[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Sorry, but no one's reproduced any sort of mechanism which would cause one species to evolve into another.

Explain seedless grapes.

[aleph_null]

Personally I think it takes a lot of balls to admit you're not sure of such a contentious issue. That said, I really think the whole evolutionary theory as it is commonly taught is a complete load of improbable bunk, and the only reason that it has been taught so readily is because our society is very individualistic and prideful. [/B]

Good point. I like it. One of the more intelligent posts in the thread ...

But hey, it's all entertaining.


Three things:

- I would ask people everywhere to try to be a little more precise in their language. The verb "to prove" and the noun "fact" have very specific meanings, for example. But these words are abused horribly. It is appropriate to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, given the usual set of assumptions of basic math. It is inappropriate to say that evolution has been "proven," or creationism, of course. There's not even consensus on what those words mean, so how could they be "proven"?

Hell, it's inappropiate to say that it is proven that the earth is a sphere. It's really ****ing obvious that it is a sphere, but again: "to prove" has a very, very specific meaning.

Sounds like I'm being anal, but it becomes an issue when our acceptance of semantics gets all loosey-goosey and next thing you know, the media get sloppy and politicians leverage the slop to subtly spin issues, and ... well, it's just a bad idea. Okay: I *am* being anal, but I think it's for a good cause. If you're gonna argue something, be precise!

- Anyway, the issue isn't so much proving things as it is about disproving things. It's damn hard to prove something, but relatively possible to disprove something. At least, when that something is presented in a rigorous, empirically reproducible way. In fact, that's a key element of the scientific method. Someone's probably already brought up the idea of falsifiability. Is creationism falsifiable? I dunno: It's hard to falsify something when you've got an omnipotent God running the show. It's hard to disprove an argument that can just fall back on "faith" when it needs to.

For this reason, I'd suggest that arguing for creationism using pseudo-scientific techniques or language is kind of just ... well, silly. It's like what someone said about trying to argue a point of view that's native to one frame of reference or model of the world in a foreign model of the world. People are basically speaking different languages.

- So I'm not saying that faith is silly. I consider myself a man of ... er ... well ... I'm spiritual but not religious.

In fact, I'd argue strongly that faith is super-duper important. A lot more important than arguing for creationism. I mean ... I don't get it. Why should one's faith be threatened by the idea that some interpretation of some book is pretty clearly wildly inaccurate? Does it matter? Wouldn't faith survive that realization?

And I think a lot of the views people cling to when they join the science camp are pretty silly, too. Clearly there's more going on in life than can be explained from a purely objective, empirical point of view.

So I mean, make a choice of how you believe, but understand that it's no more provable than any other point of view.

I personally choose to err on the side of science, except when it's clearly out of its league. I think in the case of the basic tenets of evolution and for god's sake (heh) the age of the earth, it's a lot more likely to have a useful story to tell than the Bible.


Blah blah blah. Fun thread. I'm probably not saying anything new, but I'm killing time before going Christmas shopping. Hm. Is that ironic?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by wireframe:
From there, Ezra (the bibilical personality) is said to have re-written the Torah (since it had largely been forgotten due to time, and the fact it was mostly kept in people's memories), and once the Israelites were sent back home to Palestine, they had brought with them all of that Babylonian/Persian religion, knowledge, and stories.

neat. i saw an interesting special on tv the other day about who the "three wise men" from the east actually were. the authors of the show formulated a hypothesis that they were zoroastrian "magis" who determined the birthplace of jesus h. christ through astrology. interesting stuff.

i came up with my own theory then:

the persians knew about jewish mythology and them expecting a savior to be born in the near future. at the time the persians and the romans were at each other's throats, - the jews caught between the "lines". so the magi just said: "fvck this, we are going to determine some kid born on a certain date in bethlehem to be the new king of the jews and a god too. that way we can get rid of that roman puppet king herod, without getting our "fingers dirty"! then, when jesus was a young man, they picked him up, put him through an ideological boot camp, and sent him back to get rid of the romans, by causing a public uprising by the jews..."

hehehe. i should be writer.

