to Christians in this forum...

Pinky,The forum has some new posting rules in place. All new posts must go thru the Proposed New Topics forum. Admins and moderators will move them to an appropriate forum when they meet requirements.http://EvC Forum: Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters...http://EvC Forum: Structure changes, most forums closed to the starting of new topics (4/13 - No longer pending)

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

SchrafinatorSince you quoted Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps you could confirm if these are really quotes from him.

Since creationists have a habit of misrepresenting quotes I suggest you check this resource which details many examples:Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

quote:

---

I could post hundreds and hundreds of links to build the more complete picture, from masonic and secular sources themselves. The few links that I did provide, I was hoping to be a starting point to build on, but before I can even hope to get started the nay sayers have made their verdict without even hearing the case. So be it.

---

It's the quality, not the quantity, of the evidence that matters, pinky.Hundreds and hundreds of pieces of unsubstantiated hearsay is still only hearsay, no matter how much of it there is.A million pieces of crap evidence is just a big pile of crap.

quote:

---

Since you quoted Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps you could confirm if these are really quotes from him.

---

Quite mining is not actually good debate form, as I think you have already been told. Creationist websites are notorious for taking scientist's quotes out of context, misquoting, and changing words in order to misrepresent the authors' true opinion.Also, I notice that you haven't commented upon Gould's explanation of the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory"?I'd rather finish with that before addressing Gould's other quotes, if you don't mind.

You make an incorrect assumption here, I wasn't using those quotes as a debate form, I simply asked if he did in fact say such, knowing full well if it was a false or misquote that you or someone else would say so. What is there to comment on? Scientists have a different meaning for these terms than us 'common' peasant folk.I also find it highly ironic that in a previous post you made a snide comment to me that my life must be really boring, when you have posted (as of this recent post) 2995 times in this forum. It seems that you spend alot of time in this forum and from what I have read of your posts you seem to consistently attack anything Biblical, almost as if it is a sport for you.Do you have a job? I am a stay at home mom and I don't have the time to invest in this forum that you seem to. Perhaps you do have a job and maybe you are even employed in the field of science. If this is the case I am sure that you will point out how this makes you a more superior person than me because I am merely a retarded stay at home mom.Personally I would much rather be a simple minded, stupid peasant housewife with a heart for the L-rd than a bitter, intellectual elitest
that has nothing better to do with their time than stalk and deliver diatribe to creationists all day long.

So I guess it would be completely irrelevant that most of the sources that I could provide are in fact masonic sources? From the horses mouth is hearsay? Do scientists have a different definition for the term 'hearsay'?{Fixed quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-20-2004]

Not to speak for Schraf, but I think you drastically underestimate how easy it is for rational people to deflate creationist arguments. It's not that hard, and it doesn't take that much time. (The reason a lot of us have so many posts though is because, for some reason, you have to say things over and over and over and over and over again to get to creationists.)

quote:

---

You make an incorrect assumption here, I wasn't using those quotes as a debate form, I simply asked if he did in fact say such, knowing full well if it was a false or misquote that you or someone else would say so.

---

The reason that doing that is bad debate form is that it isn't up to the rest of us to make sure your sources are accurate and of good quality. That's your job.So, if you weren't using those Gould quotes to support your position, then why did you post them?

quote:

---

What is there to comment on? Scientists have a different meaning for these terms than us 'common' peasant folk.

---

Well, how am I supposed to know that you understand this if you make no comment?What's with the "common, peasant folk" phrase? No need to be defensive. There are all sorts of specialized meanings for words that most people don't know about. Now you do know that there is a difference, so isn't that a good thing? Correcting errors is a good thing, right?

quote:

---

I also find it highly ironic that in a previous post you made a snide comment to me that my life must be really boring, when you have posted (as of this recent post) 2995 times in this forum.

---

What you probably do not realize is that I have been a member of this board since December of 2001.That's around 1200 days. With 2995 posts, that makes an average of 2.5 posts a day.

quote:

---

It seems that you spend alot of time in this forum

---

More than some, less than others.

quote:

---

and from what I have read of your posts you seem to consistently attack anything Biblical, almost as if it is a sport for you.

---

I find debate challenging and fun.That's why I'm here....on a debate board.

quote:

---

Do you have a job? I am a stay at home mom and I don't have the time to invest in this forum that you seem to. Perhaps you do have a job and maybe you are even employed in the field of science.

---

Yes, I have a full time job. And a husband.No, I am not a scientist, but the husband is. I am just a layperson who finds several parts of the field really interesting, so I have done a lot of reading and study on my own. Had a pretty Biology-heavy college education, too.

quote:

---

If this is the case I am sure that you will point out how this makes you a more superior person than me because I am merely a retarded stay at home mom.

---

Whoa, back up there!Don't blame all of your insecure feelings on me, please.Sticking to the factual issues at had would be best.

quote:

---

Personally I would much rather be a simple minded, stupid peasant housewife with a heart for the L-rd than a bitter, intellectual elitest

---

Hmmm, it seems that you are the one who is bitter, pinky, since you are the one throwing personal insults around.Personally, I'd like to discuss specific evidence, but it seems that you do not.

quote:

---

that has nothing better to do with their time than stalk and deliver diatribe to creationists all day long.

---

Am I to understand that you don't wish to discuss the evidence any more?

quote:

---

So I guess it would be completely irrelevant that most of the sources that I could provide are in fact masonic sources? From the horses mouth is hearsay? Do scientists have a different definition for the term 'hearsay'?

---

My comment is based upon my experience with the proponents of conspiracy theories.What the Masons may say is irrelevant unless there is a healthy amount of corroborating evidence to back it up from multiple reliable sources.Remember the attention the Raeliens got when they claimed to have cloned a human? Remember how they refused to show anybody the details of how they did it, or even show anybody the child?I guarantee you that there are thousands of people and dozens of websites that still believe and promote the idea that the Raeliens cloned a human, even though there is nothing other than their say-so that they did.Have you begun a new topic to discuss the MAsonic consiracy theory?

Hello CrashfrogIf an evolutionist makes a strong enough argument, then I will consider it, but if it can only be delivered with condescending insults, then it makes it really easy to have little or no regard for what that person has to say on the subject.The so called evidence for evolution presented in here seems to take a backseat to the cheesy attacks of the Christian faith, which only confirms to me how sad and empty life is without Jesus.All the science in the world cannot even come close to giving me what Jesus has.We are soon to see some very dark days come upon us here in North America. America is no longer the great 'kingdom' it once was and her destruction is very near. Anyone who is paying attention to what the Bushistas have been doing under the radar won't find this so difficult to believe. The writing is on the wall. All of our science will be useless to keep us in the days ahead, in fact much of the science that you love so much is going to be used to decieve us and bring us into submission to the emerging global government.I guess I was naive enough to think that I could show the reality of this. I still think I could if I were given half a chance to make my case, but what is the point if nobody wants to hear it? In addition, this may not be the forum to discuss it anyhow.Peace to you Crashfrog
pinky[This message has been edited by pinky, 04-20-2004]

I don't see the "condescending" remarks in the post of Crash's that you are replying to. He does get a wee bit testy now and then so perhaps it was something previous.His comment in that post was nothing directed at any person. It was at the quality of argument put forward by creationists. We would all love to see some real discussion put forward to defend the creationists positions on matters of science.People like Crash spend time in the faith and belief forum ( I think) because he just loves to argue. The creationists avoid the scientific arguments like they were poisonous so he ends up here having fun.If you want to see "strong enough argument" then perhaps you should post to the fora that are about the science rather than the Faith and Belief forum. I think it can be demonstarted that, if one enters into honest discussion there, then there is very little, if any, condescention.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-20-2004]

SchrafinatorI don't think I was trying to create any illusion that I am an expert in matters of science, and I will fully admit that I am not qualified to debate on these grounds. I even made a point of saying this in a previous post, and this is the reason why I have posted under Faith and Belief and avoided all the other topic headings.If you have a point you wish to make then why do you have to do so with snide little remarks?I fully confess that my last post to you was overly defensive and insulting, for this I sincerely apologize. I am without excuse.

Actually Ned, I have not felt that Crash has been condescending toward me personally. In reading through other threads throughout this forum I just see alot of cheap shots toward Christians in general.I guess it is unreasonable for me to expect everyone to just stick to the topic without bringing personal feelings into the mix. I plead guilty to this offence as well.I HAVE been reading various discussions in the other parts of this forum, but I will admit with all humility that I am not qualified to add my 2 cents.At the same token I see so much going on in the world right now that confirms to me all that scripture has foretold us of. Creation or evolution just doesn't seem overly relevant to me in light of this. Which would probably bring into question what I am doing in a creation vs. evolution forum to begin with .

Hi Pinky, this doomsday statement is so typical of fundalmentalist I am compelled to respond. How do you explain that everytime some religious group predicts the end nothing happens? For instance during the Dark Ages the plague had people believing the end has come. A estimated 1/3 of the population of Europe died. (interesting to note it was in part due to superstition of religious mania that indiscriminatly killed cats because they were thought to harbor witches which in turn poliferated disease spreading rats and mice. During the 1800's a group of religious fanatics lead by a William Miller using the signs of Revelations predicted the day of apocalypse 22OCT1822. Nothing happened. WWII Hitler invades in Europe and begins genocide of the Jewish people. Religous fanatics again claimed Hiter was THE antichrist and that apocalypse was at hand. The war ended and life goes on. 1980 religious fanatics claim Ronald Regan is The antichrist because he has 6 letters in both names....He came and went. Nothing happened. 1990s David Koresh and a bunch of religious fanatics hold up in Waco Tx because again the end is at hand. The end came for them but the world continued on the next day after they all burned for they're stupidity. 1999 once again religious fanatics predict armagedon and world calamity....Jan 01 2000 nothing happend. How is it you can now again claim the end of America and expect to be taken seriously? You are in good company with your predictions Pinky. You can keep your religious fanatacism and self rightous narrow mindedness . America has endured dark days in the past and will endure them in the future . God Bless America and all patriots that have spilled they're blood to keep us free.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche