Good quote AGAINST atheism

[red dye]

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno
Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the
Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

[Chris]

Raaaaaaaaaah.

Sing it baby!

[Timbo]

The scientist have better argued resources than the con-men of cloak.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
evolution.

[Chris]

On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> evolution.

name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.

[philosophy]

There are no facts for Evilution, but many for Evolution.
You just have to look at the similarities between and
within species.

[philosophy]

Good quote AGAINST theism:
"Scientists who go about teaching that intelligent design is a fact of

life are
great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax

ever. In explaining intelligent design, we do not have one iota of
fact."
Philosophy.................

[philosophy]

On Apr 17, 6:40 am, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh PS -
A scientist in the Atomic Energy Commission who may have NO
training in Evolution, is hardly a credible source of scientific fact
regarding same.

[LL]

On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

LL. There is no doubt that there are people who claim to be
scientists who are frauds this is one of them. Not only did he not
know the first thing about evolution, he apparently didnt know what a
fact is. This was a very sad state of affairs for the scientific
community. This also should make any rational person quake in his
boots to think that this moron was working for the Atomic Energy
Commission. what should we have expected from that? Keep in mind that
this was 1959. I wonder what became of this fraud? Has he been
consulting with the Japanese nuclear energy industry lately?

It's also interesting that the people who quote this couldn't come up
with something that's less than 50 years old.

...........

[LL]

LL. I'd love to offer a prize to anyone who can provide any
information whatsoever about this T. N. Tahmisian--such as where he
got his doctorate, where else he worked, what papers he published and
what has happened to him since 1959. Or was he made up out of whole
cloth from the beginning?


..."..........

On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

[LL]

LL. An addendum to my previous post. Who is Nicholas Mitchell who
quoted Tahmisian in his only book, Evolution and the Emporer's New
Clothes, published in 1983? An excellent example of one idiot quoting
another one.

..........

[OldMan]

On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

What makes it a great quote? Is it because it supports your
position? It certainly is not because it is true!

[Timbo]

Christian surgeons have taken out wrong organs and ministers have been
known to be drunk on their ass while giving a sermon. But I still
believe that there are professional folks in our world that have the
quality to separate religion from profession. We can only hope that we
don't get the surgeon that cannot.
>
> ...........

[LL]

LL. Besides that, despite the title of the thread, it has nothing to
do with atheism. Plenty of theists accept evolution, too. If the quote
is against anything it's science and common sense.

..............

.........

[LL]

LL. Or the minister.

..........

[Simon Ewins]

You are not identical to either parent.

[dillan]

Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
Evolution.

If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.

[LL]

LL: Not true. We're descendants of Apes. That's a different species.


*******************

[Rolf Schuler]

Quote:"On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

This man appearently doesn't have 'one iota of an idea', what evolutions actually means. Incredibly moronic.

Rolf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/4/17 Neil Kelsey <neil_m...@hotmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[dillan]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002463411_chimp01m.html

Any primate (except humans) are considered an ape.


> *******************

[Steve in Virginia]

Incorrect. Apes and humans shared a single common ancestor and
branched off into two separate species.

Steve

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, we share a common ancestor with chimps.

So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
humans didn't evolve.

[dillan]

On 17 Apr, 10:45, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Apr, 19:35, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > > evolution.
>
> > >  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>
> > Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
> > perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
> > whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
> > rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
> > exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
> > they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
> > Evolution.
>
> > If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
> > then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
> > is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.
>
> Actually, we share a common ancestor with chimps.

True, but that ancestor would be more close to a chimp than human. And
for all intents and purposes, it would have been a chimp. But
technically, you are right.

> So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
> think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
> humans didn't evolve.

I am not stupid enough to compare science with something that's not
meant to be scientific.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Apr 17, 1:31 am, Steve in Virginia <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Incorrect.  Apes and humans shared a single common ancestor and
> branched off into two separate species.

That should be: Humans and other apes share a single common ancestor,
since humans are apes.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 17, 7:54 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 10:45, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Apr, 19:35, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > > > evolution.
>
> > > >  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>
> > > Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
> > > perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
> > > whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
> > > rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
> > > exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
> > > they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
> > > Evolution.
>
> > > If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
> > > then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
> > > is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.
>
> > Actually, we share a common ancestor with chimps.
>
> True, but that ancestor would be more close to a chimp than human. And
> for all intents and purposes, it would have been a chimp.

If by "chimp" you mean "common ancestor of chimps and humans, I
agree".

> But technically, you are right.

And technically, you are wrong.

> > So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
> > think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
> > humans didn't evolve.
>
> I am not stupid enough to compare science with something that's not
> meant to be scientific.

HAHHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[dillan]

Yes.

>
> > > So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
> > > think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
> > > humans didn't evolve.
>
> > I am not stupid enough to compare science with something that's not
> > meant to be scientific.
>
> HAHHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

A response worthy of being a cousin of a chimp.

[Neil Kelsey]

I like chimps, and you and I are equally their cousins.

Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.

[davenorthey@gmail.com]

Humans have definitely moved beyond the theology and philosophy of the 19th century.
Then, too many Christians did not accept Darwin's idea of evolution.   And too many
rationalists, atheist and agnostic philosophers of Europe and N.A. evaluated Christianity
in terms of the preaching and writings of fundamentalists stuck on a literal reading of
Genesis.  I.e. God created, not long ago, the world in six days. 

For the atheists to persist in fighting Christianity in terms of outdated theology is to
make the same error the fundamentalist Christians do.  It's fundamentalist against
fundamentalist.

Most mainline Church theologians and like preachers in North America and Europe, too,
now embrace evolution as warmly as any atheist.  And are starting to write their sermons
and liturgy to honour in worship the God who obviously used evolution to create the wondrous
bio-diversity of mother earth.   Unfortunately, still,  too many denominations and preachers
still don't spin their church members up to date on the realities of modern science and thinking.

The big problem is, as I see it, western civilisation has failed miserably in dealing with the
central importance of myth in religion.  Thus, according to Christians,  the pagan
and heathen religions (anything from stone age animism to NA Indian spirituality and,
no doubt, Islam) are chock full of myths.  But Christianity has the facts and nothing but the
facts.  This is far from the truth.  The New Testament has several examples of Christian
myth and even Jesus myth built on Old Testament myth.  For example, Jesus feeding the 5000.
Also,  the Virgin Birth story, Luke and Matthew varieties, are not biology.  They are obviously theology.

Contrary to the popular view of myth as "falsehood" or "lying" it may be the supreme gateway
to life's ultimate Truth, in terms of human origins and good ethical behavior, etc.
 

[dillan]

We are, but I refuse to respond to questions the same way a chimp
would.

> Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.

Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
a surprise to anyone at this stage.

[LL]

LL. If you and a cousin could say you had a common ancestor--let's say
a great grandfather--would you then say that they " branched off" into
separate species, as if the great grandfather somehow didn't count as
an actual ancestor? If some being is an ancestor, we are related to
that ancestor by blood and genes, no matter how much you want to deny
an actual biological connection by claiming some kind of "branching
off". We are genetically related to every being we are descended
from.

.......

[Neil Kelsey]

Right. Instead you think that the Bible and evolution are both true.
Chimps aren't that cognitively dissonant.

> > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> a surprise to anyone at this stage.

I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
about pretty much anything.

[LL]

LL. The problem is that many fundamentalists still exist and they
manage to get into the media and spread their fundamentalist vision
everywhere Their ideas should be refuted. Another problem is that the
ones who have moved on and accept evolution seldom claim the bible is
wrong. They continue the myth with obfuscations because to admit that
Genesis is wrong is to open the door to other errors in the bible,
including the divinity of Jesus-- in short the whole philosophy of
Christianity-- which they are loathe to do. So, instead, they try to
argue themselves out of a literal interpretation of Genesis because
they were more or less forced into it without then taking a hard look
at the rest of the bible. THAT is why atheists sometimes seem to be
concentrating on fundamentalism. Scratch a modern Christian and you
will find a fundamentalist sensibility inside, covered up with
obfuscations.

............


...........

On Apr 17, 9:05 am, "davenort...@gmail.com" <davenort...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[LL]

LL. We are cousins to chimps, not descendants. We are descendants of
great apes and so are chimps. Would you claim to be a descendant of
your cousins?

...........

[dillan]

Hahah! And you think that saying something makes it true. I wonder
who's using "monkey logic" here.

> > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> about pretty much anything.

Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
Hmm... Interesting.

[dillan]

On 17 Apr, 12:44, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL.  We are cousins to chimps, not descendants. We are descendants of
> great apes and so are chimps. Would you claim to be a descendant of
> your cousins?

You're right. I misspoke.

[LL]

On Apr 17, 9:52 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 12:44, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LL.  We are cousins to chimps, not descendants. We are descendants of
> > great apes and so are chimps. Would you claim to be a descendant of
> > your cousins?
>
> You're right. I misspoke.

LL. Well, thanks for your honesty.

[Neil Kelsey]

No, I don't, which is why I pointed out that you were wrong when you
said that "We are all decedents of chimps".

> I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.

Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.

> > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > about pretty much anything.
>
> Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> Hmm... Interesting.

No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
behalf, including chimps.

And you compared science with religion. How come it's okay for you to
compare them, but not for me?

[dillan]

Which was not the point to being with. The point was the manner in
which you responded.

> > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.

LOL.. I didn't say they were.

> > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> behalf, including chimps.

LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
Are you really this stupid to categorize my comment, "you don't know

what scientific means. But hey, that's not

a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum and
exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?

Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?

> And you compared science with religion. How come it's okay for you to
> compare them, but not for me?

Only I didn't You're seeing things that you want to see.

[Observer]

On Apr 16, 1:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

> Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno
> Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the
> Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

Observer
Were you able to substantiate such nonsensical and baseless claims
perhaps your lack of education and basic dishonesty would be less
obvious.

I am curious as to just what prompts your complete lack of
responsibility in this matter and just why it is that christians, in
general ,are so ready to malign the best educated , best equipped ,
best trained scientific minds ever to populate this planet in attempts
to support their hideous and deliberate lies.

Especially when such as you have rejected all useful education, and
secrete yourselves in the compost of of decaying , inaccurate, and
frankly stupid, commentary, the complete purpose of which is deceit.

One can only surmise that you believe that Jesus, the unwitting god
fraud,was a liar of grand proportions who's encouragement there on to
is perceived as the holey grail of all for which your filthy
superstition stands.

In as much as the entirety of your superstitious beliefs are couched
in such as lies and deceit it is to be expected that such would have
become a way of life. And that you have come thereby a creature
lacking in all honor.

We can only hold such as you in contempt and recognize your core lack
of values in dealing with your fellows .Such is but one more in a long
line of dishonesties demonstrative of the hideous stupidity of non
thinking christians as a demented sub class of humankind.

I suggest that you learn from those who have bothered to educate
themselves and who are actively studying the billions of data which
provide abundant evidence of the facts of evolution and indeed all of
the physical sciences upon which the very survival of our species
depend.

Have you no shame no personal honor ?No human crustily, and no
willingness to learn after all?



In deep disgust, I dismiss you as the psychotic misanthrope which you
have become.

Psychonomist

[Chris]

On Apr 16, 7:39 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are no facts for Evilution, but many for Evolution.
> You just have to look at the similarities between and
> within species.

All cars look a lot alike.

Is this evidence for random occurrences or design?

[Chris]

Oh really. It's all that simple. So then because I don't look exactly
like my mommy or daddy is a concrete fact in your arsenal of proof of
evilution. Hey it's done y'all! Simon went and proved it beyond a
shadow of a doubt. Let's all just give it up here! With that sort of
reasoning, we don't stand a chance!
Last years toaster doesn't look like this years. Is that proof the
thing spawned and had babies all over the shelves at Target?

[Chris]

Is this sarcasm?

If not, wow, but the other atheists on this list spend a good deal of
time saying we're not descendants of monkeys, but that we have have
common descent.

Maybe you'd better let me argue for the case of evilution (which I
would never do). You're doing a lousy job.

And I know you're not an atheist, but hell you sure sound like one.

[dillan]

If you read my posts, you'd have seen that I admitted I made a mistake
in saying what I did.
I initially made a mistake in saying we are decedents of Chimps, when
infact, we are cousins of chimps.

You are more than welcome to make the case for evolution. Only you
appear to be making the case against it.

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/17/2011 3:20 PM, Chris wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:25 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2011 7:35 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey<neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
>>>> evolution.
>>
>>> name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>>
>> You are not identical to either parent.
>
> Oh really. It's all that simple. So then because I don't look exactly
> like my mommy or daddy

Did I write the word 'look'?

No.

> is a concrete fact in your arsenal of proof of
> evilution. Hey it's done y'all! Simon went and proved it beyond a
> shadow of a doubt. Let's all just give it up here! With that sort of
> reasoning, we don't stand a chance!
> Last years toaster doesn't look like this years. Is that proof the
> thing spawned and had babies all over the shelves at Target?

Gee, slow Sunday. Took until 4pm EDT to run into my first moron.

[Chris]

On Apr 17, 3:45 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you read my posts, you'd have seen that I admitted I made a mistake
> in saying what I did.
> I initially made a mistake in saying we are decedents of Chimps, when
> infact, we are cousins of chimps.

It's just stands to reason that you need to know the raw facts about
evilution prior to believing in it.

> You are more than welcome to make the case for evolution. Only you
> appear to be making the case against it.

I most certainly am.

[Chris]

On Apr 17, 3:55 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/2011 3:20 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:25 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2011 7:35 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey<neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>> What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> >>>> evolution.
>
> >>>    name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>
> >> You are not identical to either parent.
>
> >   Oh really. It's all that simple. So then because I don't look exactly
> > like my mommy or daddy
>
> Did I write the word 'look'?
>
> No.

So. Appearance is every bit an issue when stating someone is or isn't
identical.

Could I be identical in every respect but appearance? A logical
impossibility, but then again so is evilution.

> > is a concrete fact in your arsenal of proof of
> > evilution. Hey it's done y'all! Simon went and proved it beyond a
> > shadow of a doubt. Let's all just give it up here! With that sort of
> > reasoning, we don't stand a chance!
> >   Last years toaster doesn't look like this years. Is that proof the
> > thing spawned and had babies all over the shelves at Target?
>
> Gee, slow Sunday. Took until 4pm EDT to run into my first moron.

I will always be your first and last moron Simon. You moron you.

[dillan]

On 17 Apr, 16:08, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:45 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you read my posts, you'd have seen that I admitted I made a mistake
> > in saying what I did.
> > I initially made a mistake in saying we are decedents of Chimps, when
> > infact, we are cousins of chimps.
>
>  It's just stands to reason that you need to know the raw facts about
> evilution  prior to believing in it.

You are right of course. But not knowing facts is not a reason to not
believe it either.

> > You are more than welcome to make the case for evolution. Only you
> > appear to be making the case against it.
>
>  I most certainly am.

Well, proceed at your own peril.

[TLC]

Chris,

The word is ev·o·lu·tion. It's really quite easy to spell, in fact,
most school children spell it everyday and don't find it at all
difficult.

[la'ilaha'illallah]

All that you have to do to educate yourself about evolution of rna/dna
based organisms is get a copy of a zoology textbook, preferably one
from a university course syllabus. No quote from any "professional"
will ever invalidate the innumerable zoological proofs that link each
and every species to the mechanisms of biological evolution.

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/17/2011 4:10 PM, Chris wrote:
>>> Oh really. It's all that simple. So then because I don't look exactly
>>> like my mommy or daddy
>>
>> Did I write the word 'look'?
>>
>> No.
>
> So. Appearance is every bit an issue when stating someone is or isn't
> identical.
>
> Could I be identical in every respect but appearance? A logical
> impossibility, but then again so is evilution.

Keep typing. The more you do, the greater your lack of understanding
becomes obvious.

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly
in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that
is not there."
[Eric Hoffer, Passionate State of Mind, 1955]

[Bob T.]

Only if by "making the case against it" you mean whining and spelling
it "evilution". You've never presented a single fact or rational
argument against evolution in your life.

- Bob T

[Steve in Virginia]

Good catch! :)


Steve


On Apr 17, 11:26 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 1:31 am,SteveinVirginia<resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Incorrect.  Apes and humans shared a single common ancestor and
> > branched off into two separate species.
>

> That should be: Humans and other apes share a single common ancestor,
> since humans are apes.
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:15 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > On 16 Apr, 19:35, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > > > > evolution.
>
> > > > >  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>

> > > > Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
> > > > perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
> > > > whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
> > > > rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
> > > > exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
> > > > they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
> > > > Evolution.
>
> > > > If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
> > > > then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
> > > > is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.
>

> > > LL: Not true. We're descendants of Apes. That's a different species.
>

> > > *******************

[Steve in Virginia]

Who is denying a biological connection between Humans and Apes? Yes,
we are genetically related but over millions of years of adaptive
radiation, isolation, environmental stressors the genetic relationship
has been become diffused. However, there is still sufficient genetic
commonality to clearly identify the Humans, Apes and Monkeys shared a
common ancestor.

