Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236

    Some quotes against evolution

    Some quotes by great minds against evolution including Charles Darwin himself:

    Even old Charlie wasn't real sure.

    "You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas."

    Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    What's that mean,

    His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge-that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based.'

    Dr. Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK) in his book, Evolution Without Evidence.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    They must know what they're talking about?

    "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

    Personal letter from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

    Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    It's all just a load of rubbish then.

    "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

    Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

    (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

    (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    The brainwashed do not know they are brainwashed!

    "I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has."

    Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

    Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    ''We're not just evolving slowly,'' Gould says, ''for all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever - we are what we are.''

    Stephen Jay Gould ( Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University )

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..."

    Dr. Greg Kirby (Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University ) in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "the incident on a par with two other embarrassing faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man', the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'."

    "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid, that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

    (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California,

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    They make it up as they go.

    I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.

    We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretended to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.

    Dr. Colin Patterson,( Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London ) in an interview on British broadcasting Corporation ( BBC ) television

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

    Stephen Jay Gould, Former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

    Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

    Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

    - Dr. Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    It is an impossible belief.

    "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".'

    Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

    Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Radiocarbon dating is a joke as well.

    "When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago."

    From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago.

    (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years."

    ("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.

    (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years."

    Alan C. Riggs, Science, vol 224 (1984) 58-61

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a "proof" for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

    ’This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read’."

    Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    ' I know the question in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!'

    Paul A Moody, Ph.D. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    So why do most people believe it?

    "Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

    (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)



    http://www.soulwinners.com.au/8.html

    God Bless HIs Creations.
    Last edited by CWH; 09-03-2012 at 08:49 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote mining is for morons.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote mining is for morons.
    What about youtube-missiles?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOmvs...0&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1UuP...9&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArQMB...8&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKV3t...3&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGAAE...5&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMrOV...2&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3TD...2&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhLX7...6&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDZS3...0&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEKq...9&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_K2s...7&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkpzL...8&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjiD...7&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxYs...6&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxwqG...5&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEiUD...4&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dWO2...3&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYunl...2&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JmMT...5&feature=plcp

    I hope you don't take them away, or do you want to control what we should see in here?
    Do you hate creationism so much?
    It is a choice, you can never in the world for 100% that none of this is true, so let us choose.
    I choose Jesus and creationism. And does it harm me more than what you choose?
    You are harsh in our belief with what you think is strong evidence against us.
    Should we be as much critic of what you want to tell about what you believe?
    B Cause i can sure critisize your mariuhana campaign curing all sorts of diseases as pure coincidence?
    And believing in man without having Jesus in their life to save our fallen world, trying to make people choose right in politic is a bull of crap.

    Thanks Chow for the qoutes, i like the list, i have seen the debunking before, so there is no need to debunk them Richard, just call us morons, it's enough. But i have also seen the debunking of debunking, so i still believe in creationism.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    What about youtube-missiles?

    I hope you don't take them away, or do you want to control what we should see in here?

    Do you hate creationism so much?
    Roberto,

    Don't worry about me "taking them away." I think they are very useful to show how weak the creationist arguments really are. And it helps show how deceptive they are and how willingly they lie in "service of the truth." For example, here is my review of a typical creationist video posted by CWH called "PROVEN! LIES, DECEIT, FRAUD: The Dilemma of Evolution Teaching." It is from my thread called What's the best evidence for evolution?. No creationist can answer that question because they are totally ignorant of the science. It proves they are not interested in truth at all but merely spewing out lies to support their unfounded religious beliefs. That's why I "hate creationism so much." It shows how fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of believers. It would be great if you posted in that thread and explained what you think is the best evidence for evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    RAM call Creationists liars, but actually Evolutionists were the real liars and fraudsters. So far no one can prove concretely Creationist are liars and fraudsters. It's pathetic to see them resort to these scams.,,,Archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Pekin Man.... Why did so if Evolution is true? This is an embarrassment to Evolutionists:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUh...eature=related


    May God forgive them and us.
    That video contains lies and misrepresentations. It is a perfect example of corrupt creationists. At 1:10 and again at 2:00 the narrator falsely asserts that no transitional forms have ever been found. THEY LIED. There are many transitional forms and anyone interested in the truth knows this because the information is freely available on the web. It is pathetic that this lie is found on the lips of countless Christians who have been deceived by the creationists.

