Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod by leadb

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTI- I thinkwe need some honest dialogue here.

Quote:
can i just say thanks Rue, for getting him started on his naturalistic soap box. out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two. At least im straightforward about my lens, my worldview, while some like to hide in the shadows and claim ambiguity. its hard to assess someones beliefs if they wont clearly put them out on the table.

Everything you suggest so far has rested on a very literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't feel that you're an IDer as much as you would like to... hide behind?... that designation. You're a Creationist. Say it loud and say it proud and stop arguing ID because that's really not your thing.

Quote:
now obviously no one but God is omniscient, so lacking infinite knowledge does inhibit our decisions, but the ideological significance and societal consequences of the various views are very (if not more) relevant (that was the purpose of my post in the Ron Paul thread)

I'm a scientist, an atheist, and I believe in loving my neighbor. I don't need the specter of hellfire and damnation to care about what happens to others, and IMHO neither do most people.

Quote:
it takes a great deal of conditioning and brainwashing to devalue someones soul and humanity like that

I agree. But it's not "science" that undermining our humanity, it's capitalism.

Quote:
Fredgiblet: Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because...

Anti: .. just maybe the observable data isnt their like somany hope it to be? or maybe its not intuitive for human beings to accept that our ancestors were primates millions of ago.

The evidence is there, but you have to get your nose of of the Bible long enough to go out and look at it. Don't take someone's "word" for it, go look at a stream, chip some rocks, just perform some basic Earth Science.

Quote:
.. because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject. =FRED

religious pressure? i think you have that backwards, public schools have been teaching evolution almost strictly since atleast the scopes trial, but definitely by the 1960s. and my understanding is that it had more to do with a socialist/communist political agenda then scientific strides in understanding.= ANTI

There has been a HUGE leap in scientific understanding since the 1960's, and several refinements and new concepts have been introduced into evolution, espeically with the advance of DNA characterization. For example, most attention was paid to nuclear DNA but mitchondrial DNA (passed exclusively along maternal lines) is now considered in detail. It has been speculated that our mitochondria were at one time an independent life-form that may have reached a symbiotic relationship with other cells. Like I said, you have to get your nose out of the Bible long enough to become aware of what's going on around you.

Quote:
so i would say its equally secular evolutionists doing the pressuring

With good reason.

Quote:
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".

I think it is more important to teach people how to observe and to reason than it is to teach "facts". For example, your explanation for sediments on top of mountains (the flood) simply cannot explain the depth of layers made by shells and diatoms, which would need thousands of years to accumulate. Simple obervation and reasoning would indicate the Bible-based error.

Quote:
'yeah, check the facts.. over 50 million years ago we diverged from primates! you fools.. dont you know a billion years ago we were amphibious organisms in a primordial soup!?' thats what the textbooks say... so ive heard the theory, and choose to consider other possibilities

Again, lack of honesty undercuts your argument. You don't "choose to consider" other possiblities, you wholeheartedly believe in a literal intepretation of the Bible.

Quote:
Accepting evolution doesn't make someone a sheep any more then accepting basic chemistry.=FRED

chemistry is a different story(its more repeatable), but the degree of evolution really depends. i personally believe there was a supernatural cause to the universe, that universal laws and complex genetic information dont write themselves, and that things dont appear and change through their own will, by solely natural causes. but a naturalist, atheist evolutionist would disagree.. so the burden of evidence, especially physical, is on them, and currently its far from conclusive=ANTI

There is no contradictory evidence to evolution so far. Meanwhile Biblical accounts of "the flood" are nothing more than heresay, and are fully contradicted by current evidence.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:16 PM

Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you. See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.

Actually leadb. The post was between me and fred. Rue stuck her big ass in when I pointed out siggy was trolling me and flame baiting. BDN agreed rue did not , and you misread....I'll forgive you sinse I've already gone on record as liking you.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:25 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:

Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you.

do you mean it wasnt competently designed? its perfectly suitable for our spiritual and emotional experiences

Quote:
See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling

and i can appreciate that, you atleast consider that a higher intelligence had established the hardware and complexity of the universe prior to its 'evolution'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:27 PM

"can i just say thanks Rue, for getting him started on his naturalistic soap box. out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two.

atleast im straightforward about my lens, my worldview, while some like to hide in the shadows and claim ambiguity. its hard to assess someones beliefs if they wont clearly put them out on the table. now obviously no one but God is omniscient, so lacking infinite knowledge does inhibit our decisions, but the ideological significance and societal consequences of the various views are very (if not more) relevant (that was the purpose of my post in the Ron Paul thread)"

What? Surely you are not talking about me. I must be reading this wrong. If it is about me please explain. Oh, your shift button makes caps.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm a guessing you can't hold a job.

