The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[benny]

Ciao. I won't be replying until there's something worth responding to.

Discussion cannot work that way.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

She obviously isn't up to the challenge to answer any of ToadBrother's very well put challenges, so she is spilling her drivel and running - typical creationist behaviour... none of them put themselves in a position to face real challenges.

[ToadBrother]

Translation:

We can't dispute her claims...so we try another tactic.

What claims? I've challenged each and every one, and in turn have put up challenges. Challenges that, I might add, you've evaded at every turn. You've never read Dawkins, you don't know what ID formulators like Behe have to say, you likely no little or nothing about evolution itself. But do keep evading and tossing up red herrings. I've cut my teeth in places like talk.origins, with Creationists a good deal more clever and well read than you.

[benny]

Creationists are hysterics but they are not the most sublime of hysterics:

http://www.lacan.com/zizlacan2.htm

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Here Betsy, I found a very simple but informative explanation of evolution for you... so you can get some of the terms and concepts that you messed up straight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

[benny]

You must've missed that. That guy (Rasmussen) implored the Unholy Trinity to come up with a good rebutt. Here, check this!

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727

What Brent Rasmussen means by "atheist" is: "someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent." Because some beliefs can be unconscious, one needs a psychoanalysis to be certain s/he is an atheist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cKD8j-hHJ...lt&resnum=2

[GostHacked]

Ciao. I won't be replying until there's something worth responding to.

So we can close this thread now?? Admitting defeat already? After only 22 pages and 2 other threads??

Here we go with the sites

http://www.creationism.org/

Thought-provoking articles about our ancient history and the importance of our creation in God's own image and fall from grace. Each new false religion of the post-Flood period has sought to detract from our Creator and from our responsibilities in this life; evolution's effect is no different and it (macro-evolution) continues to lack any scientific substance. Pray about this! And study as needed, especially since the media continues to report this issue inaccurately. Please study the plethora of Biblical and scientific knowledge standing squarely against this spiritual deception.

You must pray!!!

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/index.htm

I need help! Does anyone know of any evidence for abiogenesis, the idea that a first living cell evolved from chemicals with no Creator involved? I want to compare the abundant evidence that life had to have been created by an intelligent Creator with the evidence that life had no creator, but I can't. After years of searching, I have not found any valid evidence at all for a materialistic beginning for life. From textbooks to origin of life researchers, those who teach abiogenesis offer only speculation where the evidence should be.

Evolution does not deal with how life started, never has, it may be possible one day. Evolution deals with how life changed and adapted over the years. This is the FIRST mistake creationists make.

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm

Scientific laws and the Big Bang

If the Big Bang made everything from nothing, it would have been the ultimate “free lunch.” It is exactly contrary to several fundamental laws of science. Here are three examples:

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics: More about this one later.

•Conservation of Mass: “the amount of mass remains constant--mass is neither created nor destroyed.”

•Conservation of Energy: “energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.”

Mass can be converted into energy. How the hell do you think any type of fuel works?? Gasoline (mass) is converted to forward momentum (energy) to move the vehicle forward. LOL-tastic. It is actually the total amount of mass+energy that cannot be created or destroyed. Matter and energy can be transformed though. This is always lost on those people who talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you are going to critique science, at least know what you are talking about .. But still, evolution does not deal with the Big Bang. I think this falls on astrophysicists and the like. Biologists really can't explain the Big Bang. And they never will.

Not one stinkin foot note here to back up any claim.

http://www.icr.org/

Overview of ICR.org

The Institute for Creation Research is the premier education and research institution for equipping believers with evidences of the Bible's accuracy and authority.

Not science.

Evidence for Creation

Be prepared to give an answer for the hope you have. The evidence for creation covers the subjects of science, truth, nature, the Bible, and God as Creator. This evidence serves to strengthen our faith in the Bible, answers the questions of the skeptic and removes lingering doubts in the Christian.

To bad for the Catholics, Muslims and all the other religion.

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.

I wanted to point this out. The Oort cloud is a hypothesis. Not theory. So this bit is useless to prove creationism. Again, no foot notes. No science articles to back any of this garbage up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

he Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the Öpik-Oort Cloud IPA: [ˈøpik]) is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[1] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two known reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the gravitational boundary of our Solar System.[2]

http://www.icr.org/God/

One small paragraph that seems to contradict itself.

While absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by any human being (1), the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly balances the scales heavily in favor of God. (2) We can demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that "He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

1 - God cannot be realized by anyone.

2 - I am kind of stumped on how to answer this when the first part is contradictory.

3 - See 2.

It might look something like this to others.

1 - God

2 - ---------------------

3 - Profit !!!

http://www.icr.org/resources-for-scientists/

Resources for Scientists

Graduate Studies

ICR offers a graduate-level degree program in science education with minors in general science, astro/geophysics, biology, and geology, to equip scientists and science teachers to effectively communicate scientific truth in the academic and public arenas. Visit icr.edu for more information and admissions requirements.

Evidence for Scientists

ICR provides teachers in both Christian and public education valuable online resources through our new Evidence for Creation site. Covering subjects of science, truth, nature, the Bible, and God as Creator, this site allows teachers and students the ability to study the issues of creation, the Bible, and science systematically or browse by topic. Teachers who want to be prepared with answers for students and colleagues will find the Evidence for Creation site a daily resource in lesson preparation.

Alruight, on to the other creationist sites. I want a site that deals with creationism but from a Muslim POV, or a Catholic POV.

I shall do part 2 later

[segnosaur]

Ha-ha-ha, coming from someone who relied heavily on...TALKORIGIN!

I bet most of your spoutings are still coming from TalkOrigin!

I'm a firm proponent of evolution. I use TalkOrigin as a reference, but that is not the sole source of my knowledge.

I've obtained my understanding of evolution through:

- first year Zoology, Microbiology and chemistry, Second year genetics and physics, and 3rd year astronomy at university (key courses that helped my understanding of both the universe and evolution). Because its not realistic to expect you to take those courses, a reference to TalkOrigins sometimes has to serve as a substitute

- conferences I've attended where I've talked to some of the scientists who are acutally involved in either evolution, astronomy, or education

- Years of reading various biology text books (including several on human evolution), so many that I can't always remember the title

You see, I (and I assume others here) accept evolution and reject things like creationism and intelligent design because we have a grasp of basic science. For better or worse, its easier to tell you to go to a talk-origins page to read something rather than tell you "go take several university courses, attend these conferences".

There are some other key differences between referring to Talk Origins and your basic creationist web site:

- Talk Origins often (although not always) provides references to actual peer-reviewed scientific literature. Even if not all pages do, the fact that there are some should lend some credibility. (And a lot of the pages on their site that don't have references are dealing with topics that are so basic to biology that its not really "cutting edge" enough to have peer-reviewed articles.)

- Many of the 'creationists' claims run contrary to basic science knowledge that I've built up over years and years. Not so for the material on talk origins

- TalkOrigins successfully debunks claims made be creationists, by pointing out instances of things like quote mining, faulty science, etc. However, when your average creationist has their arguments debunked, rather than providing counter scientific evidence, they run on to yet some other topic; the creationist realizes their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny so they use the shotgun approach of putting out MANY flawed arguments, hoping that people will think the quantity means something and forgetting that all their arguments get debunked.

[DogOnPorch]

Ciao. I won't be replying until there's something worth responding to.

You mean that you won't respond to anything that will upset your fairy-tale world of make-believe. The Bible was written by people who didn't know the Earth was round let alone a planet.

Simple questions like: Did dinosaurs walk the Earth? Did hominids other than humans walk the Earth? How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe? Why have some bacteria become immune to anti-biotics when before the anti-biotics worked? Why do Africa and South America seem to fit together? These question and many more are too much for this ancient belief system to handle. Like you, it goes LALALALALALALA....I'm not listening!

The basic motive for most Creationists is to get the Bible taught in science classes. What's yours?

[GostHacked]

Part 2

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm

Galileo

Before going into the question of creationism. Let us examine what happened with Galileo. The Church ate humble pie. Galileo was condemned by the Church for teaching a theory that was contrary to Scripture. Both Protestant and Catholic theologians interpreted scriptural references to the world being "immovable" to reject the idea that the world is spinning. (i.e., 1 Chronicles 16:30, Judges 50:31, Ecles 1:5, James 1:11a, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5). Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley also rejected the "Copernican" system (a round world spinning around the sun) that Galileo championed. They figured they had the ability to interpret the Bible themselves. They were wrong, the earth did move around the sun. This shows one of the problems with Luther's principle of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone).