    Another deliberate deception in the video is their presentation of the "archeoraptor scandal" (2:50). In 1999 some Chinese people put together a fake fossil that was supposed to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The National Geographic was duped by those liars and published a report. Then SCIENCE came to the rescue and proved it was fake and so it was rejected. This is a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. No one can stop liars from lying, but science has a method that exposes lies and errors and so science ever advances towards the truth. Creationism is the opposite. The video presented the archeoraptor scandal as if it were proof that evolutionary scientists make a habit of deliberately falsifying the fossil record! That is not what happened. CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS! And they continue to spread their lies and they rarely if ever correct themselves. The continue to spread the same lies long after they have been exposed.

    The proof is overwhelming. The whole creationist movement is utterly corrupt and filled with people willingly and knowingly lie.

    There is a great irony here. The creationists who made the video claim to be Christians who worship the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ. But by their actions they show that they hate the truth. They have a contempt for the truth. And just as they claim to worship the TRUTH when they LIE, so they accuse evolutionist of LYING when they are in fact telling the truth. The creationists confirm that NO ONE should ever become a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion that corrupts the hearts and minds of believers. Creationists are the final nail in the coffin of religion. The lying freak Ergun Caner - who lied for ten years about being a former terrorist to make money off 9/11 - really helped free me from the confines of traditional Christianity. The fact that major Christian apologists like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler colluded with Caner to cover the lies convinced me more. And when the leadership of Liberty U and the leadership f the Southern Baptist Convention and many hyper-fundamentalist Christian Ministries joined the ORGY OF LIES I knew it was time to quit Christianity altogether. I HATE LIARS in general, but there's nothing quite as disgusting as LIARS masquerading as those who "worship the truth" even as the LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

    ETA: At 7:00 the narrator equates "spontaneous generation" with "abiogensis"! Those are totally different concepts! The producers of the video are not only LIARS, they are also IGNORANT FREAKS that make UTTER FOOLS out of anyone who listens to them. They are a primary source of the mental corruption that we see in Christians all around the world. It is very interesting that this video contained this misrepresentation since it was the first point I refuted in the previous post about the "Law of Biogenesis" which creationists say contradicts evolution. I can't believe how these ludicrous absurdities have been spread into so many Christian minds. Creationism manifests the power of corruption that is innate within dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The fact that the members of the religions have no way to clean up their own corruption makes a mockery of their claim that there religion is the only way to get "cleansed" by God.
    If you want to continue posting creationist videos, it would be good if you addressed the facts I presented above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    It is a choice, you can never in the world for 100% that none of this is true, so let us choose.
    I choose Jesus and creationism. And does it harm me more than what you choose?
    Reality is not a choice.

    Believing in Young Earth Creationism is no different than believing in a flat earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    You are harsh in our belief with what you think is strong evidence against us.
    Should we be as much critic of what you want to tell about what you believe?
    YES! Absolutely! If I ever say anything that approaches the level of lunacy displayed by the Creationist crowd, then please have mercy on me and expose my error without holding any punches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    B Cause i can sure critisize your mariuhana campaign curing all sorts of diseases as pure coincidence?
    Then go for it! Give it your best shot. But it would be best to start another thread since it's off topic here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    And believing in man without having Jesus in their life to save our fallen world, trying to make people choose right in politic is a bull of crap.
    And a Muslim would say the same thing about Allah and Islam. You need more than mere assertion if you want to convince people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Thanks Chow for the qoutes, i like the list, i have seen the debunking before, so there is no need to debunk them Richard, just call us morons, it's enough. But i have also seen the debunking of debunking, so i still believe in creationism.
    If you want your assertions to stand, you need to provide evidence. I didn't "just call you morons." I specifically said that "quote mining is for morons." And I stand by my statement. You can't prove anything by presenting a bunch of quotes TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT! You, of all people should know this. I can make the Bible say anything I want by taking quotes out of context.

    I understand that my strong statements have disturbed you. But don't use that as an excuse for not defending what you've written. I am very reasonable man. Show where I've erred and I will admit I am wrong.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    You wonder why I hate creationism so much? The first video in your list, called "Liars for Darwin," is itself a LYING ABOMINATION! Ironically, its material is based on Ann Coulter's diseased book "Godless" - which is a perfect self-description of the whole creationist movement.

    The video is pure deception. It quotes a ludicrous anti-science freak who said that Professor Dan-E. Nilsson supported and confirmed their perverse lies when the truth is exactly the opposite. Here is what Dan-E. Nilsson thinks of the perverse deceivers who lied about him and his research [source]:

    Beware of Pseudo-science:
    a response to David Berlinski's attack on my calculation of how long it takes for an eye to evolve.

    By Prof. Dan-E. Nilsson
    Department of Cell and Organism Biology,
    Lund University, Sweden
    The Lund Vision Group

    In the April issue of Commentary magazine David Berlinski attacks my paper with Susanne Pelger from 1994 (Nilsson D-E, Pelger S (1994) A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc R Soc Lond B 256: 53-58). I generally do not debate pseudo-scientists because it gives them credibility, but I have decided to make an exception here.

    His essay starts with an attempt to describe the original paper, Nilsson and Pelger (1994). Apart from a mix up in sequence chronology and some minor peculiarities, the only major flaw is his misunderstanding of the response R, which he quotes as a measure of visual acuity. It is not, and the original paper does not say so. This is the first serious mistake and it gets worse in the remainder of the essay.

    Berlinski's next move is to list important information, which he claims is missing in the original paper. At regular intervals he repeats the phrase: "they do not say". But all the necessary information is there. Given only 800 words to respond, I cannot reply individually to every point here, but two examples will do: Berlinski claims that there is no unit for morphological change and that we do not explain how we arrive at a sum of 1829 steps of 1%. Explanations to both are given on page 56 of the original paper, starting with the bottom line of the left column. He further claims that we do not explain how morphological change relates to improvements in visual acuity, although most of pages 54 through 56, including graphs and legends of Figures 1 and 3 deals with exactly that, in great detail.

    He continues for the rest of his essay on other issues where he believes he has detected logical flaws. He is not right in a single case, and instead reveals an insufficient background in visual optics, sampling theory, basic evolutionary theory, and more. Nor does he seem to have read the key references such as Warrant and McIntyre (1993), Falconer (1989) or Futuyma (1986). Without such knowledge I understand that it is hard to grasp the details of the Nilsson and Pelger paper, but it is standard scientific practice not to repeat lengthy reasoning when a short reference can be given.

    But there is more to Berlinski's misconception of our paper. He has a problem with definitions. "Morphological change" becomes "biological change". Spatial resolution (visual acuity) becomes sensitivity of vision. He does not distinguish between selection and intensity of selection. He is obviously confused between the 1% steps which we use as a unit of measure for morphological change, and the 0.005% change per generation which is our conservative estimate of evolutionary rate.

    Later in the essay, he attempts a peculiar probability argument with random substitutions of letters. He does not realize that his example implies a single individual in the population, and then there can of course be no selection at all. Again, he badly needs to read Falconer's standard work (1989).

    Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.

    Had these and all his other points been unfortunate misunderstandings, I would have been only too happy to help, but I get the distinct impression they are deliberate attempts to eliminate uncomfortable scientific results. Why does Berlinski not read up on the necessary scientific background? Why does he so obviously misquote our paper? Why has he never asked me for the calculation details he claims to want so badly? It is simply impossible to take Berlinski seriously.

    Berlinski is right on one point only: my paper with Pelger has been incorrectly quoted as containing a computer simulation of eye evolution. I have not considered this to be very serious, because a simulation would be a mere automation of the logic in our paper. A complete simulation is thus of moderate scientific interest, although it would be useful from an educational point of view.