Well, it's true ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTI- I added a whole lot to my reply. (above)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:22 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two.

*sigh*
Evolution has no bearing on the existence of a creator

There has been only two attempts to give ID any sort of scientific backing, Irreducible Complexity failed because Behe ignored 2 of the 3 mechanisms for the development of systems and because what the argument eventually can down to was an Argument From Ignorance (i.e. "We don't know how it happened so god must have done it"). Specified Complexity failed on many different levels as shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#case We ignore them because they have no value, if an ID proponent came up with something worth considering then it would be considered, it's not our fault that they have failed to do so.

As for ID and creationism, well, here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html I don't think there's much to add to that.

Quote:
Quote:
posted Fredgiblet- Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because...

.. just maybe the observable data isnt their like somany hope it to be? or maybe its not intuitive for human beings to accept that our ancestors were primates millions of ago.

Just because you choose to ignore the data doesn't mean it's not there.

As for being intuitive, if that was the measure by what we chose to teach then most math classes and language classes would shut down.

Quote:
Quote:
.. because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject.

religious pressure? i think you have that backwards, public schools have been teaching evolution almost strictly since atleast the scopes trial, but definitely by the 1960s. and my understanding is that it had more to do with a socialist/communist political agenda then scientific strides in understanding. so i would say its equally secular evolutionists doing the pressuring

Yes evolution has been taught exclusively, but religious pressure keeps it from being taught well. I've seen letters from college Biology teachers who've said that Biology 101 sometimes starts to look like Remedial Evolution class because of the lack of knowledge from the incoming students.

Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".

'yeah, check the facts.. over 50 million years ago we diverged from primates! you fools.. dont you know a billion years ago we were amphibious organisms in a primordial soup!?' thats what the textbooks say... so ive heard the theory, and choose to consider other possibilities

*sigh*
I'm talking more along the line of the "The Second Law Of Thermodynamics says that evolution can't happen" or "Evolution is a religion" crap.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:25 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".
I think it is more important to teach people how to observe and to reason than it is to teach "facts". For example, your explanation for sediments on top of mountains (the flood) simply cannot explain the depth of layers made by shells and diatoms, which would need thousands of years to accumulate. Simple obervation and reasoning would indicate the Bible-based error.

Uh...Sig? This was me not anti, but you still make a good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:38 PM

ANTIMASON

what can i say Fred? im just an ignorant bible thumber. how can we possibly find common ground? ill always be a scientific heretic for being skeptical, and youll always be right because secular society endorses atheistic evolution

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm a guessing you can't hold a job.

Well, it's true ...

You are correct. I don't HOLD a job..I create them. What say you? I own my business and I employ 9 people who feed and support their families. You..you dildo using fat-cunt-slut surely can't say the same. So get off my ass..

......Well, it's true..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:24 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...atheistic evolution

Cool! We get evolution! Can we have gravity and relativity as well? (two of my favorites). Just so it's fair you can have the flat earth and crop circles, ok?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:

Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you.

do you mean it wasnt competently designed? its perfectly suitable for our spiritual and emotional experiences

Quote:
See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling

and i can appreciate that, you atleast consider that a higher intelligence had established the hardware and complexity of the universe prior to its 'evolution'

Hmmm...perhaps I should have quoted to be clearer....
" but a naturalist, atheist evolutionist would disagree.. so the burden of evidence, especially physical, is on them, and currently its far from conclusive" The view I'm 'presenting' is consistent with the view you are atributing to the 'naturalist, atheist'; I guess what confuses me you consistently attribute the need to provide 'evidence' to be on the part of 'naturalists' and 'atheists'; but why not the various theists; and for that matter, I have many 'good Christian' friends who find the theory of evolution quite acceptable; why do you not 'burden' them with the need to provide evidence? It's not like they have a separate evolutionary theory.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Uhh huh. And I'm a Nobel Prize winner and CEO of a Fortune 500 company. "You..you" ... Words fail you again ??? That happens a lot when people have your condition. Too bad it's the resistant kind.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
You are correct. I don't HOLD a job..I create them. What say you? I own my business and I employ 9 people who feed and support their families. You..you dildo using fat-cunt-slut surely can't say the same. So get off my ass.. ......Well, it's true..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.
Actually leadb. The post was between me and fred. Rue stuck her big ass in when I pointed out siggy was trolling me and flame baiting. BDN agreed rue did not , and you misread....I'll forgive you sinse I've already gone on record as liking you.....

:-) Ok, re-checked and I concede I got confused with some of the extra name calling; but I will stick with ... my thought/agreement/whatever ;-)... that we could see some -improvement- in how evolution is taught in schools (at least those in my area).