LOL. i donno. i've never really read the bible, just sounded like a cool story...

[adamk]

Originally posted by entrox:
Does the phrase "survival of the fittest" ring any bells?

natural selection. there is no driving plan to make a animal better adapted to it's environment, though animal's that do possess those advantageous characteristics are _more likely_ to pass on their genes, and therefore it's characteristics, to it's offspring.

The General Anti-Creationism FAQ

please take a look at this site before posting arguments that can be easeily disproved. and by the same regard, if you see an argument that appears to be false, bring it up so we can discuss it. i haven't looked through the whole site, so i won't vouch for the validity of all his points.

[wireframe]

Originally posted by deekay1:

the persians knew about jewish mythology and them expecting a savior to be born in the near future. at the time the persians and the romans were at each other's throats, - the jews caught between the "lines". so the magi just said: "fvck this, we are going to determine some kid born on a certain date in bethlehem to be the new king of the jews and a god too. that way we can get rid of that roman puppet king herod, without getting our "fingers dirty"! then, when jesus was a young man, they picked him up, put him through an ideological boot camp, and sent him back to get rid of the romans, by causing a public uprising by the jews..."

lol I like it. It's probably more likely that the Jews took their mythology from the Persians. There is quite a stark contrast between the exile, and afterwards. There's virtually nothing in the way of written, or documentary proof for the beliefs of the Jews before the exile; but after it, Judaism, took on a whole new angle. Probably lots of theology was just back-projected onto ancient stories, such as Abraham, Moses, the Egyptian captivity, and so on.

[wireframe]

Originally posted by deekay1:

i came up with my own theory then:

lmao, i re-read that again, pretty funny sh!t.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by adamk:
the main difference is that scientists say "i don't know yet" and creationists say definitively "i already know".

That is really the crux of it, and that precise fact is time and again used against science.

It is a basic premise of scientific work that a theory is accepted as the best working model to apply to a scenario, but can and will be expanded/modified as new information becomes known. That this will happen is accepted as a given.

This, however, makes it easy for someone ignorant of the basics of scientific work to scream, "A-HA! But you're not PROVING anything!"

Which, of course, is utter nonsense, as has been stated several times in this thread.

Evolution is as proven as anything CAN be proven. Creationists have said that Darwin's model (natural selection) has been challenged and developed (that it has in fact "evolved") since his time. That is correct. The precise means by which evolution occurs is heavily researched, and several expansions/alternate models to Darwin's (such as cataclysmic events) have been put forth. At present, as I understand it, several models are used and widely accepted, not mutually exclusively, but in parallel.

But the concept of evolution itself is not disputed by ANY reputable scientists, anywhere.

-s*

[theolein]

What is quite interesting is that ebuddy and Kilbey have not yet returned after their theories and quotes were shown to be falsified fictions from a creationist website.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I know that there is a God who is omnipotent who has taken credit for creation

You know? For sure?

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I do not state that I really know.

That's more like it.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Personally I think it takes a lot of balls to admit you're not sure of such a contentious issue.

Yet you can't admit that you're not sure of God. Honestly, there's not evidence either way.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
That said, I really think the whole evolutionary theory as it is commonly taught is a complete load of improbable bunk, and the only reason that it has been taught so readily is because our society is very individualistic and prideful.

Improbably bunk after one year of Bio? Well, obviously you've done thorough research, why not write and publish a paper that debunks it? The "individualistic and prideful" reasoning is terrible, obviously you don't know anything about the subject. Learn about genetics, learn about breeding traits, learn about evolution, then come back.

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Sorry, but no one's reproduced any sort of mechanism which would cause one species to evolve into another.

Really? I've seen two different species that are morphologically indistinguishable. They can mate but their offspring are sterile. This is due to one single solitary mutation - which can be generated in the lab.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is quite interesting is that ebuddy and Kilbey have not yet returned after their theories and quotes were shown to be falsified fictions from a creationist website.