    The Nilsson and Pelger (1994) paper remains scientifically sound, and it has not been challenged in any scientific journal with a peer review system. I do not intend to take any further part in the meaningless debate with Berlinski. But if his essay was an April fools' joke I must congratulate the editors and others involved.
    Why do I hate the creationist movement? Because it is totally dominated by deluded people who LIE in support of their religion. They pervert people's minds. They deceive. Simply stated, they are terribly wicked people.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236

    More quotes against evolution

    Thanks Chow for the qoutes, i like the list, i have seen the debunking before, so there is no need to debunk them Richard, just call us morons, it's enough. But i have also seen the debunking of debunking, so i still believe in creationism.
    Thanks Roberto and I am from Singapore. I have heard of Joseph Prince before but have not attended his sermons or read his books.

    I wonder who are the bigger moron to believe in the theory of evolution? I don't hate evolutionists unlike RAM but I hate their theory of mega-evolution. Anyway, more quotes from the so-called "morons", one of them happens to be Charles Darwin:

    http://www.esculent.co.uk/topics/evolution/quotes.html

    Primitive - Modern Plants

    “Supposedly somewhere within the group called algae the sources of the higher plants, the vascular groups. Whatever these ancestors may have been, they seem to have been irrevocably lost in the vastness of time”.
    E.C Olson.
    The Evolution of Life, New American Library, New York, 1965. Page 94.

    “I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil records of plants is in favour of special creation”.
    Prof. E.J.H. Corner.
    Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.


    Single Cells - Invertebrates

    “Most of the major groups of animals appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them”.
    Dr. Colin Patterson.
    Evolution, British Museum of Natural History, 1978, Page 133.
    “It is as though they (the Cambrian invertebrates) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history”.
    Dr. Richard Dawkins.
    Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.


    Invertebrates - Fish

    “All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
    Gerald T Todd.
    American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.

    “Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertabrates”.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 7, Page 567 (1976 Edition, Macropaedia).


    Fish - Amphibians

    “There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”.
    Gordon Rattray Taylor.
    The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

    “Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
    Dr. Kriag Adler.
    Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.


    Amphibians - Reptiles

    “Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
    Robert L. Carroll.
    Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

    “The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux”.
    Angus d'A. Bellairs.
    Reference. 8 Page 60.


    Reptiles - Birds

    “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
    W. E. Swinton.
    Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.

    “Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”.
    A. Feduccia.
    The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

    NOTE
    CLAIMS THAT FOSSILS OF 'FEATHERS DINOSAURS' HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED HAVE NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. ONE CALLED 'ARCHAEORAPTOR' REPORTED IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC NOVEMBER 1999 WAS LATER EXPOSED AS A FRAUD. ALSO, THE FOSSIL 'ARCHAEOPTERYX' ONCE CLAIMED TO BE A 'MISSING LINK' IS NOW REGARDED BY ALMOST ALL AUTHORITIES AS A TRUE BIRD.


    Reptiles - Mammals

    “The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most two lineages, is still an enigma”.
    Roger Lewin.
    Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out, 'Science' Vol 212, 1981,Page 1492.

    “Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequence about their (the supposedly "primitive" monotremes) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles”.
    David Attenborough.
    Life on Earth, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1979, Page 207.


    Land Mammals - Sea Mammals

    “We have no certain knowledge of their origin (the cetaceans), for the earliest known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales”.
    L. Harrison Matthews.
    Natural History of the Whale, Page 23.

    “We are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears (the cetaceans and sirenians) and can not be sure of their place of origin”.
    Prof. Alfred S Romer.
    Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, 1966, Page 339.


    Non-Flying Mammals - Bats

    “All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
    John E. Hill and James D. Smith.
    Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

    “Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
    Richard Leakey.
    Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.


    Apes - Humans Beings

    “Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
    Lyall Watson.
    The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

    “It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on
    the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
    JS Jones.
    A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.


    Darwin - Denton

    “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory”.
    Charles Darwin.
    The Origin of Species - 1859.

    “There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
    Dr. Michael Denton.
    Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.


