Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 09:50 AM

Back to the drawing board, randman.

randman · 06-15-2002, 09:53 AM

"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once--when certaon chemicals came together to form the first simple living organism more than 3 billion years ago."

Thanks. Noone said scientists beleive maggots come from meat. Duh! But it is relevant that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, and that evolutionists do for the most part believe spontaneous generation to be possible, and to have occurred at least once.

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
But it is relevant that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation ...

You've just been told that this is not the case, by your own source!

Get a dictionary of biology, randman.

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 10:14 AM

Better yet, address Nightshade's chart.

randman · 06-15-2002, 10:17 AM

"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once--when certaon chemicals came together to form the first simple living organism more than 3 billion years ago."

Gee, is that what that states. Obviously, the gy isn't saying it happens for maggots and meat, but he does state it happens for the start of al life.

Hmm,...somehow you can't read I guess.

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hmm, ... somehow you can't read I guess.

Do you have a point randman? If so, please make it.

randman · 06-15-2002, 10:37 AM

You mean the evolutionary chart. Charts have always been standard evidence for evolution. Hey, how can I disagree with that.

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hey, how can I disagree with that.

Good question. Care to try?

randman · 06-15-2002, 10:56 AM

Guess you didn't catch the joke, eh? How can I argue that a chart is in itself evidence? I mean once it becomes a chart its proof. It's always been that way for us evolutionists.

First of all, the chart incorrectly misrepresents creationist's views. Secondly, creationist views are not relevant to this particular thread.

pseudobug · 06-15-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>Guess you didn't catch the joke, eh? How can I argue that a chart is in itself evidence? I mean once it becomes a chart its proof. It's always been that way for us evolutionists.

First of all, the chart incorrectly misrepresents creationist's views. Secondly, creationist views are not relevant to this particular thread.</strong>

Damn, randman. I'm far more familiar with your horseshit than anyone here, but you've plumbed new lows.

First, you were asked to provide the quotes in context from your world book encyclopedia. I would assume you have it yet you don't provide it. That's fairly typical from you though.

Given your flagrant and historical use of out of context quotes, do you not see why you are met with such disdain?

Next, you spout some gobbly-gook about a chart as "proof of evolution" in the form of a joke. The chart was provided to illustrate to you the simplistic version that fundies have of abiogenesis (and don't tell me they don't--it's all over fundie sites and even underlies the basic premise of ID; that there are not intermediate steps in irreducibly complex systems) and that perhaps Coyne's quote was oversimplified due to the source (a cursory summary of a topic for the high-school level layperson).

To crown this ironic exhibition of the latest pile of steaming horseshit from your keyboard that you think passes for reason, you have the gall to tell us that creationist views are being misrepresented while you misrepresent Coyle throughout the entire thread and try to pass of this misrepresentation as applicable to all evolutionists.

Unbelievable.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2002, 09:50 AM	#21
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Back to the drawing board, randman.

06-15-2002, 09:53 AM	#22
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once--when certaon chemicals came together to form the first simple living organism more than 3 billion years ago." Thanks. Noone said scientists beleive maggots come from meat. Duh! But it is relevant that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, and that evolutionists do for the most part believe spontaneous generation to be possible, and to have occurred at least once.

06-15-2002, 10:14 AM	#24
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Better yet, address Nightshade's chart.

06-15-2002, 10:17 AM	#25
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once--when certaon chemicals came together to form the first simple living organism more than 3 billion years ago." Gee, is that what that states. Obviously, the gy isn't saying it happens for maggots and meat, but he does state it happens for the start of al life. Hmm,...somehow you can't read I guess.

06-15-2002, 10:37 AM	#27
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	You mean the evolutionary chart. Charts have always been standard evidence for evolution. Hey, how can I disagree with that.

06-15-2002, 10:56 AM	#29
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Guess you didn't catch the joke, eh? How can I argue that a chart is in itself evidence? I mean once it becomes a chart its proof. It's always been that way for us evolutionists. First of all, the chart incorrectly misrepresents creationist's views. Secondly, creationist views are not relevant to this particular thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.