TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Kia Kaha evolution theory is much like christianity in that it relies on people making baseless suppositions as to what did or didn't happen millions of years ago. You're talking their own language. |
Occ did a nice job posting on some specifics of the article you gave, Nellie. It is a common fallacy for Creationist websites to draw upon outdated information. The reason for this is quite clear: the arguments they draw upon have been the same arguments for decades.
| quote: |
| Micro are small changes within the same species, Macro is like that whole ape into man issue. There is a huge difference. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Kia Kaha Aaaahhhh christian-baiting - the sport of kings  Talking about that whole evolution / non-evolution thing in the context of trying to get fundamentalist christians to defend their faith, is such a waste of time ... evolution theory is much like christianity in that it relies on people making baseless suppositions as to what did or didn't happen millions of years ago. You're talking their own language. |
| quote: |
The way to make fundamentalists see what shit they are shovelling, is the 'fruits of the spirit' argument ... bring it into the present, ask them for proof that they are happier than non believers or those of other religions. It's one of their central beliefs and of course they can't do it because most of them are, at the core, very very small minded and frightened individuals. Dig into it for a few hours with them and you'll touch some REAL sore nerves I guarantee  |
| quote: |
Anyway back to the thread topic ... check THIS shit out  www.godhatesfags.com |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You are proving my point about your knowledge on evolution. I won't quibble any more details with you further until you actually read the information I posted. That information is drawn upon by actual scientists, and is certainly a lot more current. If you have any problems with the information, you're welcome to ask me here, or if you feel more comfortable, drop me a PM. Admittedly I'm not the most knowledgable biologist in the world (well, B.S. in it at least), but I have engaged in a number of evo-creation forums throughout the years to know and understand the fallacious arguments of creationists. It is something I enjoy doing everyday as a hobby, more or less. |
| quote: |
| And to answer your specific questions, I must again stress to please read the material I posted. They specifically address your questions, including the fish-tetrapods question you refer to. In addition to Occ's info, here's some more: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html Another interesting link on fossil transitions: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you will read the material. Please do so. If you have questions, please ask or PM me. |
| quote: |
| -Have you noticed that not one creationist article has ever been published by a peer-reviewed science journal? Do you want to know why (and it's not a conspiracy, I assure you). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 God can be proven through science,Whether you like it or not. It's happened many times.. Like I had mentioned before.. There is a book called " the case for faith ". I'm also watching a tape for biology that is about evolution... Biologists and other scientists had proven God really exists. I can get the name of the tape if you'd like. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 God can be proven through science,Whether you like it or not. It's happened many times.. Like I had mentioned before.. There is a book called " the case for faith ". I'm also watching a tape for biology that is about evolution... Biologists and other scientists had proven God really exists. I can get the name of the tape if you'd like. |
| quote: |
Umm, did you miss the part where he said he read the book already? On a side note, I've recently decided to read the complete bible and the amount of contradictions in it amazes me, especially in the genesis part. The "flaws" of the evolution theory are really not so much flaws as intentional creationist twisting of the story. But the bible contains so many passages that are in disagreement with each other, so please don't make me start pointing out all the rediculous fallacies in it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Umm, did you miss the part where he said he read the book already? On a side note, I've recently decided to read the complete bible and the amount of contradictions in it amazes me, especially in the genesis part. The "flaws" of the evolution theory are really not so much flaws as intentional creationist twisting of the story. But the bible contains so many passages that are in disagreement with each other, so please don't make me start pointing out all the rediculous fallacies in it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yes, I guess I did miss the part. But, If you are seeing contradictions,then you aren't interpreting it correctly. Evolution is only a "theory" Remeber that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Source? And please don't list a book. If it's such a cogent, established proof then I'm sure you could find it on the web somewhere. I'm curious to see who these "biologists" and "scientists" are ... it's quite rare for a "scientist" to maintain such absolute certainty about anything enough to make the case for a scientific proof as opposed to a well founded theory. I can't imagine the argument that proves the existence of God. I'm prepared to be blown away. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Yes however, it's a much more established and verifiable theory than the theory of creationism. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I can list what I please, bare this in mind. It can be read in a book,and it can be seen on a tape,I'm sure there are other sources,but I haven't located them yet. The fact of the matter is, Even if I did show you the proof..would you accept it? More than likely not. You'd find a reason to criticize it. I know how you all think,I wasn't born yesterday.(Even though I'm sure a lot of you would like to think that.) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Yes however, it's a much more established and verifiable theory than the theory of creationism. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut What makes you say that? Just because there's never been a single paper on "creation science" ever published in a peer review journal? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It can be read in a book,and it can be seen on a tape,I'm sure there are other sources,but I haven't located them yet. The fact of the matter is, Even if I did show you the proof..would you accept it? More than likely not. You'd find a reason to criticize it. I know how you all think,I wasn't born yesterday.(Even though I'm sure a lot of you would like to think that.) |
you forget artic that the bible is unarguable proof that god exists
in all seriousness WhoaNellie, why Christianity, why not Buddhism or Jedi or Scientology? they are much more logical and peaceful. You'll find that one of my bibles 'Fight Club' is a better guide to living and more ethical than the bible will ever be, give it a try
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi you forget artic that the bible is unarguable proof that god exists in all seriousness WhoaNellie, why Christianity, why not Buddhism or Jedi or Scientology? they are much more logical and peaceful. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yes, I guess I did miss the part. |
| quote: |
| But, If you are seeing contradictions,then you aren't interpreting it correctly. |
| quote: |
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day and they hid from the lord god among the trees of the garden. But the lord god called to the man, "Where are you?" ... And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever |
| quote: |
| Evolution is only a "theory" Remeber that. |
Just to expand on the 'evolution is only a theory' rubbish, I think this might be of some use. Anyone who makes a comment such as that clearly has no understanding of science and what the word 'theory' means in the context of science. It actually has a different meaning to the general usage of the word.