    L. John Boye - Mary Johnson

    “I know that evolution is true, in fact I saw a program all about it on TV last night, how we used to be small mammals like mice and evolved into humans over millions of years. Everyone believes in evolution!”
    John Boye.
    Market Trader, London, 2006, My Diary Page 56.

    “I heard it just after the BBC news, just after they explained how Iraq could bomb us with chemical weapons in 45 minutes, scientists explained it, and they never make mistakes. Its been proven, hasn't it? Anyway the BBC wouldn't allow it if it wasn't a fact.”
    Mary Johnson.
    Accountant, Norwich, Norfolk, 2007, My Diary Page 61.



    God Bless Creationism.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I wonder who are the bigger moron to believe in the theory of evolution? I don't hate evolutionists unlike RAM but I hate their theory of mega-evolution.
    How can you say that you don't "hate evolutionists" when you call them LIARS, FRAUDS, and DECEIVERS? You need to own up to your words Cheow.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Anyway, more quotes from the so-called "morons", one of them happens to be Charles Darwin:
    Your quote mining only proves that you are brainwashed and willing to spread lies in service of your religion. That's a very bad thing.

    What about the evidence I posted? You just ignore it an post more lies and deception. How is it possible that you don't understand that everyone reading this thread can see that you post crap and refuse to answer? And worse, I refuted your crap many times and you just IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and post more crap! I finally quit trying to get you to deal with reality, but since you are back to your old ways of copying and pasting ludicrous crap from creationists, I guess I need to remind you of the things that you have refused to answer. Here it is again for your reading please, from the thread A Challenge for CWH which you ran and hid from and refused to answer. Here is it is. Dare you try to answer this time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    CWH has repeatedly posted false assertions on this forum and when I point them out to him, he runs and hides and refuses to answer. Then he posts more false assertions, and when I prove him wrong he runs and hides and refuses to answer. So I collected up a few of his recent offenses and asked him to answer and he did as he always does. He ran and hid and refused to answer. Here is the post that he needs to answer (from post #76 in the thread The Simplest Cell):

    ================================================== =======
    ============= CHALLENGE TO CHEOW WEE HOCK=====================
    ================================================== =======

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I have asked a simple question but instead receive a long reply unrelated to my request. The question is :
    Oh, so you want to act like the Cleverbot again? That ain't so clever, my friend. When the Cleverbot gets stumped it starts robotically mimicking the human. That's what you are doing right now. You have refused to answer many of my questions no matter how many times I ask. You evade, dodge, falsely claim that you did answer, and change the subject. So now in your mindless robotic brain you think you are going to throw all that back in my face and pretend that I'm the one who refuses to answer questions? Fat chance.

    I would be happy to answer your questions after you demonstrate that you are not just a Cleverbot. Here is what you need to do:

    1) Admit that you were wrong in post #58 of this thread when you falsely asserted that the scientific report implied "500 million year old genes and no mutations." I have brought this to your attention twice and you have refused to acknowledge the question, let along admit your error.

    2) Answer my questions about the video link I posted in post #11. I repeated the same questions four times but you refused to answer. Here is how I presented the questions in post #33:
    What was the conclusion stated in the video?

    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
    Please try to answer those questions with some semblance of intelligence.

    3) You recently challenged me to answer a 90 minute creationist video after you refused to respond to the answers I had already given to the 9 minute video you posted in post #75 of the What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? thread. In post #82 of that thread I showed that the video was produced by creationist liars, frauds, and deceivers. So if you want me to answer another video or any other question you present, you must first respond to the answers I have already given.

    4) Demonstrate that you have any knowledge of evolution at all by presenting the best evidence for the theory in the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution?.

    5) Admit that you have been deliberately evading these questions that I have been repeating over and over and over again. I collected them all together earlier in post #59 of this thread and you ignored them all as usual. Then you tried to cover your tracks by changing the subject. Your behavior is making me think that you really are a Cleverbot. I'm not joking. I am seriously considering the possibility that I'm being hoaxed by some "clever" programmers who want to see how long it will take me to figure it out. You show no signs of any human awareness at all. You write like you are a machine that does not understand context, meaning, or trains of thought. If you are human, then please try to demonstrate this by responding intelligently to what I am saying to you.