"interesting" indeed

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is quite interesting is that ebuddy and Kilbey have not yet returned after their theories and quotes were shown to be falsified fictions from a creationist website.

To be fair, they might just be at work or busy.

*Some* people do have lives.

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
To be fair, they might just be at work or busy.

*Some* people do have lives.

-s*

You mean unlike you and me?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
The burden of evidence lays with the people who have something to prove, not the other way around. Tough pill to swallow.

He said it, now he can prove it.

[adamk]

Originally posted by riverfreak:
Really? I've seen two different species that are morphologically indistinguishable. They can mate but their offspring are sterile. This is do to one single solitary mutation - which can be generated in the lab.

and is that offspring a completely different species? or is it just sterile?

horse + donkey = mule (sterile)

this is just procreation, though i fail to see how this deals with evolution. in fact, it is quite the opposite of evolution since advantageous traits cannot, knowing the progeny, be passed on to further offspring.

[adamk]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He said it, now he can prove it.

and your case remains equally unresolved and unproven as well.

take some initiative! i have forgotten what you were talking about anyway...

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by adamk:
and is that offspring a completely different species? or is it just sterile?

horse + donkey = mule (sterile)

this is just procreation, though i fail to see how this deals with evolution. in fact, it is quite the opposite of evolution since advantageous traits cannot, knowing the progeny, be passed on to further offspring.

This is a very clear example of speciation. These two independent species are so closely related as to be indistinguishable. However, a SINGLE mutation is what seperates them into two species. Generating that mutation in the opposite species leads to reproductive isolation of that lineage. This is not just procreation.

And it should be noted that selection is not just on advantageous traits. In fact, most mutations are deleterious, decreasing the occurrence of that mutation in subsequent generations. Well, technically, most mutations are silent due to the wobble in the genetic code. Most nonsynonymous mutations are under purifying selection.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by riverfreak:
This is a very clear example of speciation. These two independent species are so closely related as to be indistinguishable. However, a SINGLE mutation is what seperates them into two species. Generating that mutation in the opposite species leads to reproductive isolation of that lineage. This is not just procreation.

In fact, procreation NOT leading to viable offspring is precisely WHY this is speciation.

Ass-backwards argument, adamk.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by theolein:
You mean unlike you and me?

See my post over in the bunker-party thread for explanation.

-s*

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
In fact, procreation NOT leading to viable offspring is precisely WHY this is speciation.

Ass-backwards argument, adamk.

-s*

i concede. though, if i understand it, this new species cannot procreate, so is therefore a short-lived species? so it's speciation. but is it evolution? since it may end when the species (consisting of one example) dies?

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
In fact, procreation NOT leading to viable offspring is precisely WHY this is speciation.

Ass-backwards argument, adamk.

-s*

Thanks for the clarification, Spheric. Kinda tired right now. Time for 'nog.

[wolfen]

Welcome to page 7 of absolutely nowhere.

Why not take this talent of informed speculation to the commodities markets?... where it counts.

[entrox]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Welcome to page 7 of absolutely nowhere.

You're absolutely right. Debating with close-minded, illogical fundamentalists is comparable with talking to a wall.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by chris v:
There is no one irrefutable single fact that proves all evolution beyond a doubt, but there is a large preponderance of evidence, when taken as a whole, that points to some sort of evolutionary mechanism, whether it's understood precisely or not.

I'm not saying that evolution is impossible or definitely not the way man came to be. It's one reasonable theory amongst many, all of which have huge holes which require us to accept certain things on faith if we wish to claim that we definitely know how man came to be.

To say that not having a precise picture of evolution with every iota of information in place is tantamount to the biblical Genesis story being utterly and literally accurate is the most bizarre stretch of imagination.

CV

To insist that something that has no "precise nature" (because it's simply a theory or possible idea) is the only one and true method of man's genesis, IS just as silly as people who believe in creation because of their personal spiritual beliefs. Both require people to have faith in that which they do not know, and can not prove.

