Science & Reason vs. Atheism

[Steven_R]

I always thought it was a peculiar trait of humans that we have this innate need for an explanation, but our tribalism takes over. There's 10,000 religious texts out there and all of them are wrong, except mine. The guy on the other side of that hill feels the same way, but we can't both be right. So why is my text right and his is wrong? Why, because my text says so.

 

[Newby]

Once again, you have "quote-mined" from Harun Yahya after I have told you repeatedly that you must PM me first so I can advise you privately of your lies, deceit and stupidity.

The Francis Crick "quote" is another example of your idiocy. You mindlessly "quote-mine" this garbage from Harun Yahya and even after you have repeatedly been shown to a liar, plagiarist and spammer, you continue.


Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."




You lie.




You lie constantly.





You're a mess.




You're a sad, pathetic joke.

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

The point is we don't know what Dr. Crick's additional thoughts on the subject are beyond this cherry picked quote. Maybe he does reverse himself. Maybe he qualifies his previous statement. Maybe the next line is about his returning his PhD and joining a cult, who knows? Context is important, not to mention that PC's credibility (or at least those websites she copy and pastes from) is questionable.

There was another evolution thread when she posted some gotcha line from Stephen Jay Gould. Well, I went and looked up the source cited and not only was that quote not on the cited page, it wasn't anywhere in the cited journal. It didn't exist. I even posted a link to the journal so everyone else could see for themselves.

So maybe Dr. Crick actually wrote that, maybe he didn't, maybe there's more to that thought in the context it is presented. We'll never know because PC won't provide it.

You asked for a continuation of his words, it was provided by an ally, so where's the smoking gun?

 

[Steven_R]

It's not a question of a smoking gun, but PC (or her sources) quote mining without providing context or additional information. That's before we even get to stuff like bad citations, editing materials, and outright making stuff up.

This:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

is not the same idea as this:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

 

[Hollie]

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

The point is we don't know what Dr. Crick's additional thoughts on the subject are beyond this cherry picked quote. Maybe he does reverse himself. Maybe he qualifies his previous statement. Maybe the next line is about his returning his PhD and joining a cult, who knows? Context is important, not to mention that PC's credibility (or at least those websites she copy and pastes from) is questionable.

There was another evolution thread when she posted some gotcha line from Stephen Jay Gould. Well, I went and looked up the source cited and not only was that quote not on the cited page, it wasn't anywhere in the cited journal. It didn't exist. I even posted a link to the journal so everyone else could see for themselves.

So maybe Dr. Crick actually wrote that, maybe he didn't, maybe there's more to that thought in the context it is presented. We'll never know because PC won't provide it.

You asked for a continuation of his words, it was provided by an ally, so where's the smoking gun?

Apparently you are perfectly fine with carelessly and fraudulently editing, parsing and dropping entire portions of comments when they serve an agenda intended to misrepresent and lie.

Lovely, lovely folks.

 

[Thunderbird]

the rich bought up all the media so it's kind of hard to say that the media is liberal when 7 rich people own it all. Who are the liberal owners? Yes there are a lot of gay shows and stars on tv but they probably love flaunting that because it's divisive.

Never heard of latte liberals? People who don't realize the media elite is mostly liberal on some issues (abortion, religion, homosexual activism) are awfully dumb.

They use god gays and guns to con middle class and poor people like you into voting with them.

Yes the media bosses try to drive normal working folk out of the Democratic party. The idea is to emasculate the party.

And it's ok because christians and muslims and jews are horrible people really. Not all of them but the masses suck.

Thanks for discrediting the atheist movement with your juvenile rants and ugly bigotry.

The don't feed the poor or cure the sick christians of the world.

Another clownish statement.

Most Popular Christian Charities - Trustworthy and Reputable Organizations | ChristianDonor.com

Catholic Relief Services

Why are people turning away from Christianity? Just look at the members.

Yes, let's look.

According to Religion: Year In Review 2010 atheists are at 2% worldwide and declining.

Marxism has declined so fewer are being terrorized into submission to atheism. A few adolescents on the internet slavishly follow the fashion for atheism decreed by the media bosses, but that's a small number of people.

More news: Christianity Is Booming In China Despite Rifts

Do you feel stupid, because maybe you ought to.

 

[Newby]

It's not a question of a smoking gun, but PC (or her sources) quote mining without providing context or additional information. That's before we even get to stuff like bad citations, editing materials, and outright making stuff up.

This:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

is not the same idea as this:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Not at all. I want to see the whole statement, though, and not just the cherry picked gotcha statements that your side relies on.

How does the idea differ?

 

[Newby]

The point is we don't know what Dr. Crick's additional thoughts on the subject are beyond this cherry picked quote. Maybe he does reverse himself. Maybe he qualifies his previous statement. Maybe the next line is about his returning his PhD and joining a cult, who knows? Context is important, not to mention that PC's credibility (or at least those websites she copy and pastes from) is questionable.

There was another evolution thread when she posted some gotcha line from Stephen Jay Gould. Well, I went and looked up the source cited and not only was that quote not on the cited page, it wasn't anywhere in the cited journal. It didn't exist. I even posted a link to the journal so everyone else could see for themselves.

So maybe Dr. Crick actually wrote that, maybe he didn't, maybe there's more to that thought in the context it is presented. We'll never know because PC won't provide it.

You asked for a continuation of his words, it was provided by an ally, so where's the smoking gun?

Apparently you are perfectly fine with carelessly and fraudulently editing, parsing and dropping entire portions of comments when they serve an agenda intended to misrepresent and lie.

Lovely, lovely folks.

Can't address my post, eh Hollie?

 

[Newby]

As usual, your dementia is on view to all.

You constantly provide the proof of same, as I ask you to provide proof of your statement....and you cannot.


"...backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work."

OK...go ahead.....prove it.

Once again, you have "quote-mined" from Harun Yahya after I have told you repeatedly that you must PM me first so I can advise you privately of your lies, deceit and stupidity.

The Francis Crick "quote" is another example of your idiocy. You mindlessly "quote-mine" this garbage from Harun Yahya and even after you have repeatedly been shown to a liar, plagiarist and spammer, you continue.


Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."




You lie.




You lie constantly.





You're a mess.




You're a sad, pathetic joke.

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

Bump for Hollie, it must really kill you that your name is so close to holy, huh?

 

[Hollie]

You asked for a continuation of his words, it was provided by an ally, so where's the smoking gun?

Apparently you are perfectly fine with carelessly and fraudulently editing, parsing and dropping entire portions of comments when they serve an agenda intended to misrepresent and lie.

Lovely, lovely folks.

Can't address my post, eh Hollie?

Dodging my post that calls into question your integrity, eh?

It's ok. Lying for sake of your religion is not all that uncommon.

 

[Hollie]

Once again, you have "quote-mined" from Harun Yahya after I have told you repeatedly that you must PM me first so I can advise you privately of your lies, deceit and stupidity.

The Francis Crick "quote" is another example of your idiocy. You mindlessly "quote-mine" this garbage from Harun Yahya and even after you have repeatedly been shown to a liar, plagiarist and spammer, you continue.


Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."




You lie.




You lie constantly.





You're a mess.




You're a sad, pathetic joke.

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

Bump for Hollie, it must really kill you that your name is so close to holy, huh?

Dishonesty editing, parsing and removing entire paragraphs of someone's comments you have no issue with?

I guess lies that you somehow think advance your extremist beliefs are perfectly fine.

 

[Hollie]

It's not a question of a smoking gun, but PC (or her sources) quote mining without providing context or additional information. That's before we even get to stuff like bad citations, editing materials, and outright making stuff up.

This:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

is not the same idea as this:

Not at all. I want to see the whole statement, though, and not just the cherry picked gotcha statements that your side relies on.

How does the idea differ?

Odd that you ask that question when the full context of the post is made available.

Don't you find lies are easier to further when all the facts are purposely withheld?

 

[Newby]

It's not a question of a smoking gun, but PC (or her sources) quote mining without providing context or additional information. That's before we even get to stuff like bad citations, editing materials, and outright making stuff up.

This:


is not the same idea as this:

Not at all. I want to see the whole statement, though, and not just the cherry picked gotcha statements that your side relies on.

How does the idea differ?

Odd that you ask that question when the full context of the post is made available.

Don't you find lies are easier to further when all the facts are purposely withheld?

Explain how the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence. Your implication is that context changed, how so?

 

[Hollie]

How does the idea differ?

Odd that you ask that question when the full context of the post is made available.

Don't you find lies are easier to further when all the facts are purposely withheld?

Explain how the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence. Your implication is that context changed, how so?

I just find it remarkable you sidestep, evade and dodge any accounting of such dishonesty when entire portions of comments are purposefully deleted.

Are really so clueless (or just dishonest) to believe that parsing entire paragraphs won't have the intended consequence of altering intent?

It's really quite simple as you already acknowledge your dishonesty when you wrote "the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence."

 

[Newby]

Odd that you ask that question when the full context of the post is made available.

Don't you find lies are easier to further when all the facts are purposely withheld?

Explain how the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence. Your implication is that context changed, how so?

I just find it remarkable you sidestep, evade and dodge any accounting of such dishonesty when entire portions of comments are purposefully deleted.

Are really so clueless (or just dishonest) to believe that parsing entire paragraphs won't have the intended consequence of altering intent?

Such irony yet again!!

So, you really can't explain how the rest of his comments negated his first sentence or changed its context, can you??

It's really quite simple as you already acknowledge your dishonesty when you wrote "the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence".

Where'd I say that? You need to go back and read more carefully, altho I doubt it's possible for you to look more foolish regardless.

I did ask you to EXPLAIN how the rest of his comments negated the first sentence, which was YOUR implication. Are you having trouble following along?

 

[Hollie]

Explain how the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence. Your implication is that context changed, how so?

I just find it remarkable you sidestep, evade and dodge any accounting of such dishonesty when entire portions of comments are purposefully deleted.

Are really so clueless (or just dishonest) to believe that parsing entire paragraphs won't have the intended consequence of altering intent?

Such irony yet again!!

So, you really can't explain how the rest of his comments negated his first sentence or changed its context, can you??

It's really quite simple as you already acknowledge your dishonesty when you wrote "the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence".

Where'd I say that? You need to go back and read more carefully, altho I doubt it's possible for you to look more foolish regardless.

I did ask you to EXPLAIN how the rest of his comments negated the first sentence, which was YOUR implication. Are you having trouble following along?

That's what you wrote. I "quoted" your comment.

Are you having difficulty keeping up?

 

[Newby]

I just find it remarkable you sidestep, evade and dodge any accounting of such dishonesty when entire portions of comments are purposefully deleted.

Are really so clueless (or just dishonest) to believe that parsing entire paragraphs won't have the intended consequence of altering intent?

Such irony yet again!!

So, you really can't explain how the rest of his comments negated his first sentence or changed its context, can you??

It's really quite simple as you already acknowledge your dishonesty when you wrote "the rest of the comments changed the meaning of the first sentence".

Where'd I say that? You need to go back and read more carefully, altho I doubt it's possible for you to look more foolish regardless.

I did ask you to EXPLAIN how the rest of his comments negated the first sentence, which was YOUR implication. Are you having trouble following along?

That's what you wrote. I "quoted" your comment.

Are you having difficulty keeping up?

You didn't quote me...

All this because you can't explain how the context changed when his entire comment was shown?

See Hollie, partially quoting does sometimes change context, sometimes it does not. In this case, you can't explain how the entire comment changed the context of what PC originally quoted because the rest of his comments did not change the context of the first sentence. I keep asking you to explain how the context was changed after reading the comments in their entirety, and you have nothing. :shrug:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, you have "quote-mined" from Harun Yahya after I have told you repeatedly that you must PM me first so I can advise you privately of your lies, deceit and stupidity.

The Francis Crick "quote" is another example of your idiocy. You mindlessly "quote-mine" this garbage from Harun Yahya and even after you have repeatedly been shown to a liar, plagiarist and spammer, you continue.


Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."




You lie.




You lie constantly.





You're a mess.




You're a sad, pathetic joke.

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

The point is we don't know what Dr. Crick's additional thoughts on the subject are beyond this cherry picked quote. Maybe he does reverse himself. Maybe he qualifies his previous statement. Maybe the next line is about his returning his PhD and joining a cult, who knows? Context is important, not to mention that PC's credibility (or at least those websites she copy and pastes from) is questionable.

There was another evolution thread when she posted some gotcha line from Stephen Jay Gould. Well, I went and looked up the source cited and not only was that quote not on the cited page, it wasn't anywhere in the cited journal. It didn't exist. I even posted a link to the journal so everyone else could see for themselves.

So maybe Dr. Crick actually wrote that, maybe he didn't, maybe there's more to that thought in the context it is presented. We'll never know because PC won't provide it.

"It didn't exist."


That's another lie on your part.

You cannot produce any such quote that does not exist.



Try to.

Or admit that you are a liar like the dope Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

Such irony yet again!!

So, you really can't explain how the rest of his comments negated his first sentence or changed its context, can you??




Where'd I say that? You need to go back and read more carefully, altho I doubt it's possible for you to look more foolish regardless.

I did ask you to EXPLAIN how the rest of his comments negated the first sentence, which was YOUR implication. Are you having trouble following along?

That's what you wrote. I "quoted" your comment.

Are you having difficulty keeping up?

You didn't quote me...

It's what you wrote.

You're reality challenged. You should fix that.

 

[Hollie]

What's your point, or are you struggling to find one in that mess? Are you implying that Crick turned immediately around after the first sentence and negated what he said in the second, i.e. contradicted himself? You somehow obviously think his continued comment contradicts what he started saying? And if it doesn't contradict it, then what point are you making by providing the additional comments?

The point is we don't know what Dr. Crick's additional thoughts on the subject are beyond this cherry picked quote. Maybe he does reverse himself. Maybe he qualifies his previous statement. Maybe the next line is about his returning his PhD and joining a cult, who knows? Context is important, not to mention that PC's credibility (or at least those websites she copy and pastes from) is questionable.

There was another evolution thread when she posted some gotcha line from Stephen Jay Gould. Well, I went and looked up the source cited and not only was that quote not on the cited page, it wasn't anywhere in the cited journal. It didn't exist. I even posted a link to the journal so everyone else could see for themselves.

So maybe Dr. Crick actually wrote that, maybe he didn't, maybe there's more to that thought in the context it is presented. We'll never know because PC won't provide it.

"It didn't exist."


That's another lie on your part.

You cannot produce any such quote that does not exist.



Try to.

Or admit that you are a liar like the dope Hollie.

All the good Christian folk are gathering.

 

[Newby]

Such irony yet again!!

So, you really can't explain how the rest of his comments negated his first sentence or changed its context, can you??




Where'd I say that? You need to go back and read more carefully, altho I doubt it's possible for you to look more foolish regardless.

I did ask you to EXPLAIN how the rest of his comments negated the first sentence, which was YOUR implication. Are you having trouble following along?

That's what you wrote. I "quoted" your comment.

Are you having difficulty keeping up?

You didn't quote me...

All this because you can't explain how the context changed when his entire comment was shown?

See Hollie, partially quoting does sometimes change context, sometimes it does not. In this case, you can't explain how the entire comment changed the context of what PC originally quoted because the rest of his comments did not change the context of the first sentence. I keep asking you to explain how the context was changed after reading the comments in their entirety, and you have nothing. :shrug:

Bump for Hollie, she just keeps missing things...