    Thanks!


    Now I know it is almost certain that you will not answer because you cannot answer, and so you will continue to mindlessly spew out moronic anti-evolution quotes copied and pasted from corrupt creationist sites. That's OK since I enjoy exposing their errors and deliberate deception.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    http://www.esculent.co.uk/topics/evolution/quotes.html

    Primitive - Modern Plants

    “Supposedly somewhere within the group called algae the sources of the higher plants, the vascular groups. Whatever these ancestors may have been, they seem to have been irrevocably lost in the vastness of time”.
    E.C Olson.
    The Evolution of Life, New American Library, New York, 1965. Page 94.
    So what? The quote is absolutely meaningless. It has nothing to do with anything. Why do you quote such meaningless things?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    “I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil records of plants is in favour of special creation”.
    Prof. E.J.H. Corner.
    Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.
    So what? That proves nothing. Why would you post such meaningless comments?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Single Cells - Invertebrates

    “Most of the major groups of animals appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them”.
    Dr. Colin Patterson.
    Evolution, British Museum of Natural History, 1978, Page 133.
    “It is as though they (the Cambrian invertebrates) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history”.
    Dr. Richard Dawkins.
    Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.

    “All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
    Gerald T Todd.
    American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.
    GREAT! So now you ADMIT the truth of the fossil record!

    It is the fossil record that proves the FACT of evolution, namely, that organisms changed form and function over a span of millions of years. Pretty simple stuff.

    Now you have your simplistic theory of evolution which says "God did it." That's great. We're making progress. But personally, I think the scientific theory is better.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Invertebrates - Fish

    “Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertabrates”.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 7, Page 567 (1976 Edition, Macropaedia).
    Typical creationists! They need to cite a 36 year old encyclopedia to "prove" their ignorance, like no discoveries have been made since then. Quote mining is for morons.

    Well, that's enough for now. I've proven my case and you have never challenged the facts I've presented.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    How can you say that you don't "hate evolutionists" when you call them LIARS, FRAUDS, and DECEIVERS? You need to own up to your words Cheow.
    You don't seem to understand simple English or what? I said that I hate their theory of mega evolution, I don't hate evolutionists for their theory of micro-evolution which I think is plausible.

    Your quote mining only proves that you are brainwashed and willing to spread lies in service of your religion. That's a very bad thing.
    Same your believe in evolution has turn you delusional. How can an intelligent being like you believe if someone said they can turn water into a object fill with life? How can an intelligent being believe someone who said that they can turn a snake into a lizard or a monkey into an ape or a deer into a camel?

    What about the evidence I posted? You just ignore it an post more lies and deception. How is it possible that you don't understand that everyone reading this thread can see that you post crap and refuse to answer? And worse, I refuted your crap many times and you just IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and post more crap! I finally quit trying to get you to deal with reality, but since you are back to your old ways of copying and pasting ludicrous crap from creationists,
    It is not for you to comment but for the readers to decide if what I said is crap. I have presented many things in this forum in my debate against evolution:
    - How is it possible that you don't understand that most of the people in this forum do not believe in evolution?
    - I have presented statistics that most people in the world do not believe in evolution
    - I have presented hardly any Muslim in the world believe in evolution
    - I have presented that almost all schools in South Korea have given up teaching the theory of evolution and embrace Intelligent Design
    - I have presented the first artificially made germ by alteration of the DNA codes
    - I have presented that it is possible to create sub species and new specie by changing the DNA codes as easy as creating computer virus by changing computer codes
    - I have presented living fossils that have never evolved a bit for millions of years
    - I have presented that humans will one day be like God and be able to create new species of animals and plants without the need for evolution
    - I have presented that you cannot deduced that things evolved just because they looks alike just as car was evolved from carriage
    - I have presented that it is possible to change characteristics by simply adding an extra chromosome XX(female). XY (male), XXY (Klinefelter's syndrome), XO (Turner's syndrome), XYY syndrome.

