How do you feel about this quote?

[Azdgari]

Creationists come onto sites like this in order to practice their misunderstanding-skills.  It's a useful skill for a creationist to have.

[Hermes]

Well, of course, there's so much to misunderstand and deny.  Willful ignorance on that scale that takes years.  Looking at the world only gets in the way.

[PingTheServer]

Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct! 

How Christlike - preying on the misinformed.  Actually, that IS Christlike, he's going to eternally damn everyone that has not been informed of him.  Nevermind.

I am not an athiest, but just because someone is an athiest doesnt mean they have all the answers.  Thanks for wasting everyone's time and bringing nothing enlightening to the forum.

[Ashe]

Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. :

[Sota]

Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. :

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[PingTheServer]

Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. :

For sure.  We get alot of that here.  Some nub joins the forums thinking, i'll show these athiests how dumb they are...all the while forgetting the entire history of science is at our fingertips.

If he wanted to, he could go get the creationist explanation from answersingenesis.com and let us explain how those are fallacious.  That would at least be a little more fun.

[Cycle4Fun]

You have a question on the evolution of the eye.  You happen to be connected to the largest information resource ever conceived by man.  Let's try an experiment.  For a proper experiment we need a hypothesis and a way to test that hypothesis.

Hypothesis
By using an internet search engine, it is possible to find an answer to a question with a reasonable accuracy.

Method
Not understanding how the evolution of the eye may have occurred, I wish to know more about the scientific explanation of how the eye came to be.  Using the internet search engine Google, at www.google.com, I typed in "evolution of the eye."

Result
In 0.29s Google responded with 19,200,000 hits for "evolution of the eye."  The very first hit was from Wikipedia.  This website, while not to be used as a resource for a paper, nevertheless has a well cited article on the evolution of the eye.  The article is both informative, and easy to follow.

Conclusion
The original hypothesis is confirmed.  By using the most powerful information resource ever devised by man it is possible to find the answer to a question with reasonable accuracy.

[Cycle4Fun]

I just really wanted to know how you feel about this quote and I would like to see you all discuss it and observe the conclusions that are determined from it.

'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.'

I wonder who said that? Hmmmmmm.... 

Nice quote mine.  You should read the rest of the text surrounding that.  Darwin didn't know how the eye evolved.  That's ok.  Newton didn't have the faintest idea about light, relativity, or quantum mechanics.

The original theory of evolution has changed to today's version that better fits the data.  Today's version of evolution will undoubtedly be changed to better fit the data that includes the data of the past, the data of today, and the data of tomorrow.  That's a good thing.  Your quote tells us nothing other than Darwin didn't know how the eye evolved.

[Freezykow]

I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.

[PingTheServer]

I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.

I no longer have a need to answer any of your questions.  You are not interested in light, only fire.

[Goodkat]

I just really wanted to know how you feel about this quote and I would like to see you all discuss it and observe the conclusions that are determined from it.

'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.'

I wonder who said that? Hmmmmmm.... 

That quote was 100% true when it was written. Back then, the thought of an eye evolving did seem absurd, but now we now it isn't. You obviously make the mistake of thinking that we believe what Darwin wrote because he was some kind of prophet, you are obviously wrong. We believe what he wrote because it has been proven time and again. Darwin was to evolution what Einstein was to physics, a brilliant man, but no more than a man, and just because he said it doesn't make it so. See my "mistakes of Charles Darwin" thread.

[Goodkat]

I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.

I don't normally accuse people, but I have this feeling that when you started this thread you were completely serious.

[Ashe]

Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

[Irish]

I don't believe your "backing out, this was only an experiment" excuse.  The fact is you created a new topic with an unbelievably and ubsurdly misused quote and then made outlandish accusations regarding the very mechanisms of evolution that you clearly do not understand.  And then when forum members came in, such as myself, Hermes, Asmoday, Cycle4Fun, HerrAxel, Ping, and others, and completely tore apart your faulty reasonings and hypotheses regarding evolution instead of just saying "I was wrong" you are trying to cowardly back out by saying it was all for fun and a little experiment to tease us.

The fact is you were wrong and when you came in here to try and prove the stupid atheists wrong you were met with more intelligence than you imagined and your simple reasonings were not enough.

You and Froggy had more holes in your reasoning and logic than I could count... "half-blind eagles" and such.  Grow up.

[Freezykow]

Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this. Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

[Hermes]

Then show that you aren't woefully uninformed.  Stun us with your intellect.

[Goodkat]

I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

What exactly is this hypothesis?

[Sota]

I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

What exactly is this hypothesis?

"Atheists are mean."

I bet this is it.

[jetson]

Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this. Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

What is an atheist?  If you can define it properly, it might help your case.

[Astreja]

And then when forum members came in, such as myself, Hermes, Asmoday, Cycle4Fun, HerrAxel, Ping, and others, and completely tore apart your faulty reasonings and hypotheses regarding evolution instead of just saying "I was wrong" you are trying to cowardly back out by saying it was all for fun and a little experiment to tease us.

Much as an abusive individual will respond "I was only joking..." when the target of his abuse dares to raise an objection.

[ksm]

Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this.

So why do you respond?

Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

That many Atheists are generally well informed, and usually know how to shut down flawed debates from know nothing creationists?

That's not a hypothesis, that's a workable Theory (and maybe a fact too!)

[Hermes]

Much as an abusive individual will respond "I was only joking..." when the target of his abuse dares to raise an objection.

Yep.

[Deus ex Machina]

I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

Does it matter to you that you have probably done your belief-system some small disservice by pretending to indulge in a sincere discussion but in fact pushing people's buttons, that in the process you have deliberately misrepresented yourself and deliberately misrepresented the facts, and that this kind of behaviour goes against the ninth commandment of the Mosaic law which I suppose you believe still applies to you?

Because you see, I have this hypothesis that theists are liars and hypocrites, and your actions aren't exactly helping to disprove it.

[Freezykow]

I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

Does it matter to you that you have probably done your belief-system some small disservice by pretending to indulge in a sincere discussion but in fact pushing people's buttons, that in the process you have deliberately misrepresented yourself and deliberately misrepresented the facts, and that this kind of behaviour goes against the ninth commandment of the Mosaic law which I suppose you believe still applies to you?

Because you see, I have this hypothesis that theists are liars and hypocrites, and your actions aren't exactly helping to disprove it.

For the most part Deus you were one of the exceptions.

[Azdgari]

I doubt that your failure to actually answer to answer DeM's question did much to help disprove his hypothesis, either.

[Deus ex Machina]

Azdgari, you necromancer!

[Azdgari]

It wasn't all that far down the page!  Anyway, he didn't answer your question in his response, which is kinda funny considering what the question was about.

[Deus ex Machina]

It wasn't all that far down the page!  Anyway, he didn't answer your question in his response, which is kinda funny considering what the question was about.

Well, sometimes silence is an answer, I guess.