Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g
dthmstr254 said:
unrefuted science doesn't outdate itself. there has never been an experiment to disprove it.
Ah, more dishonest and cowardly attempt at deflecting form you having outright lied. Your claim was that:
"you know, science doesn't outdate itself."
It is THAT claim that is an utter lie. And it is THAT which you seem to be to much of a coward to admit having been wrong about.
you really need to get a grip. the reason I put the word there is to let you know which fossil I was discrediting. there is no mention in his direct quote, which I sourced
Ah, MORE dishonesty.
For one, you have failed to show who "he" is. You made a vague allegation that this was from somebody called "Huse," but provided no standardized reference source at all.
Secondly, sources where the text you plagiarized (You know, the websites that reprint apparently the claims of this "Huse" in exactly the format that YOU posted) are found, they list this example about "old arthritic man" specifically under "Neanderthal." And so did your post. Specifically, your post stated this:
Neanderthal: at the Int'l Congress of Zoology, Dr AJE Cave said his examination found that his famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was from an old man who suffered from arthritis.
The word "Neanderthal" features prominently at the head of that paragraph that YOU posted.
So yes, you are flat-out LYING.
It is REALLY pathetic that you can't even be honest about stuff that is right there in your post.
And you claimed that
"the guy never said anything about a Neanderthal man, in fact, I fail to see that in the original quote I have seen. I just see the words "old" "arthritic" "man".
When I pointed out that the text you quoted indeed had the word "Neanderthal" in it (as shown above), then you now flat-out LIE about it? What the hell is wrong with you?
(for your information, a source like that in APA {American Psychological Association, now used widely in all scientific realms in preference to MLA standards for the requirements of dates in APA} style removes one from the accusation of plagiarism), clearly states that it was an arthritic MAN, not neanderthal.
You have GOT to be the biggest teller of fibs here. For one, your claimed source reference was simply this:
source: The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M Huse
FYI, that also is NOT APA style (Notably, per your lack of providing the "requirements of dates in APA" that you yourself posted a few lines up), so you are (1) lying, and (2) still haven't provided a reference and thus are plagiarizing.
Why don't you just fess up and admit you got it from a website that you didn't cite, so we can avoid an ongoing demonstration of how dishonest you are about this? All you have to do is admit that you were dishonest so we can move on.
It won't be a surprise, we all KNOW that you plagiarized from a website, we all KNOW that you are dishonest about it, so it is not like it would surprise anybody, it merely would wipe the debate clean of this issue of your dishonesty so we can proceed.
Secondly, what you posted as a claim was this, in its entirety about the hominids:
I am going to reveal some startling finds about evolution. first, I will start with the fossil record, then move on to dating methods they have used on the fossils, then the age that oil pressure shows, then finish off by debunking the moths in England, with full APA citations.
note: none of this has yet been disproven without being defended by another part of the argument. you present the argument, I point you to the part of the argument that debunks your theory.
Heidelburg: built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska: scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an ancient pig
Piltdown: the jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking: supposedly 500000 years old, but all evidence has mysteriously dissappeared.
Neanderthal: at the Int'l Congress of Zoology, Dr AJE Cave said his examination found that his famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was from an old man who suffered from arthritis.
New Guinea: dates away back to 1970. this species has been found in the region just north of Australia.
Cro Magnon: not differentiable when compared to skeletons of modern man by medical professionals.
modern: this genius thinks we came from a monkey. "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
There it is. A clear remark specifically about the neanderthal in your source.
You are
LYING!!!!!!
and yet you forget the most important thing in the text, I have multiple sources from scientific, peer-reviewed, journals and books.
And your sources didn't back up your claims. So you are lying about the text in your sources.
(That is the purpose of sources, to make your claims verifiable. Your claims are not supported by your sources.
You are
LYING!!!!!!
you have A source (talkorigins, fun to read, but when taken in light of evidence in scientific journals, it pales with an obvious bias.
The examples and texts are all backed up with the scientific references. You ALSO can go and double-check. Have at it. In contrast to you, the sources agree with my points and posts.
I have NOT plagiarized. I stated what they said, then built upon ALL THE SOURCES.
You STILL haven't provided the source for this text by Huse that you are talking about. Of course this is because you got the text from a website rather than from Huse's book itself like you so deceptively are trying to portray. I already did provide one link to a creationist site providing the text exactly as you presented it, certainly showing the likelihood of you having plagiarized from a website rather than from Huse's book.
And as you clearly is NOT able to even provide the pagenumbers, it is clear that you DID get it from a website rather than his book.
You are
LYING!!!!!!
you know, if I repeated that, I deny reality. science is not science unless it explains EVERYTHING.
This got to be the DUMBEST thing you have said yet. The Scientific Theory of Gravity doesn't explain Evolution. The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't explain gravity nor the science of electrons. And the Scientific Theory of the Atom explains neither gravity nor evolution.
Your claim is plain dumb nonsense.
evolution ASSUMES that life was already here. well, how did they reach that assumption?
By observing that it its there. %@#%@$# stupid claim. But this is classic dishonest creationism. "We can't argue against evolution, but can argue against Abiogenesis, so we then just insist that Abiogenesis is part of evolution so we dishonestly can claim it to be wrong because of that.
Creationist claptrap lies like that is why we are so incredibly disgusted with creationist
LIARS!!!!!!
from the realm of abiogenesis.
A LIE. We would only worry about that if we tried to determine how it originated. That we observe changes in populations between generations is not invalidated by not having the specifics of how the first life originated to begin with.
You are way beyond befuddlement or ignorance now. You are now outright and deliberately DISHONEST. You are willfully lying, you are deliberately bearing false witness and spitting God in the eye.
this is the tie that ties everything together.
A lie.
if abiogenesis ever showed that God existed,
Utterly irrelevant.
it would make evolution's theories of natural selection become a complete failure,
A lie.
because if God could create life, He could control how it evolved.
So when you have the scientific evidence for the supernatural, then show it. Until then, stuff your lies and stop insulting us by your spitting God in the eye through your enormous lies and flagrant dishonesty and pathetic ignorance. I have friggin had it with liar like you.
this isn't natural selection, as a mind is working on the system, but deity-selection.
And you have no evidence for this pure faith based speculation, yet are trying to present it as factual. No surprise there.