Steve

On Apr 17, 12:26 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL. If you and a cousin could say you had a common ancestor--let's say
> a great grandfather--would you then say that they " branched off" into
> separate species, as if the great grandfather somehow didn't count as
> an actual ancestor?  If some being is an ancestor, we are related to
> that ancestor by blood and genes, no matter how much you want to deny
> an actual biological connection by claiming some kind of "branching
> off". We are genetically related to every being we are descended
> from.
>
> .......
>

[Eris]

The guy used to irradiate grasshoppers, how good is that?

On Apr 16, 7:42 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 6:40 am, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> > great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> > ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
> > Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno
> > Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the
> > Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
>

> Oh PS -
> A scientist in the Atomic Energy Commission who may have NO
> training in Evolution, is hardly a credible source of scientific fact
> regarding same.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 17, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dillan simultaneously believes in Christianity and evolution, which
just means he's confused about both. At least your beliefs correlate
to the Bible.

[dillan]

You can't believe IN evolution Neil.

[LL]

On Apr 17, 1:36 pm, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The word is ev·o·lu·tion.   It's really quite easy to spell, in fact,
> most school children spell it everyday and don't find it at all
> difficult.

LL. I say that until he learns to spell we call his ideas cretinism.

........

[LL]

On Apr 17, 3:26 pm, Steve in Virginia <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who is denying a biological connection between Humans and Apes?  Yes,
> we are genetically related but over millions of years of adaptive
> radiation, isolation, environmental stressors the genetic relationship
> has been become diffused.  However, there is still sufficient genetic
> commonality to clearly identify the Humans, Apes and Monkeys shared a
> common ancestor.

LL. And that common ancestor was an ape. That's the point I was
making. You seem to think that by calling it a common ancestor that
somehow means it wasn't an ape or that were not really descended from
such a creature. If there were no other lines of descent than those
which became man, how would you characterize it?

.............

[philosophy]

Are you suggesting that human beings are similar
to cars?

[philosophy]

On Apr 18, 5:15 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh, and may I point out that cars don't reproduce.

[philosophy]

On Apr 18, 10:32 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The guy used to irradiate grasshoppers, how good is that?

Trying to force evolution in a Christian manner, was he?

[philosophy]

Evolution is a process. You can believe that process is correct, and
hence you can believe IN it.

[dillan]

OED
believe in
1 have faith in the truth or existence of:
those who believe in God
2 be of the opinion that (something) is right or acceptable:
I don't believe in censorship of the arts
3 have confidence in (a person or a course of action):
he had finally begun to believe in her

2-would be the most closest but it indicates a moral or a stand on
principle.

So, I don't understand your reasoning, or i'm missing something.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Yes. Cars are built from naturally occurring raw materials. So was
man. The first man was made from mud. The first woman was made from a
bone. So, there!

Now that we've covered that ground, when are the next model of man and
woman due?

[Rolf Schuler]

QUOTE: "So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
humans didn't evolve."

Would you ever compare scientific facts with Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs? Or with any other children's tales?

Rolf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/4/17 Neil Kelsey <neil_m...@hotmail.com>

On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16 Apr, 19:35, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > evolution.
>
> >  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>
> Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
> perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
> whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
> rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
> exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
> they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
> Evolution.
>
> If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
> then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
> is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.

Actually, we share a common ancestor with chimps.

So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
humans didn't evolve.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Kilmir]

On Apr 17, 6:05 pm, "davenort...@gmail.com" <davenort...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Humans have definitely moved beyond the theology and philosophy of the 19th
> century.
> Then, too many Christians did not accept Darwin's idea of evolution.   And
> too many
> rationalists, atheist and agnostic philosophers of Europe and N.A. evaluated
> Christianity
> in terms of the preaching and writings of fundamentalists stuck on a literal
> reading of
> Genesis.  I.e. God created, not long ago, the world in six days.  
>
> For the atheists to persist in fighting Christianity in terms of outdated
> theology is to
> make the same error the fundamentalist Christians do.  It's fundamentalist
> against
> fundamentalist.
>
> Most mainline Church theologians and like preachers in North America and
> Europe, too,
> now embrace evolution as warmly as any atheist.  And are starting to write
> their sermons
> and liturgy to honour in worship the God who obviously used evolution to
> create the wondrous
> bio-diversity of mother earth.   Unfortunately, still,  too many
> denominations and preachers
> still don't spin their church members up to date on the realities of modern
> science and thinking.
>
> The big problem is, as I see it, western civilisation has failed miserably
> in dealing with the
> central importance of myth in religion.  Thus, according to Christians,  the
> pagan
> and heathen religions (anything from stone age animism to NA Indian
> spirituality and,
> no doubt, Islam) are chock full of myths.  But Christianity has the facts
> and nothing but the
> facts.  This is far from the truth.  The New Testament has several examples
> of Christian
> myth and even Jesus myth built on Old Testament myth.  For example, Jesus
> feeding the 5000.
> Also,  the Virgin Birth story, Luke and Matthew varieties, are not biology.  
> They are obviously theology.
>
> Contrary to the popular view of myth as "falsehood" or "lying" it may be the
> supreme gateway
> to life's ultimate Truth, in terms of human origins and good ethical
> behavior, etc.

I do agree that most Christians these days acknowledge evolution as
the means humans came about, though they still hold on to the notion
of a god behind it (beliefs vary where the god contributed).

What mostly puzzles me is the following:
The whole basis for Christianity is that Adam and Eve were disobedient
in paradise and God essentially cursed them. This is called the
Original Sin and is inherited by all humans who all supposedly
descended from A&E.
Jesus was sacrificed to absolve humans of the Original Sin and thus
allow them to get into heaven.

Now when Christians acknowledge evolution they must acknowledge that
there never was an Adam and Eve. This means there never was an
Original Sin, and consequently there never was a need for a Jesus to
be sacrificed to absolve us of it.

Now where did I go wrong in my reasoning or is this really a huge
contradiction in the minds of Christians? What is the prevalent
theological reasoning to get out of that conflict?

[philosophy]

On Apr 18, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:20 am, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:15 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 7:39 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are no facts for Evilution, but many for Evolution.
> > > > You just have to look at the similarities between and
> > > > within species.
>
> > >  All cars look a lot alike.
>
> > >  Is this evidence for random occurrences or design?
>
> > Are you suggesting that human beings are similar
> > to cars?
>
> Yes. Cars are built from naturally occurring raw materials. So was
> man. The first man was made from mud. The first woman was made from a
> bone. So, there!

My goodness Ranjit, you are sounding like a petulant child.
I don't subscribe to your explanation of who man was made,
or woman for that matter. It doesn't even come close to
the chicken and egg conundrum.

>
> Now that we've covered that ground, when are the next model of man and
> woman due?

You haven't covered it. No doubt the process of evolution will
gradually
give up better humans. No new models like cars, I'm afraid. Just a
gradual and slow improvement.

[philosophy]

Maybe.

I would suggest I have confidence, given our current level of
scientific knowledge, that the process of evolution is correct.

[Drafterman]

On Apr 16, 4:40 pm, red dye <gaelen.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
> Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno
> Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the
> Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

That's neither a good quote nor does it have anything to do with
atheism.

[Drafterman]

On Apr 16, 7:21 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Raaaaaaaaaah.
>
> Sing it baby!

Perhaps you can explain:

1) Why is that quote good?
2) What does it have to do with atheism?

[dillan]

That, I can agree with.

[Neil Kelsey]

I'm just echoing what Chris told you, dillan ("It's just stands to

reason that you need to know the raw facts about evilution prior to

believing in it"). Take it up with him.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 18, 12:50 am, Rolf Schuler <rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: "So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
> think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
> humans didn't evolve."
>
> Would you ever compare scientific facts with Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs?
> Or with any other children's tales?

As soon as someone tries to tell me those stories are true I would.


