Pope Francis: Big Bang and evolution are real.

[Ron Harrigan]

I can't explain it any simpler than I already have so I'm afraid you must fall in the "just plain dumb" category.

Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by atheists when deeply held evolutionist beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that creationists never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men and non sequiturs. Never deviate from one's atheist stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."

[gcb]

Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by atheists when deeply held evolutionist beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that creationists never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men and non sequiturs. Never deviate from one's atheist stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."

I'm pretty sure Pope Francis is smarter than you - both in bible study and evolution. You need to sort him out bro.

[Ron Harrigan]

I'm pretty sure Pope Francis is smarter than you - both in bible study and evolution. You need to sort him out bro.

The Pope adopts what I call the fudge: special pleading that allows him not to contradict the Scripture that he knows and at the same time to claim some sort of evolutionary role for which there isn't actually any evidence. The reality, of course, is that the fudge doesn't work. Pope Francis is merely having trouble following the evidence to its logical conclusion. I understand that everyone suffers from the same human frailties. Pontiffs are human too. Unlike you, I am an expert. Unlike you, I don't need to rely on fact-twisting in an intellectual vacuum. PLEASE, go find out what you are missing. This is my last response until you have done that.

http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

[gcb]

Next you'll be telling me the earth is flat.

[Thong Maniac]

Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by creationists when deeply held bible beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that science never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men, and phrases like "god works in mysterious ways". Never deviate from one's biblical stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."

Fixed this for you bro. We are very alike. Just flipped atheist for creationist. Pretty easy.

Can you post more links from creation.com as evidence? it had so many non-biased PhDs, was great. Must be true! Mega lol. Isn't that the same place that is still writing articles about pieces of "Noahs Ark" in some mountain chain...?

When you find a source from Nature or BIO or other routine and respected scientific publication of peer reviewed work, let me know.

As you mentioned already, you seem to know more about evolution than myself and the Pope and other NIH scientists. You got it all solved bro. Maybe I should home school my kids so they become as intelligent as you. Im being serious. I want my children to grow up hella smart like you since you are so educated in the sciences. Let me know where your degree is and what your background is because you figured it all out!

[Ron Harrigan]

Fixed this for you bro. We are very alike. Just flipped atheist for creationist. Pretty easy.

Can you post more links from creation.com as evidence? it had so many non-biased PhDs, was great. Must be true! Mega lol. Isn't that the same place that is still writing articles about pieces of "Noahs Ark" in some mountain chain...?

When you find a source from Nature or BIO or other routine and respected scientific publication of peer reviewed work, let me know.

As you mentioned already, you seem to know more about evolution than myself and the Pope and other NIH scientists. You got it all solved bro. Maybe I should home school my kids so they become as intelligent as you. Im being serious. I want my children to grow up hella smart like you since you are so educated in the sciences. Let me know where your degree is and what your background is because you figured it all out!

Science doesn't depend on wild distortions and ad hominem fallacies. It depends upon the careful evaluation of evidence. There is, however, no point bothering with evidence incompatible with your beliefs, is there?

[Thong Maniac]

Science doesn't depend on wild distortions and ad hominem fallacies. It depends upon the careful evaluation of evidence. There is, however, no point bothering with evidence incompatible with your beliefs, is there?

Correct. Just like all the literature in Nature in BIO, wouldnt change your opinion. Creation.com and the bible is all the research you need

[Ron Harrigan]

Correct. Just like all the literature in Nature in BIO, wouldnt change your opinion. Creation.com and the bible is all the research you need

You are in deep denial. You are raising issues that were resolved many decades ago. So you have a choice (other than parroting the posts of individuals for whom you harbour deep admiration). You can remain ignorant or you can pick up a book. For an accessible yet authoritative summary, I recommend Jonathan Sarfati's comprehensive refutation of Richard Dawkins. A few bucks from Amazon.com. My expectation: you will choose to remain ignorant. There is no point in dissevering fact from fiction, is there?

[Thong Maniac]

You are in deep denial. You are raising issues that were resolved many decades ago. So you have a choice (other than parroting the posts of individuals for whom you harbour deep admiration). You can remain ignorant or you can pick up a book. For an accessible yet authoritative summary, I recommend Jonathan Sarfati's comprehensive refutation of Richard Dawkins. A few bucks from Amazon.com. My expectation: you will choose to remain ignorant. There is no point in dissevering fact from fiction, is there?

Lets keep playing this game. You will remain ignorant as well and parrot your own dogma from the few odd balls with PhDs who think they know the "real truth". Quit convincing yourself that you are the righteous one here. You refuse to accept the other side as well. It is cute as fuck how you read one book from creation.com and think your an expert now on the concept of evolution. I dont even claim to be an expert in evolution. Ive read quite a few rebuttals to evolution. None of them held much weight. As Im sure you feel the same way about articles you read from Dawkins.