In 1 Chronicles 16:30b which said "Yes, the world stands firm, never to be moved," God was not giving us scientific facts about the earth but rather, he was trying to a communicate spiritual truth. Just because humans interpreted Scripture wrong doesn't mean the Bible is infallible. It just means we didn't properly understand what God was saying to us in the passage. Our understanding of Scripture is evolving, but the Truth is unchanging. We are on a pilgrimage towards the Truth.

However, the Church was not entirely out to lunch when it censored Galileo. Fr. Mateo of www.cin.org writes:

Galileo actually taught that the sun was at the center of the universe, not just the solar system; later evidence showed that the sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy; it thus would have been bad if the Church had given an unqualified endorsement to Galileo's theory, for his specific form of the theory turned out to be false.

And now we can throw out some of Galileo's hypothesis. They have found to be false. Science has learned the truth, not the Truth.

And as for Muslim Creationists. Turkey is the only Islamic country that completely supports creationism over evolution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15857761/

ISTANBUL, Turkey - A lavishly illustrated “Atlas of Creation” is mysteriously turning up at schools and libraries in Turkey, proclaiming that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the real root of terrorism.

ooooooo terrorism !!!

Arriving unsolicited by post, the large-format tome offers 768 glossy pages of photographs and easy-to-read text to prove that God created the world with all its species.

Basicly no one asked for his opinion. But he gave it anyways.

At first sight, it looks like it could be the work of U.S. creationists, the Christian fundamentalists who believe the world was created in six days as told in the Bible. But the author’s name, Harun Yahya, reveals the surprise inside. This is Islamic creationism, a richly funded movement based in predominantly Muslim Turkey, which has an influence U.S. creationists could only dream of.

Take that US-Christian creationists!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/200...tar-harun-yahya

Talking about the huge Atlas of Creation that this organization produced. I think this guy is just in it for the benefits.

Oktar, squeezed into a white trouser suit, declines to reveal how the Atlas industry is funded, nor will he say how much he is paid, or indeed whether he is paid at all. Challenged to explain the apparent contradiction between his beliefs and his plush surroundings, he responds: "I want to resemble Prophet Solomon. Prophet Solomon was like this. He used to be well dressed. He liked being well dressed. His palace was beautiful; there were beautiful people around him. Allah is beautiful. Allah loves those who are beautiful, wants everywhere to be beautiful. Paradise is also beautiful. [The] aim of a Muslim should be beauty."

He wants to live like a prophet. I would not hesitate to say this goes against science and is not science.

Part 3 ... maybe??

[benny]

I would not hesitate to say this goes against science and is not science.

Only a fundamentalist science preacher can keep repeating "it is not science" like if it could be a definitive conclusion of some debate.

[GostHacked]

Only a fundamentalist science preacher can keep repeating "it is not science" like if it could be a definitive conclusion of some debate.

Your post count is comming along just nicely. You should hit 2000 by the end of this week.

[ToadBrother]

Only a fundamentalist science preacher can keep repeating "it is not science" like if it could be a definitive conclusion of some debate.

If a claim cannot be tested by a scientific methodology, I think it's fair to say "it ain't science".

[benny]

If a claim cannot be tested by a scientific methodology, I think it's fair to say "it ain't science".

It is not the end of the world not to meet experimental science test but Apocalypse comes from not meeting the more stringent Christian test.

[DogOnPorch]

It is not the end of the world not to meet experimental science test but Apocalypse comes from not meeting the more stringent Christian test.

I do believe that's a threat.

Poor old Dawkins and Hawking writhing in the eternal fires. Oh look! There's Carl Sagan, too. Hot enough for yah, Carl?? Poke him again!

[benny]

Poor old Dawkins and Hawking writhing in the eternal fires. Oh look! There's Carl Sagan, too. Hot enough for yah, Carl?? Poke him again!

You fail both science and religious tests by naming names.

[ToadBrother]

It is not the end of the world not to meet experimental science test but Apocalypse comes from not meeting the more stringent Christian test.

I'll take my chances. If there is a god, hopefully said being won't be the small-minded judgmental twerp that some of its followers seem to be.

[benny]

I'll take my chances. If there is a god, hopefully said being won't be the small-minded judgmental twerp that some of its followers seem to be.

You can only take your chances by not insulting others.

[betsy]

No matter the numbers of years you spent sitting in biology classes, no matter the amount of books you've read from cover to cover, no matter the resources - most notable TalkOrigin - you wield about as your answer to everything.....you have not - I repeat - have not, really given any sensible rebuttals to most of the arguments I've presented!

All you did was to use various forms of contortions - a lot of extrapolations.... various attempts to derail the flow of arguments by persistently bringing in irrelevant matters that were already addressed in the past.....irrelevant demands....self-acclaimed "authorities" on the science of biology and therefore, "experts" on the topic of evolution.....unfair demands in usage of resources....distortions.....dishonesty by deliberately taking my statement out of context....etc..,

Then there's this ridiculous notion PHILOSOPHERS don't count! It gives me the impression that there is this negative feeling towards rational thinkers. Rational thinkers who present rational arguments and/or criticisms, like FLEW!

I guess they need reminding that Spinoza was a Philosopher! And if I'm not mistaken, not only did he inspire Einstein....but also Darwin. Dawkins thinks he's cool!

But the biggest kicker of all time is the narrow-minded and ridiculous demand to omit other sciences and just confine ourselves to BIOLOGY!

If you think that paleontology, genetics, geology et al, are not a part of the study of life forms, then there’s a huge gap in your understanding. In fact, Darwinism relies on these sciences to verify Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately for evolutionists, they’ve let him down.

You call this a discussion????

All you did was prove what Antony Flew said in his scathing review of Dawkins:

Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means.

And you proved what I've said:

Dawkins is more into his Atheistic religion, burning with fervor to demolish the faith of others in a god or God. He preaches the word of No-God. Discredit opposition by any means. Disciples and Followers mimic Dawkins! Talk about a real charismatic Preacher!

In other words, all you did was prove the point of this thread! Demonstrated your burning fervor in your faith. Fundamentalist attitudes. In fact, you were so caught up in your frenzy that you forgot what this thread is supposed to be about!! See the title of this thread?

EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER

So, there's nothing more to discuss....or I might say argue about! You've provided the undeniable conclusion

I rest my case. CASE CLOSED! The End.

So I will say bye-bye.. But before I go, let me give you a little meaningful present. Here's an excerpt from....

The Angry Scientist!!

I won a scholarship in 1981 to attend a special Christian journalism training in Singapore. About 40 sponsored candidates were brought from all over the world to attend this training.

Each person was supposed to send much in advance the outline, plus the first chapter in full, of a proposed book in one’s area of interest. I sent in the outline of a book “Evolution And Empirical Proofs”. In the book I tried to argue that while nobody can deny the right of people to propagate the idea of evolution, it was wrong on their part to claim that evolution was an empirically established fact.

Each day two or three of the participants presented the outline of their book plus the first chapter. On the fourth or the fifth day a scientist presented his manuscript on theistic evolution. It was more evolution and less theism. Two days after that came my turn. I presented not only the outline and the first chapter, but the summary of the entire book. People were simply galvanized by the presentation.

I was still on the path of discovery from agnosticism to creationism, and wanted to know if anyone could dismantle any of my arguments. Thus I invited questions at the end of my presentation. But what happened after that was not expected by anyone. Before anyone could ask any question, the scientist jumped up and started shouting at me. He said “you are a stupid young man, you do not know anything about science. I am a scientist. I attend conferences. I know what is truth. Your whole presentation is nothing except rubbish”.

For me, having come from one of the pioneer physics departments in India where open inquiry with humility was always encouraged, this was a most shocking experience. In our department, even the top men (DAAD scholars, Van Hambolt Scholars, pioneers in quantum-nuclear physics) always spoke with respect to their juniors even in the face of strong disagreement. The age of a person did not matter. They made it a point to inquire first, and disagree after.

Remembering that training, I politely asked the scientist for a systematic refutation of my arguments. This only seemed to anger him more. When I asked him what he thought about the current references I had furnished from journals, he went into the third fit of anger. Everyone was uneasy.

However, one question keeps coming back to me: when a theist presents his side in a rational manner, why do many theistic-evolutionists and atheists lose temper and self-control. More so when the theist seems to have captured the mind of his listeners/readers.