> Rolf
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
>
> 2011/4/17 Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 17, 11:07 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 13:27, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:51 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Apr, 12:32, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 9:17 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 17 Apr, 12:02, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 17, 8:57 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 17 Apr, 11:39, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 7:54 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > On 17 Apr, 10:45, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 10:00 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Apr, 19:35, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all available evidence fits in
> > > > > > > > > > > perfectly (and I mean perfectly), with the framework of evolution. The
> > > > > > > > > > > whole debate of whether evolution is a fact or not is long put to
> > > > > > > > > > > rest. All you need to do it go to any museum. There was a great
> > > > > > > > > > > exhibit at Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, on humanoids, and how
> > > > > > > > > > > they evolved. It's pretty hard to deny the overwhelming evidence for
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone can find an animal that doesn't fit into this framework,
> > > > > > > > > > > then we can, maybe say that evolution is not a fact. But as it is, it
> > > > > > > > > > > is a fact. We are all decedents of chimps.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, we share a common ancestor with chimps.
>

> > > > > > > > > True, but that ancestor would be more close to a chimp than human. And
> > > > > > > > > for all intents and purposes, it would have been a chimp.
>
> > > > > > > > If by "chimp" you mean "common ancestor of chimps and humans, I
> > > > > > > > agree".
>
> > > > > > > > >  But  technically, you are right.
>
> > > > > > > > And technically, you are wrong.
>
> > > > > > > Yes.

>
> > > > > > > > > > So if you think evolution (and evolution is science) is true, do you
> > > > > > > > > > think that science contradicts the Bible? Because the Bible says that
> > > > > > > > > > humans didn't evolve.
>

> > > > > > > > > I am not stupid enough to compare science with something that's not
> > > > > > > > > meant to be scientific.
>
> > > > > > > > HAHHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
>
> > > > > > > A response worthy of being a cousin of a chimp.
>
> > > > > > I like chimps, and you and I are equally their cousins.
>
> > > > > We are, but I refuse to respond to questions the same way a chimp
> > > > > would.
>
> > > > Right. Instead you think that the Bible and evolution are both true.
> > > > Chimps aren't that cognitively dissonant.
>
> > > Hahah! And you think that saying something makes it true.
>
> > No, I don't, which is why I pointed out that you were wrong when you
> > said that "We are all descedents of chimps".
>
> Which was not the point to being with.

It became the point when you changed the subject to me thinking that
saying something makes it true, genius. I just gave you an example to
show you are wrong, as usual.

> The point was the manner in
> which you responded.

No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
true, which is the "point" that you raised.

> > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> LOL.. I didn't say they were.

I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
did say that humans descended from chimps.

> > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > behalf, including chimps.
>
> LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> Are you really this stupid

I'll bet you're single.

> to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> what scientific means. But hey, that's not
>  a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum  and
> exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?

I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
agreeing with you about that or anything else).

> Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
so, it is so." (wikipedia)

You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.

What is an argumentum ad populum to you?

> > And you compared science with religion. How come it's okay for you to
> > compare them, but not for me?
>
> Only I didn't

How can you tell science and the Bible are not comparable if you don't
compare them?

> You're seeing things that you want to see.

Well, if I had my choice I'd rather see you making sense.

[dillan]

LOL.. I will Neil.

[Neil Kelsey]

No it doesn't.

> So, I don't understand your reasoning, or i'm missing something.

You're missing something - the point.

[Steve in Virginia]

No, the common ancestor had characteristics that were common to
modern, even archaic humans, apes and monkeys. But apes did not turn
into humans. Each distinctive species is the result of innumerable
adaptive changes across hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
years.

If you go far enough back into the fossil record you come across the
mammal-like reptiles - the Therapsids, especially the Pelycosaur,
Dimetrodon- that lived around the start of the Permian age, 300
million years ago. One of the diagnostics for mammal-like reptiles
was specialized dentition.

In the case of Dimetrodon, fangs and molars. Dimetrodon also possessed
a zygomatic arch and, like us, the teeth were generally confined to
the margins of the jaw. Another diagnostic feature was a single hole
(foramen) in the skull behind each eye to accommodate the optic nerve,
classifying them as synapsids. Technically speaking, all mammals, us
included, can be classified as synapsids. But I'd hardly call humans
pelycosaurians.

Evolution isn't a smooth or seamless process. It produces amazingly
adaptive species. The multituberculates existed for some 100 million
years, making them the undisputed record for an order of mammals. And
there are also evolutionary dead-ends such as the avocado. Scientists
believe, that it's massive seed evolved to be distributed through the
digestive systems on long extinct megafauna.

However, despite the ensuing 285 millions years of evolution which saw
the evolution of cynodonts, multituberculates, mammalian rodentia,
lemuriforms and eventually apes and humans, the evolutionary process
isn't linear. Evolution is dynamic, stochastic and far from perfect,
but that often messy, chaotic process allows for adaptation and
proliferation in numerous environments, without guarantee or design.

Steve

[dillan]

Neil, what's wrong with you dude?
The point was my saying "all descedents of chimps" was not what I was
referring to when I said that you thinking that saying something makes
it true.

> > The point was the manner in
> > which you responded.
>
> No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
> true, which is the "point" that you raised.

NO, It was the point I made.

> > > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> > LOL.. I didn't say they were.
>
> I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
> did say that humans descended from chimps.
>

As usual, you are wrong again.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > > behalf, including chimps.
>
> > LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> > Are you really this stupid
>
> I'll bet you're single.

Haha!.. are you double?

> > to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> > what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> >  a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum  and
> > exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> > atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?
>
> I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
> believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
> because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
> agreeing with you about that or anything else).

I did say every one knows you don't know science Neil. I said no one
would be surprised by your lack of knowledge on what constitute
"scientific". I didn't say anything about them knowing about your
knowledge.
Stop misrepresenting what I said.

> > Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
> is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
> because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
> so, it is so." (wikipedia)
>
> You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
> scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
> stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
> knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.

Everything you said after "In other words" is wrong. I don't see how
anyone but a dishonest person can interpret what I said that way.
Forgetting the fact that "what scientific means" is completely
different from "what science is",
there is no way you can infer from what I said, that I meant your lack
of knowledge on what scientific is, is predicated on everyone agreeing
with me.
Your statement on the other hand infer that I am wrong because no one
agreed with me.

Why are you like this Neil?

> What is an argumentum ad populum to you?

Exactly what you said it is. Only, I interpreted it correctly, and not
the way I want.

> > > And you compared science with religion. How come it's okay for you to
> > > compare them, but not for me?
>
> > Only I didn't
>
> How can you tell science and the Bible are not comparable if you don't
> compare them?

Because the bible is not meant to be scientific text, so the
compatibility issue is irrelevant.

[Neil Kelsey]

I give you too much credit for being conscious of what you write,
probably.

> The point was my saying "all descedents of chimps" was not what I was
> referring to when I said that you thinking that saying something makes
> it true.

The point is that me pointing out that your claim that "We are all
descedents of chimps" is wrong is an example of me not believing that
simply by saying something makes it true, so you are wrong about that,
too.

> > > The point was the manner in
> > > which you responded.
>
> > No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
> > true, which is the "point" that you raised.
>
> NO, It was the point I made.

What is the difference between the phrase "the point you raised" and
the phrase "the point you made"?

> > > > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > > > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> > > LOL.. I didn't say they were.
>
> > I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
> > did say that humans descended from chimps.
>
> As usual, you are wrong again.

What am I wrong about? You did say that humans descended from chimps,
and I had to correct you.

> > > > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > > > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > > > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > > > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > > > behalf, including chimps.
>
> > > LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> > > Are you really this stupid
>
> > I'll bet you're single.
>
> Haha!.. are you double?

I mean single in the sense that you probably don't have a girlfriend,
or a boyfriend, seeming as how you are an abusive asshole.

> > > to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> > > what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > >  a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum  and
> > > exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> > > atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?
>
> > I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
> > believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
> > because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
> > agreeing with you about that or anything else).
>
> I did say every one knows you don't know science Neil.

I know. And I showed that was an argument by assertion fallacy (I
haven't seen anyone agree with you about anything, Christian or
atheist). In fact, I had to correct you about a scientific fact
(humans are *not* descended from chimps), and you even admitted I was
right. So I do know at least some science, and you are demonstrably
wrong.

>I said no one
> would be surprised by your lack of knowledge on what constitute
> "scientific". I didn't say anything about them knowing about your
> knowledge.

You said Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey,
that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage." Which means that you
think everyone knows I don't know what science is.

> Stop misrepresenting what I said.

I didn't.

> > > Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> > "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
> > is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
> > because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
> > so, it is so." (wikipedia)
>
> > You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
> > scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
> > stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
> > knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.
>
> Everything you said after "In other words" is wrong. I don't see how
> anyone but a dishonest person can interpret what I said that way.
> Forgetting the fact that "what scientific means" is completely
> different from "what science is",

No it isn't.

> there is no way you can infer from what I said, that I meant your lack
> of knowledge on what scientific is, is predicated on everyone agreeing
> with me.

I didn't infer that. I inferred that you think I don't know what
science is/means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are
"not surprised").

> Your statement on the other hand infer that I am wrong because no one
> agreed with me.

My statement was about you not having any evidence to support your
assertion that "that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage" is an
unsupported assertion - you have no evidence that everyone thinks I
don't know what science is/means/whatever. In fact, I have evidence
that you are wrong and that I do know at least what some science is/
means/whatever because I had to correct *you*, and your incorrect
statement that "humans descended from chimps".

> Why are you like this Neil?

I think it is important that ignorance and superstion be challenged,
and you are ignorant and superstitious..

> > What is an argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> Exactly what you said it is. Only, I interpreted it correctly, and not
> the way I want.

Argument by assertion fallacies don't mean that you interpreted
correctly.

> > > > And you compared science with religion. How come it's okay for you to
> > > > compare them, but not for me?
>
> > > Only I didn't
>
> > How can you tell science and the Bible are not comparable if you don't
> > compare them?
>
> Because the bible is not meant to be scientific text, so the
> compatibility issue is irrelevant.

You just compared the Bible with science. How come it's okay for you
to compare them but not for me?

[dillan]

Hello Mr Pot.

> > The point was my saying "all descedents of chimps" was not what I was
> > referring to when I said that you thinking that saying something makes
> > it true.
>
> The point is that me pointing out that your claim that "We are all
> descedents of chimps" is wrong is an example of me not believing that
> simply by saying something makes it true, so you are wrong about that,
> too.

Only, I never said everything you ever say id subjected to
classification (That you think just saying it makes it true). I was
talking about the instance when you did. So you've clearly created
straw man.

> > > > The point was the manner in
> > > > which you responded.
>
> > > No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
> > > true, which is the "point" that you raised.
>
> > NO, It was the point I made.
>
> What is the difference between the phrase "the point you raised" and
> the phrase "the point you made"?

NO, the Point I was making was not about "chimps being decedents..".
It was about the manner in which you responded. You've switched points
midway.

> > > > > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > > > > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> > > > LOL.. I didn't say they were.
>
> > > I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
> > > did say that humans descended from chimps.
>
> > As usual, you are wrong again.
>
> What am I wrong about? You did say that humans descended from chimps,
> and I had to correct you.
>

But that wasn't the point I was making in this sub thread.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > > > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > > > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > > > > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > > > > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > > > > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > > > > behalf, including chimps.
>
> > > > LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> > > > Are you really this stupid
>
> > > I'll bet you're single.
>
> > Haha!.. are you double?
>
> I mean single in the sense that you probably don't have a girlfriend,
> or a boyfriend, seeming as how you are an abusive asshole.

You're wrong on both counts. I actually have a quite pleasant
disposition. I just get annoyed at people who deliberately obfuscate
and misdirect conversations to win at all costs.

> > > > to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> > > > what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > >  a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum  and
> > > > exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> > > > atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?
>
> > > I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
> > > believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
> > > because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
> > > agreeing with you about that or anything else).
>
> > I did say every one knows you don't know science Neil.
>
> I know. And I showed that was an argument by assertion fallacy (I
> haven't seen anyone agree with you about anything, Christian or
> atheist). In fact, I had to correct you about a scientific fact
> (humans are *not* descended from chimps), and you even admitted I was
> right. So I do know at least some science, and you are demonstrably
> wrong.

That was a typo. I mean "I DIDN'T say.."

> >I said no one
> > would be surprised by your lack of knowledge on what constitute
> > "scientific". I didn't say anything about them knowing about your
> > knowledge.
>
> You said Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey,
> that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage." Which means that you
> think everyone knows I don't know what science is.

I'm not going to argue with you on how to interpret what I said.
You're just trying to put words in my mouth.
I meant, from our discussion, it's apparent that you don't know what
would constitute scientific. It it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
who have read our conversation thus far.

If you think that's argmentum ad pop, then you need to seek help.

> > Stop misrepresenting what I said.
>
> I didn't.

You did.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> > > "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
> > > is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
> > > because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
> > > so, it is so." (wikipedia)
>
> > > You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
> > > scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
> > > stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
> > > knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.
>
> > Everything you said after "In other words" is wrong. I don't see how
> > anyone but a dishonest person can interpret what I said that way.
> > Forgetting the fact that "what scientific means" is completely
> > different from "what science is",
>
> No it isn't.

Yes it is.. why are they similar?

> > there is no way you can infer from what I said, that I meant your lack
> > of knowledge on what scientific is, is predicated on everyone agreeing
> > with me.
>
> I didn't infer that. I inferred that you think I don't know what
> science is/means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are
> "not surprised").

LOL.. why Neil? Why? Why are you this dishonest? why are you twisting
logic to the point of absurdity?
Are you seriously saying that "

"Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
a surprise to anyone at this stage."

Means that
"I (Neil) don't know what science is because everyone knows I (Neil)
don't" ?
Is that really your argument?

Seriously Neil.

> > Your statement on the other hand infer that I am wrong because no one
> > agreed with me.
>
> My statement was about you not having any evidence to support your
> assertion that "that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage" is an
> unsupported assertion - you have no evidence that everyone thinks I
> don't know what science is/means/whatever. In fact, I have evidence
> that you are wrong and that I do know at least what some science is/
> means/whatever because I had to correct *you*, and your incorrect
> statement that "humans descended from chimps".

Hahah!..I was talking about your statement "I haven't noticed that

anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you about pretty much

anything." See, another misdirection. Clearly from the context of what
I said, it's clear I was talking about this statement. You just chose
to misdirect again.

> > Why are you like this Neil?
>
> I think it is important that ignorance and superstion be challenged,
> and you are ignorant and superstitious..
>
> > > What is an argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> > Exactly what you said it is. Only, I interpreted it correctly, and not
> > the way I want.
>
> Argument by assertion fallacies don't mean that you interpreted
> correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > And you compared science with
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Observer]

On Apr 16, 4:35 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > evolution.
>
>  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.

Were your mind not so full of fecal material and were you to bother to
educate your self you would be in receipt of of an abunbdance of such
data.

In as as much as you have heretofore rejected all useful education I
can only hope that your ignorance might be overcome by the series of
lectures referred to here had given to children who are not mind
dead ,liars for Jesus ,as are you.

you.http://www.ted.com/talks/
richard_dawkins_growing_up_in_the_universe.html

Psychonomist

[Drafterman]

On Apr 16, 7:35 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > evolution.
>
>  name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.

How about 29+ facts for evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Neil Kelsey]

Explain.

> > > The point was my saying "all descedents of chimps" was not what I was
> > > referring to when I said that you thinking that saying something makes
> > > it true.
>
> > The point is that me pointing out that your claim that "We are all
> > descedents of chimps" is wrong is an example of me not believing that
> > simply by saying something makes it true, so you are wrong about that,
> > too.
>
> Only, I never said everything you ever say id subjected to
> classification (That you think just saying it makes it true).
> I was talking about the instance when you did.
> So you've clearly created
> straw man.

Incoherent gibberish doesn't mean I created a "straw man".

> > > > > The point was the manner in
> > > > > which you responded.
>
> > > > No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
> > > > true, which is the "point" that you raised.
>
> > > NO, It was the point I made.
>
> > What is the difference between the phrase "the point you raised" and
> > the phrase "the point you made"?
>
> NO, the Point I was making was not about "chimps being decedents..".
> It was about the manner in which you responded. You've switched points
> midway.

So you switched "points" from "humans are descended from chimps" to
something about my manners and its my fault?

> > > > > > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > > > > > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> > > > > LOL.. I didn't say they were.
>
> > > > I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
> > > > did say that humans descended from chimps.
>
> > > As usual, you are wrong again.
>
> > What am I wrong about? You did say that humans descended from chimps,
> > and I had to correct you.
>
> But that wasn't the point I was making in this sub thread.

You claimed I am "usually wrong" and I gave an example where you were
wrong and I was right, since you seem to be keeping score.

> > > > > > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > > > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > > > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > > > > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > > > > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > > > > > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > > > > > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > > > > > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > > > > > behalf, including chimps.
>
> > > > > LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> > > > > Are you really this stupid
>
> > > > I'll bet you're single.
>
> > > Haha!.. are you double?
>
> > I mean single in the sense that you probably don't have a girlfriend,
> > or a boyfriend, seeming as how you are an abusive asshole.
>
> You're wrong on both counts.

What, you have a girfriend AND a boyfriend? I never would have taken
you for a swinger...

> I actually have a quite pleasant
> disposition.

And is that an objective fact, or just narcissism?

> I just get annoyed at people who deliberately obfuscate
> and misdirect conversations to win at all costs.

Projection is an interesting psychological phenemonon, don't you
think? (that last part was rhetorical).

> > > > > to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> > > > > what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum and
> > > > > exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> > > > > atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?
>
> > > > I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
> > > > believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
> > > > because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
> > > > agreeing with you about that or anything else).
>
> > > I did say every one knows you don't know science Neil.
>
> > I know. And I showed that was an argument by assertion fallacy (I
> > haven't seen anyone agree with you about anything, Christian or
> > atheist). In fact, I had to correct you about a scientific fact
> > (humans are *not* descended from chimps), and you even admitted I was
> > right. So I do know at least some science, and you are demonstrably
> > wrong.
>
> That was a typo. I mean "I DIDN'T say.."

Except you did say that. You seem confused.

> > >I said no one
> > > would be surprised by your lack of knowledge on what constitute
> > > "scientific". I didn't say anything about them knowing about your
> > > knowledge.
>
> > You said Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey,
> > that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage." Which means that you
> > think everyone knows I don't know what science is.
>
> I'm not going to argue with you on how to interpret what I said.
> You're just trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm trying to put your words into your mouth, which surprisingly
doesn't seem to be possible.

> I meant, from our discussion, it's apparent that you don't know what
> would constitute scientific.

I thought you weren't going to argue with me about how to interpret
what you said? You seem confused...

> It it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
> who have read our conversation thus far.

I don't know why you keep appealing to people who might be reading our
conversation. What makes you assume they agree with you? I don't see
anybody agreeing with either of us.

> If you think that's argmentum ad pop, then you need to seek help.

Well, now that you've revised what you said to the point where I've
lost track of it, I'm not sure what I think of your latest revision
beyond ceasing to give a fuck.

> > > Stop misrepresenting what I said.
>
> > I didn't.

> You did.

Disagree.

> > > > > Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> > > > "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
> > > > is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
> > > > because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
> > > > so, it is so." (wikipedia)
>
> > > > You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
> > > > scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
> > > > stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
> > > > knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.
>
> > > Everything you said after "In other words" is wrong. I don't see how
> > > anyone but a dishonest person can interpret what I said that way.
> > > Forgetting the fact that "what scientific means" is completely
> > > different from "what science is",
>
> > No it isn't.
>
> Yes it is.. why are they similar?

Besides two of three words being identical, what science "means" is a
subset of what science "is", for starters. Honestly, is quibbling over
idioms the best argument you have? Is it the only argument you have?
Because it's freaking tedious and ineffective.

> > > there is no way you can infer from what I said, that I meant your lack
> > > of knowledge on what scientific is, is predicated on everyone agreeing
> > > with me.
>
> > I didn't infer that. I inferred that you think I don't know what
> > science is/means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are
> > "not surprised").
>
> LOL.. why Neil? Why?

Because you said "Apparently, you don't know what scientific means.

But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage".

> Why are you this dishonest?

You honestly said that.

> why are you twisting
> logic to the point of absurdity?

I wouldn't call what you say "logic", but it is absurd. I'll give you
that.

> Are you seriously saying that "
> "Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> a surprise to anyone at this stage."
> Means that
> "I (Neil) don't know what science is because everyone knows I (Neil)
> don't" ?
> Is that really your argument?

No. I said "I inferred that you think I don't know what science is/

means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are "not
surprised")

> Seriously Neil.

Well, no. I don't take you seriously.

> > > Your statement on the other hand infer that I am wrong because no one
> > > agreed with me.
>
> > My statement was about you not having any evidence to support your
> > assertion that "that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage" is an
> > unsupported assertion - you have no evidence that everyone thinks I
> > don't know what science is/means/whatever. In fact, I have evidence
> > that you are wrong and that I do know at least what some science is/
> > means/whatever because I had to correct *you*, and your incorrect
> > statement that "humans descended from chimps".
>
> Hahah!..I was talking about your statement "I haven't noticed that
> anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you about pretty much
> anything." See, another misdirection. Clearly from the context of what
> I said,

HAHAHAHAAA!!!

> it's clear I was talking about this statement.

HAHAHAHAH!!!

> You just chose
> to misdirect again.

You're a riot. .

* snip *

[dillan]

It's self explanatory.

> > > > The point was my saying "all descedents of chimps" was not what I was
> > > > referring to when I said that you thinking that saying something makes
> > > > it true.
>
> > > The point is that me pointing out that your claim that "We are all
> > > descedents of chimps" is wrong is an example of me not believing that
> > > simply by saying something makes it true, so you are wrong about that,
> > > too.
>
> > Only, I never said everything you ever say id subjected to
> > classification (That you think just saying it makes it true).
> > I was talking about the instance when you did.
> > So you've clearly created
> > straw man.
>
> Incoherent gibberish doesn't mean I created a "straw man".

Just because you can't understand it, doesn't make it objectively
gibberish. And you have created a straw man.

> > > > > > The point was the manner in
> > > > > > which you responded.
>
> > > > > No, the point is that I don't think that saying something makes it
> > > > > true, which is the "point" that you raised.
>
> > > > NO, It was the point I made.
>
> > > What is the difference between the phrase "the point you raised" and
> > > the phrase "the point you made"?
>
> > NO, the Point I was making was not about "chimps being decedents..".
> > It was about the manner in which you responded. You've switched points
> > midway.
>
> So you switched "points" from "humans are descended from chimps" to
> something about my manners and its my fault?

LOL.. no Genius, YOU switched the points.

> > > > > > > > I wonder who's using "monkey logic" here.
>
> > > > > > > Chimps aren't monkeys, and neither are humans.
>
> > > > > > LOL.. I didn't say they were.
>
> > > > > I thought you might have been confused about that, too. After all, you
> > > > > did say that humans descended from chimps.
>
> > > > As usual, you are wrong again.
>
> > > What am I wrong about? You did say that humans descended from chimps,
> > > and I had to correct you.
>
> > But that wasn't the point I was making in this sub thread.
>
> You claimed I am "usually wrong" and I gave an example where you were
> wrong and I was right, since you seem to be keeping score.

NO Neil, tsk tsk. This part of the discussion, we are talking about
the manner in which you responded to me. Whether it was worthy of
being chimp's cousin.

> > > > > > > > > > > Ironically, you just compared science with Christianity, which is why
> > > > > > > > > > > I am laughing. You're (unintentionally) hilarious.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > > > > > > a surprise to anyone at this stage.
>
> > > > > > > > > I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you
> > > > > > > > > about pretty much anything.
>
> > > > > > > > Hmm.. it looks like you're trying to commit argumentum ad populum...
> > > > > > > > Hmm... Interesting.
>
> > > > > > > No, you were, when you said "But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone
> > > > > > > at this stage." I was just pointing out that even your fallacies are
> > > > > > > fallacious. I seriously doubt you're authorized to speak on anyone's
> > > > > > > behalf, including chimps.
>
> > > > > > LOL.. OMG Neil!.. why do you dig these kinds of hole for yourself?
> > > > > > Are you really this stupid
>
> > > > > I'll bet you're single.
>
> > > > Haha!.. are you double?
>
> > > I mean single in the sense that you probably don't have a girlfriend,
> > > or a boyfriend, seeming as how you are an abusive asshole.
>
> > You're wrong on both counts.
>
> What, you have a girfriend AND a boyfriend? I never would have taken
> you for a swinger...

LOL.. you really are narrow minded Neil. Both counts = single and
abusive. If you had read the next sentence you would have realized
what I meant. Instead, you just read one sentence of a paragraph, and
take it out of context. Then you show you're a complete idiot to
everyone.

> > I actually have a quite pleasant
> > disposition.
>
> And is that an objective fact, or just narcissism?

I'm sure it's somewhere in between.