Originally posted by Stradlater:
? Poor argument, scientists base their philosophy on experiments and the present state of scientific affairs and "proofs". Creationists, however, base their philosophy on an unchanging book, even when their semantics change!

Which shows you how much you know about the spiritual side of man. Just because of a "unchanging book"?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Which shows you how much you know about the spiritual side of man. Just because of a "unchanging book"?

The spiritual side of man? You mean the part that made man seek out answers to the big mysteries of the universe before he had the tools or sense to do so accurately? You mean his fear of death and wont to create pleasanter conclusions than the unknown? I guess maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I'm saying that SOME Christians are stuck taking the Bible completely literally when the meaning of the words of the translation they read is slightly, yet dramatically in some cases, different than it was at the time of writing and at the time of translation.

[Superchicken]

In response to your argument that we should show how that God created something, you show that evolution created life. Ultimately the theory can never really concretely state that because we have no empirical data that shows THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, we have stuff that if you ignore God points that this is somewhere around a likely explanation, but we do not have PROOF, you have to have a fair bit of faith to believe evolution, you all talk about it as if it's a certainty, but the theory it'self is still evolving and changing. Thus don't count your chickens till they're hatched.

There are many many different probable or improbable theories for the beginnings of both the earth and life. You don't have the only one that a lot of thought has gone into, and intelligent people on both sides of the fence argue their points. Until you have researched the theory and admitted that all sides make valid points, you are not educated enough to make any sort of statement on the issue.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by entrox:
Sorry, but evolution theory does not describe one species suddenly transforming into a completely different species of a completely different family. Furthermore, such an event would be actually a disproof of evolution theory, since it would contradict the evolutionary concept of inter-species homology within families and the need for evolutionary processes to explain such homology. This is a typical straw man argument.

Sorry, but evolution theory would require some sort of gradual link between species and produce what are commonly known as "missing links". In other words, out of all the current fossil record there should be at least ONE single linking species to show a connection. There is none. In fact, often times it seems as though when someone tries to establish even a loose link between humans and other pre-historic species, that it ends up that newer fossil discoveries eliminates the possibility.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for evolution to be the answer...just that it's highly unlikely. I can't prove creationism either. Go figure.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
In response to your argument that we should show how that God created something, you show that evolution created life. Ultimately the theory can never really concretely state that because we have no empirical data that shows THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, we have stuff that if you ignore God points that this is somewhere around a likely explanation, but we do not have PROOF, you have to have a fair bit of faith to believe evolution, you all talk about it as if it's a certainty, but the theory it'self is still evolving and changing. Thus don't count your chickens till they're hatched.

There are many many different probable or improbable theories for the beginnings of both the earth and life. You don't have the only one that a lot of thought has gone into, and intelligent people on both sides of the fence argue their points. Until you have researched the theory and admitted that all sides make valid points, you are not educated enough to make any sort of statement on the issue.

You just said that with one year in Bio you were smart enough to know that evolution is doubtful. You just said that people should just admit there's no proof to know anything. Yet you also claimed that you KNOW God exists and has personally taken credit for the creation of the universe. Practice what you preach or, Mr. Pot at least try not to call Dr. Kettle black.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by deekay1:
wrong. the "mechanisms" of micro and macro evolution are exactly the same. "micro" evolution has been observed many times.

The "mechanism" which would bring about the evolution of one species into another is simply hypothosized. You can't scientifically say that because one form exists or has been observed, that the other hypothesized mechanism is "exactly the same". You might BELIEVE it to be the same, but you can't verify that it even exists when you can't produce a single verifiable piece of evidence that it ever happened...EVER.... amongst all fossil record. It's a good guess supported by faith.

show me any instance where a devine being creates anything. any mechanism, any shred of evidence that even comes close...

