply ignorant or inane.

 

These threads always seem to degenerate into your posting misrepresentations of what the science actually asserts, and then things spin off track and the thread dies. Not this time.

 

So I am the one who ruins the threads around here? Wow, you are on the attack mode today. I guess in your opinion my posts add nothing and detract possibly from your so well educated viewpoint.

 

I am not going to take the time 9yet again) to educate you on modern biology. It seems you have no real interest in actually understanding evolution at all, and that is fine. But when you post things as fact, I want evidence. Now.

 

Who made you ruler over this forum? Relax and get off your high horse. You do not have to educate me on evolution. I have been reading unbiased viewpoints and what I find is as incredulous as I had thought. Evolution is magic. And while you have decided that "God created" equals magic, I can see just as clearly that "Evolution happened" is as magical.

 

Oh, I can present evidence. And have done so, but your angle of attack then is simply to dismiss such evidence as coming from creationists, Christians or liars...and you make no distinction. In your mind, anyone who believes in evolution or disbelieves in a God is honest. But those who are hoodwinked and unenlightened certainly need more education, because then they will certainly see the light.

 

So let's see it.

 

The blind cannot see.

[JamesM]

Well, I will respond to this.

 

Where does Dawkins demonstrate an ignorance of theology? Give me one quote. If you have read any of his stuff (essays or The God Delusion) it should be easy.

 

It is easy. In fact, he himself admits it. Rather than find the many caricatures that he makes in his book, I will quote him.....

 

Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor’s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?

 

The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.

 

http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2006/04/empty-and-vacuous.html

 

While it is consistent with his belief that there is no God, it does not go along with the fact that he took the time to critique and ridicule those who do believe in a God. One could easily argue that if he wrote a book about fairies, he had better be informed about the subject of which he was writing.

 

I'll bet you can't, because you haven't read it.

 

Since I am at work and have not a copy of his books, I cannot remember a quote. But yes, I have read portions of The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. The God Delusion is the one where he does much of his ranting against the ignorance of Christians and theists. In his mind, anyone who believes in a God cannot be educated. This seems to be a theme shown by you as well. I can say that I have not completed The God Delusion because of the slander, blasphemy and ridicule I encountered. But his book The God Delusion gave me impetus to study my own beliefs, and what I found was not that God was wanting but that Dawkins simply presented arguments used by atheists for years...and these have been refuted.

 

Other people have made the claim that you have (in reviewing his book) and in so doing show THEY HAVEN'T READ IT EITHER.

 

So let us see...if one makes comments which say that he is ignorant of theology and mentions his caricaturization Christians...he or she has not read the book? I hardly think so. I don't think you need to capitalize and yell those words at me.

 

This fact is discussed at length and with great humor at http://www.richarddawkins.net.

 

Yes, I am sure that it is. Those disciples of his are sure to rally the troops for their exalted leader. I have been to his website on a number of occasions. And I would think you would find it amusing. I did. On one forum after Dawkins was obviously beaten in a debate (which I did not listen to), his disciples had to quickly comment for many pages how he was set up and how he (although the much better educated) was simply not a good debater. Everything posted was in awe of the great Dawkins while defending his poor performance.

 

Personally, I have listened to him debate Allistair McGrath. This was quite interesting.

 

He is not a theologian by trade, and certainly doesn't profess to be.

 

And yet he writes a book about how God is a delusion?

 

But not one thing in his books or essays is wrong about what Christians believe. Maybe some sects don't or shade it differently, but the point isn't to address each of the 25,000 sects of Christianity, but religion in general.

 

No, he picks points about Christianity that he wants to ridcule and paints them as what most or all Christians believe. While in some cases, a lot of Christians do believe this, such comments as “sucking up to God” and “Nur Nurny Nur Nur” do a disservice to his already limited education regarding God and theology. NO, many reviews that I have read on line which are not simply a Christian review do not give him high grades in his attempt at critiquing God and theology.

 

Here is one... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=review

 

 

Again to quote you.....