------------------

Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields]

http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/the-angry-scientist/

Edited May 21, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I rest my case. CASE CLOSED! The End.

That's the best way to lose an argument I've seen on this board yet.

[GostHacked]

Betsy

But the biggest kicker of all time is the narrow-minded and ridiculous demand to omit other sciences and just confine ourselves to BIOLOGY! laugh.gif

If you think that paleontology, genetics, geology et al, are not a part of the study of life forms, then there’s a huge gap in your understanding. In fact, Darwinism relies on these sciences to verify Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately for evolutionists, they’ve let him down.

You are failing here. Being a god fearing creationist, you will not have an objective view of any science. You will get a big prize if you can show me how geology is a study of life forms? Here is a lesson for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

Geology (from Greek: γη, gê, "earth"; and λόγος, logos, "speech" lit. to talk about the earth) is the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth. The field of geology encompasses the study of the composition, structure, physical properties, dynamics, and history of Earth materials, and the processes by which they are formed, moved, and changed. The field is a major academic discipline, and is also important for mineral and hydrocarbon extraction, knowledge about and mitigation of natural hazards, some engineering fields, and understanding past climates and environments.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_sci...atural_sciences

Every one of these items here, is a part of biology. These are the ones that deal with living organic matter. Flaura and fauna.

* Anatomy / Morphology

* Astrobiology

* Biochemistry

* Bioinformatics

* Biophysics

* Botany

o Agronomy

+ Forestry

+ Horticulture

o Bryology

o Lichenology

o Mycology

o Palynology

o Phycology (Algology)

* Cell biology / Cytology

* Chronobiology

* Developmental biology

o Embryology

o Gerontology

* Ecology

o Freshwater biology

o Marine biology

o Parasitology

o Population dynamics

* Epidemiology

* Evolution/Evolutionary biology

o Evolutionary developmental biology

* Genetics

o Genomics

o Proteomics

o Population genetics

* Microbiology/Bacteriology

* Molecular Biology

o Structural biology

* Physiology

o Immunology

o Kinesiology

o Neuroscience

o Histology

+ Dermatology

* Systematics

o Cladistics

o Phylogeny

o Taxonomy

* Toxicology

* Virology

* Zoology

o Arachnology

+ Acarology

o Entomology

+ Myrmecology

o Ethology

o Helminthology

o Herpetology

o Ichthyology

o Malacology

o Mammology

+ Cetology

+ Physical anthropology

o Nematology

o Ornithology

The following do NOT deal with biology or living organic matter. However, in conjunction with biology, some of these fields are useful, they can be used to compliment biology and it's findings.

* Cartography

* Climatology

* Coastal geography

* Geodesy

* Geography

* Geology

* Geomorphology

* Geostatistics

* Geophysics

* Glaciology

* Hydrology

* Hydrogeology

* Mineralogy

* Meteorology

* Oceanography

* Paleoclimatology

* Paleontology

* Petrology

* Limnology

* Seismology

* Soil science

* Topography

* Volcanology

* Analytical chemistry

* Computational chemistry

* Electrochemistry

* Geochemistry

* Inorganic chemistry

* Materials science

* Medicinal chemistry

* Organic chemistry

* Polymer chemistry

* Physical chemistry

* Quantum chemistry

* Spectroscopy

* Stereochemistry

* Thermochemistry

* Thermodynamics

* Acoustics

* Agrophysics

* Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics

* Computational physics

* Condensed matter physics

* Dynamics

* Electricity & Magnetism

* Electronics

* Fluid dynamics

* Geophysics

* Materials physics

* Mathematical physics

* Mechanics

* Nuclear physics

* Optics

* Particle/High Energy physics

* Plasma physics

* Polymer physics

* Quantum Physics

* Statics

* Solid State

* Thermodynamics

* Vehicle dynamics

* Atmospheric sciences

* Ecology <----

* Environmental chemistry

* Environmental soil science

* Environmental geology

* Geosciences

* Toxicology

We can leave out Computer Sciences , Mathmatics , Social Science. Holy crap I did not realize there were this many different feilds of science.

Your turn Betsy.

[benny]

Your turn Betsy.

Consider Betsy as the thread opener.

[GostHacked]

Consider Betsy as the thread opener.

1525 posts (21.05 per day) OK so it may not be the end of this week you hit 2000.