I'll go about trying when you can show me evidence that proves that one species ever evolved into another. You can't prove that this type of mechanism has EVER occured, no less that it occured on the scale that it would have had to be done to create human man, all you've done is show me what it is that you are accepting via your personal faith

If you can, you've done better than any scientist who has tried before. And to be clear, my argument is that EVERYONE who claims to know how man came to be, and refuse to look at other possibilities, even mocking those who might believe in other theories, are short sighted and engaging behavior which goes toward pegging the irony-meter� at 11.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I'm not saying that it's impossible for evolution to be the answer...just that it's highly unlikely.

Honestly, how is it any more unlikely than a divine spirit creating the earth and man?

And let's retrace our steps back a little...there still hasn't been any rebuttals of the rebuttals against the 6000-year claims.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by adamk:
i concede. though, if i understand it, this new species cannot procreate, so is therefore a short-lived species? so it's speciation. but is it evolution? since it may end when the species (consisting of one example) dies?

It is not the mule that is the new species.

it is the donkey and the horse that are exactly ONE GENE short of producing viable offspring.

That single gene makes them different species.

It is not so long ago that mules and horses actually *could* interbreed - but didn't, due to geographic separation (and, I believe, selective breeding artificially forced by humans).

Speciation in action.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I'm not saying that evolution is impossible or definitely not the way man came to be. It's one reasonable theory amongst many, all of which have huge holes which require us to accept certain things on faith if we wish to claim that we definitely know how man came to be.

There are not "many" reasonable theories.

In fact, AFAICS, there are exactly TWO: Evolution or Creation.

The "holes" you see in the evolution Theory (capitalized to distinguish accepted "factual" Scientific Theory from coffetable musings) are merely missing models (see my post above): There is no doubt among scientists THAT evolution happens.

It is merely in some situations not 100% certain how *exactly* - by what method it occurs (or occurred).

And in those situations, until further evidence has been uncovered in the form of fossils, or a fitting model has been put forth, you COULD indeed claim the "Hand of God", insofar as He helped evolution along.

But I have never seen a Creationist argue that point.

-s*

[entrox]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Sorry, but evolution theory would require some sort of gradual link between species and produce what are commonly known as "missing links". In other words, out of all the current fossil record there should be at least ONE single linking species to show a connection. There is none. In fact, often times it seems as though when someone tries to establish even a loose link between humans and other pre-historic species, that it ends up that newer fossil discoveries eliminates the possibility.

The word you're looking for is "transitional fossil", whose apparent absence is often the crux of a Creationist argument. Let me cite some examples: the Devonian lungfish, which is the transitional from water-breathers to air-breathers or Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx and Archaeopteryx as some of the intermediaries linking theropod dinosaurs and birds or Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans and Basilosaurus linking mammals and whales.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And in those situations, until further evidence has been uncovered in the form of fossils, or a fitting model has been put forth, you COULD indeed claim the "Hand of God", insofar as He helped evolution along.

But I have never seen a Creationist argue that point.

-s*

No some do argue that, it's a branch called 'naturalist theology' or the 'Intelligent Design Movement.' But it's riddled with its own inconsistencies as well. Eg the one I mentioned earlier about the watchmaker analogy. If you're interested though, the main proponent is Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley who I never got a chance to troll while I was there because I didn't know of him

He wrote that book Darwin on Trial a few years ago that you may have heard of.

I think the main reason a lot of creationists won't agree with the intelligent design side fully is because they feel doing so would mean they're accepting evolution at some level and agreeing with the atheists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
The "mechanism" which would bring about the evolution of one species into another is simply hypothosized. You can't scientifically say that because one form exists or has been observed, that the other hypothesized mechanism is "exactly the same". You might BELIEVE it to be the same, but you can't verify that it even exists when you can't produce a single verifiable piece of evidence that it ever happened...EVER.... amongst all fossil record. It's a good guess supported by faith.

Your entire post is based upon the confusion of phenomenon of Evolution and the *mechanisms* by which it happens.

