"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Faithofchristian]

Beliefs by themselves are worthless. One tests ideas to see if they are right or wrong. When the Bible is tested it fails on many different levels.

Wrong, scientists test the theory of evolution. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" it is a made up dishonest creationist term. And we test the theory of evolution to see if it is correct or not. That is done with all of the sciences. The constant testing of the sciences is how we learn new things.



There is always use in testing all of the sciences. Do you see the computer, tablet, or phone that you are using? It is the product of constant testing of scientific concepts. By denying the sciences and yet relying on them to communicate here you are being more than just a little bit hypocritical.



That is wrong. Testing is how one knows if an idea is correct or not. When you do not test an idea all you have is belief. And that puts your beliefs on the same level of that as the religion of the most primitive peoples one can find on the Earth. They believe in their gods too and they do not test them. You might as well believe in voodoo.



Yes, people that tend to test the Bible honestly find that the Bible fails. The writers of the Bible knew that it would not hold up to scrutiny and that is why you are told not to test it. Why would you trust someone that tells you not to test his claims to see if they are valid? You are basing your beliefs upon fear, not upon reason. And no, the Bible is clearly not reality. Even you know that. Your fear of testing it tells us that you know it is false.

Scientists are not afraid of being shown to be wrong. They know that is the way one learns. You are afraid to learn because you know that you are wrong.

Again your not making no sense, As to why would I need to test the bible, When I know the bible to be true.

If I went to test the bible, then I would be admitting the bible to be untrue.

Therefore I have no need to test the bible, for it is true.

You say that people have tested the bible. And the bible failed the test.

It's evidence that those people have no clue what the Bible Confirm's. If they did, then they would had no need to test the bible.they show themselves as being ignorant of what the Bible confirms.

Those people, are not Christians, A Christian has no need to test the bible, knowing the bible stands true to itself.

 

[dfnj]

I assumed no such thing. The issue has nothing to do with the character of what is believed, but one's position toward it. AND, my belief that "to admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears."

Sheesh!

.

Sheesh, what does that mean? Are you trying to insult me here?

There is no fear at all like you are suggesting. Again, you are missing the point. There is no chink at all in the armor because people of faith simply do not share your assumptions. You have the right to have your own opinion. But what you are projecting is simply not correct. Why don't you stick to your own opinions and keep other people's fingers out of ears where you should not be sticking them.

An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time. That is what people of faith choose to believe. It is choice that is made based on religious thought. It is not a decision based on empirical evidence. If you cannot accept that then that is on you and no one else.

Science really has no position on how all the energy came into existence out of nothingness. Heck, science can't even explain why the laws of physics are what they are! And even further, just because we have simple mathematics showing "how" nature behaves in the certain context of measurement, science has no explanation why nature behaves at all! Why does anything move at all or stick together. Just because we have math explaining what is happening we really have not idea why nature behaves at all! God speaks through us through experimental errors. God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature's behaviors just one step beyond our comprehension.

Take Dark Energy for instance. You might as well be describing the word "God". You really have to have some faith to believe in Dark Energy. But who cares about a little hypocrisy when it comes to faith. It's all good. I'm sure you are a really intelligent guy about some things.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Okay, let's look at an analogy. There are two people selling cars. One tells you that his car gets 25 miles per gallon. The other says that his car gets 500 miles per gallon. The former tells you how his car was rated at 25 mpg and that you can test that claim using any reasonable test (an unreasonable test would be measuring the mileage with a dead elephant tied to the roof of the car, you could try it with a live elephant as long as you were the person that tied the elephant there). The others tells you that you can't do any tests. That you just have to trust him. And that includes measuring how much gas you got after you bought the car. Doing so would void the warranty. Which car are you going to buy? The one where the person not only tells you what the tests are but also allows you to run your own tests or the one that tells you that you have to take his claims on faith?

A person that knows what he believes is true is not afraid to have that belief tested. Those that fear that they are wrong will not test their beliefs. You appear to be in the latter group.

Look evolution has nothing to stand on of it's own, that's why evolution has to tested.

The bible on the other hand, no Christian has to test the bible. A Christian knows the bible confirms itself. Without testing.

Where as evolution has to be confirmed by testing, otherwise evolution can not confirm itself. It's only thru testing is evolution confirmed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again your not making no sense, As to why would I need to test the bible, When I know the bible to be true.

You should never claim that a person is not making sense, even though you admitted that I was making sense. You need to understand the concept of a double negative. And you do not know that the Bible is true. You have demonstrated that here. All that you have is belief, and belief is quite often wrong. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. You need some basic education in logic too.

If I went to test the bible, then I would be admitting the bible to be untrue.

What!? No. That is flat out wrong. Testing the Bible is not admitting that it is wrong. In fact if you knew that the Bible was true you would not be afraid to test it. Your fear tells us that you know the Bible is not true.

Therefore I have no need to test the bible, for it is true.

Wow!! Amazing fail. This is pure circular reasoning. Once again, you need some work on your basic logic skills. Right now you are just rationalizing your superstitious beliefs.

You say that people have tested the bible. And the bible failed the test.

That is obvious to anyone that has seriously studied the Bible.

It's evidence that those people have no clue what the Bible Confirm's. If they did, then they would had no need to test the bible.they show themselves as being ignorant of what the Bible confirms.

Back to unsupported and ignorant claims. We went over some of the failures of the Bible. You had no answer. f anyone is ignorant here in regards to the Bible it is you. If you want to go over those failures again I would be more than happy to do so.

Those people, are not Christians, A Christian has no need to test the bible, knowing the bible stands true to itself.

That is not true. Some Christians are not weak in faith. They are still Christians even though the Bible is a flawed book. You are in no more of a position to claim that those people are not Christians than I am in a position to claim that due to your weak faith you are not a Christian. Once again, a person that actually believed that the Bible was perfect would not be afraid to test it. Your fear gives away your true beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look evolution has nothing to stand on of it's own, that's why evolution has to tested.

The bible on the other hand, no Christian has to test the bible. A Christian knows the bible confirms itself. Without testing.

Where as evolution has to be confirmed by testing, otherwise evolution can not confirm itself. It's only thru testing is evolution confirmed.

Please you have no clue as to how science is done. I offered to help you learn, but you did not take me up on my offer. And you need to learn the difference between knowledge and belief. All you have is mere belief. You are no different from a believer in Voodoo.

I am still willing to help you, but you need to get over your fear.

 

[Skwim]

Sheesh, what does that mean? Are you trying to insult me here?

Not all. Just pointing out that you completely missed the issue.

There is no fear at all like you are suggesting. Again, you are missing the point. There is no chink at all in the armor because people of faith simply do not share your assumptions. You have the right to have your own opinion. But what you are projecting is simply not correct. Why don't you stick to your own opinions and keep other people's fingers out of ears where you should not be sticking them.

I do stick to my opinions, unless shown to be wrong, and, as I've done here, express them. Isn't that a ligitimate part of debating? Of course it is. The only thing I can't help is the offense some people take at them. You seem to consider my beliefs to be commands. They are not.

An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time. That is what people of faith choose to believe. It is choice that is made based on religious thought. It is not a decision based on empirical evidence. If you cannot accept that then that is on you and no one else.

Oh, I'm well aware of how chained Christians are to the necessity of their beliefs, which is the point I was making in my OP. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith.

Science really has no position on how all the energy came into existence out of nothingness.

Sure they do, and if you knew anything at all about cosmology you'd know how ignorant your remark here is. Science's "position on how all the energy came into existence out of nothingness" is that it's silly, principally because they reject it. Science may not know how energy came into existence, but just because they don't isn't reason enough to seriously consider it came out of "nothingness."

Heck, science can't even explain why the laws of physics are what they are!

That depends on the laws. Euler's laws of motion are very well understood and explainable. The laws of quantum mechanics not so much. So don't be painting science with any broad brushes unless you want to look like a fool. But so what? None of this has anything to do with the Christian refusal to look at and consider the evidence against creationism. Like it or not, IT IS a matter of sticking their fingers in their ears and say "la la la."