> > I just get annoyed at people who deliberately obfuscate
> > and misdirect conversations to win at all costs.
>
> Projection is an interesting psychological phenemonon, don't you
> think? (that last part was rhetorical).

I do, that's why I wasn't engaging in projection. It's an observed
fact. You try to win at all costs. Even if you have to subvert reason.

> > > > > > to categorize my comment, "you don't know
> > > > > > what scientific means. But hey, that's not
> > > > > >  a surprise to anyone at this stage" as argumentum ad populum  and
> > > > > > exclude you comment "I haven't noticed that anyone, Christian or
> > > > > > atheist, agrees with you about pretty much anything." as that fallacy?
>
> > > > > I was simply making an observation. There is no basis for me to
> > > > > believe your statement ("everyone knows I don't know what science is")
> > > > > because there is no evidence to support it (I don't see anyone
> > > > > agreeing with you about that or anything else).
>
> > > > I did say every one knows you don't know science Neil.
>
> > > I know. And I showed that was an argument by assertion fallacy (I
> > > haven't seen anyone agree with you about anything, Christian or
> > > atheist). In fact, I had to correct you about a scientific fact
> > > (humans are *not* descended from chimps), and you even admitted I was
> > > right. So I do know at least some science, and you are demonstrably
> > > wrong.
>
> > That was a typo. I mean "I DIDN'T say.."
>
> Except you did say that. You seem confused.

LOL.. good Lord Neil!!

> > > >I said no one
> > > > would be surprised by your lack of knowledge on what constitute
> > > > "scientific". I didn't say anything about them knowing about your
> > > > knowledge.
>
> > > You said Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey,
> > > that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage." Which means that you
> > > think everyone knows I don't know what science is.
>
> > I'm not going to argue with you on how to interpret what I said.
> > You're just trying to put words in my mouth.
>
> I'm trying to put your words into your mouth, which surprisingly
> doesn't seem to be possible.


> > I meant, from our discussion, it's apparent that you don't know what
> > would constitute scientific.
>
> I thought you weren't going to argue with me about how to interpret
> what you said? You seem confused...

That wasn't an argument. It's a statement of fact.

> >  It it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
> > who have read our conversation thus far.
>
> I don't know why you keep appealing to people who might be reading our
> conversation. What makes you assume they agree with you? I don't see
> anybody agreeing with either of us.

It's not a matter of agreeing with me. It's a matter of accepting the
obvious based on observed facts. Superficial agreement is meaningless.
What's important is where the evidence leads. And evidently it doesn't
look good for you.

> > If you think that's argmentum ad pop, then you need to seek help.
>
> Well, now that you've revised what you said to the point where I've
> lost track of it, I'm not sure what I think of your latest revision
> beyond ceasing to give a fuck.

LOL.. This is your fault Neil. You fragment a conversation to the
point of absurdity. You really need to learn to respond to a paragraph
rather than breaking a paragraph into million pieces. Sooner or later
you're going to lose track.

In this part of the conversation we are talking about argum. ad pop.

> > > > Stop misrepresenting what I said.
>
> > > I didn't.
> > You did.
>
> Disagree.
>
> > > > > > Ok, what is argumentum ad populum to you?
>
> > > > > "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")
> > > > > is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
> > > > > because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe
> > > > > so, it is so." (wikipedia)
>
> > > > > You were arguing that "Apparently, you (Neil) don't know what
> > > > > scientific means. But hey, that's not surprise to anyone at this
> > > > > stage." In other words, I don't know what science is because everyone
> > > > > knows I don't. Which is an argumentum ad populum.
>
> > > > Everything you said after "In other words" is wrong. I don't see how
> > > > anyone but a dishonest person can interpret what I said that way.
> > > > Forgetting the fact that "what scientific means" is completely
> > > > different from "what science is",
>
> > > No it isn't.
>
> > Yes it is.. why are they similar?
>
> Besides two of three words being identical, what science "means" is a
> subset of what science "is", for starters. Honestly, is quibbling over
> idioms the best argument you have? Is it the only argument you have?
> Because it's freaking tedious and ineffective.

It's not about idioms Neil. By not being specific, you're
misrepresenting what I'm saying. Moreover, the meaning of the phrase,
" you don't know what scientific means" if worlds apart from what's
meant by the phrase "you don't know what science is". Surely you can
see that.

> > > > there is no way you can infer from what I said, that I meant your lack
> > > > of knowledge on what scientific is, is predicated on everyone agreeing
> > > > with me.
>
> > > I didn't infer that. I inferred that you think I don't know what
> > > science is/means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are
> > > "not surprised").
>
> > LOL.. why Neil? Why?
>
> Because you said "Apparently, you don't know what scientific means.
> But hey, that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage".

that's not what I said. If you're quoting me, please quote me
correctly.

> > Why are you this dishonest?
>
> You honestly said that.

No I didn't

> > why are you twisting
> > logic to the point of absurdity?
>
> I wouldn't call what you say "logic", but it is absurd. I'll give you
> that.

Well, coming from someone who knows not, what logic is. I can just
ignore your insult.

> > Are you seriously saying that "
> > "Apparently, you don't know what scientific means. But hey, that's not

> > a surprise to anyone at this stage." (1)

> > Means that
> >  "I (Neil) don't know what science is because everyone knows I (Neil)

> > don't" ? (2)

> > Is that really your argument?
>
> No. I said "I inferred that you think I don't know what science is/
> means/whatever, and that everyone agrees with you (they are "not
> surprised")

LOL.. But the latter is your argument. You transformed what I said in
(1) to (2) and then claimed that I was engaging in arg. ad pop. See,
you're being dishonest again.

> > Seriously Neil.
>
> Well, no. I don't take you seriously.

Good. I'd hate to overload your brain with facts.

> > > > Your statement on the other hand infer that I am wrong because no one
> > > > agreed with me.
>
> > > My statement was about you not having any evidence to support your
> > > assertion that "that's not a surprise to anyone at this stage" is an
> > > unsupported assertion - you have no evidence that everyone thinks I
> > > don't know what science is/means/whatever. In fact, I have evidence
> > > that you are wrong and that I do know at least what some science is/
> > > means/whatever because I had to correct *you*, and your incorrect
> > > statement that "humans descended from chimps".
>
> > Hahah!..I was talking about your statement "I haven't noticed that
> > anyone, Christian or atheist, agrees with you about pretty much
> > anything." See, another misdirection. Clearly from the context of what
> > I said,
>
> HAHAHAHAAA!!!

Indeed. Well, atleast you're predictable. When you have nothing to
say, you laugh. It's quire funny really.

> > it's clear I was talking about this statement.
>
> HAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> >  You just chose
> > to misdirect again.
>
> You're a riot. .

I'm just a regular guy like you Neil. I just choose to be reasonable.



> * snip *

[Neil Kelsey]

No, it isn't. And with that I have offically lost interest in whatever
it is you're blathering about in this thread, too.

* snip *

[dillan]

You mean you've lost the ability to come up with more excuses.

It's funny how you start a conversation by responding to my post meant
for someone else, and then you lose interesting in seeing it through.
Anyway, it's alright Neil. Have a good evening Bud.



> * snip *

[love&peace]

The male human evolved from the male chimp, while the female human
evolved from the female chimp; simultaneously. Those who know much
better might be willing to throw light on that aspect of evolution.

[Neil Kelsey]

No they didn't. We share a common ancestor with chimps, we aren't
descended from them.

>Those who know much
> better might be willing to throw light on that aspect of evolution.

I'm more interested in knowing how you can simultaneously be a
Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says that humans were
popped into existence by magic within 6 days from the beginning of the
universe.

[dillan]

Until you learn to think beyond the superficiality, you'll never
understand. But that's just your problem, and says nothing about
Christianity nor the bible.

