1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    29 May '12 17:022 edits
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    The theory of evolution is only concerned with an explanation of biological diversity. The author is equivocating on the term 'evolution', trying to blend a specific theory of biology in with the general idea that things change over time.
    The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

    Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because there is no designer. So they must keep reminding themselves that it has all evolved to continue the great fraud of evolution.

    As stated by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove” (Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud..., p. 216-218).

    Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
    (The Double Helix, p. 14).
  2. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    29 May '12 17:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

    Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because th ...[text shortened]... ientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
    (The Double Helix, p. 14).
    Einstein's opposition to probabilistic QM shows that we need not fear even formidable opposition; if anything, it forces us to make better arguments and find better evidence.
  3. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    29 May '12 18:14
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

    Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because th ...[text shortened]... ientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
    (The Double Helix, p. 14).
    ah, douches' can always fall back on quote mining. that's a classic.
  4. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    29 May '12 18:27
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://rcg.org/books/effai.html

    But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.

    Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this di ...[text shortened]... used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
    You start with a question concerning science, but offer explanations from a source concerned with faith (and that has been discredited generally by the faithful).
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 May '12 02:111 edit
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    You start with a question concerning science, but offer explanations from a source concerned with faith (and that has been discredited generally by the faithful).
    However the evolutionists make no adequate explanation. Their explanations are filled with holes and will not hold water.
  6. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    30 May '12 02:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    However the evolutionists make no adequate explanation. Their explanations are filled with holes and will not hold water.
    you don't even know what evolution is. you quoted a source that told you about 6-7 kinds of evolution and you have already been told of this misinformation. there is only one kind of evolution in the theory of evolution. of course you've been told this many times and you know it. you're just being willfully dishonest.

    but then again, you're not a christian and we already know that. your persistence in dishonesty further proves that you're also not an honorable person.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 May '12 03:161 edit
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    you don't even know what evolution is. you quoted a source that told you about 6-7 kinds of evolution and you have already been told of this misinformation. there is only one kind of evolution in the theory of evolution. of course you've been told this many times and you know it. you're just being willfully dishonest.

    but then again, you're not a c ...[text shortened]... t. your persistence in dishonesty further proves that you're also not an honorable person.
    Your persistence in putting forth the lies of the theory of evolution as fact, rather than a hypothesis, shows either your dishonesty or your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity.

    Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
    (The Double Helix, p. 14).
  8. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    30 May '12 06:591 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Your persistence in putting forth the lies of the theory of evolution as fact, rather than a hypothesis, shows either your dishonesty or your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity.

    Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
    (The Double Helix, p. 14).
    read the book instead of quote mining it, douche. you just might learn something to alleviate a bit of your stupidity.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 May '12 12:361 edit
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    read the book instead of quote mining it, douche. you just might learn something to alleviate a bit of your stupidity.
    I haven't got the book and I was using the quote from another source. Could you give me the quote in context?
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    31 May '12 01:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    ... Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? ...
    In a sense yes.

    The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken.

    Amazing isnt it?

    And that is your problem you fail to accept how amazing Nature is - instead you have to attribute it to magic, because your puny intellect cannot understand how natural processes can accumulate to produce the big picture". You accept small changes ("adaptation"😉 but cannot comprehend small changes adding up to large changes ("evolution"😉. You think god painted the rainbow in the sky and some much translated bronze age text is the be-all and end-all of wisdom. You are sad, mad and stupid.

    NB I have used your definitions of adaptation and evolution.
  11. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    31 May '12 02:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I haven't got the book and I was using the quote from another source. Could you give me the quote in context?
    i gave you the link to the entire book in another post. you can find it online at google books.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    31 May '12 05:02
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    In a sense yes.

    The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken.

    Amazing isnt it?

    And that is your problem you fail to accept how amazing Nature is - instead you have to attribute it to magic, because your puny intellect cannot understand how natural processes can accumulate to p ...[text shortened]... ou are sad, mad and stupid.

    NB I have used your definitions of adaptation and evolution.
    "The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken."

    That's the best definiton of evolution I have heard yet from you Atheists. I applaud you for your honesty!

    Yes, it is amazing. It sounds like a miracle. halleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    I accept amazing nature as a miracle work of God, whereas you believe it is a miracle work of God's creation and not of the creator.
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    31 May '12 09:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds

    I accept amazing nature as a miracle work of God, whereas you believe it is a miracle work of God's creation and not of the creator.
    No
    I do not believe it is a miracle work of gods creation.

    Why do you persistently misquote other people?

    Is it to avoid answering difficult questions? (Just a guess) 😏
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    31 May '12 14:04
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    No
    I do not believe it is a miracle work of gods creation.

    Why do you persistently misquote other people?

    Is it to avoid answering difficult questions? (Just a guess) 😏
    It is FMF that persistently misquotes other people, not me.

    You are not a very good guesser. Stay away from the Las Vegas casinos.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree