Come on, betting on something one guy knows with 100% certainty and both people are aware of this fact is not betting, it is idiotic bravado.

Look if this guy doesn't want to say what his degrees are in then fine, pretty silly, but fine. However, making these fake chicken bets as a defense is obnoxious and silly.

He'll probably want to make a 10K bet on that with you.

If you accept he'll hire a homeless dude to be his friend for a day in exchange for a fifth of whiskey.

This is getting really childish.

So why exactly are you refusing to just say? Surely you are not actualy trying to sucker someone into betting? Cause that is very low if so.

When you post a picture, the source of that picture (the url) is given (you can right click on the pic to get it).

When you post someone else's text, the source of that text does not come along with the text. It's not enough for us to believe the text came from someone else, you have to give credit to that someone else. Without doing so, you are plagiarizing. Even on a forum, it doesn't have to be in a published paper to count.

Already done. Post #84 in this very thread, I laid out all the posts and numbered them. Here's a link to that post to save you the trouble: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=84

You are not alone in your deluded view of this matter, many other Bible literalists pretend that they understand science as well.

ROFL. I guess Isaac Newton didn't understand science, he wrote more
on theology than he did science.

If you think that non-belief in philosophic naturalism precludes
understanding science, then you sir are deluded and don't understand
science.

So what if you can see the URL for the pic, that doesn't necessarily
show who created the picture.

Fair enough, on you pointing out (more than once) a supposed
fossil. I do intend to research that finding further.

Someone in here earlier said that genetics "proves" universal common descent.

Why don't we have a mature, amiable discussion on that "proof." I'm
interested to read more on what this supposed proof is. I'm not so interested
in someone posting a bunch of links, but someone who has a back-ground
in genetics who can explain it in non-geneticist terms.

If you are genuinely interested, but require an academic background in genetics from those who respond, why not ask in the Science, Math & Philosophy forum?

Yeah, you have to ignore a lot of posters in RGT and w/e you do do not be too insightful on here. That's like waving a red cape in a bullring on here...


Self-Control, and Lack of Self-Control, Is Contagious
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113172359.htm

Moral relativism ftw...

The url is the source from which you got the pic. You don't need to track down the creator in order to give credit -- providing the source is sufficient. Not providing the creator's name or the source is plagiarism.

This. Look, we have a lower standard of plagiarism on the internet than in, say, a phd thesis. On the internet the heuristic is that you either provide a link (best) to whatever it is or, if it is a well known figure like plato then you can simply provide the quote - in quotes - and say who said it. And yes there are issues that you may link to someone who has stolen it from somewhere else and not linked to it and generally there are issues which is why it is a low and minimal standard. But you should at least meet this low and minimal standard of linking or naming content. If you want to take the extra mile and verify for yourself the original content creator of an image and specify who that is, go at it, but it is not considered necessary for the level of rigour of an internet forum. But a link is.

What is it with you fundies and your insistence on appealing to authority instead of constructing your own arguments? In any event, no-one denies Newton's vast and ground breaking boost to science as a whole, at the same time he was into alchemy as well as all kinds of other magical and superstitious nonsense.

Note to self:

Any RGT thread that reaches 100+ posts in a couple days is most likely an often re-hashed derail of what should have been a straight-forward topic.

The topic being whether or not festeringzit has three university degrees?

To get back to the OP, this only applies to Creationists. I was an Old Earth Creationist when I was still a Christian, and I was completely convinced that evolution was a farce. I used to listen to Hank Hanegraff (The Bible Answer Man) on the radio quite often. He would talk about how micro was ok, but micro was not...the typical Creationist line. I would get upset when considering how academia/science would ignore all the 'evidence' Creation Scientist would present. I fully supported The Discovery Institute. I read The Privileged Planet and had the DVD to loan out to anyone who would watch it. Of course, I was completely ignorant of the scientific method at the time.

I can clearly say that studying the Theory of Evolution and the scientific method were foundational to my loss of faith. I understood Genesis to be literal...only the timeline was in dispute. The HGP completely pushed me over the edge....if there was no literal Adam, then why the need for a literal Christ? Still to this day, I'm a little baffled by Christians who aren't bothered by this in the least. I've been trying to find some way to re-discover my faith, but the answers ultimately escape me. I just don't know how to reconcile faith with knowledge.

To Christians on this board: I'm willing and ready to hear any and all explanations, if you are willing to have a respectful conversation. I'm not a 'devout' atheist....I'm an Agnostic who would love a rational reason to return a faith that doesn't crumble under rational examination.

Of course.

If the rest of you would quit quoting him, he could be properly ignored. I find his tone to be abrasive and trollish....I don't understand why RGT regs let him derail every thread.

I think you're confusing him with Splendour.

I haven't read many of the posts in this thread so I don't know what HGP is.

I would point out that science can never show there wasn't a real Adam and Eve even if they should be able to show that human evolution is true, which is far from scientifically established.

I would be happy to address any issues that concern you - maybe a new thread on that point?

I would like to recommend the Reasons to Believe web page:

http://www.reasons.org/explore/type/i-didnt-know-that

This is Hugh Ross' site, there are 4 Ph.D. scientists and a theologian who have much material on science and the Bible. Their basic position is progressive creationism, old earth, non-macroevolution. I don't always agree with them but they are sincere and very knowledgeable about science/Bible issues.

ah bloody hell, HGP stands for human genome project and it did prove there wasn't a real adam and eve.

unless of course, you believe the entire field of genetics is meaningless and god altered the DNA of the entire human race to cover his tracks.

kb, You sound like a reasonable poster. I think if you read this
thread with an open mind, you will clearly see that I wasn't
the one that derailed the thread.

OK, genomics. Is that what caused you to abandon Christianity? If so, can you be more specific? I've read a bit from time to time and see absolutely nothing in genetics to cause Christianity any problems.

Curious what HGP is?

N/M I see that it is Human Genome Project...