    I
    guess I need to remind you of the things that you have refused to answer. Here it is again for your reading please, from the thread A Challenge for CWH which you ran and hid from and refused to answer. Here is it is. Dare you try to answer this time?
    I have insisted that that thread will not continue unless you answered a simple question "What are the problems in the theory of evolution faced by evolutionists? so that we can focus on settling those questions first. But you wouldn't and accused me of setting up a trap. I was the first to insist on answering those questions and the questions have been reduced from several to one so that it is easier to answer. Dare you try to answer this time?

    Now I know it is almost certain that you will not answer because you cannot answer, and so you will continue to mindlessly spew out moronic anti-evolution quotes copied and pasted from corrupt creationist sites. That's OK since I enjoy exposing their errors and deliberate deception.
    I too enjoy how deluded people behaves when they became deluded by the theory of evolution to the point of faking the Piltdown man, Pekin Man, Archeoraptor and how deluded experts believed in those hoaxes for decades.

    So what? The quote is absolutely meaningless. It has nothing to do with anything. Why do you quote such meaningless things?

    So what? That proves nothing. Why would you post such meaningless comments?

    GREAT! So now you ADMIT the truth of the fossil record!
    Brilliant!, so those great men quotes were morons except RAM and the evolutionists.

    It is the fossil record that proves the FACT of evolution, namely, that organisms changed form and function over a span of millions of years. Pretty simple stuff.
    There is no evolution and there is no span of millions of years. Which prudent man will want t wait millions of years when they could easily create a new specie by creation? This is akin to a computer hacker waiting for millions of years for a computer virus to evolve when he could just create a new computer virus within minutes and a variant within seconds.

    Now you have your simplistic theory of evolution which says "God did it." That's great. We're making progress. But personally, I think the scientific theory is better.
    Science is nothing but God creation same as natural laws.


    Typical creationists! They need to cite a 36 year old encyclopedia to "prove" their ignorance, like no discoveries have been made since then. Quote mining is for morons.

    Well, that's enough for now. I've proven my case and you have never challenged the facts I've presented.
    Same goes for evolutionists quote for creationists; both are morons. What facts have you presented but fairy tales; just sow us how life comes from non-living matter in front of our eyes and show us how animals changed naturally from one specie to another in front of our eyes and Everyone in the world will believe in the Fact (no more theory) of evolution.

    God Bless His creation.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    How can you say that you don't "hate evolutionists" when you call them LIARS, FRAUDS, and DECEIVERS? You need to own up to your words Cheow.
    You don't seem to understand simple English or what? I said that I hate their theory of mega evolution, I don't hate evolutionists for their theory of micro-evolution which I think is plausible.
    I understand English perfectly. You constantly call evolutionist LIARS, FRAUDS, and DECEIVERS when the truth is that those terms apply to CREATIONISTS. But you don't care how much you lie.

    Your hatred of modern science is insane because you don't even understand it!

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Same your believe in evolution has turn you delusional. How can an intelligent being like you believe if someone said they can turn water into a object fill with life? How can an intelligent being believe someone who said that they can turn a snake into a lizard or a monkey into an ape or a deer into a camel?
    There is a massive body of evidence supporting what you call "mega evolution." You reject things you don't even understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    What about the evidence I posted? You just ignore it an post more lies and deception. How is it possible that you don't understand that everyone reading this thread can see that you post crap and refuse to answer? And worse, I refuted your crap many times and you just IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and post more crap! I finally quit trying to get you to deal with reality, but since you are back to your old ways of copying and pasting ludicrous crap from creationists,
    It is not for you to comment but for the readers to decide if what I said is crap. I have presented many things in this forum in my debate against evolution:
    - How is it possible that you don't understand that most of the people in this forum do not believe in evolution?
    - I have presented statistics that most people in the world do not believe in evolution
    - I have presented hardly any Muslim in the world believe in evolution
    - I have presented that almost all schools in South Korea have given up teaching the theory of evolution and embrace Intelligent Design
    - I have presented the first artificially made germ by alteration of the DNA codes
    - I have presented that it is possible to create sub species and new specie by changing the DNA codes as easy as creating computer virus by changing computer codes
    - I have presented living fossils that have never evolved a bit for millions of years
    - I have presented that humans will one day be like God and be able to create new species of animals and plants without the need for evolution
    - I have presented that you cannot deduced that things evolved just because they looks alike just as car was evolved from carriage
    - I have presented that it is possible to change characteristics by simply adding an extra chromosome XX(female). XY (male), XXY (Klinefelter's syndrome), XO (Turner's syndrome), XYY syndrome.
    I don't think any readers will have any trouble understanding that you are willing to spread lies and never repent even when the evidence is overwhelming. How you could think anyone could fail to see this is the true mystery. As for your points:

