anti evolutionists verse the forum, move 2

Originally posted by Mexico
Ohhh this is an entertaining thread. I try and stay out of these things on the basis that its like smashing your head off a wall but this one is too much.....

So robbie, If I gathered from your essay at the start and postings your looking for.

1. A clear and unequivocal example of a biological system made up of complex parts that serve no function indep ...[text shortened]... t himself has already admitted their gaping flaws and lack of accuracy seem a bit ridiculous no?

lol, you don't say, Darwinian evolutionary theorists have been doing the same thing for years! and i quote

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy" [Darwin, 1881].

but yeah you're probably right, the evidence is so scant that it merits nothing but scorn and i will probably not simply ignore it, but put it to the torch in a Darwinian effigy on a funeral pyre and chant incantations around it praising at last that something that has produced nothing but darkness should at last produce light as it combusts up into the eternal sky as one would burn incense in a temple ! 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but yeah you're probably right, the evidence is so scant that it merits nothing but scorn and i will probably not simply ignore it, but put it to the torch in a Darwinian effigy on a funeral pyre and chant incantations around it praising at last that something that has produced nothing but darkness should at last produce light as it combusts up into the eternal sky as one would burn incense in a temple ! 😀

You keep saying that evidence is scant but you simultaneously admit that you ignore and deny any evidence that is presented to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You keep saying that evidence is scant but you simultaneously admit that you ignore and deny any evidence that is presented to you.

what are you talking about? i have looked at every reference given by you purveyors of the myth, i have looked at and read the references posted by Bosse , i have looked at and read the references posted by andrew hamiltion and even refuted the claims with regard to a certain moth, do you really want me to go through them all, the RNA world theory, the fossil record, the case for mutations, the pathetic attempts to grasp at a transitionairy being from ape to man, the dobzahansky experiments with drosophila and the conclusions he reached, the circular reasoning of the reducing atmosphere theory, the Stanley miller experiments, i mean the list just goes on and on,

ive done with it and have reached the conclusion if you guys wanna believe this type of stuff then thats up to you, i dont, not based on the evidence that i have been privy to, nor can i see how any reasonable minded individual could accept such postulation either, for I regard and hold in high esteem the words of that much maligned but never the less brilliant Professor Michael J. Behe when he stated, ' To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned......Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components is the product of intelligent activity.

thankyou professor Behe, perhaps one day others too may feel obliged to lift the restrictions imposed on their minds by years of conditioning and embrace other sources other than unintelligent causes!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
....., i mean the list just goes on and on,

Yet you say "evidence is scant".
Cant seem to make up your mind can you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
.... for I regard and hold in high esteem the words of that much maligned but never the less brilliant Professor Michael J. Behe ....

Do you agree that the quotes of Behe when he was in court under oath that other posters have given are accurate?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have looked at every reference given by you purveyors of the myth,

You may have looked at mine but you have not addressed them. You have ignored them then pronounced that there is nobody contradicting you. Instead - as you have done in this post - you jump on hand picked references of people who really have nothing to do with the specific issues in question.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may have looked at mine but you have not addressed them. You have ignored them then pronounced that there is nobody contradicting you. Instead - as you have done in this post - you jump on hand picked references of people who really have nothing to do with the specific issues in question.

Darwin and Behe have nothing to do with anything in the post?????, are you out of your mind and totally insane?????, i never addressed any of the issues that you raised because quite simply they had nothing to do with the science but were rather futile and vain attempts to discredit the individuals, as has been a noticeable feature of those also who have nothing of substance. your only concern i think was to do with probability, which as i have consistently stated here and elsewhere is almost irrefutable proof that life could not have arisen by chance, for the probability of getting the correct amount of amino acids in the correct sequence to build proteins the basic building blocks of life amounts to more than all the estimated atoms in the universe, if you want i can provide the exact figures, but it matters not because the individual whose quotation i used described it poetically, like winning the lottery a million million times in a row, something that any sane individual would consider impossible!

as i said im done with it, if you want to believe it then thats up to you!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you agree that the quotes of Behe when he was in court under oath that other posters have given are accurate?

what behe states under oath and what behe thinks privately are entirely different, it matters not!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you say "evidence is scant".
Cant seem to make up your mind can you?

just another personal attack and baseless assertion, believe what you will, im off to play chess, cya!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
just another personal attack and baseless assertion, believe what you will, im off to play chess, cya!

How is it a 'baseless assertion'? I quoted the 'base'. You yourself said, when referring to the evidence for evolution that " the list just goes on and on". That clearly contradicts your claim that there is 'scant evidence'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your only concern i think ...

Think again. I have many many concerns, many of which I have not stated because you have not bothered to properly address the first one I mentioned. I prefer to tackle things one at a time. You on the other hand would rather dismiss all evidence before you have even heard it.

was to do with probability, which as i have consistently stated here and elsewhere
Yet you consistently refuse to discuss it in a reasonable manner showing that you either know you are wrong or are afraid that you are wrong.

as i said im done with it, if you want to believe it then thats up to you!
Self delusion at its best.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How is it a 'baseless assertion'? I quoted the 'base'. You yourself said, when referring to the evidence for evolution that " the list just goes on and on". That clearly contradicts your claim that there is 'scant evidence'.

actually if you consider the adjectives in the list, you will see that its the refutation of the so called evidence that goes on and on! if you want we can consider them one by one as soon as i get better, no problem!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, you don't say, Darwinian evolutionary theorists have been doing the same thing for years! and i quote

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy" [Darwin, 1881].

but yeah you're probably right, the evi ...[text shortened]... uce light as it combusts up into the eternal sky as one would burn incense in a temple ! 😀

if he did say that, i respect darwin even more. he has a common sense you do not have. he admits he might be wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Think again. I have many many concerns, many of which I have not stated because you have not bothered to properly address the first one I mentioned. I prefer to tackle things one at a time. You on the other hand would rather dismiss all evidence before you have even heard it.

[b]was to do with probability, which as i have consistently stated here and e ...[text shortened]... im done with it, if you want to believe it then thats up to you!
Self delusion at its best.[/b]

you don't have this much patience with me when i say that god may exist, and my faith doesn't contradict with my reasoning.
yet you put up with this buffoon much longer than anyone. why is that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, you don't say, Darwinian evolutionary theorists have been doing the same thing for years! and i quote

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy" [Darwin, 1881].

but yeah you're probably right, the evi ...[text shortened]... uce light as it combusts up into the eternal sky as one would burn incense in a temple ! 😀

You've completely failed to answer either of my questions, instead jumping onto the opinion I expressed at the end of the post and attempting to debase it.

I'll try again this time without the opinion

So robbie, If I gathered from your essay at the start and postings your looking for.

1. A clear and unequivocal example of a biological system made up of complex parts that serve no function independently, forming through progressive development? I believe you used cells as a good example?

2. An explanation of the development of blood clotting via progressive means?

Was there another point? Or is it just these two?

Answer me this if someone can provide both of these explanations in a clear and unbiased manner will you change your mind and acknowledge that your position is incorrect?.

Or will you carry on and ignore the provided evidence?

Just for the record I never once mentioned Darwin or the flaws/merits of his theories. So could you could you please refrain from raising straw men. All I did was make the observation that someone admits all the work they've ever done is biased, and based on bad bad science then using their "scientific" research in any form of debate isn't the most effective method of arguing....

Now please answer my questions......