And even further, just because we have simple mathematics showing "how" nature behaves in the certain context of measurement, science has no explanation why nature behaves at all! Why does anything move at all or stick together.

You seem to be under the impression that science says it knows everything---why else claim it doesn't? Well, science has never made such a claim and it never will. That's simply not how science works. Unlike religious dogma, one of its operating principles is that it is always open to correction. It's why science progresses and can contribute to the betterment of life, like the computer you're using, AND how it can explain an awful lot about how nature behaves.

But enough of your trolling.

Have a good day.

.

.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"a species" as opposed to "a number of species"... I see a difference.

Again, scientists will also name species after fictional characters. It is a sign of nothing other than the scientist thought it was a cool thing to do.

 

[Skwim]

Again, scientists will also name species after fictional characters. It is a sign of nothing other than the scientist thought it was a cool thing to do.

I recall one scientist naming two new wasp species P. chewbacca and P. yoda, and another scientist designating a crustacean genus, Godzillius after Godzilla the Japanese movie monster.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again, scientists will also name species after fictional characters. It is a sign of nothing other than the scientist thought it was a cool thing to do.

You're going to pursue this, aren't you?

Ok...

These fictional characters are well-known: Han Solo, Iago, Oedipus, SpongeBob Squarepants (funny!!), Bagheera, Godzilla.... almost everyone knows these. Did you know Dr. Günter Bechly? Me, neither.

Here's a more detailed list of his credits (notice the peer-reviewed articles):
--Hope you can read German--

EponymieBearbeiten
Folgende neuen Taxa wurden nach Günter Bechly benannt:[2]

• Bechlyidae Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (monotypische Familie der Protozygoptera aus dem Oberkarbon)
• Bechlya ericrobinsoni Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (älteste Kleinlibelle aus dem Oberkarbon von England)
• Gorgopsidis bechlyi Wunderlich, 2004 (Springspinne aus Baltischem Bernstein).
• Colossocossus bechlyi Menon & Heads, 2005 (Riesenzikade aus der Crato-Formation).
• Protobaetisca bechlyi Staniczek, 2007 (Eintagsfliege aus der Crato-Formation).
• Carventus bechlyi Heiss & Poinar, 2012 (Rindenwanze aus Dominikanischem Bernstein)
• Cretevania bechlyi Jennings, J.T., Krogmann, L. & Mew, S.L., 2013 (Wespe aus Burmesischem Bernstein)

