A compilation of ACTUAL and FACT-BASE...
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
NightSerf

Knoxville, TN

#21 May 10, 2010
JRS, you could use a refresher in persuasive discourse. You have to begin with a premise or set of premises that those whom you want to persuade already accept and proceed logically from there, step by step, taking no shortcuts and making no leaps that logic will not support, until you arrive at the conclusion that you want to support. That is hard work. It requires you to consider objections to your premises and to any of your steps carefully before revising your arguments to make the logical progression clearer and more detailed. Beginning with premises that your audience does not accept or jumping to conclusions that logic will not support will not persuade, and blaming your audience for your own failure to work the process is unconscionable.

If you are unwilling or unable to do this work, there is no point in taking on the task.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22 May 10, 2010
NightSerf wrote:
JRS, you could use a refresher in persuasive discourse. You have to begin with a premise or set of premises that those whom you want to persuade already accept and proceed logically from there, step by step, taking no shortcuts and making no leaps that logic will not support, until you arrive at the conclusion that you want to support. That is hard work. It requires you to consider objections to your premises and to any of your steps carefully before revising your arguments to make the logical progression clearer and more detailed. Beginning with premises that your audience does not accept or jumping to conclusions that logic will not support will not persuade, and blaming your audience for your own failure to work the process is unconscionable.
If you are unwilling or unable to do this work, there is no point in taking on the task.
Then there is no point in him taking on the task as he is unwilling *and* unable. He's here on a spamming mission, nothing more. Although since his powers of persuasion are limited to insults, projection and repeating the same old sound-bites, he's only preaching to the already converted.

Truth is, he's here because he hates our guts and he needs something to rant against. With the possible exception of a sizable portion of the US, most the rest of the world don't take creationists very seriously. And he doesn't like that.
Faery Lord

Atherton, CA

#23 May 10, 2010
The sad fact is that like all dictatorships the Christian Faith is coming to an end. It restricted all learning besides those sanctioned by it for hundreds of years, and was one of the major factors for the huge recession of human knowledge, the Dark Ages.

Yet finally (most) people are starting to look around and see that since praying isn't curing that disease, it might be a good idea to use something that can. And so logic is prevailing over superstition, despite the best efforts of some people like JRS.

Really JRS, when you actually look at it: What makes your religion any more right than Buddhism, Islam, or FSM? Besides an old book and your choice to blindly follow it, what makes it so convincing?
If I find a papyrus scroll which details the Egyptian gods that predates the bible, why should the bible be any more believable?

I am still waiting for further proof of your theory for the origin of species. However, feel free to default on it if you feel you can't defend it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#24 May 10, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything of value has a designer. That is enough evidence.
--
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967). George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.
--
THE BIG BANG THEORY
The Big Bang theory theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together, and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium.
This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space (“frictionless,” so the out flowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.
It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.
The originators George Lemaitre, a Belgium, struck on the basic idea in 1927; and George Gamow, R.A. Alpher, and R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948.
But it was Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it. Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.
(Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43).
According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness.
Then this nothingness condensed by gravity (also nothing) into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!
That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms. Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium).
Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements.
Gamow described it in scientific terms:
In violation of physical law,
emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a super dense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 1039 degrees absolute.
That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness!(Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)
Where did this “super dense core” come from?
Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this;
he said
it came as a result of “the big squeeze,” when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together.
Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing,“ylem”(pronounced “ee-lum”). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!
Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!
==
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK),'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
Cut&Paste:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci...

Since it repeatedly shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Big Bang theory says, why should we trust it?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#25 May 10, 2010
>>>JRS wrote:
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967). George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.

>>>Gillette
You lying fvcking snake ... that quote is a complete fabrication. The Jesus Freak Liars are at it again, Lying for Jesus. LOL!

See here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/...

Are anti-evolution fabrications good fabrications?

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

I'd asked Lynn if it would matter to her if this quote turned out to be a complete fabrication, and you may recall that her response was that it would matter if all quotes were fabrications. Not that this makes any particular sense to me, but since a simple Google search for "Wald" "therefore I choose to believe" turned up nearly 1700 hits I figured it's worth getting to the bottom of this.

So here we are. Most of those links do what Lynn did, repeat the quote, including erroneously referring to Wald as winner of the nonexistent Nobel Prize in Biology (it was Medicine). Some sites attribute this quote to Wald's book, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), page 187, which I have already demonstrated does not exist: what they're referring to is the book "Frontiers of Modern Biology: twenty lectures originally broadcast over the Voice of America", coordinated by Gairdner Moment (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Chapter 20: Theories of the Origin of Life, by George Wald, pp. 185-192).

Unfortunately, neither the above quote, nor anything resembling a paraphrase of it, appears on p. 187, nor anywhere in this chapter. It is either an egregious lie, or this is the wrong reference. For your entertainment (and also to minimize charges that I must be the liar here), I've just scanned the relevant page ( http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/h... ).

>>>Gillette again
You can SEE THE ACTUAL PAGE at www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/i... and see that the Jesus Freaks are lying.

LOL!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#26 May 10, 2010
Gillette wrote:
>>>Gillette
You lying fvcking snake ... that quote is a complete fabrication. The Jesus Freak Liars are at it again, Lying for Jesus. LOL!
Is their beliefs so frail that they can't defend it on it's merits? Sad. Very, very sad.

Shit, I could defend your religion better then you do, JRS. You are SUCH a failure.
Faery Lord

United States

#27 May 11, 2010
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Is their beliefs so frail that they can't defend it on it's merits? Sad. Very, very sad.
Shit, I could defend your religion better then you do, JRS. You are SUCH a failure.
Wow, perhaps an astute point. Could JRS actually believe in evolution, and is trying to convince people that creationism is the resort of madmen and fanatics? He certainly convinces everyone that his ideas are wrong, so could that be on purpose?
Faery Lord

United States

#28 May 14, 2010
I guess JRS concedes the point...

“Live Love Laugh”

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#29 Aug 13, 2012
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything of value has a designer. That is enough evidence.
--
In other words you have nothing, either actual or factual. Thank you for admitting that.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#30 Aug 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>In other words you have nothing, either actual or factual. Thank you for admitting that.
Holy Necro, Batman!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Science 33,030
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Eagle 12 - 81,660
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Science 164,275
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web