oh...aj...the full/quote..explains itself

so i thought...i would...quote from the bible
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=gmail&rls=gm&tbs=nws%3A1&q=bible%3B%27a+fool+says+in+his+heart&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

but when i got there...there was whoor-kins

so suggest[briefly...read the quote...it SAYS;
''the fool/says..in his heart...there is no god''

so i rebut whoorkins..the bigger-fool
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100902/hawking-book-100902/20100902/?hub=CalgaryHome

the link/say..he says...this...quote

<<..LONDON/ass-press..Physicist/Stephen..Hawking..says..God wasn't necessary..for the creation/of the universe.>>

great..this great-mind...can now replicate..his science
or else has a THEORY...his believers..will raise..into a principle...lol



<<In his/new book,.."The Grand Design,"..the British scientist/says/..?.."?.''..unraveling/a complex series..of theories*>>>lol

<<will explain/the universe.>>>yes validating theories...could become science..rather than THEORY...lol

<<The book,..written with Leonard Mlodinow,..is to be published Sept. 9.>>>..oh god..its a pr/blurb...HOORKINS..didnt even write..it

and the news still/thinks..is news..worthy...lol

RESEARCH OUT THE FACTS..people
we allready seen/here..how missleading...quoting-others can get...lol



<<In an extract...lol..published/in The Times..on Thursday,>>>advertotial?..<<Hawking says..spontaneous creation*..is the reason...there is something/as opposed to nothing>>>

seems he is being miss-represented..all around.

<<Hawking says.."it is not necessary*..to invoke*..God to/get..the Universe going.">>>...

no it isnt...even jesus said...with enough faith...even the faithless generations..could say to that mountain move...and it shall..and lets face/it..this is satans-realm..after-all

<<In his previous/book,.."A Brief History/of Time,"..Haw-king..had appeared/to accept..the possibility/of a creator>>>..and according..the the abopuve/qwuote..he stil does

<<saying/the discovery..of a complete theory..would allow humans to.."know the mind of God.">>>..yes..he is truellu blessed with wisdom

please ask me to explain/why he is bound to his chair

because..we ALL are needed to tell the full story
only big spirits..chose the small/difficult...parts..in this reality-play

we each got a life-previuew
and either accepted..our life..sentance
or declined

many are called
few are chosen

in fact the truelly great/chose themselves
wait till you se whoorkins..fully true..spirit-self
he must be an amasing/spirit..
to have taken-up the burden of being..who he is

love ya bro

why does the press...
so get-off on miss-quoting

because thats their role
to decieve..the allready decieved..the sheeple

may god contuinue..to keep blessing you..brother..whoorkin

johan9

Dan,

Thanks.

"You suggest I was the messenger not the source of the quote. On this you are correct. I am not the source. The source of the quote was Carl Sagan. He wrote what he wrote in that 1977 book of his."

By source I meant most immediate source to you. The fundamentalist sites always start the quotation with an elyisis at the same spot. What are the surrounding few sentences? Do you own the book?

Also, thank you for explaining that you understand what the biologists and genetists are saying - yet you reject their propositions.

How important is it to Christianity that the Bible is literally true? Why so?

More later.

Thanks OUG.

<< oh...aj...the full/quote..explains itself>>

That was exactly my point.

Creationists continuously use this tactic to make it appear as though scientists are starting to doubt evolution, or that they’ve slipped and accidentally admitted something in a brief moment of carelessness.

Dan,

No one here has said there is anything wrong with quoting.

<<Firstly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with quoting people. Newspapers do it. Biblical writers did it. Academics do it. You do it. I do it. Everybody does it.>>

It’s when something is quoted out-of-context, or when crucial lines/words are omitted that it becomes a...

Hang on, haven’t we covered this?

I think we did!

“Remember, 'quote mining' isn't just selectively picking quotes. It's taking quotes out-of-context and twisting their meaning with the intent of making it look like scientists are questioning evolution, or to create a sense of confusion that simply isn't there.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#117238)

Yes, there it is.

<<What matters are mutations that increase the information content to the genome. If evolution was true, these should be everywhere and plentiful. Instead there are a few disputed examples.>>

I’ve corrected you on this point at a rate of frequency dwarfed only by the amount of times it’s been debunked... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

<<For example, when my son does his primary school homework, if he says that seven times seven equals fourteen, I would correct him, but I wouldn’t castigate him for being a liar>>

But if he made the same mistake over and over despite continuous corrections from you (note my above example too, by the way) then you’d start to worry.

<<You [Oliver] suggest I was the messenger not the source of the quote. On this you are correct. I am not the source. The source of the quote was Carl Sagan. He wrote what he wrote in that 1977 book of his.>>

Oliver was referring to the mined versions of the quote he found on numerous Creationist websites. Of course, you already knew this.

Continued...

...Continued

<<You [Oliver] seem to be under the impression that creationists don’t accept evolution because they are ignorant of it. ... E.g. Dr Gary Parker is one leading creationist who used to write text books on evolution before seeing the inadequacies of the theory.>>

The problem is though, that all the inadequacies he sees are misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the facts, and all the evidence he DOES see is ignored...

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

And why is it that he now needs to quote (I’m even willing to forget the fact that they’re misquotes for a moment here), when he never used to?

<<You [Oliver] also talk about creationists accepting certain things on trust. This probably happens a lot, but I think it happens more on the evolution side. As evolution is the accepted theory, many would naturally assume that position, thinking that it must be done and dusted, proved, signed sealed and delivered by the people in the white coats who should really know what they’re doing.>>

So then, what about people like myself who don’t need to accept the factuality of evolution based on trust because they took the initiative to investigate the evidence (and from a creationist mindset at that)? And there was no Google for me back then either.

<<We accept many things on trust in our society.>>

True that. In many cases we can’t avoid it. Evolution, on the other hand, is a different story. I’m walking proof of this.

<<Creationists, on the whole, are more likely to investigate why they believe what they do, as they’ve had to swim against the stream in taking that position.>>

As a former creationist myself, I can concur.

Creationists investigate why they believe what they do by looking into their hearts and praying to god that he reveal himself to them.

Continued...

...Continued

By convincing themselves that they will only see god if they believe he will show himself, they can’t possibly go wrong.

As for the physical evidence though, a church pamphlet from Creation Ministries is about as far as most will go, and as you have shown to us on many occasions, they NEVER dare to look outside creationist resources.

Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m bothering to respond when you’re so rude you can’t even acknowledge my posts. Especially when the arguments I present to George are enough to blow religion out of the water altogether (let alone creationism - like killing two birds with one stone, I guess), regardless of the “your arguments are simplistic, naive, unsophisticated and thus don’t apply to me” implications (when mind you, there is no justification as to why a god - who apparently wants a personal relationship with ALL his creations - would require such sophistication and presuppositions to know).

I think my quote of Bill Maher was probably the one part of this thread that was the most meaningful and had the most impact. How anyone could pretend their religious belief is anything less than destructive and insane after that is beyond me.

Speaking of which, here’s the video of what I had transcribed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7QgRJgDNPE

Dear AJ,

You are eminently logical, and your arguments are irrefutable. I also think that Dan and OUG are both wrong.

We differ in that I see no point in continuing to argue with them.

If either Dan or OUG were on a school board and had anything to do with specifying a science curriculum I would try to have them removed.

However, they are not in that position. Why do you continue?

I certainly think you have a right to continue, but I question why you think it's worth it.

Dan and OUG choose to regard a book continuing a fabulous creation story and much mythical material as fact. As long as they will do that no arguments will have any affect.

Apparently you once had that mindset. Something enlightened you. What worked with you?

Why do you think you can enlighten them?