    - How is it possible that you don't understand that most of the people in this forum do not believe in evolution?
    Oh I most certainly understand that a lot of folks on this forum reject modern science and believe any absurdity if only it is taught in the Bible.

    - I have presented statistics that most people in the world do not believe in evolution
    That's because most people are ignorant and believe in false religions

    - I have presented hardly any Muslim in the world believe in evolution
    That's because they have been brainwashed just like Christians.

    - I have presented that almost all schools in South Korea have given up teaching the theory of evolution and embrace Intelligent Design
    That's because the government is brainwashing the people. The only thing that matters is EVIDENCE - except to religious people who willing choose to believe falsehood.

    - I have presented the first artificially made germ by alteration of the DNA codes
    So what? That proves nothing.

    - I have presented that it is possible to create sub species and new specie by changing the DNA codes as easy as creating computer virus by changing computer codes

    So what? That proves nothing. You don't understand anything about the science. You've proven that a thousand times on this forum, and you don't care about truth at all. I think that is very immoral.

    - I have presented living fossils that have never evolved a bit for millions of years
    That's a LIE!
    And it's very strange that you assert it again since I proved it was a LIE in this very thread and you ran and hid and refused to support your own words. How pathetic!

    - I have presented that humans will one day be like God and be able to create new species of animals and plants without the need for evolution
    You "presented" no evidence. You merely made an assertion, and it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I have insisted that that thread will not continue unless you answered a simple question "What are the problems in the theory of evolution faced by evolutionists? so that we can focus on settling those questions first. But you wouldn't and accused me of setting up a trap. I was the first to insist on answering those questions and the questions have been reduced from several to one so that it is easier to answer. Dare you try to answer this time?
    Insist what you want. Everyone can see that I have proven you wrong and that you refuse to admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I too enjoy how deluded people behaves when they became deluded by the theory of evolution to the point of faking the Piltdown man, Pekin Man, Archeoraptor and how deluded experts believed in those hoaxes for decades.
    It was the EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS that exposed those frauds. Your attack on those honest scientists shows how your religion has corrupted you heart and mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Brilliant!, so those great men quotes were morons except RAM and the evolutionists.
    No. I never said that. You don't understand the most simple English. I said the problem is that the quotes are TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. How is it possible that you could fail to understand such a simple thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    There is no evolution and there is no span of millions of years. Which prudent man will want t wait millions of years when they could easily create a new specie by creation? This is akin to a computer hacker waiting for millions of years for a computer virus to evolve when he could just create a new computer virus within minutes and a variant within seconds.
    Yes, the world is flat and only 6000 years old.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Same goes for evolutionists quote for creationists; both are morons. What facts have you presented but fairy tales; just sow us how life comes from non-living matter in front of our eyes and show us how animals changed naturally from one specie to another in front of our eyes and Everyone in the world will believe in the Fact (no more theory) of evolution.
    Not true. I quoted the scientists IN CONTEXT and proved that the creationists were deliberate LIARS. But you don't care because Christianity corrupts your mind and your morals.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416

    Quote Mining

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote mining is for morons.
    Hey there Richard

    Quote mining is like looking for rare gold & silver (something of value). One must dig through tons of worthless slag, but if persistent, a nugget of truth may eventually surface.

    Your Friend,

    John

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •