Watch what a dumbass Ben Stein really is: on the O'Reilly Factor...

[Decker]

Ah yes, the two people most qualified to discuss science are... Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly...

Tomorrow, I will read Pope Benedict's Manual "How to Eat Pussy"...

That's hilarious.  I have to tell my brother that one.

[MCWAY]

Because my bible thumping friend, ID is not a testable hypothesis. It is creationism.

"Maybe something supernatural created the universe" doesn't get published in scientific journals because it is a religious statement.

So is this (if the "religion" in question is naturalism/materialism):

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   

For some reason, this statement (a belief in a concept that COULD NOT be proven by scientific evidence, yet maintained due to philosophic/religious reason and desire) ended up in Scientific American nearly 55 years ago. Go figure.

[Deedee]

So is this (if the "religion" in question is naturalism/materialism):

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   

For some reason, this statement (a belief in a concept that COULD NOT be proven by scientific evidence, yet maintained due to philosophic/religious reason and desire) ended up in Scientific American nearly 55 years ago. Go figure.

Did you go to the loco school of quote mining, out of context, and bolding teeny snippets of an entire article?  You two should just not bother at all with what you don't like.  Just post your bolded text and write new articles altogether.

Can we have the entire work, with that portion of it, in context, please? Including the part where he goes on to explain what he means by impossible, etcetera, etcertera. 

[james_hetfield]

the point you are trying to make is that since science doesnt have any proof about the theories of the origin then there must be a God, for which there is also no proof. makes sense. btw what are you discussing here the origin of the universe or the origin of life? there are plenty of theories for the origin of life on earth that can be proven to an extent. and if you are gonna show clips of dawkins you should understand what hes talking about. try reading the blind watchmaker and tell me your ideas of God creating life are much more credible than what biology is theorizing.

[loco]

Did you go to the loco school of quote mining, out of context, and bolding teeny snippets of an entire article? 

 

What, Deedee, today is pick on loco day for you?  And this is coming from the same person who posts Bible verses out of context, without posting the book, chapter and verse, and as if that wasn't enough, injects her own words and her own interpretation in the middle of the Bible passage.  Very nice!

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=209526.msg2910926#msg2910926

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=209526.msg2908249#msg2908249

Please, Deedee, substantiate your bold claim.  When and how many times have I quote mined, out of context?  And what's wrong with bolding the part that I want to emphasise?  Can you not read the entire paragraph or does the bolding confuse you and prevents you from reading the entire paragraph or the entire article?

[bears]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well.  Since the creation of the Universe or life is not an observable phenomenon (at least not yet), it can never be true science.

Couching the analysis of physicists in scientific methodology is the next best thing.  Scientists develop math theories showing that something could have come from nothing (Hawking).  They are using every scientific technique amenable to the analysis, except for direct observation, to address the problem.

So that analysis is definitely different than the folk tales contained in the Bible.

For you to say that the folktales in genesis are on the same footing as theoretical papers by today's finest scientific minds is the height of arrogance and prejudice. 

Most people back in the day knew the earth was not flat---that included most sailors b/c they saw the curve of the horizon.

It was the addle minded church that kept the flat earth theory alive and kicking.

Genesis is not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense.  I dont understand why i must remind atheists this over and over and over.  it was not meant to explain the chemical reactions that lead to the origin of the universe.  Genesis makes no claim other than there is a supreme being that put the universe into motion.  Scientists are trying to piece together the origins of the universe without the precense of a supreme being and as of yet they cannot.  Maybe someday the religious will be proven wrong.  That day has not come yet however.  Please quit acting like it has.

[Decker]

Genesis is not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense.  I dont understand why i must remind atheists this over and over and over.  it was not meant to explain the chemical reactions that lead to the origin of the universe.  Genesis makes no claim other than there is a supreme being that put the universe into motion.  Scientists are trying to piece together the origins of the universe without the precense of a supreme being and as of yet they cannot.  Maybe someday the religious will be proven wrong.  That day has not come yet however.  Please quit acting like it has.

hahahaha.  That's a good one.

The Bible is NOT to be read literally...in this case.  BUT we are supposed to believe the truth of the story that there's a divine cause to existence. 

That's just beautiful.

You do realize that the Burden of Proof is on you, and not science, to show that God caused the universe to come into being. 

So far you and your biblical ilk have come up short in that department.

Science doesn't need to add a god to its analysis.  You do b/c you're a believer.

[Deedee]

What, Deedee, today is pick on loco day for you?  And this is coming from the same person who posts Bible verses out of context, without posting the book, chapter and verse, and as if that wasn't enough, injects her own words and her own interpretation in the middle of the Bible passage.  Very nice!

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=209526.msg2910926#msg2910926

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=209526.msg2908249#msg2908249

Please, Deedee, substantiate your bold claim.  When and how many times have I quote mined, out of context?  And what's wrong with bolding the part that I want to emphasise?  Can you not read the entire paragraph or does the bolding confuse you and prevents you from reading the entire paragraph or the entire article?

No it isn't pick on Loco day.  Do I need to post book, chapter and verse every single time on the religion board.   I don't know what you're talking about when you say that I quoted the bible out of context.  Can you elaborate on that please, because I'm not seeing it from that thread. I think what I posted was totally in keeping with the title of the thread.  The interjection of my comments were accidently bolded, which I fixed immediately when my attention was called to it, which is quite unlike something like this:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=194204.25

most notably:

"Dr. West claims that " the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today, was promoted by evolutionary biologists in the name of Darwinian natural selection." While this may not be factually incorrect, it obscures and omits some rather important details. For example, while many biologists did support eugenic policies, many important biologists did not." - Mark Borrello

http://www.mnscience.org/index.php?id=138

That quote didn't support your claim at all, but you posted it anyway, and just bolded the bits you liked. Did you even look at your link? I don't know how much more ridiculous your stance could be made, than what you made of it yourself.  But I enjoyed the article.  Pretty much threw out your whole theory that eugenics should be blamed on Darwin and gives further evidence as to why scientists shake their heads, and why they should.

[Deedee]

Here is another quote of yours from the same thread:

“To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.

And here is Sir Arthur Keith's work.  Can you find this quote on page 28? 

http://reactor-core.org/evolution-and-ethics.html

Well, you can't because it doesn't exist as you've posted it. It's been "built" from random passages throughout with some ...  ellipses to evoke something COMPLETELY different from what the author intended.  The author was an evolutionist, loved Darwin, and was explaining Hitler's behavior in the context of evolutionary behavior.  Presenting it this way was dishonest. More than likely you didn't do it yourself, just copied it, but still, it's totally dishonest.  I pointed that out to you when you first posted it. 

[Dos Equis]

Evolution does not pretend to explain the origins of life like the Bible does.

I'll repeat that, evolution does not pretend to explain the origins of life like the Bible and ID do.

Theoretical astrophsyicists do attempt to tackle the problem origins from the time tested vantage point of mathematical analysis.  String theory suffers b/c the matter at hand cannot be studied by observation.  Only mathematical stabs can be made.

If you equate that sort of sophisticated anaylsis with the stale primitive storytelling of the Bible, then you deserve the fruits of an Intelligent Design education.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

How does one conceptualize that with math?

The ID people don't know.  But astrophysicists are taking a stab at it.

I wasn't talking about the Bible.  The Bible isn't a science book.  I was talking about the theory of evolution.

At least you acknowledge the theory of evolution cannot prove the origins of life.  That was my whole point.  The entire theory is grounded on a premise that sounds like pure science fiction. 

[Deicide]

I wasn't talking about the Bible.  The Bible isn't a science book.  I was talking about the theory of evolution.

At least you acknowledge the theory evolution cannot prove the origins of life.  That was my whole point.  The entire theory is grounded on a premise that sounds like pure science fiction. 

Evolutionary theory makes no pretensions to explain the origins of life Mr. Thumper.

You have NO knowledge of evolution, hence your state of bemusement regarding its content. These days, simple as it is to understand, I am beginning to doubt if you even have the capacity to grasp it.

[Dos Equis]

Evolutionary theory makes no pretensions to explain the origins of life Mr. Thumper.

You have NO knowledge of evolution, hence your state of bemusement regarding its content. These days, simple as it is to understand, I am beginning to doubt if you even have the capacity to grasp it.

Thank you for sharing Mr. Troll.     Run along now . . . .

[Deicide]

Thank you for sharing Mr. Troll.     Run along now . . . .

Beach Bum:

I don't understand=troll. 

[Dos Equis]

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

[MCWAY]

Evolutionary theory makes no pretensions to explain the origins of life Mr. Thumper.

Ummm...do the words "spontaneous generation" ring a bell?

Those who hold to evolutionary theory today avoid origin like the plague, because of the position in which it puts their beliefs.

[Decker]

Ummm...do the words "spontaneous generation" ring a bell?

Those who hold to evolutionary theory today avoid origin like the plague, because of the position in which it puts their beliefs.

Why not see if personality theory can explain the origins of existence or life?

The theory of evolution is not concerned with origins.  It really is that simple. 

Spontaneous generation, if it ever happened, would hurt the theory of evolution.  SG creates a creature as is.

[OzmO]

That makes me wonder why our DNA is 98% identical to an ape's DNA of we were SG-ed and why so many animals are connected to other animals in similar ways.

[MCWAY]

Why not see if personality theory can explain the origins of existence or life?

The theory of evolution is not concerned with origins.  It really is that simple. 

Spontaneous generation, if it ever happened, would hurt the theory of evolution.  SG creates a creature as is.

On the contrary, evolution DOES INDEED concern itself with origin, as it was developed with the intent of explaining life on Earth without a supernatural being. A deity being responsible for life (even in its "simplest" form) defeats the purpose of evolution theory.

Wald's statement testifies to that fact, as do the words of this man:

The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan, "The Limitations of Science"

[Decker]

On the contrary, evolution DOES INDEED concern itself with origin, as it was developed with the intent of explaining life on Earth without a supernatural being. A deity being responsible for life (even in its "simplest" form) defeats the purpose of evolution theory.

Wald's statement testifies to that fact, as do the words of this man:

The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan, "The Limitations of Science"

I think Sullivan would be better served in his analysis by referencing theoretical physicists of this decade instead of biologists from 150 years ago.

Does the evolutionary process raise the question of origins, or does Sullivan?

The quantum generation of the universe is not the same as spontaneous generation from days of yore.

[loco]

No it isn't pick on Loco day. 

Apparently it was pick on Loco day to you.  You must have waken up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to take it out on me.  This isn't a thread which I created and you were not even addressing me, but MCWAY instead.  Yet you took it upon yourself to bring up "loco" to accuse me of something which I have not done and accuse me of being dishonest.  I asked you to substantiate your bold claim, but you did not.  I don't know what I did to you to deserve this, but I guess you are free to do whatever you want to whomever you want on the Internet.
 

Do I need to post book, chapter and verse every single time on the religion board.  I don't know what you're talking about when you say that I quoted the bible out of context.  Can you elaborate on that please, because I'm not seeing it from that thread. I think what I posted was totally in keeping with the title of the thread. 

Do you need to post book, chapter and verse every single time you use the Bible to back a claim?  Well, Deedee, after you told MCWAY...

Just post your bolded text and write new articles altogether.

...I'm gonna have to ask you why not just write your own Bible text that supports your claim all together?  After all, if you don't post the book, chapter and verse nobody can verify it.
 

The interjection of my comments were accidently bolded

Accidentally?  Yeah, sure Deedee, yet you are so quick to call me dishonest.  I did not do that to you:

Thanks Deedee, but you injected your own words and your own interpretation into the Bible above and to one who has not read the Bible it would appear that your words are in the Bible.

And why are you criticising MCWAY and I for bolding text when you admit to doing the same?  There is nothing dishonest about bolding, highlighting, italicizing text in quotes for emphasis if you are not injecting your own words and as long as you provide enough of the text to keep it in context, provide a link to the rest of it, and/or provide a reference to your source.
 

, which I fixed immediately when my attention was called to it, which is quite unlike something like this:
 
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=194204.25
 

And when did you call this to my attention?  And what's there to fix here?  Unlike you, I did not inject my words into the quotes.  Plus I provided the link to the rest of the article for anyone, such as yourself, to go read the whole thing and make sure I'm not quote mining or being dishonest.  You are welcome to have a friendly discussion about my post without resorting to accusations of quote mining and dishonesty, Deedee!
 

most notably:

"Dr. West claims that " the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today, was promoted by evolutionary biologists in the name of Darwinian natural selection." While this may not be factually incorrect, it obscures and omits some rather important details. For example, while many biologists did support eugenic policies, many important biologists did not." - Mark Borrello
http://www.mnscience.org/index.php?id=138

That quote didn't support your claim at all, but you posted it anyway, and just bolded the bits you liked. Did you even look at your link? I don't know how much more ridiculous your stance could be made, than what you made of it yourself.  But I enjoyed the article.  Pretty much threw out your whole theory that eugenics should be blamed on Darwin and gives further evidence as to why scientists shake their heads, and why they should.

And what was my claim, Deedee?  Did you even read my post?  That post was directed specifically at Columbusdude because on a different thread he had kindly explained to me the difference between Social Darwinism and Darwin's theory of evolution.  That's what I was referring to in the second half of my post. 

And how have you corrected me?  I do remember you pointing out the difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism".  However...

In response to Columbusdude's explanation, I posted Dr. John G. West's view that Darwin's theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are the same and why he has this view.

Because I know a one-sided view is not enough for Columbusdude, I then followed Dr. John G. West's quote with an opposing view from Mark Borrello and bolded the text that I wanted to emphasize to show that even Mark Borrello, who disagrees with Dr. John G. West, can't deny that many biologists did support eugenic policies.  This is my only claim and Mark Borrello does say it, even if he does not agree that Darwin's theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are the same.

If you disagree with my post that's fine.  Let's discuss it.  Please don't be so quick to resort to accusations of quote mining and dishonesty.

[Deedee]

Non mon petit ange, I have not woken on the wrong side of the bed, in fact I am happy as a bird, and it is not my intention to "pick on loco." It's a discussion board, and you have done as much "picking" as anyone else.  I've said it before that I think you are a very good person, and I would prefer to have you as my neighbor than many other people.  That having been said, I also think you have a flair for drama.

To answer your post without eighty million quote boxes, here are my perceptions not in any particular order.

1. The OT/NT are among the most verifiable works on the internet.  You have only to enter a few lines into google, and the verse, chapter will appear magically. Different versions too, although I prefer the King James myself.

2. Quoting snippets of the works of people who lived in the early to middle part of the last century are not as easily verified, especially the more obscure among them, and you won't easily find their articles online.  Perhaps that's why fundies have taken to quoting these scientists of the last century.  They're dead and can't defend themselves... unlike Dawkins. 

3. Yes, you totally did what I said you did.  You quoted one teeny line from text that threw your concept out of the water, as though bolding that one line somehow bolsters your point of view.  It doesn't.  Those few words MCWAY bolded don't take into account the rest of the article where the author states he believes there is life on other planets, and goes on to explain exactly what he meant by "impossible."

4. I pointed out the fallacy of your post on the last page of your Darwin thread.

5.  I notice you have nothing to say about that fabricated quote of yours concerning Sir Arthur Keith.  Whoever built that quote and twisted words to mean something completely other than what the author intended was dishonest.  If you don't see that, then there's nothing to say.