Allow a rather timely analogy: Up until the late 19th century, nobody understood *how* birds fly. We knew it happened, because we saw evidence of it everywhere. But we had no idea what mechanism it worked by.

Yet only complete fools would have claimed that birds didn't actually fly, because we didn't understand the details of *how* they do it.

To repeat what I wrote above: There are definitely exceptions in the fossil record where Darwin's mechanism of speciation by natural selection does not apply. However, evolution has *obviously* taken place (new species DID evolve), and others have come forth with alternate mechanisms that explain those situations.

To continue the analogy: We know how birds fly*). Dandelion seeds *also* fly. We can *see* them flying. But they don't use the same mechanism as birds.

You can do one of two things: stick your head in the sand and say it ain't so, and dandelions in fact fall straight to the ground - in the face of evidence to the contrary - or you can accept that they *do* fly, but that they must use a different sort of mechanism.

And before you attempt to change the definition of "fly" to "move through the air under own power using principles of airflow and pressure to achieve lift on wings", I can use that definition to prove, conclusively, that rockets DO NOT fly.


*) That is to say, we have THEORIES about air flow speeds and relative pressure, and the influence of wing shapes, and resulting lift, that serve as a model to explain the mechanism of winged flight. They *seem* to be accurate, because we've measured data to correlate theory, and because we've built machines according to theory that actually do work - the jumbo jet and the B-2 bomber being some of the later applications of theory.

-s*

[itai195]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Until you have researched the theory and admitted that all sides make valid points, you are not educated enough to make any sort of statement on the issue.

BBBUUUZZZZZZZZZ, wrong, try again. That's a non-starter.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by entrox:
The word you're looking for is "transitional fossil", whose apparent absence is often the crux of a Creationist argument. Let me cite some examples: the Devonian lungfish, which is the transitional from water-breathers to air-breathers or Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx and Archaeopteryx as some of the intermediaries linking theropod dinosaurs and birds or Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans and Basilosaurus linking mammals and whales.

There's some evidence, stupendous, so now will you "go about trying" to "show me any instance where a devine being creates anything. any mechanism, any shred of evidence that even comes close..."?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by itai195:
No some do argue that, it's a branch called 'naturalist theology' or the 'Intelligent Design Movement.' But it's riddled with its own inconsistencies as well. Eg the one I mentioned earlier about the watchmaker analogy. If you're interested though, the main proponent is Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley who I never got a chance to troll while I was there because I didn't know of him

He wrote that book Darwin on Trial a few years ago that you may have heard of.

I think the main reason a lot of creationists won't agree with the intelligent design side fully is because they feel doing so would mean they're accepting evolution at some level and agreeing with the atheists.

Ah - thanks. I wasn't aware of "Hand of God" theoreticians.

But as you say, these people are not strictly Creationists - they are, fundamentally, evolutionist, in the sense of this discussion here.

-s*

[itai195]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
There's some evidence, stupendous, so now will you "go about trying" to "show me any instance where a devine being creates anything. any mechanism, any shred of evidence that even comes close..."?

Isn't it interesting that it's the Creationists who are asking for empirical evidence? They can't disprove the theory, so they're trying to disprove it by observation. It's convenient that the Creation myth averts the need for empirical evidence because 'God works in mysterious ways.' I don't know how any rational person can honestly buy that in the face of another theory that, at the very least, is logical.

[Dubloseven]

Originally posted by entrox:
Debating with close-minded, illogical fundamentalists is comparable with talking to a wall.

And i suppose you are an open-minded, logical, middle-of-the-line non-fundamentalist? You have to start criticizing because someone else doesn't agree with you? Just because the wall doesn't move doesn't mean it is wrong. Look at yourself first before you start pointing fingers ( ). You aren't accepting what the creationists are talking about; does that make you a wall?

proud to be a smart creationist that is continually criticized.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Dubloseven:
And i suppose you are an open-minded, logical, middle-of-the-line non-fundamentalist? You have to start criticizing because someone else doesn't agree with you? Just because the wall doesn't move doesn't mean it is wrong. Look at yourself first before you start pointing fingers ( ). You aren't accepting what the creationists are talking about; does that make you a wall?

proud to be a smart creationist that is continually criticized.

The criticism comes with rebuttals that refute the claims made by creationists to defend their poor assertions that the earth is merely 6,000 years old.

"Smart creationist" sounds an awful lot like an oxymoron if that creationist truly believes that the earth is about 6,000 365.25-day years.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Dubloseven:
You aren't accepting what the creationists are talking about; does that make you a wall?

Somehow, I don't think the Creationists gave him any reason/evidence to accept what they're talking about. If I actually cared much about this debate, I know for sure that I wouldn't accept the Creationist argument of believing in "God" on blind faith as a way to disprove evolution (and then going on into the, it's so because God did it, etc.). I think about the only way I'd believe in "God" is if there was actually proof that he existed, e.g., I walked outside, he boomed from the "heavens," 'thou shalt die' and struck me down with lightning. Or something like that. Obviously, no kind of proof even remotely like that will ever happen.

If I'm expected to believe one thing on blind faith, and expected to believe another thing that actually has substantial evidence to support it's existence to some extent, I'll believe the latter.

I also think it's funny that the Creationists try to disprove Evolution as a way to prove that God and Creation are a real thing. If there were ever only two sides to every possible argument could something like this ever work. I'm sure somebody could easily bring a third POV into this debate.

Edit: Here, I think I'll make an example. I think monkeys created the universe and that humans evolved from cheese. I have no evidence to support this, but I expect you to believe it on blind faith. It's a possible scenario, so it doesn't mean that if Evolution isn't true then Creationism is right, because this could actually be the way it is. OTOH, it's just as silly as saying an all-powerful, omnipotent, multi-dimensional being created the Earth and everything that lives on it. There's absolutely not one shred of evidence to prove it.

[theolein]

This thread, while being one of the more interesting ones on MacNN, has run into a problem: Belief. The 2live religious crew who believe that God created the whole thing in 6 days flat, seem to have disappeared, having no more ammunition to throw into the argument after having been rather conclusively proven to be quite wrong. Now, the halflife religious crew who believe that God had a hand in it all and who fear that evolution could change this vision is arguing against the graceful dead crew who believe that God was not party to the action.

What, pray tell does evolution have to do with discounting spirituality? Why can't one feel that yes, there is a spiritual plane, but that it exists in all things in the universe and makes no special exception for humans? Why does God always have to be the same hoary old man with a bad temper, no sense of humour and strangely contradictory messages (The massive slaughtering that goes on in the old testament versus the 1st commandment)? Why do certain people of certain religions claim their belief is one of love and peace where their same religion has been used a battle cry in the slaughter of untold thousands?

Why does God favour people over dolphins, or mice for that matter? (Douglas Adams, where are you?)

Why would God be an entity instead of a feeling of light inside every living thing (and what about the earth itself, or the planets)? Why can't we feel God in the evening breeze or the crack of dawn?

And why is one specific religion, or group of religions (The big three) the Right religion? What makes Christianity better than Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism for that matter?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Dubloseven:
And i suppose you are an open-minded, logical, middle-of-the-line non-fundamentalist? You have to start criticizing because someone else doesn't agree with you? Just because the wall doesn't move doesn't mean it is wrong. Look at yourself first before you start pointing fingers ( ). You aren't accepting what the creationists are talking about; does that make you a wall?

proud to be a smart creationist that is continually criticized.

There's something sad about being proud of one's masochism and something contradictory in the two words smart and creationist, as I have seen it in this discussion.

The links that ebuddy (one of your smart friends) posted to try and prove, through a very awkward pseudo science theory on the speed of light continually slowing down so as to prove that the universe started 6000 years ago, were quite obviously shown to be falsifications and outright lies. There was nothing smarter about them than the smartness a trickster uses to seperate you and your money through spam mails.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by theolein:
This thread, while being one of the more interesting ones on MacNN, has run into a problem: Belief. The 2live religious crew who believe that God created the whole thing in 6 days flat, seem to have disappeared, having no more ammunition to throw into the argument after having been rather conclusively proven to be quite wrong. Now, the halflife religious crew who believe that God had a hand in it all and who fear that evolution could change this vision is arguing against the graceful dead crew who believe that God was not party to the action.

