His arguement was that it appears that Hagan was saying evolution is not a fact, and that is not what the book brought out with the quote. It was just quoting Hagan for saying essentially the argument could be brought up, not whether or not he supports creationism or not.
This is called discernment.
So at this point you have ZERO 0 CREDIBILITY.
WHAT U DID IS CALLED...
THE WHOLE QUOTE AGAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer"
Last edited by KnicksFan4Realz; Jul 30, 2008 at 19:08.
Him elaborating does not change that it could be consistent witha great designer. His elaboration is just his reasoning for why he feels the designer would be inefficient.
Yet his quote in full, or partial does not say that there is not a designer. He just argues if there is one, he is not effiecient. And that of course, is his opinion.
But this remains...""The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer"
If Carl Sagan (not Hagan...liar) says "the fossil record COULD be consistent with a designer, but IT'S NOT" (which is essentially what he's saying) and you say..."Carl Sagan said the fossil record could be consistent with a designer"...you are lying. Dishonesty is a form of lying. And I said this a few pages ago. But you keep lying. Your credibility is finished.
But I'll restate what I just said in the Dawkins thread:
Religious people bury their heads in the sand and ignore facts and irrefutable evidence. Then they lie about the facts and evidence to make it seem their lies are true. But that's just it. They want to believe in a God. They don't want to believe their lives are insignificant. It makes them feel special and they don't want science showing them they are not.
It's not that deep. If it is lies, then move on.
I move on after I show you don't know an ounce of the bible after I show you the truth.
You choose to bury your head in the sand there quite nicely.
You think you have a clue about the bible, and you know as much about it as a new born baby.
And when this is shown to you, you have nada to say. That though, is the smartest thing you have done. Say nothing. Cuz that is what you know about the bible.
I ask you, if you were in the situation, WOULD YOU HAVE FELT YOU WERE A PEDOPHILE? No answer from you.
I never said any of it was excusable. But it is quite a different scenario when someone does something totally of free will and consiousness, and when they are drunk beyond such.