6.  There's a big difference between accidently bolding something, acknowledging and fixing it quickly, and purposely trying to mold peoples' words to mean something you'd like it to, or disseminating information that is fallacious... like that of Sir Arthur Keith. If you don't see that, then there's also nothing to say.

[Deedee]

"Scientists also often claim that religion rarely inculcates virtue. The history of religion is, after all, the history of bloodshed. (It is a law of nature that scientists must bring up the Crusades within five minutes of mention of religion.) In any case, the argument goes, atheists are as ethical as any believer, and religion needn’t be kept about for purely moral reasons. But Gould again argues that this claim misses the historical fact that the Church was a secular and not merely religious institution. When the Church was a powerful state, it, not surprisingly, acted like a powerful state. It is also worth noting (and Gould doesn’t) that when avowedly atheist governments called the shots their ethical track record was less than awe-inspiring. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not, so far as I know, in line for sainthood. The point isn’t that godless commies are bad. The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism.

Deedee's version... "fixed." 

"Scientists also often claim that religion rarely inculcates virtue. The history of religion is, after all, the history of bloodshed. (It is a law of nature that scientists must bring up the Crusades within five minutes of mention of religion.) In any case, the argument goes, atheists are as ethical as any believer, and religion needn’t be kept about for purely moral reasons. But Gould again argues that this claim misses the historical fact that the Church was a secular and not merely religious institution. When the Church was a powerful state, it, not surprisingly, acted like a powerful state. It is also worth noting (and Gould doesn’t) that when avowedly atheist governments called the shots their ethical track record was less than awe-inspiring. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not, so far as I know, in line for sainthood. The point isn’t that godless commies are bad. The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism." 

Actually, as a side note, I think it's interesting that Stalin for instance, grew up in an extremely religious family.  He was for all intents and purposes raised by a priest. His mother always regretted that he hadn't become one himself. Perhaps his repressive childhood, religious backround paved the way for future atrocities.

[loco]

"Scientists also often claim that religion rarely inculcates virtue. The history of religion is, after all, the history of bloodshed. (It is a law of nature that scientists must bring up the Crusades within five minutes of mention of religion.) In any case, the argument goes, atheists are as ethical as any believer, and religion needn’t be kept about for purely moral reasons. But Gould again argues that this claim misses the historical fact that the Church was a secular and not merely religious institution. When the Church was a powerful state, it, not surprisingly, acted like a powerful state. It is also worth noting (and Gould doesn’t) that when avowedly atheist governments called the shots their ethical track record was less than awe-inspiring. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not, so far as I know, in line for sainthood. The point isn’t that godless commies are bad. The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism.

Deedee's version... "fixed." 

"Scientists also often claim that religion rarely inculcates virtue. The history of religion is, after all, the history of bloodshed. (It is a law of nature that scientists must bring up the Crusades within five minutes of mention of religion.) In any case, the argument goes, atheists are as ethical as any believer, and religion needn’t be kept about for purely moral reasons. But Gould again argues that this claim misses the historical fact that the Church was a secular and not merely religious institution. When the Church was a powerful state, it, not surprisingly, acted like a powerful state. It is also worth noting (and Gould doesn’t) that when avowedly atheist governments called the shots their ethical track record was less than awe-inspiring. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not, so far as I know, in line for sainthood. The point isn’t that godless commies are bad. The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism." 

I don't have a problem with your quote, so why do you have a problem with mine?  You did include the rest of the passage and I am not lazy not to read the whole thing.  Are you accusing me of quote mining here again?  Is my quote above not in context? 

Again, Deedee, what's wrong with bolding to place emphasis as long as I provide the rest of the text for context and as long as I provide my source?

Actually, as a side note, I think it's interesting that Stalin for instance, grew up in an extremely religious family.  He was for all intents and purposes raised by a priest. His mother always regretted that he hadn't become one himself. Perhaps his repressive childhood, religious backround paved the way for future atrocities.

Yeah sure, and if Stalin had grown up an atheist, and if he had become religious later in his life, you would still blame his atrocities on religion.  That's the type of dishonesty from atheists that Orr and Gould are talking about in the text above.

[loco]

Non mon petit ange, I have not woken on the wrong side of the bed, in fact I am happy as a bird, and it is not my intention to "pick on loco." It's a discussion board, and you have done as much "picking" as anyone else.  I've said it before that I think you are a very good person, and I would prefer to have you as my neighbor than many other people.  That having been said, I also think you have a flair for drama.

To answer your post without eighty million quote boxes, here are my perceptions not in any particular order.

1. The OT/NT are among the most verifiable works on the internet.  You have only to enter a few lines into google, and the verse, chapter will appear magically. Different versions too, although I prefer the King James myself.

Then please "magically" copy the book, chapter and verse as you are copying the text too.  You are not that lazy, are you?

2. Quoting snippets of the works of people who lived in the early to middle part of the last century are not as easily verified, especially the more obscure among them, and you won't easily find their articles online.  Perhaps that's why fundies have taken to quoting these scientists of the last century.  They're dead and can't defend themselves... unlike Dawkins. 

Quoting snippets of the works of people who lived in the early to middle part of the last century is not dishonest if what you are quoting is truly what they wrote and if you post your source.  You do the same, with Martin Luther for example, and I don't complain. 

I'm a fundy, and I don't make you google for my quotes because I provide the sources.  You are an atheist, and you quoted plenty of Martin Luther to me.  He is dead and can't defend himself.

I have quoted and will continue to quote plenty of Dawkins, and some of the quotes that I have posted which you are complaining about are from people who are still alive.

3. Yes, you totally did what I said you did.  You quoted one teeny line from text that threw your concept out of the water, as though bolding that one line somehow bolsters your point of view.  It doesn't.  Those few words MCWAY bolded don't take into account the rest of the article where the author states he believes there is life on other planets, and goes on to explain exactly what he meant by "impossible."

No, I did not.  No, I did not quote one teeny line from the text, plus I posted a link to the entire article.  I'm not going to post again what I already posted about the reason why I quoted the text.  I have nothing else to say about it.

4. I pointed out the fallacy of your post on the last page of your Darwin thread.

Be more specific.  What are you talking about?

5.  I notice you have nothing to say about that fabricated quote of yours concerning Sir Arthur Keith.  Whoever built that quote and twisted words to mean something completely other than what the author intended was dishonest.  If you don't see that, then there's nothing to say.

Oh, I have plenty to say, but I also have plenty of work to do.  Just wait.

6.  There's a big difference between accidentally bolding something, acknowledging and fixing it quickly, and purposely trying to mold peoples' words to mean something you'd like it to, or disseminating information that is fallacious... like that of Sir Arthur Keith. If you don't see that, then there's also nothing to say.

I have not purposely tried to mold anybody's words to mean anything.  And yes, atheists posting text out of the Bible, without saying where in the Bible you got it from, while injecting your own words is dishonest.  The reason you changed it is because you got caught and you couldn't defend something like that.  I can defend my posts because I do not inject my words into the text and I do provide links and sources.

[Deedee]

No, I am not that lazy, and when someone points something out to me, I don't fall into a writhing heap of frothing foam the way some other people do. I will from now on post verse and chapter.  Thank you for alerting me to it. 

You have nothing to say so you're harping on that post with interjected words in the text, even though it's obvious from my subsequent post that I didn't notice it and removed it immediately.  What idiot would interject their own words into a text of the OT and try to "pass it off." As if no one could check, or as if it isn't obvious.  They weren't even my words.

I didn't say you were dishonest or made up that quote about Sir Arthur Keith.  But the person who put that quote together is.

Post your bolded texts to your heart's content. Did I ever ask you to stop?  I find it humorous actually. Enjoy your lunch loco.