Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
If it is true, you can explain it from your perspective. You don’t need to provide pictures, or scripts to explain why you personally accept it as a sci fact. It shouldn’t matter how much, or how little of it you understand.
That’s fine. But there are folk who know science, but come to the opposite conclusion to you. And there are folk who don’t know science, like Alex and Paddo, who accept it. So your “you don’t know science” routine doesn’t wash.
I am actually more interested in laymen’s understanding rather that scientists understanding, at this point.
Neither do the majority of people that accept it as science fact. Hence my questions.
Which religion would that be James?Did I bring up religion?
No?
Why do you?
Okay.
I am so dissed.
Here is a good illustration of how snakes and elephants evolved into dinosaurs
Friends email
Friends email
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You pushed me out Jan.
Playing dirty pool etc
I don't have the patience of others and because I am a simple humble chap can not engage other than to attempt to lower myself to be silly in a similar manner to manage your tiresome tactics of ignoring posts etc. Unfortunately you have closed the door on sensible discussion as far as I am concerned thus leaving my conscience clear to treat you badly if I so chose.
Alex
What claims have I made in this thread James?
The only claims are that darwinism is a scientific fact. But no one can explain why. Everyone just accepts it is.
We’re talking about why darwinism is a scientific fact James. I don need bring anything to the table, for that to be answered.
What a weird question.
No.
Right now I’m interested in finding out why people personally believe darwinism is a scientific fact.
Okay.
I do try to talk with you.
But you can be so cryptic.
Einstein is a human being, last I looked.
I have to assume that his letters, and statements, are for the purpose of communication.
Again, I don’t know why you think you can know what I’ve read, or what I know, or why you only single me out.
Actually I do. It is because I believe in God, and I dare to insinuate that darwinism is nothing more than a materialist philosophy(at best).
But I will read Einstein’s views, as if it were anyone else’s views. To me is nothing more than just another man. Just like me.
Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word.
He said so.
“God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.”
Baruch Spinoza
Indwelling - be permanently present in (someone's soul or mind); possess spiritually.
not...
transient- lasting only for a short time; impermanent.
God - Origin of everything.
Quote right.
No need to go there.
I don’t know, because nothing like that has happened, which is why I’m asking how it could be a sci fact.
For the purpose of this thread, I’m interested in what makes people who are not scientists, or know too much about science, why they think it is.
Last edited:
Because more than one fossil was found.
So?
What do you want me to say?
Yes, that does answer the question and it does explain how I personally know it is a scientific fact. That's why I asked you what answer you want to hear considering people are answering your question, but you're just not accepting any of them.
There is not one single specific thing, there are a multitude of things from microbiology to the fossil record, the entire body of evidence is what makes it a fact, not one single event or object.
Then, you're free to question them and their answers, but the answers you're receiving here are based on what people understand and it's clear some here have a very good understanding, yet you still don't accept their answers.
If you weren't ignorant of it, why then are you rejecting perfectly valid answers? I understand the answers given here and accept them as valid based on my understanding of the theory, yet you don't. That leads to one of few conclusions, either you don't understand yourself or you're trolling.
I have explained to you why I accept it as have others here, YOU are the only one who is dragging it out by repeatedly asking the same question over and over.
There is no one instance Jan. That response there would show you don't understand evolution. And, if you don't understand the theory, then you will never understand anyone's answer. The balls in your court to learn what it is everyone is talking about. We understand. You don't.
The truth?
So those other fossils reinforced the finding that those animals had finger type bone structures.
Jan was and is simply "quote mining" and then purposely misinterpreting what Einstein said, which is proven by the complete history of Einstein and religion/god and what he actually meant. And of course just in case you are unaware, Einstein's beliefs and what he actually said in proper context have been conveyed to Jan previously and in a few posts at...1367, 1373, 1378, 1403, 1413.....
Nice to see we can remain allies at least in the pursuit of science, and correct and refute the general dishonesty, redefining of proper definitions, and stupidity being openly and purposely displayed here by Jan.
Last edited:
Yes, and he also made some blunders in his day. But unlike you, he didn't purposely "quote mine" and then redefine what he said to suit your own agenda. That dishonesty as usual, is only displayed by yourself.
You havn't been singled out. You have come here for one purpose...that is to preach your nonsensical claims to support your magical spaghetti monster. A shame that you have only done that through dishonest lying, redefining and misinterpreting, and playing dumb and stupid when confronted with facts..
But he didn't say Jesus was anything other then a man...he didn't say anything about the divinity or virgin birth or any other mythical stories that you seem to uphold. So one must conclude in pushing this "quote mine"that you are either stupid or purposely lying?
I'm not a scientist. But like anyone interested in actual facts and proper historical accounts, I conclude that going on the evidence, that being mostly the fossil record [as I mentioned before] and radio/carbon dating.
I am unable to go into it any deeper and obviously neither can you, but you unlike me, then chose to ignore those that are educated sufficiently to be able to go into it deeper, and prefer to languish in your own ignorance.
When will you understand Jan, that no matter how far or how long you chose to pursue this with your continued lies and false claims, nothing changes, other then maintaining your warm inner glow and perhaps pleasing your overlords.
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact, so much so that even the Catholic church have now recognised those facts to maintain credibility in the eyes of science.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I have said it before but the fact that Jan employs dishonesty as his prime tool merely tells us that he is running on empty.
He asks when did he bring up religion in a manner to suggest the discussion is not about religion from his side but framed dishonestly to suggest he has not raised religion.
In fact it was indeed Jan who made the discussion about religion specifically claiming that Dawinism, as he calls the Theory of Evolution something lieing creations do in an effort to undermine the Theory as per their manifesto, was a religion.
That's right Jan said Dawinism was a religion at the start of this sidetrack and now says he did not say anything about religion.
I can't switch off the bold etc... however I am not worried the text now stands out just as does Jans dishonesty
It all boils down to this, Jans cartoon showing progression from doggy to Willie, although probably used as propaghadah on that creationist site gives a nice account of the gradual process how species gradually evolved.
Jan wants to insert his god but finds there is no room. He will not address the elephant in his room, that of the various well evidenced extinction events and more recently as I observed his fairey tale ignores the relevance of super nova in the mix. That creationist overlook the significance of super nova is the final nail in their coffin as it exposes the impossibility of their version of creation...
He claims he wants discussion yet his behaviour leaves us no room than to conclude the opposite.
I once held Jan in high respect but that respect he destroyed in his eager attempt to be dishonest and lie and to reveal himself as a creationist ID troll and perhaps claim the title of biggest terd in the pool. I feel genuine disappointment because honestly I really thought he was better than that. I could never take satisfaction from gaining victory via trickery and wonder what makes someone who does tic.
They must have no self esteem.
I guess for me the proverbial straw was his misrepresentation of the great mans position which is a vile and disgusting insult to his memory and clearly everything he was about.
I think our time would be better placed, rather than seek links to convince Jan that the Theory of Evolution is well evidenced, for each of us to use that time to go back thru this thread page after page and find specific evidence of Jans dishonesty and make a list and crush his bad behaviour once and for all, by showing he is a creationist lieing troll and demand his unconditional apology so as to cover all matters on the long list of examples of lies and trolling.
Again sorry about the bold text.
Alex
- Status