What, pray tell does evolution have to do with discounting spirituality? Why can't one feel that yes, there is a spiritual plane, but that it exists in all things in the universe and makes no special exception for humans? Why does God always have to be the same hoary old man with a bad temper, no sense of humour and strangely contradictory messages (The massive slaughtering that goes on in the old testament versus the 1st commandment)? Why do certain people of certain religions claim their belief is one of love and peace where their same religion has been used a battle cry in the slaughter of untold thousands?

Why does God favour people over dolphins, or mice for that matter? (Douglas Adams, where are you?)

Why would God be an entity instead of a feeling of light inside every living thing (and what about the earth itself, or the planets)? Why can't we feel God in the evening breeze or the crack of dawn?

And why is one specific religion, or group of religions (The big three) the Right religion? What makes Christianity better than Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism for that matter?

wonderfully written

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The "holes" you see in the evolution Theory (capitalized to distinguish accepted "factual" Scientific Theory from coffetable musings) are merely missing models (see my post above): There is no doubt among scientists THAT evolution happens.

It is merely in some situations not 100% certain how *exactly* - by what method it occurs (or occurred).

How can you have "no doubt" about something which you have no DIRECT evidence to support. "Missing models" is a nice euphemism for "lack of solid evidence". This is precisely what evolutionists complain about creationists. Doesn't sound very scientific to me. It was always my belief that a true scientist didn't accept things as "fact" unless it could be proven. In this case, you're forgoing the religious faith to explain something and instead relying on another faith based belief system. THAT isn't science.

[Dubloseven]

Originally posted by stupendousman:


How can you have "no doubt" about something which you have no DIRECT evidence to support. "Missing models" is a nice euphemism for "lack of solid evidence". This is precisely what evolutionists complain about creationists. Doesn't sound very scientific to me. It was always my belief that a true scientist didn't accept things as "fact" unless it could be proven. In this case, you're forgoing the religious faith to explain something and instead relying on another faith based belief system. THAT isn't science. [/B]

oh snap!
i like it

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:


How can you have "no doubt" about something which you have no DIRECT evidence to support. "Missing models" is a nice euphemism for "lack of solid evidence". This is precisely what evolutionists complain about creationists. Doesn't sound very scientific to me. It was always my belief that a true scientist didn't accept things as "fact" unless it could be proven. In this case, you're forgoing the religious faith to explain something and instead relying on another faith based belief system. THAT isn't science.

Have you been reading this thread thoroughly? There has been evolutionary evidence dispensed throughout. "Missing models" a nice euphemism for "lack of solid evidence"? A system with SOME evidential models that are missing but others in existence with logical reasoning seems more attractive than a system with NO evidence and the sole model being a book that can in no way be proven to be the word of God.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Dubloseven:
oh snap!
i like it

A "smart" creationist would

[adamk]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Sorry, but evolution theory would require some sort of gradual link between species and produce what are commonly known as "missing links". In other words, out of all the current fossil record there should be at least ONE single linking species to show a connection. There is none.

i think if you do look at the fossil record, you can establish links through many branches of animals through time. birds coming from dinosaurs, is a link that is being established, though 20 years ago, the evidence supporting that hypothesis did not exist. some creatures change rapidly, and others are very similiar to their ancestors despite millions of years of existence. fossils are the exception to the rule, most animals who die, are not buried, and therefore stand zero chance of being preserved. also remember that our access to the rock record is very limited, so that many fossils that exist cannot be accessed (and may never be).

as far as evidence for "missing links", we may never find them, but without being able to link every dot, we can still see a progression, that is not outside the realm of possibility.