The glaring issue with your trolling here is, you are using a pro-christianity source as your proof to counter evolution theory. Find a rebuttal from a secular source if you want to change opinions. Www.creation.com,
i mean come on son, thats just embarrassing. Is that how home school debates are won? Posting proof from an obviously slanted source? Wow

[Ron Harrigan]

Lets keep playing this game. You will remain ignorant as well and parrot your own dogma from the few odd balls with PhDs who think they know the "real truth". Quit convincing yourself that you are the righteous one here. You refuse to accept the other side as well. It is cute as fuck how you read one book from creation.com and think your an expert now on the concept of evolution. I dont even claim to be an expert in evolution. Ive read quite a few rebuttals to evolution. None of them held much weight. As Im sure you feel the same way about articles you read from Dawkins.

The glaring issue with your trolling here is, you are using a pro-christianity source as your proof to counter evolution theory. Find a rebuttal from a secular source if you want to change opinions. Www.creation.com,
i mean come on son, thats just embarrassing. Is that how home school debates are won? Posting proof from an obviously slanted source? Wow

You're not actually interested in answers to any of your questions, are you? I have already recommended a source that provides the answers. I recognize that facts are dreadfully inconvenient for you.

[Thong Maniac]

You're not actually interested in answers to any of your questions, are you? I have already recommended a source that provides the answers. I recognize that facts are dreadfully inconvenient for you.

Creation.com is not a secular unbiased source, please try again troll.

[Ron Harrigan]

Creation.com is not a secular unbiased source, please try again troll.

As anticipated, you're not in the least interested in becoming better informed. Among the most common characteristics of evolutionists. Once more. Evolution is a figment of your imagination. It didn't happen. The extent to which well established biology must be contorted and misrepresented to justify such an event is, frankly, absurd.

[mr.turbo]

if anthropology was a tunnel the creation truck would be driving through it right now.

what is this bullshit?

some British guy found the "missing link" and everyone believed it for 50 years

turned out "piltdown man" was "the greatest hoax in scientific history"

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/

take it up with the natural history museum!!!!!!!!!

[Thong Maniac]

As anticipated, you're not in the least interested in becoming better informed. Among the most common characteristics of evolutionists. Once more. Evolution is a figment of your imagination. It didn't happen. The extent to which well established biology must be contorted and misrepresented to justify such an event is, frankly, absurd.

rOfl, damn. Uber troll. Creation.com, LOL!

[Ron Harrigan]

rOfl, damn. Uber troll. Creation.com, LOL!

That doesn't even make any sense. You seem determined to demonstrate that you are a nutcase. How is it possible for someone to be quite so ignorant and out of touch with reality? Winter?

[Rhino]

I don`t have to.  You make the claim it exists, you have to prove it.

Kinda like your physique and your pictures.

Where is the proof that there's no God?

[The True Adonis]

Where is the proof that there's no God?

Where is the proof that there is no floating lawnmowers winning Mr. Olympia titles and cooking Shrimp in 24 Karat gold Stock Pots?

Tell me that?

[Ron Harrigan]

Where is the proof that there is no floating lawnmowers winning Mr. Olympia titles and cooking Shrimp in 24 Karat gold Stock Pots?

Tell me that?

The statement strikes me as yet another bold assertion without firm basis. The huge leap to the possibility of 'floating lawnmovers' being able to 'win titles' and 'cook Shrimp' is a non sequitur so absurd that there is no need to deal with it.

[Archer77]

Where is the proof that there's no God?

How do you define proof?

[Man of Steel]

Today I say "meh" to these threads LOL.

[The True Adonis]

The statement strikes me as yet another bold assertion without firm basis. The huge leap to the possibility of 'floating lawnmovers' being able to 'win titles' and 'cook Shrimp' is a non sequitur so absurd that there is no need to deal with it.

You can`t prove they don`t exist, so therefore it might be true.  Right?

[Ron Harrigan]

You can`t prove they don`t exist, so therefore it might be true.  Right?

Good grief. Like clockwork. Round and around in circles. Apparently you failed to read my post addressing this.

[The True Adonis]

Good grief. Like clockwork. Round and around in circles. Apparently you failed to read my post addressing this.

You can`t prove that it doesn`t exist though.

Why not?

[Ron Harrigan]

You can`t prove that it doesn`t exist though.

Why not?

Can't I? It makes no sense to talk about the rejection of propositions unsupported by evidence, does it?

[The True Adonis]

Can't I? It makes no sense to talk about the rejection of propositions unsupported by evidence, does it?

Where is your proof that it doesn`t exist?