The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

[Seymour Flops]

Why would one need to constantly remind himself of what something wasn't?

Right?

According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution. Why would design even cross their minds?

 

[abu afak]

Right?

According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution. Why would design even cross their minds?

And indeed we do.
Almost all fossils ae EXTINCT species.
Poorly "Designed" I guess and now gone.

`

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'

 

[ding]

And indeed we do.
Almost all fossils ae EXTINCT species.
Poorly "Designed" I guess and now gone.

`

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.

Or served their purpose and became obsolete.

 

[ding]

Right?

According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution. Why would design even cross their minds?

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

 

[abu afak]

Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.

Like I said before, the further in time we get away from Darwin, the more willing evolutionary biologists will be to not ignore the gaping holes in Darwinism. New evolutionary biologists are not beholding to Darwin and are unemotional when it comes to evaluating the short falls of Darwin's model.

Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News and Science Today

Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.

evolutionnews.org

Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.

`

 

[Hollie]

Right?

According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution. Why would design even cross their minds?

Evolution is not random. Successful species are the result of natural selection that favors those biological organisms which adapt to their environment. Like the stereotypical religious extremist, you argue against what you know nothing of.

We never see the religious extremists explain why their magical designer gods are such inept and incompetent designers. Religionism (Christianism in this case), has a credibility problem and that problem begins with Christianism unable, firstly, to make any credible argument for the existence of their polytheistic gods, and secondly, to explain why their gods create such error prone, faulty and incompetent designs.

 

[Hollie]

Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.



Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.

`

It's not surprising that the anti-science, anti-"Darwinism" cabal is represented by Christianism and its most extreme syndicate. Attacks on biological evolution are laser focused on Darwin and descent with modification. Attacks aimed at Charles Darwin by the Christianers are frequently in connection with some edited, parsed or altered "quote" they mined from a fundamentalist ministry. The Christianers literally have no idea that science, biology, chemistry, paleontology,, etc. have made remarkable advances in the last 150 years, so much of it strengthening the core precepts that Darwinian theory is based on.

The entirety of Christianism is contradicted by an immensely old planet and billions of years for biological organisms to evolve. Those elements completely deconstruct a 6,000 year old planet. A&E in the magical garden and most importantly, original sin. Absent A&E and original sin, Jesus becomes irrelevant as a "savior", there is no need for redemption, heaven becomes pointless and Christianism is deconstructed.

 

[ding]

Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.



Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.

`

If only you could show how but you can’t.

 

[ding]

Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution

In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the...

www.nature.com

 

[Brick Gold]

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.

Quote mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...

rationalwiki.org

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
...
Examples

Darwin
A famous example, possibly one of the most famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.

“”To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

—Charles Darwin[5]

..
.........

Quoting historical figures was very popular on the early days of the internet, in chat rooms and message boards. Someone would use a clever quote and then someone would respond with a clever quote.

 

[abu afak]

I provided several with links and sources, liar.

Let's rub your ugly face in it:

Scientists Dispute Darwin

Clearly Darwin's theory not only does not bear up under scrutiny, but there is evidence that the very opposite of the theory is the truth.



But the subtext in every one of the threads I post that are anti-Darwinism is this:

Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?

That is the question at issue.






Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)



"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

But it isn't a fact.

Certain weak-minded individuals.....you.....believe it is.

Knowledgeable folks recognize

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

There are dozens of scientists who have written similar rejections of Darwinism.

Clearly, there is no reason to support Darwinism being imposed on innocent children.

It’s clear you have been lied to, used, misled…..the question is why you won’t admit it to yourself. Your anger is due your refusal to allow yourself to admit it.

Why does your sort become so irate when I present the truth? Is it because you know you’ve been lied to?

1.“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)



2. “....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more. To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth.” Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

3. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

4. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

5. When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times

6. "According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times
Is that what the fanatics so afraid of??

7. "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

8. Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."Michael Behe
Darwin's Black Box (1996), page 26
Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381
Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)

CRITICS OF DARWINISM

9. "Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

10. . "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

11. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata.
In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf

12. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

13. . 'The Enlightenment' has been given many differing definitions but it was, at its broadest, a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century which stressed human reasoning over blind faith or obedience and was thus in contrast with much of the religious and political order of the day, while also encouraging 'scientific' thinking. It was the belief that that reason can exist separate from civilization, and that ‘enlightened’ necessitates a repudiation of religion.
Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down"

14. Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
15. Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)

a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
“If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
16. Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.

17. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

18. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.



. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

19. “Nor are all biologists. They know better, too. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts, or to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.” The God of the Gaps

20. "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
Gould wrote "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)."

Seeeeee....just what I've been saying! "...a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors..."
Now...... how to combine
a. "... their descent from a common ancestor..."
with.... " a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

21. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.
22. a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu
"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this{

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."

"...just so stories...."

23. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html

a​

24. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life​

25. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.
26. In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found changes in beak shape!

a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.



Let me know if you need another 30 or so, you buffoon.

Maybe the longest , Lyingest one ever by Dishonest Jehovah's Bltchness.

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe the longest , Lyingest one ever by Dishonest Jehovah's Bltchness.

`

That sort of language is the hallmark of one who has lost the argument.

 

[abu afak]

That sort of language is the hallmark of one who has lost the argument.

Go head and refute my argument?

Your kind of KNOWING DISHONESTY CANNOT BE DEGRADED ENOUGH.

Out of Context quoting is KNOWINGLY LYING.

THEE #1 CreationcYst specialty.
`

 

[abu afak]

........ Let me know if you need another 30 or so, you buffoon.

I'm sure you do.
And of course there are scores more at the Creationist website you PLAGIARIZED them from.
Several have long lists.
We know they aren't from your reading list.

`

 

[abu afak]

A STUPENDOUSLY Long copy and past of scores of quote mines.

ChemEngineer's ONLY game

Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye

Prove it. You're lying and will end up in hell after you die. You come across as a science illiterate , turd sandwich

www.usmessageboard.com

The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion

The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.


The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.


List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority

If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))


Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Of course not.

Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.

The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]

Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

People of faith live longer than atheists.

For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity.

These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data.


The study, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science today, found that on average people whose obituary mentioned they were religious lived an extra 5.64 years.

Atheists commit suicide far more often than those of faith, which is clearly not "rational"


"Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:

"Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3]


The list of atheist shooters and serial killers does not correspond to claims of intellectual superiority and rationality.



Atheists have a long record of being mass shooters and militant atheism in general has a causal association with mass murder.

Due to this fact, peer reviewed research published in academic journals has found that society-at-large is likely to hold atheists responsible for capital criminal acts and that even atheists are likely to assume that serial killers are fellow atheists.[2][3][4]

_______________________________________


“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler


"...indoctrinating them (scholars) with materialism, atheism, and the theory of evolution - the Chinese Communist Party systematically brainwashed a new generation of students, instilling hatred toward traditional culture. ... the CCP promoted atheism and launched ideological attacks against the belief in god.... using methods of violence and high pressure to suppress, persecute and, eliminate religions including the murder of religious practitioners." - The Epoch Times, July 29, 2019


Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243


The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. – The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 240


Irrational Atheism

Atheists always claim to be more rational and more intelligent than Christians. They do not provide evidence of their arrogant, pretentious claim, but even if they did, it does not begin to prove their claim that God does not exist. Implied but not stated is the presumption that BECAUSE atheists are much smarter than you are, THEY must be right, and YOU must be wrong. That does not logically follow, and is a clear Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. So the statement of intellectual superiority itself is irrational.

Atheists claim that "there is no proof" of God. They seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that proof only exists in mathematics. So says mathematics professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.

His remark is echoed by the late Carl Sagan, a militant agnostic and Leftist, who said, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." Atheists seem to dispute even their beloved Carl Sagan as they insist that they know for certain that Darwin was indisputably right, though it is not known "for certain," according to Sagan, and therefore, what need for God? Atheists Stalin and Hitler agreed wholeheartedly.

_____________________________________

"Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolf Hitler, April 7, 1933

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments: the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." - Adolf Hitler

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga

"An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see...." - Power to Influence People, by O.A. Battista

"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, who not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil and other difficulties have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability...." - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

"Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions like children who when they fear to go in the dark will sing or whistle to keep their courage...." - Alexander Pope

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. - Vox Day

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” -Abraham Lincoln

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." - Ravi Zacharias

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. - C.S. Lewis, atheist turned Christian

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. ” - Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924

La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)


You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter. Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has, no consciousness and no will.

“The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensions of hyperspace. That is the mind of God.” – Michio Kaku, www.scienceworldreport.com, June 13, 2016

“As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.” – British Theorist Edward Milne in his treatise on the theory of relativity

“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million , the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” - Physicist Stephen Hawking

“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been designed specifically for us.” – Stephen Hawking

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the result of a God who intended to create beings like us.” – Stephen Hawking

“When I began my career as a cosmologist… I was a convinced atheist. I never imagined that I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true …. straightforward deductions of the laws of physics… I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” – Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate

“I believe I came from God and you believe you came from a monkey and you’ve convinced me you’re right.” – Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon


“I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” – William Phillips

“Both religion and science need for their activities a belief in God, and moreover, God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” – Max Planck


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.” – Werner Heisenberg


“The more thoroughly I conduct research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.” – Lord Kelvin


“Science brings man closer to God.” “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties….” – Louis Pasteur, pasteurization, immunology, confirmed the germ theory of disease

“I’m afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of youth.” – Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)

______________________________


“Four Big Bangs” That Kill Atheism



October 15, 2018 Daniel Currier


In a recent conversation with an atheist, I challenged him with four major topics his worldview can’t explain. I remembered them by using Frank Pastore's nice mental hook, the “four big bangs” that materialism can’t explain.


1. The “Cosmological Big Bang”


2. The “Biological Big Bang”


3. The “Psychological Big Bang”


4. The “Moral Big Bang”



When atheists try to explain these away, there seems to be much hand waving and “just so” stories. I love lines like, “sure, we don’t know, but at least we’re humble because we admit we don’t know” or “at least we don’t believe in the God of the gaps.”



But I digress, each of these four items are predicated upon something, almost magically, the popping into existence of things when the wheel of time is spun.


1) The “Cosmological Big Bang”

This is the most fundamental issue the materialists struggle to explain. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about when the universe started to exist, rather that it did start to exist. Things are much more likely not to exist than to exist. They can’t explain why.

This “just so story” sounds like this: the universe popped into existence, like “poof”, and then expanded through eons of time. Sometimes the claim is that there was nothing and that nothing turned into everything, as in “no thing” or “not anything” caused it all. Nothing is actually what rocks think about. That radical view takes much faith, more than I can muster. Really, are you afraid a pink elephant just appeared in your fridge and now is eating your salad?

Others say “nothing” means “something.” Don’t worry if this misnomer confuses you, the rest of us are confused too. If it’s “something,” please stop calling it “nothing,” right? They say this “nothing” was a singularity, or “all the matter in the universe smashed into an incredibly hot, infinitely dense speck of matter.” Or was this “nothing” some sort of quantum vacuum?

The problem becomes exponentially worse when we understand that the universe is finely tuned. To explain what I mean by fine tuning, think of the International Space Station, or even your car, mower, vacuum or microwave. Even the simplest of these are finely tuned. Many things need to be just right or else the machine does not work. There are many more ways for machines not to work than to work.

The universe is no different, except for it is exponentially more finely tuned, the most complex structure known. So many constants need to be just right. If not, the universe, all the elements, our solar system, our sun and our earth would not exist. In addition, life on earth would not exist if these constraints were not tuned to be just right.

Examples of some of these constants include things like the strength of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and the gravitational constant.

Scientist and agnostic Robert Jastrow, says this in “The Enchanted Loom”:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

We may disagree with some of his thoughts, but his main point is true; the evidence points to the biblical God. Simply put, from our experience, nothing ever makes something. Everything that begins to exist had a prior cause. Also, the fine tuning of the universe, like carburetors, cars and chainsaws, points to a fine tuner. Finely tuned things ultimately have an intelligent cause.

2) The “Biological Big Bang


First dead matter, then alive matter, that’s the problem. Am I just to believe that a “poof,” composed of eons of time, created life? We could talk about the debunked “spontaneous generation” hypothesis from history to the modern “abiogenesis” version, but both have the same issue, lacking evidence.


Paul Davies, a well-known Astrobiologist, says this, “One of the great mysteries of life is how it began. What physical process transformed a nonliving mix of chemicals into something as complex as a living cell?” In a conversation on the Unbelievable radio show, he said we have no naturalistic theory for the origin of life. Anyone who has studied the origin of life will tell you the same. Life always comes from life. Life from non-life is a dead end, pardon the pun.


Also, you remember the fine tuning of the universe, right? Well, life too is finely tuned. From finely tuned cells, to finely tuned molecular machines, to finely tuned DNA code, to finely tuned molecules and all way to the finely tuned elements, life and its building blocks are finely tuned! Again, fine tuned things have an intelligent cause.


In addition, life’s microscopic machines are real machines, not metaphors. In biology, we find gears and motors, turbines and generators. These types of machines, from our experience, are always designed.


We must not forget the information contained in the cells. Again, from our universal experience, meaningful and functional information like this always comes from minds.


3) The “Psychological Big Bang”

The question is simple, how did consciousness arise? From a bacteria like cell, to a blob brain, to a mind?


Somehow we acquired the capacity for creativity and consciousness, design and beauty, self-awareness and self-reflection. From proverbs to poems, to meaning and methods, to emotions and economics.

We have mental abilities, and complementary physical abilities that other organisms don’t have. We love beauty, love the arts and love music. In addition to beauty appreciation, we can make it too.

We can do complex mathematics, we have a complex language and we have the ability to create complex technology.

Our technology, as a whole, not only needs intelligent minds to dream and design, but also proper bodies to create. But there is another level too, that is the topic of fire. Most of our technology requires fire in manufacturing. Very few things, if any, were created without the help of fire.


Here is the interesting part, we are the only creatures on earth that can use fire. Not only do our minds have the ability, but we also have the proper body to make and interact with fire.


Greased with the ingredient of eons of time, this all seems so much like a fairy-tale for grownups!



4) The “Morality Big Bang”

Let me get this straight, we were some type of amoral animals, and through another poof of evolutionary generations, we now possess moral sensibilities? Why is it wrong for one Bag-O-Chemicals to bump off another Bag-O-Chemicals? Why is it wrong to torture babies for the fun of it, and right to treat them kindly?


If our main purpose on earth is to just pass down our genes to the next generation, as many Darwinists say, why the “me too” movement and why is rape so wrong? Oh, am I not supposed to bring up that conundrum? Why do we know those things are bad, wrong and evil? Why is it more wrong for one to try to trip someone maliciously and fail than for one to accidentally trip another? Who cares?


In an atheistic universe, there is no ultimate morality, except for pragmatic reasons. The only reason we do what is “right” is because it helps us. But that does not make things good or evil! And the “it just helps me” line seems quite selfish, so why would that be good?

And why is it a good thing to pass on our genes to the next generation? First, who cares if our genetics are passed on or not passed on? Second, the point seems quite circular. It’s good because it’s good. We are reusing moral language to explain the existence of morality.

The Monstrous Mountain to Climb


Again, each of these four “big bangs” point to God. They are a monstrous mountain to climb, and when the atheist scientist scales them…well, let me quote Robert Jastrow again from his work God and the Astronomers.


“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[abu afak]

Again : ChemEngineer this time Atheists are Nazis.

Words copied by atheists today, thinking they are "rational" and "intellectual" when in fact, they are little Hitlers:

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler. Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it." - D. James Kennedy

"Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolf Hitler, April 7, 1933

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments: the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." - Adolf Hitler

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” – Adolf Hitler”

Sounding exactly like atheists today:

"Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself." — Adolf Hitler

“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler (Often called a Catholic by atheists)

 

[james bond]

Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.

I knew it. It's your stutter from your mental illness coming out.

 

[james bond]

Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.

`

Your statement goes to show you are SAF. We know scientists are usually WRONG -- Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic and that this is a positive. Even Einstein admitted that he was wrong about the universe having a beginning.

Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic

On February 28, 1998, the eminent medical journal The Lancet published an observational study of 12 children: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children. It might not sound sexy, but once the media read beyond the title, into the...

www.wired.com

 

[Hollie]

Your statement goes to show you are SAF. We know scientists are usually WRONG -- Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic and that this is a positive. Even Einstein admitted that he was wrong about the universe having a beginning.

Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic

On February 28, 1998, the eminent medical journal The Lancet published an observational study of 12 children: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children. It might not sound sexy, but once the media read beyond the title, into the...

www.wired.com

So tell us the twoof about the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible and the Flat Earth.

 

[james bond]

So tell us the twoof about the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible and the Flat Earth.

Another wrong statement. I just posted the proof oh FLAT one.