SchriftenBearbeiten

• Bechly, G. (1996): Morphologische Untersuchungen am Flügelgeäder der rezenten Libellen und deren Stammgruppenvertreter (Insecta; Pterygota; Odonata) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phylogenetischen Systematik und des Grundplanes der *Odonata. - Petalura, spec. vol. 2: 402 S.
• Bechly, G. (2004): Evolution and systematics. - S. 7–16 in: Hutchins, M., Evans, A.V., Garrison, R.W. & Schlager, N. (Hrsg.): Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. 2nd Edition. Volume 3, Insects. 472 S. - Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI.
• Bechly, G. (2010): Additions to the fossil dragonfly fauna of the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil (Insecta: Odonata). - Palaeodiversity, 3 (Supplement "Contributions to the Willi-Hennig-Symposium on Phylogenetics and Evolution, University of Hohenheim, 29 September – 2 October 2009"): 11-77.
• Bechly, G., Brauckmann, C., Zessin, W. & Gröning, E. (2001): New results concerning the morphology of the most ancient dragonflies (Insecta: Odonatoptera) from the Namurian of Hagen-Vorhalle (Germany). - J. zool. Syst. evol. Res., 39(2001): 209-226.
• Bechly, G., Haas, F., Schawaller, W., Schmalfuss, H. & Schmid, U. (2001): Ur-Geziefer - Die faszinierende Evolution der Insekten. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 49: 96 S.
• Bechly, G., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R., Martill, D., Fleck, G., Escuillié, F., Wisshak, M.M. & Maisch, M. (2001): A revision and phylogenetic study of Mesozoic Aeshnoptera, with description of several new families, genera and species (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera). - Neue paläontologische Abhandlungen, 4: 219 S.
• Bechly, G. & Wichard, W. (2008): Damselfly and dragonfly nymphs in Eocene Baltic amber (Insecta: Odonata), with aspects of their palaeobiology. - Palaeodiversity, 1: 37-74.
• Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R. & Nel, A. (2003): Phylogeny and classification of the Stenophlebioptera (Odonata: Epiproctophora). - Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, n.s. 39(1): 55-93.
• Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E. & Nel, A. (2004): A revision of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous dragonfly family Tarsophlebiidae, with a discussion on the phylogenetic positions of the Tarsophlebiidae and Sieblosiidae (Insecta, Odonatoptera, Panodonata). - Geodiversitas, 26(1): 33-60.
• Huguet, A., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G. & Martins-Neto, R. (2002): Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera) [Essai d'analyse phylogénétique des Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera)]. - Geobios, 35: 537-560.
• Jarzembowski, E.A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G., Nel, A., Coram, R. & Escuillé, F. (1998): The Mesozoic non-calopterygoid Zygoptera: descriptions of new genera and species from the Lower Cretaceous of England and Brazil and their phylogenetic significance (Odonata, Zygoptera, Coenagrionoidea, Hemiphlebioidea, Lestoidea). - Cretaceous Research, 19: 403-444.
• Martill, D.M., Bechly, G. & Loveridge, R.F. (Hrsg.) (2007): The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil: Window into an Ancient World. xvi + 625 S. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Nel, A., Bechly, G., Jarzembowski, E. & Martínez-Delclòs, X. (1998): A revision of the fossil petalurid dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera: Petalurida). - Paleontologia Lombarda, N.s., 10: 68 S.
• Nel, A., Bechly, G., Prokop, J., Béthoux, O. & Fleck, G. (2012): Systematics and evolution of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic damselfly-like Odonatoptera of the "protozygopteran" grade. - Journal of Paleontology, 86(1): 81-104.
• Olmi, M. & Bechly, G. (2001): New parasitic wasps from Baltic amber (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Dryinidae). - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. B, 306: 1-58.
• Schmid, U. & Bechly, G. (2009) (Hrsg.): Evolution - Der Fluss des Lebens. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 66/67: 197 S. (second revised edition published 2010)
• Staniczek, A., Bechly, G. & Godunko, R.J. (2011): Coxoplectoptera, a new fossil order of Palaeoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta), with comments on the phylogeny of the stem group of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). - Insect Systematics & Evolution, 42: 101-138.

LiteraturBearbeiten

• Probst, E. (2011): Wer war der Stammvater der Insekten? Interview mit dem Stuttgarter Biologen und Paläontologen Dr. Günter Bechly. - GRIN Verlag, München: 107 S.

(English) Wikipedia's bias is obvious, and any bias discourages open discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're going to pursue this, aren't you?

Ok...

These fictional characters are well-known: Han Solo, Iago, Oedipus, SpongeBob Squarepants (funny!!), Bagheera, Godzilla.... almost everyone knows these. Did you know Dr. Günter Bechly? Me, neither.

Here's a more detailed list of his credits (notice the peer-reviewed articles):
--Hope you can read German--

EponymieBearbeiten
Folgende neuen Taxa wurden nach Günter Bechly benannt:[2]

• Bechlyidae Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (monotypische Familie der Protozygoptera aus dem Oberkarbon)
• Bechlya ericrobinsoni Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (älteste Kleinlibelle aus dem Oberkarbon von England)
• Gorgopsidis bechlyi Wunderlich, 2004 (Springspinne aus Baltischem Bernstein).
• Colossocossus bechlyi Menon & Heads, 2005 (Riesenzikade aus der Crato-Formation).
• Protobaetisca bechlyi Staniczek, 2007 (Eintagsfliege aus der Crato-Formation).
• Carventus bechlyi Heiss & Poinar, 2012 (Rindenwanze aus Dominikanischem Bernstein)
• Cretevania bechlyi Jennings, J.T., Krogmann, L. & Mew, S.L., 2013 (Wespe aus Burmesischem Bernstein)

SchriftenBearbeiten

• Bechly, G. (1996): Morphologische Untersuchungen am Flügelgeäder der rezenten Libellen und deren Stammgruppenvertreter (Insecta; Pterygota; Odonata) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phylogenetischen Systematik und des Grundplanes der *Odonata. - Petalura, spec. vol. 2: 402 S.
• Bechly, G. (2004): Evolution and systematics. - S. 7–16 in: Hutchins, M., Evans, A.V., Garrison, R.W. & Schlager, N. (Hrsg.): Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. 2nd Edition. Volume 3, Insects. 472 S. - Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI.
• Bechly, G. (2010): Additions to the fossil dragonfly fauna of the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil (Insecta: Odonata). - Palaeodiversity, 3 (Supplement "Contributions to the Willi-Hennig-Symposium on Phylogenetics and Evolution, University of Hohenheim, 29 September – 2 October 2009"): 11-77.
• Bechly, G., Brauckmann, C., Zessin, W. & Gröning, E. (2001): New results concerning the morphology of the most ancient dragonflies (Insecta: Odonatoptera) from the Namurian of Hagen-Vorhalle (Germany). - J. zool. Syst. evol. Res., 39(2001): 209-226.
• Bechly, G., Haas, F., Schawaller, W., Schmalfuss, H. & Schmid, U. (2001): Ur-Geziefer - Die faszinierende Evolution der Insekten. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 49: 96 S.
• Bechly, G., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R., Martill, D., Fleck, G., Escuillié, F., Wisshak, M.M. & Maisch, M. (2001): A revision and phylogenetic study of Mesozoic Aeshnoptera, with description of several new families, genera and species (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera). - Neue paläontologische Abhandlungen, 4: 219 S.
• Bechly, G. & Wichard, W. (2008): Damselfly and dragonfly nymphs in Eocene Baltic amber (Insecta: Odonata), with aspects of their palaeobiology. - Palaeodiversity, 1: 37-74.
• Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R. & Nel, A. (2003): Phylogeny and classification of the Stenophlebioptera (Odonata: Epiproctophora). - Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, n.s. 39(1): 55-93.
• Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E. & Nel, A. (2004): A revision of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous dragonfly family Tarsophlebiidae, with a discussion on the phylogenetic positions of the Tarsophlebiidae and Sieblosiidae (Insecta, Odonatoptera, Panodonata). - Geodiversitas, 26(1): 33-60.
• Huguet, A., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G. & Martins-Neto, R. (2002): Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera) [Essai d'analyse phylogénétique des Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera)]. - Geobios, 35: 537-560.
• Jarzembowski, E.A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G., Nel, A., Coram, R. & Escuillé, F. (1998): The Mesozoic non-calopterygoid Zygoptera: descriptions of new genera and species from the Lower Cretaceous of England and Brazil and their phylogenetic significance (Odonata, Zygoptera, Coenagrionoidea, Hemiphlebioidea, Lestoidea). - Cretaceous Research, 19: 403-444.
• Martill, D.M., Bechly, G. & Loveridge, R.F. (Hrsg.) (2007): The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil: Window into an Ancient World. xvi + 625 S. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Nel, A., Bechly, G., Jarzembowski, E. & Martínez-Delclòs, X. (1998): A revision of the fossil petalurid dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera: Petalurida). - Paleontologia Lombarda, N.s., 10: 68 S.
• Nel, A., Bechly, G., Prokop, J., Béthoux, O. & Fleck, G. (2012): Systematics and evolution of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic damselfly-like Odonatoptera of the "protozygopteran" grade. - Journal of Paleontology, 86(1): 81-104.
• Olmi, M. & Bechly, G. (2001): New parasitic wasps from Baltic amber (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Dryinidae). - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. B, 306: 1-58.
• Schmid, U. & Bechly, G. (2009) (Hrsg.): Evolution - Der Fluss des Lebens. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 66/67: 197 S. (second revised edition published 2010)
• Staniczek, A., Bechly, G. & Godunko, R.J. (2011): Coxoplectoptera, a new fossil order of Palaeoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta), with comments on the phylogeny of the stem group of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). - Insect Systematics & Evolution, 42: 101-138.

