Ark - Page 11

(We have the same facts, the same physical evidence as it were; we have same science)
No sir we do not.
Remove your colored glasses and you might see that.
You are now and have always been confused.

You have no more idea of where the Ark is than a man on the moon.
 

Felloffher,

To make it fair to you, I will take neutral position and post this video for you.
 

This was another video from the same source,
no source at all.









Moons.

Hundmutter, 

I just watched the movie, "Life of Pi". It is such a good time to watch this, even if you've never read the book or anything, but have stumbled on this thread.....

... the synchronicity makes me smile! 

LOL, I for my first purchase ever, bought the movie on iTunes a while back but never watched it!  Well, we just played it on Apple TV... (along with "The Hobbit"... we made it a double-header!) ...

Anybody read the book and see the movie?  Wow, somebody has to talk to me about the symbolism, it just blows my mind! 


 

Shtal,

 Did you listen to the video you posted? There is no source for the quote, more creationist propaganda. Doesn't your god look down on those who lie?

remove the propaganda and there is no shtal.

Felloffher,

I don't know the answer why creationist have on there websites but I stumble on one conversation regarding that quote.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have stated previously:

You failed to mention that I have designated the quote with 'attribution unknown'. I do not use this quote in my arguments. It is quoted on several other sites and I thought that it should, at least, be acknowledged. Keith was quite prolific. Based on other things he has said, the quote seems consistent with his style. It seems unlikely to me that someone just made this up, however I have not found evidence either way. If you find evidence, please link to it or let me know where I can find it.

Bevets:

I have searched multiple editions of OoS (including 1928 and 1934) and have not found the quote, however 'not finding it' and stating 'I have not found it, therefore it never happened' are two different things. It is still possible that Keith said it somewhere and only the OoS reference was mistaken.

[For the sake of clarity: I have read Keith's introduction. I am fairly sure that I have looked at both 1928 and 1934 personally, however I have not explicitly noted that I failed to find the quote in both editions.]

Our Man in Nirvana:

You never thought to look in the actual 1959 version? And, assuming that Keith's quote is not to be found in the 1959 edition, you don't find it strange that EVERYONE has mis-attributed the quote?

Also, you don't see the dis-congruency between the claimed Keith quote, and the fact that Keith spent his whole life promoting evolution. "The evidence, such as it now stands, leads us to regard the south-western region of Asia as the cradle of evolution of the white man," Keith wrote in _The Antiquity of Man_. Does that sound like a man who would say, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." I mean he is talking about evidence in my quote; that means he thinks evolution can be proved.

I did look at the 1959 edition and did not find the Keith introduction, however since it was the centenial edition (and I
did not have access to an exhaustive list of editions at the time) I thought it was possible that there was more than one
centenial edition.

Keith had acknowledged the transient nature of human knowledge:

The sons of science of the twentieth century are doing just what the wise men of Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt sought to do 5,000 years ago. These wise men wished to explain to their fellows how man had come into existence, where he had come from, and where he was going to; how the earth, sun , moon, and stars had been made for him. The explanations given in olden times were accepted by the generations among whom they were promulgated. The followers of Charles Darwin are today seeking to answer the same questions for their generation. The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world -- forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. The Religion of a Darwinist (1925) p.61-2

He was also willing to acknowledge a wart that most atheists still refuse to acknowledge:

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its
practice.     Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.10 

To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for a national policy.     Evolution and Ethics (1947)   p. 27

The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.230 

Bevets:

While I agree with SkinnyHead that atheists have been making an argument from silence, I had not carefully considered WhyteRaven74's point about postumous authorship. I am also inclined to agree with KiltedBastich's point that Professor Murphy probably has not cited the quote first hand. I am herewith downgrading the quote from 'attribution unknown' to 'probable fabrication'.

Let me say once again:

I invest great effort in presenting accurate qutoes that can be easily verified. Unfortuantely there are some things I dont know I dont know -- and I welcome everyone to assist with my education.

Dimensio:

Why, then, do you present a quote fro which no source can be identified? It is dishonest to claim that Sir Arthur Keith made a specific statement when absolutely no corroboration of that statement is available. You have been, therefore, dishonest in presenting the almost certainly fabricated quote and attributing it to Sir Arthur Keith.

Evolutionism has, understandably, had a long history of opposition from theists. In the 30's and 40's, to prominent voices of reason were LM Davies and Douglas Dewar. They had debates with JBS Haldane and HS Shelton. One of Davies' favorite catch phrases was 'Evolution is unproven and unprovable'. I have not determined whether he latched on to something Keith had said or if Davies said something along the lines of 'Keith's position supports my claim that 'Evolution is unproven and unprovable''. It is possible Keith heard the phrase and agreed with it. The latter half of the quote seems to come from DMS Watson famous 'The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, it it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.'

I am now designating the quote as 'Suspected Interpolation'
http://www.fark.com/comments/4162582/48199981/Darwin-was-wrong#c48199981

does the words peer review mean anything to you??


reading something that someone repeated off a internet forum which was repeated by someone else on a forum who repeated off someone else on a forum.........does not make it fact no matter how many times it gets quoted by how many fools on forums.



just sayin
 

vk4gsd wrote: OK gotcha, thanks for clearing all that evolution nonsense up, what was i thinking, your "proof" makes it all so obvious.

no further need for me to participate on this thread, i need to be out standing on a street corner yelling evolution is wrong, the bible says so.


If you look at the history of Adolf Hitler, one time in his speech he said: If you tell a lie long enough loud enough and often enough the people will believe it. He said there more likely believe a big lie than a small one. If you want for somebody to believe a lie you have to mixing it with some truth that is the technique is been used. They mix two things together that do not belong together. Example selling cigarettes, they mixing it with cowboys, have you stopped and thought about it? What is the connection between smoking Marlboro and cowboys, do all cowboys smoke Marlboro? The answer is no, do you have to smoke Marlboro to be a cowboy? The answer is no, if you start smoking Marlboro would you become a cowboy automatically? The answer is no, you may smell like a horse but you are not a cowboy. Actually it’s been proven in the laboratory test, that nobody in the world smokes, nobody smokes; only a cigarettes smoke, the person is a sucker that’s all.  And to answer your question you said: vk4gsd wrote: I need to be out standing on a street corner yelling evolution is wrong… No you don’t need to yell that evolution is wrong you will make fool out of yourself.


Btw, There is nothing wrong with any of the arguments that I have given to you. They are irrefutable - your "refutations" of them is illogical.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect I have now reached the point with you where I "casting pearls before swine." Regrettably, I cannot persuade anyone into the kingdom, if people refuse to be so led;  and nothing further that I can realistically say. Anything else I say will simply be repeating the same info in other language.


Edit: Btw Moons at least we agree on something here, I like what you said Moons wrote: Should we have public schools?...... your right I don't like the man or his twisted mind, his tainted information.