FH - you are a fool or a liar.

In our earlier exchange regarding quote mining, I gave you all the information and warning you needed to avoid such dishonorable antics.

(For those who may not have read that exchange, "quote mining" is the deceptive practice favored by creationists in an attempt to cast doubt to the gullible using "quotes" taken out of context by rebutable scientists. The strategy is that if scientists of recognized integrity and credibility can be shown to have misgivings or doubts regarding scientific findings in the field of evolution, then the creationists can wedge their position of "equal credibility" upon others. Doubt in accepted science creates opportunity for their view.)

FH - I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you maybe didn't know what kind of lies you were spreading - that you were being duped as an unwitting participant into spreading falsehoods.

It's now apparent to me that I was being too generous to you. Did you think for an instant that I wouldn't check you on this deceptive practice?

Here's your quote from above:

Here's a more complete quote from Sarah Simpson, your reference 247, in her article, "Life's First Scalding Steps". The portion you lifted out of context is in bold. Google it and see for yourself.


You didn't even reference the right person. This wasn't Simpson's quote, but Chyba's. Yep, Chyba certainly is doubtful that the only production of early amino acids occurred resident on earth - arguing that some may have come from extraterrestial sources! Sheese - you should be more careful who you quote to argue that amino acids could only come from a divine source.

Why FH, did you continue the lies after being called on it and being given the opportunity to avoid the deceptiveness?

Here you are, espousing the noble, holy, "standard morals" of your faith and you resort to continuation of spreading falsehoods to further your agenda. You should be ashamed.

What are you - a fool or a liar?

Oh, and here's another quote, from the very same article you referenced:


WAT

Wow, WAT.

I know Chyba. He certainly wouldn't "qualify" as a "doubting evolutionist" by any means.

I'd have 2 agree, that was "quote mining" and nothing but.

-ol' 2long

finally! something worth talking about. Taylor series. Polynomials. Discussions of infinity as X approaches 0 in 1/X.

oh.. wait. Again, nothing to do with rebuilding a marriage.

Sorry for my trouble maker tendancies. I probably wouldn't have anything fruitful to add even IF I had read this entire thread, so count me as one of the fools. That said, bring on the Math discussion. That I can play in.

see... here is a math idea for you. This post. This post right here. It was really only about adding 1 to my post count. Now.. for those of you wishing to do a thesis or possibly a dissertation on a Mathematical concept, I will gladly take cash or check for the brilliant idea I have just tossed at you. Yes thats right. Patriots willing usage of useless posting to achieve a 1+ effect on the statistical metric propogated on this very medium of communication.

You know what WAT, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Isn't it comforting to know that you are aligning yourself with bullies everywhere in attacking the "messenger" not the message once again. A skill perfected by many and a course in "how to do it" given by Bill Clinton....."it depends on what the meaning of "IS" is." Ya, right. In his mind and in your mind only.




And deceptive reasoning is the method whereby evolutionists attempt to thrust speculation upon an unsuspecting public as FACT. As Dimpsasawa has stated (to paraphrase him, though I disagree with him on this point also in some areas such as E=mc2), Science is NOT about absolute truth, it is only about the search for kwowledge.

WAT, you fall into the same "trap" that most evolutionists do, you ASSUME that there is no God who has created and then you attempt to find ways to force the available data to conform with your preconceived notion and "toss out" any contradictory information...all the while encasing yourself in the mantle of being a "scientist," as if that somehow gave anyone a corner on truth or and excuse to call "speculation, hypothesis, etc." TRUTH or FACT.



Personally, WAT, I would hope you would check up on every source. Check to your hearts content. You want to claim that that quote SUPPORTS and PROVES evolution, be my guest. I thank you for taking the time to post the additional information for "context," but let's look at exactly what WAS said in what you quoted;






Sheesh WAT! I "expect better" from such a stridant scientist. You BEG the question and use that as "proof???" Sheesh - you should be more careful who you quote to argue that amino acids could only come from a divine source. If you want to talk about being a "fool or a liar," then start by looking in a mirror. WHERE did the alleged amino acids come from TO BEGIN WITH? Where did life on Earth come from REGARDLESS of where the ingredients basic to all life came from?





I, for one, expected better from someone claiming superiority by reason of being a "scientist" as justification for attacking someone else who disagrees with them. "Liar or lunatic or truth" still rests on whether or not a "Creator" exists. YOU begin with the proposition that ONLY evolution accounts for all that is, especially LIFE, and you eliminate without proof that "In the beginning God created...." As I have said repeatedly, IF my belief in Jesus Christ is founded upon a person who is NOT who he said he was, and if Christ was NOT raised from the dead, my faith IS then "in vain" and I would be a "fool" for believing God.

Now how about addressing the mathematical probability of those vaunted amino acids actually resulting in LIFE, all on their own, regardless of WHERE in the universe you choose to have life "originate."

I await with baited breath your mathematical "proof" of the possibility. You can even enlist the aid of all the others siding with you in favor of evolution and make it a "group project" if you'd like.

As expected you have avoided the issue of making quotes out of context and attempted to spin it all around on me as the deceiver.