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
what can i say Fred? im just an ignorant bible thumber. ill always be a scientific heretic for being skeptical, and youll always be right because secular society endorses atheistic evolution

No, Anti- you're not ignorant. Nor are you a "heretic" of any sort. And the word 'skeptical" doesn't apply. Why do you play these silly games and misrepresent yourself so thoroughly? Does it make you feel better to see yourself as a free-thinking rebel?
I hate to tell you this, but that's just another part of your delusion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Perhaps you can come up with a word that means proven to the extent that science allows things to be proven.

There is no such word. There is no such thing. You cannot prove something to some extent. You either prove it or you don’t. And we don’t know what extent science allows. In a hundred years of laboratory experiments, we may find that a species of insect diverse from a fruit fly is produced by successive breeding, or we may discover that our interpretation of the evidence was wrong and in fact species don’t actually evolve.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I don't know how many evolution threads you've participated in but the way it usually works is when someone jumps in saying "It's not proven" it's usually followed by a bunch of repetitious crap arguments that have all been disproven long ago. Like many things evolution has become very much an "us vs. them" issue so by coming in and saying "it's not proven" you immediately place yourself in the "them" category when all you're trying to do is point out that "proof" doesn't really exist in science.

Exactly my point, but I shouldn’t have to be in your club in order to agree with the Theory of Evolution. I shouldn’t have to state my devotion to the religion of evolution. If I think, as is widely accepted, that science cannot prove anything, then I shouldn’t be required to state or imply that Evolution is proven, just to prolong some ridiculous rivalry. If I’m not convinced that Evolution is a fact, then I shouldn’t be required to state that it is, when no such evidence exists, just to satisfy the devoted. That is not science. That is devotion to an infallible doctrine. It may be religion or it may be politics, but it is not science.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:06 AM

Which is why it is important we use language consistently and precisely; unfortunately, that's a hard requirement in a forum thread where many 'lay' folks are likely to participate. Also keep in mind that different disciplines use the language a bit differently, as Causal and I bantered terms back and forth above demonstrates.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"when no such evidence exists" Bullshitte. Again. And there, Finn, is your problem. You can't keep the BS out of your posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think the problem that people like Anti, and to some extent Finn, slide a little too easily between the concepts of "no "proof", "no conclusive evidence", and "no evidence".

"No proof" does not equal "no evidence" no matter how people may try to muddy the issue.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
when no such evidence exists

Usually Finn, you are more precise with your wording.
Evidence exists- it is proof that may not.

Cunning linguist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Cunning linguist" Ahem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, Chris, is all ... this is an old joke, right ? And you posted it on purpose ? Or is my little mind just running free today ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, Chris, is all ... this is an old joke, right ? And you posted it on purpose ? Or is my little mind just running free today ?

I was thinking of Moneypenny from Tomorrow Never Dies...and her line- though not necessarily in a dirty way like she meant it.

Heh heh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
I shouldn’t have to state my devotion to the religion of evolution.

That's not the objection I had to your post, Finn. It's that you said there was just as much evidence for religion as there was for evolution. That's clearly not true. Religion has no evidence, and evolution - quite a bit.

This seems to be a misperception you've carried though the entire thread, despite what's been posted. I don't believe it's about word-smithing, I think it's a misunderstanding on your part. I hope you now have a better idea of what I've been trying to get across.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's like I said... it takes a very special person to deny the evidence of their senses. But if Anti were to be perfectly consistent about the whole thing, s/he would also distrust the very words printed on the pages of the Bible as being just one more illusion, equivalent to the obviously illusory fossil record, the obviously illusory earth sciences, and the obviously illusory similarities between creatures. Because it's all an illusion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
when no such evidence exists
Usually Finn, you are more precise with your wording.
Evidence exists- it is proof that may not.

Cunning linguist Chrisisall

You should try reading what I actually said instead of a few words taken out of context. I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact, and there is no such evidence.

But you’re actually arguing my point for me. By criticizing me for these five words, what you are actually doing is punishing me for my lack of faith. It’s not the precision of my words that bother you, but rather that I don’t imply the infallibility of Evolution in them.

If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"

*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*

" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"

OR

An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........

Love always kaneman

why does this keep getting funnier?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Why oh why do you BS so much? Here are some quotes (below), at length and not taken out of context. You keep saying there's NO evidence for macroevolution. And that's just not true. So how about this - you held a stupid position. You got called on it. Get over it and move on.

And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require, according to evolution theory, prohibitively long time periods.

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position. Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough, and very likely may never be. Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly.

There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. As I said, some parts of it are well-founded, but others are not. But too often, what I see are people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah Finn, there's no Evidence that it's Proved.

That's what you've been saying all along.

Sure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"

*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*

" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"

OR

An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........

Love always kaneman

why does this keep getting funnier?

keeping it lite......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Who left the door open ? There's a fly buzzing around everywhere.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why oh why do you BS so much? Here are some quotes (below), at length and not taken out of context. You keep saying there's NO evidence for macroevolution. And that's just not true.

You’re right. It is not true that I’ve said that. I've never said there was no evidence for macroevolution. I'm quite sure I've never thought that. I was reading books on evolution before I even know that such a thing as Creationism existed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn 1: there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires

Finn 2: I've never said there was no evidence for macroevolution.

Will the real Finn please stand up ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 7:22 PM

ANTIMASON

i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked, but ill never win a debate, because 'religion has no proof', to quote someone above. maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation. although, i could be wrong... i mighta missed the stories about how long long ago, we swung from trees and walked on our knuckles

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm curious what your ideas of history are. There are cave paintings in Lascaux (look it up). Do you believe they were done by people or animals? If people. were they from before or after the flood? Where do they fit in your version of history? Do you think they could have been our ancestors? Do you think they believed in divine creation?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked, but ill never win a debate, because 'religion has no proof', to quote someone above. maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation. although, i could be wrong... i mighta missed the stories about how long long ago, we swung from trees and walked on our knuckles

Yes, our ancestors believed in divine creation, the literal sacrifice of our children to God, that the sun went round the earth, and several other notions now considered repulsive or quaint. Not really sure where you want to go with this one.

Edit: I realize I'm going to sound like I'm contridicting my earlier posts on the original content of this post, as I do believe the universe was designed and created; I'm referring above to the concept that God has been 'tinkering' with either evolution or the start of life or the creation of Earth beyond, shall we say, the initiation of the 'big bang'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked

Cherry picked??? There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred. The evidence is all around you, man. Everyhwere you look. At the Tar Pits. In the deserts of Mongolia and Utah. On the tops of mountains and under the seas. In the DNA of cells and mitochondria and plants, and the bodies of chimps and whales and every other species you care to look at. In labs, where new species are created, and in our own pre-history. It's a Flood of Evidence, a Deluge of Data.

AFA what our ancestors believed... are you going to sacrifice a child to the rain gods when things get a little parched? Blow holy smoke on a sick person? Partake of the magic mushroom?

It doesn't take religion to be in awe of the universe. Just looking at a starry sky is enough to put things in persepctive. It doesn't take religion to care about what happens to us.

-----------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact

Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Quote:

But you’re actually arguing my point for me. By criticizing me for these five words, what you are actually doing is punishing me for my lack of faith. It’s not the precision of my words that bother you, but rather that I don’t imply the infallibility of Evolution in them.

Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells

Again, evolution is a theory, just like the big bang, and all theories carry with them the possibility of fallibility.

Quote:

If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.

Uh...well I for one would have asked for the reasoning behind such a statement (I'm always behind on the newest discoveries....).

Purple and clairvoyant Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred.

To be fair, there has never been any evidence that Saddam did NOT have tactical nukes, with ICBM's to carry them

Skewed Devil's Adv Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells

Chris, haven’t you heard. I’m a Republican. Only the Power of Three can vanquish me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But very little evidence in support of, either.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells
Chris, haven’t you heard. I’m a Republican. Only the Power of Three can vanquish me.

What if I do the same spell three times....?

Silly silly British Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if I do the same spell three times....?

Silly silly British Chrisisall

No good. It has to be done by three hot ladies in skimpy outfits. I’ve been watching Charmed. I’m well versed in the laws of Witchcraft.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:01 AM

"The evidence is all around you, man. Everyhwere you look. At the Tar Pits. In the deserts of Mongolia and Utah."

I don't think that tar pits, that show some animals have gone extinct, can be classified as evidence of evolution. Well, not in the real world anyway........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:04 AM

"There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred."

How about the lack of any transitional stages...Oops! I forgot about the deluge of data, pardon me.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.
Uh...well I for one would have asked for the reasoning behind such a statement (I'm always behind on the newest discoveries....).

Actually, I belive Finn's point is the use of the word 'proves' rather than 'supports'; the semantics thing. And, since I'm commenting...
Finn... I've commented a few times on various folks twiddling the two; I may or may not comment on a specific instance depending on if I think the semantics is causing a problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred."

How about the lack of any transitional stages...Oops! I forgot about the deluge of data, pardon me.........

Generally, anything found will only cut the 'transitional' stage from a wider span to a lesser span; so, unless we can produce a fossil of every creature which ever lived, there will be some folk who are not satisfied.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:14 AM