[benny]

1525 posts (21.05 per day) OK so it may not be the end of this week you hit 2000.

Let's no thread end!

[ToadBrother]

No matter the numbers of years you spent sitting in biology classes, no matter the amount of books you've read from cover to cover, no matter the resources - most notable TalkOrigin - you wield about as your answer to everything.....you have not - I repeat - have not, really given any sensible rebuttals to most of the arguments I've presented!

What exactly have you presented? I haven't seen anything of any particular merit. You don't seem at all familiar with any of the literature, any of the concepts, or even, might I add, with Dawkins' own writings.

All you did was to use various forms of contortions - a lot of extrapolations.... various attempts to derail the flow of arguments by persistently bringing in irrelevant matters that were already addressed in the past.....irrelevant demands....self-acclaimed "authorities" on the science of biology and therefore, "experts" on the topic of evolution.....unfair demands in usage of resources....distortions.....dishonesty by deliberately taking my statement out of context....etc..,

All I did was demand that you back up your arguments. You're the one floundering here, and this looks like some sad, pathetic last ditch attempt to save face.

Then there's this ridiculous notion PHILOSOPHERS don't count! It gives me the impression that there is this negative feeling towards rational thinkers. Rational thinkers who present rational arguments and/or criticisms, like FLEW!

Flew's arguments are no more compelling than Dawkins. But no, philosophers do not get some automatic pass on science. They are not scientists, though certainly there are philosophers OF science, but these guys don't actually claim to be scientists either.

I guess they need reminding that Spinoza was a Philosopher! And if I'm not mistaken, not only did he inspire Einstein....but also Darwin. Dawkins thinks he's cool!

"Inspire Einstein"? You're taking one single quote by Einstein, who was trying to describe his deism, and then trying to enlarge beyond that. Einstein was very clear. He did not believe in a personal god. He was no atheist, but he was no stock theist either.

But the biggest kicker of all time is the narrow-minded and ridiculous demand to omit other sciences and just confine ourselves to BIOLOGY!

When discussing a core theory of biology, yes, I think restricting it to researchers in that and related fields is important. When's the last time you took your car to the plumber for a tune-up? Science fields are complex, and there just aren't a lot of polymaths out there. Having, say, a cosmologist or physicist making claims about the veracity of evolution isn't terribly compelling, any more than having a biologist making grand statements about cosmology or physics would be very compelling. Scientists, historically, have got themselves into trouble when they start making statements out of the area of expertise (a good example is Roger Penrose, whose quantum-mind foolishness has been a sad cap on an otherwise brilliant career).

If you think that paleontology, genetics, geology et al, are not a part of the study of life forms, then there’s a huge gap in your understanding. In fact, Darwinism relies on these sciences to verify Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately for evolutionists, they’ve let him down.

You know what, I can't decide whether you're dishonest or illiterate. I said "related fields". Genetics, paleontology and geology are related fields (the first two are intimately related to evolutionary biology, and the latter is the producer of the key faunal succession concepts of Common Descent).

You call this a discussion????

I call it "calling your bluff". You have no idea what you're talking about, all you can produce is quotations from works I doubt you've ever even become aquainted with. You've been floundering, because, you see, you have no idea what you're talking about.

All you did was prove what Antony Flew said in his scathing review of Dawkins:

And you proved what I've said:

Dawkins is more into his Atheistic religion, burning with fervor to demolish the faith of others in a god or God. He preaches the word of No-God. Discredit opposition by any means. Disciples and Followers mimic Dawkins! Talk about a real charismatic Preacher!

In other words, all you did was prove the point of this thread! Demonstrated your burning fervor in your faith. Fundamentalist attitudes. In fact, you were so caught up in your frenzy that you forgot what this thread is supposed to be about!! See the title of this thread?

EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER

I have made my own criticisms of Dawkins known. Again, either you're a shameless, immoral liar, or incapable of reading. I'm leaning towards the latter, myself. I'm sure you're sincere, and pretty ignorant. A dangerous combination.

So, there's nothing more to discuss....or I might say argue about! You've provided the undeniable conclusion

I rest my case. CASE CLOSED! The End.

So I will say bye-bye.. But before I go, let me give you a little meaningful present. Here's an excerpt from....

Why am I reminded of the Brave Sir Robin sequence from the Holy Grail. I mean, just who do you think you're fooling?