LiteraturBearbeiten

• Probst, E. (2011): Wer war der Stammvater der Insekten? Interview mit dem Stuttgarter Biologen und Paläontologen Dr. Günter Bechly. - GRIN Verlag, München: 107 S.

(English) Wikipedia's bias is obvious, and any bias discourages open discussion.

That he names all of those critters after himself tells us that he has an ego problem. The poor man simply sound mentally unbalanced. He used an old refuted argument as an excuse to turn creationist. Worse yet it was an area far outside of his expertise which means what I have to say about that argument has just as much weight as what he has to say. Of course I don't rely on myself when I deal with such matters.

Would you like to know how the bacterial falgellum's evolution is well understood?

 

[Darkstorn]

The responsibility of it's accuracy is on the news organization that released the article. They are accountable for any incorrect information. Not everyone that reads it.

When you use it in a debate, to support a statement that you wrote...

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

^^ In this particular context, you are 100% responsible for its accuracy. Your statement hinges on that fact. And we have already established that you are wrong. And the article you cited is wrong.

The point that you seem to be trying to miss so hard on purpose is that we're blaming both YOU and your source for making mistakes. Furthermore, YOU posted the link to support a statement you made in a debate thread. That is on you. You were wrong.

Why are you fighting windmills, huh? It has already been established that you are trying to avoid responsibility for your actions. And now half your posts are literally spam: Half this topic is you going "nope, i'm not listening lalalalalalalala." At what point are you supposed to realize that you are only being destructive? This has nothing to do with the topic.

You're literally trying to escape reality when others have already witnessed said reality. If none of this still helps your predicament, then i can say that you fit the definition of an insane person. No matter how many times you parrot this same thing, it won't remove the fact that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARTICLE APPEARING ON THESE FORUMS. Entirely, the Guardian has nothing to do with it.

Grow up. This IS the debate section. Even if you only post a link, and no statement, it was your responsibility and your debate. But you did more than that.

"To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred." <- You used the article to support this statement. Your statement is wrong, and is supported by a factually incorrect news article. How do you explain this? I mean, in a different way than going off about the Guardian being responsible for what you do:

"I do not have to verify it's accuracy. " -Enoch07

 

[Enoch07]

When you use it in a debate, to support a statement that you wrote...



^^ In this particular context, you are 100% responsible for its accuracy. Your statement hinges on that fact. And we have already established that you are wrong. And the article you cited is wrong.

The point that you seem to be trying to miss so hard on purpose is that we're blaming both YOU and your source for making mistakes. Furthermore, YOU posted the link to support a statement you made in a debate thread. That is on you. You were wrong.

Why are you fighting windmills, huh? It has already been established that you are trying to avoid responsibility for your actions. And now half your posts are literally spam: Half this topic is you going "nope, i'm not listening lalalalalalalala." At what point are you supposed to realize that you are only being destructive? This has nothing to do with the topic.

You're literally trying to escape reality when others have already witnessed said reality. If none of this still helps your predicament, then i can say that you fit the definition of an insane person. No matter how many times you parrot this same thing, it won't remove the fact that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARTICLE APPEARING ON THESE FORUMS. Entirely, the Guardian has nothing to do with it.

Grow up. This IS the debate section. Even if you only post a link, and no statement, it was your responsibility and your debate. But you did more than that.

"To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred." <- You used the article to support this statement. Your statement is wrong, and is supported by a factually incorrect news article. How do you explain this? I mean, in a different way than going off about the Guardian being responsible for what you do:

"I do not have to verify it's accuracy. " -Enoch07

If you have a problem with the article contact the Guardian.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you have a problem with the article contact the Guardian.