[Chris]

why would I Bob. It's a freaking scientific theory. It needs to stand
on it's own merits. How stupid to suggest that I have to disprove
something that hasn't and never will be proven. I don't have to
present facts against it. All I need to do is present the fact that
there is a complete absence of facts for it. There may be things that
make people believe it's true. But in the final analysis there are no
facts

On Apr 17, 5:17 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 3:45 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you read my posts, you'd have seen that I admitted I made a mistake
> > > in saying what I did.
> > > I initially made a mistake in saying we are decedents of Chimps, when
> > > infact, we are cousins of chimps.
>
> >  It's just stands to reason that you need to know the raw facts about
> > evilution  prior to believing in it.
>
> > > You are more than welcome to make the case for evolution. Only you
> > > appear to be making the case against it.
>
> >  I most certainly am.
>

> Only if by "making the case against it" you mean whining and spelling
> it "evilution".  You've never presented a single fact or rational
> argument against evolution in your life.
>
> - Bob T

[Chris]

On Apr 17, 9:03 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 3:45 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you read my posts, you'd have seen that I admitted I made a mistake
> > > in saying what I did.
> > > I initially made a mistake in saying we are decedents of Chimps, when
> > > infact, we are cousins of chimps.
>
> >  It's just stands to reason that you need to know the raw facts about
> > evilution  prior to believing in it.
>
> > > You are more than welcome to make the case for evolution. Only you
> > > appear to be making the case against it.
>
> >  I most certainly am.
>

> Dillan simultaneously believes in Christianity and evolution, which
> just means he's confused about both. At least your beliefs correlate
> to the Bible.

I love you Neil. You make me feel so good.

The problem may be that he's also from Canaduh

[Chris]

No you won't. You'll call it by it's proper name, Crustaceanism. Got
it!

On Apr 18, 12:09 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:36 pm, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
>
> > The word is ev·o·lu·tion.   It's really quite easy to spell, in fact,
> > most school children spell it everyday and don't find it at all
> > difficult.
>
> LL.  I say that until he learns to spell we call his ideas cretinism.
>
> ........
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:10 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 3:55 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 4/17/2011 3:20 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 16, 11:25 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > > >> On 4/16/2011 7:35 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, Neil Kelsey<neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com>    wrote:

>
> > > > >>>> What's good about that quote? There are lots of facts to support
> > > > >>>> evolution.
>
> > > > >>>    name one fact that supports the Theory of Evilution.
>

> > > > >> You are not identical to either parent.
>
> > > > >   Oh really. It's all that simple. So then because I don't look exactly
> > > > > like my mommy or daddy
>
> > > > Did I write the word 'look'?
>
> > > > No.
>
> > >  So. Appearance is every bit an issue when stating someone is or isn't
> > > identical.
>
> > >  Could I be identical in every respect but appearance? A logical
> > > impossibility, but then again so is evilution.
>
> > > > > is a concrete fact in your arsenal of proof of
> > > > > evilution. Hey it's done y'all! Simon went and proved it beyond a
> > > > > shadow of a doubt. Let's all just give it up here! With that sort of
> > > > > reasoning, we don't stand a chance!
> > > > >   Last years toaster doesn't look like this years. Is that proof the
> > > > > thing spawned and had babies all over the shelves at Target?
>
> > > > Gee, slow Sunday. Took until 4pm EDT to run into my first moron.
>
> > >  I will always be your first and last moron Simon. You moron you.

[Chris]

O God another one who struggles w/english.

Did I say that? What I was suggesting was that just because there are
similarities, it doesn't stand that the reason there are is due to
random bullcrap over 85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
years. Give or take a few. But rather that they were made that way.
That makes much more sense.

[Chris]

On Apr 18, 12:20 am, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:15 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:39 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are no facts for Evilution, but many for Evolution.
> > > You just have to look at the similarities between and
> > > within species.
>
> >  All cars look a lot alike.
>
> >  Is this evidence for random occurrences or design?
>

> Oh, and may I point out that cars don't reproduce.

Just try and answer the question. That's how conversations evolve.

[Chris]

On Apr 18, 3:03 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:20 am, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:15 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 7:39 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are no facts for Evilution, but many for Evolution.
> > > > You just have to look at the similarities between and
> > > > within species.
>
> > >  All cars look a lot alike.
>
> > >  Is this evidence for random occurrences or design?
>

> > Are you suggesting that human beings are similar
> > to cars?
>

> Yes. Cars are built from naturally occurring raw materials. So was
> man. The first man was made from mud. The first woman was made from a
> bone. So, there!
>

> Now that we've covered that ground, when are the next model of man and
> woman due?

The natural progression of the argument would necessitate Creation
2.0. Otherwise known as the New Heavens and New Earth.

But in reality those that believe are new creations in Christ. Far
better then the old models. Try it and see.

[Chris]

On Apr 18, 8:21 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:21 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Raaaaaaaaaah.
>
> > Sing it baby!
>
> Perhaps you can explain:
>
> 1) Why is that quote good?

I liked it.

> 2) What does it have to do with atheism?

Atheism is nothing. No beliefs, no hopes, no ultimate future.

What does anything have to do w/atheism. Except bullcrap.

[love&peace]

This is actually an open and debatable subject, even among scientists.
So far, the evolutionary theorists have only fossils as the basis for
their conclusion. The intricate biological uniqueness that stands man
out among other animals remain indisputably isolated without any
plausible explanation as to why the yawning gap between man's
intelligence and those of other species. The apparent lack of
sufficient data on the millions of years between the beginning of the
human evolutionary process and its culmination into the present man,
coupled with the speculative nature of its conclusions, accounted for
why some of its proponents have crossed over to the creationists
camp.

> >Those who know much
> > better might be willing to throw light on that aspect of evolution.
>
> I'm more interested in knowing how you can simultaneously be a
> Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says that humans were
> popped into existence by magic within 6 days from the beginning of the
> universe.

Evolution, within the context of Christianity, is the unfolding of
nature's complex interactions as designed by God. It is a vast field
that can accommodate even atheist evolutionists' views without
contradictions. Unless one chooses to construct such contradictions;
as is the case with reliance on fossils to determine human origin. Let
the evolutionists explain why a 98.6% genetic similarity between man
and chimps, as asserted by many, would allow such a massive
intelligence gap between them. It's all very interesting.

[Drafterman]

On Apr 19, 2:27 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:21 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:21 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Raaaaaaaaaah.
>
> > > Sing it baby!
>
> > Perhaps you can explain:
>
> > 1) Why is that quote good?
>
>  I liked it.

That doesn't explain why it's good.

>
> > 2) What does it have to do with atheism?
>
>  Atheism is nothing. No beliefs, no hopes, no ultimate future.
>
>  What does anything have to do w/atheism. Except bullcrap.

So... nothing then. So it's a quote that has nothing to do with
atheism but you, nevertheless, think it is good.

Got it.

[Neil Kelsey]

I'm not to blame for your inability to explain how the Genesis and
evolution can both be true.

> But that's just your problem, and says nothing about
> Christianity nor the bible.

Not my problem, I already know evolution is true and Genesis is false.

[Neil Kelsey]

No it isn't.

> So far, the evolutionary theorists have only fossils as the basis for
> their conclusion.

They have more than that, but there's nothing wrong with fossil
evidence, either.

> The intricate biological uniqueness that stands man
> out among other animals remain indisputably isolated without any
> plausible explanation as to why the yawning gap between man's
> intelligence and those of other species.

Argument from incredulity fallacies don't mean there isn't a plausible
explanation for why we evolved big brains.

> The apparent lack of
> sufficient data on the  millions of years between the beginning of the
> human evolutionary process and its culmination into the present man,
> coupled with the speculative nature of its conclusions, accounted for
> why some of its proponents have crossed over to the creationists
> camp.

Wrong. What is happening is that some Christians are crossing over to
the evolutionary camp, and consequently they maintain two conflicting
ideas - evolution and God - and the result is cognitive dissonance.
They (you) end up confused about both science and religion.

> > >Those who know much
> > > better might be willing to throw light on that aspect of evolution.
>
> > I'm more interested in knowing how you can simultaneously be a
> > Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says that humans were
> > popped into existence by magic within 6 days from the beginning of the
> > universe.
>
> Evolution, within the context of Christianity, is the unfolding of
> nature's complex interactions as designed by God.

That contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible says God popped us,
fully formed (i.e. NO EVOLUTION) into existence six days after the
universe began.

> It is a vast field
> that can accommodate even atheist evolutionists' views without
> contradictions.

Well, no, if God is steering evolution then evolution isn't a natural
process, which contradicts both the idea of evolution and atheism.

> Unless one chooses to construct such contradictions;
> as is the case with reliance on fossils to determine human origin. Let
> the evolutionists explain why a 98.6%  genetic similarity between man
> and chimps, as asserted by many, would allow such a massive
> intelligence gap between them.

Argument from incredulity fallacies don't mean that 2.4% difference in
our genes can't account for the difference in our intelligence. And
it's not as if chimps aren't intelligent in the first place.

> It's all very interesting.

Yeah, too bad you're missing out on it.