You did not address my acusation because you can't without admitting that the quote you provided was a misrepresentation and intentionally meant to deceive. Where is your "authoritative standard" of morals when you need it?

Patriot is right, this thread has long since served it's usefulness and I would be the fool to continue to argue with you. But useful it was - to reveal the desperate quote mining mechanisms some resort to to protect their agenda.

WAT

Bull hockey! I took your "expanded quotation" at face value and examined it. It proved nothing and the quotation used also was not changed by your expansion of the context.

[b]AT BEST[/i] all the reference experiment PROVED was that an intelligent being could take chemicals, make a potentially viable environment, and jumble the parts together until SOME of them hooked up into pieces. There is MUCH that is left out and nothing that proves evolution. AT BEST all it "proved" was that if an intelligent "person" set it up, it might happen, but only as a direct result of the intervention of an intelligent person.

Furthermore, YOU know that is true also, yet you persist in attacking someone who disagrees with your "interpretation."

So please don't presume to lecture me on "ethics" when you, yourself, are demonstrating an interesting set of "ethics and morals."

A little more later, when you've gotten over your juvenile snit fit and your "take my bat and ball and go home" emotional reaction.

Like I said, Chyba isn't a doubting evolutionist, so quoting him 2 support the notion that evolutionists are leaning 2ward creationism or ID as a better alternative explanation for how life originated is 'quote mining' as WAT indicated.

-2long

Now I'm going 2 take my bat and ball and go home.

We've all made our points (or have tried 2) many times.

There's simply more important things 2 be done.

-ol' 2long

2Long - This accusation of "quote mining" is getting a little old. It doesn't hold water. No one is saying that he is NOT an evolutionist. We can leave it to other evolutionists to say what is tantatmount to that for us when they "disagree" with each other. NONE of them (evolutionists) can "prove" evolution anymore than a creationist can "prove" creation (through the use of the "scientific method"). Both evolution and creation ARE models of origins based upon a belief that either accepts or rejects "in the beginning God created...."

THE issue will always be that evolutionists (for the most part) DENY the existance of God and are opposed to ANY mention of God or faith in schools, therefore they "push" evolution as the ONLY explanation for how things got here. They are soooooo afraid that anyone other than themselves can make decisions for themselves that they are "afraid" that someone exposed to the mere possibility of "God" might actually choose to accept that reality. They hide behind the idea (not in the Constitution) of "separation of church and state," but conveniently "forget" in their highly rated "scientific" minds that the wording of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "State" is NOT "establishing" a national religion (such as the Church of England) by TALKING about religion or by talking about God as believed by many to be THE Creator of all. Infringing upon anyone's right to discuss their faith (i.e. that evolution is how everything got here) is a violation of the 1st Amendment guarantee of "free speech." So is restricting someone's right to free speech about an "alternative theory," even if that theory is that some Supreme Being (who the individual may choose to believe in or not) created everything a violation of the 1st Amendment.




As 2Long said a couple of weeks ago about Fred Hoyle, “…. A brilliant nutball.”

Here is the link to the paper in question, and subsequent links are included in that paper (on the website) if one wants to follow the links (especially if they think some sort of “quote mining” is distorting what was said).

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wickramasinghe/wick_hoyle.html


It would appear that the scientific community (read that as: most evolutionists) basically agree with 2Long that Fred Hoyle was a “brilliant nutball.” So, it would seem, is his devoted disciple Chandra, another “brilliant nutball.” More wishful thinking is the modus operandi of the day and still continues to “beg the question” of how did life arise all on it’s own from “non-living.” “Brilliant” and “has faith in their chosen belief of life originating in Space and not on Earth” does NOT equate to being correct, or so it would seem that the majority of evolutionist scientists would agree. Neither does the “typical” evolutionist belief that life arose from non-life through random chance on Earth equate to “truth.” Yet with the same elitist arguments of what “couldn’t have been” that they use on their fellow “brilliant nutballs” they dismiss the creative act of God as the reason for what they “see.” There is a huge difference between “Science” and “Scientist,” but most evolutionists are blind to the distinction or cautious about the “scientist” influencing their findings by making those findings fit a predetermined “faith,” and ignoring their equal, or sometimes better, applicability to a “creation faith.”



It would seem logical that the same accusation that Dr. Bernstein makes against Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe can be applied to many evolutionists also; “not really driven by the data, but rather by a desire… (faith in “evolution” and not a Creator to resolve such a conflict, or to avoid an explanation as to why the observed data fits equally well, or better in many cases, a Creation Model of Origins.”)

How many of these scientists approach the question of Jesus Christ with as much dedication to seeing how the facts about Him “fit?” Here IS someone of “alleged” great importance who did, and said, certain things, who CAN be examined and a conclusion CAN be reached about Him. Since He WAS the Creator(imho), it would seem that an examination of Jesus Christ WOULD be demanded by “science” as, at least, a “posited hypothesis” worthy of examination and many “scholarly papers.” Now they could, after examining the facts, choose to consider Him a “brilliant nutball,” but at least then it would be based upon their acceptance or rejection of FACTS, not mere biased supposition.