But i don't have a problem with the Guardian, as my previous post would indicate. Do you read them, or do you expect others not to read them and realize what you are doing? OK.

One of the points i made is you going "lalalalalala i'm not listening." Are you trying to support my argument or what?

Edit: Serious question: Are you a parrot?

 

[Enoch07]

But i don't have a problem with the Guardian, as my previous post would indicate.

Good then let that be the end of it.

 

[Darkstorn]

What if I had a problem with you, hypothetically speaking? See, this I exactly why I find your actions analogous to relinquishing personal responsibility for your own actions to the Guardian.

I am merely worried about your mental state.

 

[Enoch07]

What if I had a problem with you, hypothetically speaking?

I am merely worried about your mental state.

I'd say the man that just made a threat publicly screwed up big time.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you don't understand that ages and time scales are all arbitrary and mean nothing outside of our own frame of reference. That is why in scifi there are things like "basic languages" and "galactic standard times" because it'd be hell to try to reference all possible means of defining units of time.


Gary Larson has a species named after him. He was a cartoonist.

And then there are species named after fictional characters.


But God isn't the bible.


I also know he never became one. Wonder why. Let's take a peek at wiki:



Yes. Jesus told me to judge a tree by its fruit and if my arm causes me to sin, I should cut it off. I turned that adv
ce on the bible and ... well ...

You should never claim that a person is not making sense, even though you admitted that I was making sense. You need to understand the concept of a double negative. And you do not know that the Bible is true. You have demonstrated that here. All that you have is belief, and belief is quite often wrong. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. You need some basic education in logic too.



What!? No. That is flat out wrong. Testing the Bible is not admitting that it is wrong. In fact if you knew that the Bible was true you would not be afraid to test it. Your fear tells us that you know the Bible is not true.



Wow!! Amazing fail. This is pure circular reasoning. Once again, you need some work on your basic logic skills. Right now you are just rationalizing your superstitious beliefs.


That is obvious to anyone that has seriously studied the Bible.



Back to unsupported and ignorant claims. We went over some of the failures of the Bible. You had no answer. f anyone is ignorant here in regards to the Bible it is you. If you want to go over those failures again I would be more than happy to do so.



That is not true. Some Christians are not weak in faith. They are still Christians even though the Bible is a flawed book. You are in no more of a position to claim that those people are not Christians than I am in a position to claim that due to your weak faith you are not a Christian. Once again, a person that actually believed that the Bible was perfect would not be afraid to test it. Your fear gives away your true beliefs.

I never said

You should never claim that a person is not making sense, even though you admitted that I was making sense. You need to understand the concept of a double negative. And you do not know that the Bible is true. You have demonstrated that here. All that you have is belief, and belief is quite often wrong. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. You need some basic education in logic too.



What!? No. That is flat out wrong. Testing the Bible is not admitting that it is wrong. In fact if you knew that the Bible was true you would not be afraid to test it. Your fear tells us that you know the Bible is not true.



Wow!! Amazing fail. This is pure circular reasoning. Once again, you need some work on your basic logic skills. Right now you are just rationalizing your superstitious beliefs.


That is obvious to anyone that has seriously studied the Bible.



Back to unsupported and ignorant claims. We went over some of the failures of the Bible. You had no answer. f anyone is ignorant here in regards to the Bible it is you. If you want to go over those failures again I would be more than happy to do so.



That is not true. Some Christians are not weak in faith. They are still Christians even though the Bible is a flawed book. You are in no more of a position to claim that those people are not Christians than I am in a position to claim that due to your weak faith you are not a Christian. Once again, a person that actually believed that the Bible was perfect would not be afraid to test it. Your fear gives away your true beliefs.

I never admitted you were making sense, I don't where you got that it.

And I do know the Bible is true, the bible doesn't need to be tested, the bible confirm's it's self.

Unlike evolution needs to be tested, to prove it's truecolors.

Just because you have to test evolution to know if it's true or not. That doesn't mean I have to test the bible to know if it's true or not.
A Christian doesn't have to test the bible to know if it's true or not, A Christian already knows the bible is true.

Just because you can't handle it, that's no one's fault but your own.

Just because you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible, does not make it a flawed book.

You know it's amazing how people like yourself will criticize something and not a thing about what their criticizing.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Please you have no clue as to how science is done. I offered to help you learn, but you did not take me up on my offer. And you need to learn the difference between knowledge and belief. All you have is mere belief. You are no different from a believer in Voodoo.

I am still willing to help you, but you need to get over your fear.

Look i don't need you to tell me, what I know and don't know about science.

Your the one that came out saying how evolution is tested, So why would you need to test evolution if you believe it is true.

The reason you test evolution is to see if it's true, otherwise there would be no need in testing something if you know it's true.

That's why us Christians don't have to test the bible, because we know the Bible is true.
Just because you have no faith in evolution that you have to test it.
Us Christians have faith in the Bible, that's why we don't have to test it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said


I never admitted you were making sense, I don't where you got that it.

Actually you did. I told you that you would not realize that you did. You used a double negative. That means that you said the opposite of what you think that you said. Once again, this is extremely basic logic.

Do you want me to make it clear where you did say that?

And I do know the Bible is true, the bible doesn't need to be tested, the bible confirm's it's self.

Sorry, you don't know that and you just confirmed it again. The Bible cannot confirm itself. That is circular reasoning on your part. A logical fallacy.

Unlike evolution needs to be tested, to prove it's truecolors.

Now this does not make sense as written. The theory of evolution has been tested millions of times and confirmed. The Bible has been tested and has failed. Just because you are afraid to test the Bible does not mean that others are not afraid to do so.

Just because you have to test evolution to know if it's true or not. That doesn't mean I have to test the bible to know if it's true or not.

Actually you do have to test it. Otherwise you are just accepting a book on faith and you once again claim that your religion is no different from Voodoo. Why do you claim that? By refusing to test it you are in effect claiming that.

A Christian doesn't have to test the bible to know if it's true or not, A Christian already knows the bible is true.

Nope, you are conflating mere belief with knowledge. You have been given ample chances to demonstrate that you know that the Bible is true and you have not been able to do so. In fact all you have confirmed is that you do not understand the Bible.

Just because you can't handle it, that's no one's fault but your own.

I am not the one that is afraid here. I can handle the fact that the Bible fails. Heck, I could handle it if the Bible passed tests. You are the one that is scared. Not me.

Just because you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible, does not make it a flawed book.

Please, we have already demonstrated that you are the one that does not understand the Bible. Now you are openly breaking the Ninth Commandment by making false testimony against others.

You know it's amazing how people like yourself will criticize something and not a thing about what their criticizing.

Once again you are not being honest. I am not the one that is afraid here. I am not the one that does not understand your book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look i don't need you to tell me, what I know and don't know about science.

I know that. Everyone here can see that you do not understand the sciences at all. That is why I offered to help you understand the basics of science.

Your the one that came out saying how evolution is tested, So why would you need to test evolution if you believe it is true.

Oh my! You don't know if any concept is right or not UNTIL it is tested. By admitting that you do not test the Bible you in effect admit that you do not know if it is true. You only confirm that all you have is mere belief.

The reason you test evolution is to see if it's true, otherwise there would be no need in testing something if you know it's true.

Partially. It is tested to see if it is correct. That has been done. Now the tests are done to understand HOW life evolved. We are far past seeing if it happened we are now trying to understand the exact steps taken?

Do you understand the difference? You might know that your uncle traveled from Miami to wherever you live, but you may not know how he got there. Asking him questions or looking for evidence is how you would find out what route he took.

That's why us Christians don't have to test the bible, because we know the Bible is true.
Just because you have no faith in evolution that you have to test it.
Us Christians have faith in the Bible, that's why we don't have to test it.

Sorry you can't know without tests. All you have is mere belief.

Once again, if you know it, you can show it. You can't show anything except for belief, that means that you do not know it. Faith is not a road to truth. One can have faith in any religion. By your standards Voodoo is true since people have faith in it.

Tell me, why do you claim that Voodoo is true?