 

These threads always seem to degenerate into your posting misrepresentations of what the science actually asserts, and then things spin off track and the thread dies. Not this time.

 

I highly doubt that my comments would have caused this thread to have gone off track if you had refrained from posting from what to you seems as inane and stupid. In these last two posts, I do confess to getting a little more angry in my words, but I can handle only so much arrogance and belittling before I respond. Feel free to ignore my posts if you think they detract from the thread, but also then look in the mirror and reread your own posts and see how so many of them turn the thread towards your own view that there is no God and the "fact" of evolution.

[Enema]

The horse transitions have been debunked as incorrect a long time ago.

 

Wrong.

 

The Creationwiki page you posted as "proof" of this does not provide any references, nor are they able to support their opinions in any credible way.

 

 

And no, many many biologists do NOT accept the ToE as fact.

 

Wrong.

 

Provide evidence for this ridiculous claim. The ToE is the cornerstone of modern biology.

[Moose]

The ToE is the cornerstone of modern biology.

K, I feel really STUPID!!!!

 

I can't find, "ToE" online anywhere??? What is it?

[Moose]

Theory of Evolution....sorry.....cold medicine!

[Enema]

The problem is that they/we cannot define the FIRST cause, (and will not in my opinion), define the, FIRST cause that enabled any and all, "causes" to happen.

re: Start of the Universe:

 

This tired old argument gets played out countless times:

 

A scientist is quite happy to say, "We don't know yet".

A religious person will say, "We don't know, therefore goddidit!"

 

This is an absurd jump based on ignorance and doesn't explain or prove anything.

 

 

If the earth is, "billions and billions, and billions" in years.....how come we're still here? Where's that fuel coming from?

 

If only there was a gigantic source of energy somewhere near the earth. LOL!

[Moose]

I don't know why you have to be such a smart aleck. But it's really ticking me off. That's hard to do!

This is an absurd jump based on ignorance and doesn't explain or prove anything.

This religious person says God did it. There's no, "I don't know" or, "therefore" about it. This doesn't make me, "ignorant" by any stretch of the imagination. It just makes my opinion different from yours, you need to just get over the fact that intelligent people have different opinions.

If only there was a gigantic source of energy somewhere near the earth. LOL!

OH, you mean, like the Sun? Yeah, that would help for sure.......

 

You totally dodged the point.....

[Enema]

This religious person says God did it. There's no, "I don't know" or, "therefore" about it.

 

You say that based on nothing, certainly not based on any real evidence.

 

It's just your own personal feeling.

- You don't know, you believe.

 

This doesn't make me, "ignorant" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

To be ignorant is to lack knowledge. You don't have knowledge, you just have belief.

 

In this instance my friend, you fit every definition of ignorant.

 

It just makes my opinion different from yours, you need to just get over the fact that intelligent people have different opinions.

 

I don't have an opinion... I simply don't know how it all started.

 

The only difference between us is that you insert a fairytale when you don't know.

[disgracian]

I'd like to know where you got this information. Anyway, maybe they're trying to, "buy" their ticket to self-righteousness?

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#AdjustingAidNumberstoFactorPrivateContributionsandmore

 

Funny how charity is a good thing until atheists do it more than Christians, then you manage to find dubious motives to pin to it. Maybe they just care more about others, and try to improve their living conditions here and now instead of handing out Bibles. There's a thought!

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

This doesn't make me, "ignorant" by any stretch of the imagination. It just makes my opinion different from yours, you need to just get over the fact that intelligent people have different opinions

Are you saying opinions cannot be based on ignorance? Are all opinions suddenly equal? If not, then what exactly is your point other than to retreat to safe ground after saying something silly?

You totally dodged the point.....

If perhaps you are suffering from a intermittent bout of word salad and by "dodge" you mean "answered", then yes.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

You say that based on nothing, certainly not based on any real evidence.

Ok, I can see where you'd think that. But I consider the people I've seen drop cocaine habits, meth habits, many other addictions with absolutely no physical withdraws. Turning their lives around a complete 180 and living a totally new life.

 

I've also had the priveleage to be a witness to many other unexplainables that cause me to know God exists. There's no other explanation to me, or anyone else including doctors and scientists that have been witness to the same.

To be ignorant is to lack knowledge. You don't have knowledge, you just have belief.

 

In this instance my friend, you fit every definition of ignorant.

False. I have all of the knowledge God offers anyone, including yourself. However, I will agree that I'm ignorant of your experiences and what's caused you to dislike people like me.

I don't have an opinion... I simply don't know how it all started.

Well, until you know for certain, you really don't have any grounds to dub my account a, "fairytale" do you?

[Moose]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#AdjustingAidNumberstoFactorPrivateContributionsandmore

 

Funny how charity is a good thing until atheists do it more than Christians, then you manage to find dubious motives to pin to it. Maybe they just care more about others, and try to improve their living conditions here and now instead of handing out Bibles. There's a thought!

 

Cheers,

D.

Interesting site. I only have one problem with it though.....it shows what countries give what. You assertion that Christians give less that Atheists, (according to this site) doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Or am I missing something?

[Moose]

Are you saying opinions cannot be based on ignorance?

Not at all.

Are all opinions suddenly equal?

I wouldn't go that far. But I would assume that all opinions should be respected and people shouldn't be publicy described as ignorant because of them. But that's just me......

If not, then what exactly is your point other than to retreat to safe ground after saying something silly?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not prone to retreat from anyone.

If perhaps you are suffering from a intermittent bout of word salad and by "dodge" you mean "answered", then yes.

Nope. I totally meant the question wasn't answered.

[Moai]

Yes, I am....thanks for asking! I hope you and yours are doing well!

 

That's interesting.....I wonder if the New York Frog developed an accent as well??

 

Joking aside, I'm curious then, if evolution doesn't happen within a species, why do most evelutionists claim that we came from primates? Or a shrew, (rodent).....Or am I missing something?

 

>>Forgive my ignorance<<

 

The accent joke was great!

 

It does happen within species, but it gets a little dicey because "species" is a human definition.

 

For example, we can make a tiger and a lion mate in captivity (a "liger" is the result) but they do not mate ever in the wild. Same with a donkey and a horse. You get a mule, which is sterile, and therefore not a viable species. The differences as such are subtle and so are not likely to fossilize--soft tissue, for example.

 

Look at beetles. They are by far god's favorite creature if you go by numbers, as there are 45,000 species defined to date. Of that number, how many individuals will fossilize in such a way as to allow people eons from now to be able to tell the difference? Very few, and yet given that we still have thousands of examples of transitionals not only with insects, but higher-order mammals and primates.

 

So, we define a species as an organism that produces viable offspring in the wild (among other ways).

 

We did come from primates--in fact we ARE primates. We share a common ancestor with gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans. They are our closest living relatives, but if you go further back we are related to monkeys and lemurs, and even further dragonflies and mosquitoes. And pine trees. Genetically, we are 60% the same as pond algae.

 

The things that differentiate a species are so subtle that they don't fossilize (soft tissue, coloration, metabolism, etc.), but on the genus level they do quite readily. Amphycion is both a dog and a bear at the same time. There are literally thousands of examples at this level. If you try to classify it one way, there are many other traists that show you are wrong, and it is really "this" way. Hence it being a transitional. Everything alive now is a transitional, really. Evolution is happening all the time everywhere.

 

I am very glad you decided to jump in on this thread! You hold up your end more than you know. I very much enjoyed your post regarding the End Times a couple of days ago. You address the issue succinctly; I was about to jump in and point out the theological problem and you beat me to it!

 

Since this is the season for well-wishing, let me say that I enjoy your posts immensely and appreciate your candor regarding your position. I mean it when I say that other believers, on these forums and elsewhere, would do well to follow your example. I hope that I have been as fair and understanding with you as you have with me, my friend. You have my undying respect and I hope that our dialog(s) will continue far into the New Year.

 

Thanks for the good wishes, and let me again wish you the happiest of holidays!

[Moai]

As for the rest of your post, sounds like a lot of aid could be useful in your home town.

 

Oh!<rimshot>

 

I hope you meant that to sting, because it did when I read it. Good one. Zowheee. Gotta give you a +1 for that.

[Moose]

So, we define a species as an organism that produces viable offspring in the wild (among other ways).

Cha-Ching! Even my kids were like, "what are you looking at??".....Thank you so much for taking the time to answer what seems to be elementary to you. That must've been boring!!! But it really did cause my eyes to open wide.....and I now have a, "slanted forehead" if you know what I mean.....lol

 

I'm going to have to digest this more.

Oh!<rimshot>

 

I hope you meant that to sting, because it did when I read it. Good one. Zowheee. Gotta give you a +1 for that.

You know, I felt really bad about that comment after I got to thinking about it.......

 

I might've jumped the gun there a bit, I'm not even sure if that member's first language is English......I didn't even ask......I deserve a slap on the hand for that one.....

I hope that our dialog(s) will continue far into the New Year.

I say we do one better and get together IRL......go confuse the masses even MORE!!

[Moai]

First, if you must begin by name calling or simply labelling my posts as a means to discredit them, then so be it. You may want to learn some manners here.

 

It isn't about manners. How many times has evolution come up, and you have been given links and overviews of the current thinking and you still post drivel. That being the case, who has bad manners?

 

One thing that can be said for the majority of my posts is that they respect the individual who I respond to. Please take the time to show courtesy to those here. I have many times been impressed with your information but saddened and now angry to see your disregard for those who post responses against you. You do your viewpoint a great disservice when you disrespect those who disagree with you.

 

I am not angry in the least. But the continuing misrepresentation of the facts as if somehow the position you state is even remotely considered in the subject at hand is tiresome. I could have taken twenty minutes out of my life and responded to each point, but why should I bother?

 

I am gald that you have been impressed with some of my posts--I enjoy yours very much on the whole--but I feel that it is time to get beyond this vapid pseudoscience. If you took offense personally, let me apologize, as that was ot my intent. That said, if we are going to discuss science then we should post references. Period.

 

And yes, I will post references, but I am well aware that any reference I use will be simply dismissed or discredited by you for one reason...these individuals do not accept the party line of evolution. But to humor you, I will do so.

 

Thank you. You are probably correct in thinking that I will ridicule your references if they are form Creationist websites or their literature. And they should be. None of their tripe is taken seriously ANYWHERE outside of Christian bookstores and semi-literate websurfers.

 

The men doing the work, looking at the actual data and undergoing peer review get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Let's pick something outlandishly stupid, like Holocaust denial. Every thinking person on the planet knows that the Holocaust happened. Yet, there are hundreds of websites claiming otherwise. If someone came in here and linked to those sites as if they are evidence of something, should we all take them seriously? Of course not. And why? Because the men doing the research and looking at the evidence show them to be wrong.

 

Lest you think I am being to harsh on the ID crowd or Creationists, I am not. If anything, I am being nice. I could go on and on (I am going to start a new thread about this, I hope you will provide your opinion), but I won't here.

 

First, let me post the details about transitional fossils as reported on the volunteer website known as Talkorigins. Yes, I do take the time quite often to research the opposing view point. Despite what you think (and little do I care), I have read a number of books that support evolution. And yet I still find that it is much speculation. Yes, it is speculation by educated individuals, but it is still speculation.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

I have read that before, and refer to it often. Where in there does it support your assertion about horse transitionals? Just posting links doesn't get you off the hook. I want ONE reputable link that supports your earlier assertion. I know that you would expect the same of me.

 

Here is a response to each one of the points.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_Vertebrate_Fossils_FAQ

 

 

I stand in awe of the dizzying rhetoric of that site. You post something from "creationwiki" and expect that to hold any weight whatsoever? More than that, you seem to imply that I am somehow being unfair in dismissing that out of hand. Try linking that site to a paper in any biology class (except for Liberty University, maybe) and see how far you get.

 

Again, I find this hardly worth my time as you have long decided that your viewpoint is correct and the rest of us are simply ignorant or inane.

 

It is not "my viewpoint". It is the viewpoint of virtually every biologist everywhere. This is exactly the same as you claiming I am being too harsh when I don't take flat-Earthism seriously. There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community that evolution is a fact. None. And to say there is, or to suggest that biologists are "guessing" or obfuscating is not only insulting to them, it is insulting to reason in general.

 

Do you doubt chemists this way? Or phyisicists? Nope. That's because their disciplines don't directly butt up against religious doctrine and myth. Ask yourself how it is that geology and biology fit so perfectly with all the other sciences. Seamlessly.

 

So I am the one who ruins the threads around here? Wow, you are on the attack mode today. I guess in your opinion my posts add nothing and detract possibly from your so well educated viewpoint.

 

Touche. If I implied that you ruin posts, I apologize, as I am equally as culpable as you in that regard. Still, this is not the situation to digress into an argument that really doesn't exist. Evolution is a fact. Creationism (in any form) lost 150 years ago. Every thinking person on the planet is aware of this.

 

So I say: If you have real evidence, post it. Otherwise, quit the field and stick to what you can actually support.

 

Who made you ruler over this forum?

 

I am self-appointed. And I didn't mean to, and as such I humbly apologize. I still await your horse transitional link, or a reference to a book that supports your statement.

 

Relax and get off your high horse.

 

Irony!

 

You do not have to educate me on evolution.

 

The facts say otherwise. No offense.

 

I have been reading unbiased viewpoints and what I find is as incredulous as I had thought. Evolution is magic. And while you have decided that "God created" equals magic, I can see just as clearly that "Evolution happened" is as magical.

 

Nope. Evolution IS HAPPENING. If a god created the Earth and all the species in their complexity, then what created the god and his complexity--given that he/she/it MUST be more complex than the world we are in. You can't, so you are left with what is referred to as "infinite regress."

 

Oh, I can present evidence. And have done so, but your angle of attack then is simply to dismiss such evidence as coming from creationists, Christians or liars...and you make no distinction.

 

Oh contraire, mon frier. I don't think all Christians are liars. I don't even think MOST Christians are liars. However, the Creationist spokesmen are proven liars. I have posted evidence of this. Perhaps your mindset has you ignore evidence like this because they agree with what you hope is true, but the fact remains. Duane Gish is a liar. Henry Morris was a liar. The men involved with the Dover case were liars (this is a matter of public record). Kent Hovind is not only a liar, but he is doing time for income tax evasion. Ken Ham is wanted for bilking believers out of cash in Australia. This is all verifiable, indisputable FACT.

 

Show me where Dawkins is lying or misrepresenting facts in "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Imporbable" or "The God Delusion." Show me where Stephen Jay Gould is lying in "The Panda's Thumb". Or any other biologist in any other evolutionary biology book. Don't blame me because you have voluntarily become a mouthpiece for liars and charlatans. If that bothers you, stop quoting them.

 

In your mind, anyone who believes in evolution or disbelieves in a God is honest. But those who are hoodwinked and unenlightened certainly need more education, because then they will certainly see the light.

 

The blind cannot see.

 

Not so. First, I don't think that someone who is a theist is an idiot, or unenlightened. I think someone who holds an erroneous belief in the face of evidence is a twit, but that is as far as it goes. And being a theist doesn't make one a twit, IMO. Being a Creationist does, though.

 

I await your links to a Dawkins quote also, by the way. Care to address that? You did well to point out my obvious flaws with this post--I am far from perfect. But you made specific quotes about his position, and I didn't see you address that AT ALL. We both know it is because you can't, and that's fine. Given your track record, I would expect you to admit it, as I don't think that you are a liar, or have bad intent. But you have responded and yet ignored that glaring fact. I can't help but wonder.

 

I do hope you are having a good holiday season, in any event.