| quote: |
The error implicit in this argument is that it confuses the everyday definition of a term with the scientific one. In common parlance, theory often means "guess," "hunch," "hypothesis" or something similar. However, in scientific circles this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the natural world that: * Is supported by empirical evidence. * Is testable and falsifiable. * Can be used to make predictions. As seen from the first requirement, "theory" in scientific parlance does not mean "guess" or anything of the kind. In fact, for something to be called a theory, it must be well-supported by empirical evidence. When a scientist wishes to explain some feature or phenomenon of the natural world, he makes an educated guess about its cause. This initial speculation, in scientific terms, is a hypothesis. Hypotheses eventually graduate to the status of theory if and only if enough evidence is found to support them. This is a requirement which the theory of evolution passes with flying colors - see the Evidence for Evolution page. Theories must also be, at least in principle, testable and falsifiable. If there is no imaginable test that could be performed to validate a hypothesis, or if there is no conceivable evidence that could prove it wrong, it is not a theory. Evolution meets both these requirements. The last qualification, and perhaps the most important, is whether a theory can be used to predict what we should see in the world around us. Anyone can cobble together a hypothesis that explains one or more observed facts. The real acid test is whether we can predict, by logical deduction proceeding from the initial assumptions of the hypothesis, new phenomena, heretofore unseen. If such predictions cannot be made, or if they can be made and are shown to be false, then the hypothesis fails to meet the qualifications for a theory and is rejected. Evolution has stunning predictive power, which is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in its favor. |
Man, I hate missing days of work. I can't fart around at home on the Internet like I can here. And see all the fun stuff I missed? Damn.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Evolution is only a "theory" Remeber that. |
| quote: |
| In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"�part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science�that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory�natural selection�to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned. Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is�and how else can I say it?�most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So is gravity. So I propose a test for you - go jump off a high cliff. If you have your doubts about such theories, surely you will have an alternate outcome from your jump, other than becoming a human pancake. Please read the following websites to help clear up any misunderstandings you have about evolution being a theory and a fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html And here's a wonderful essay on fact/theory of evolution from the late Stephen Jay Gould: http://members.cox.net/smrose7/goul...and-theory.html I have to quote this part from Gould, because it sums it up quite well: |
| quote: |
| Understanding evolution takes more than a chapter out of your Biology 104 class and reading the Creationist propaganda from your Sunday school or Internet. You simply must do better if you are going to attempt to debunk something you don't understand very well. Please do read the material I posted when you have a chance. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, this only shows how much of his text you are actually reading. If you would thoroughly check out his links, you would notice that your arguments against evolution are not as strong as you think. |
| quote: |
| Now, about speciation, or "macro evolution" as you like to call it. How do you explain species that are classified as different but can have offspring, like tigers and lions? How do you explain those that can have only defective offspring, like horses and donkeys? How do you explain the mutation that happened in a certain type of bacteria which enabled it to feed on nylon instead of carbohydrates? How do you expalin the whole damn fossil records? |
| quote: |
| Am I? Well, then we agree that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, right? But, hey, that sheds a whole new light on the book of Genesis. Maybe it's just a metaphore? Maybe it was written by people who didn't understand natural processes as well as we do now? |
| quote: |
| If you think it's stories are not metaphores but historical records, then I will direct you to http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. Please explain all the contradictions that are marked out there. The parts I especially like are Genesis 3:8 and 3:22 |
| quote: |
| So, god is walking around the garden, can't find Adam on his own and banishes him from the garden because he is afraid Adam might become immortal and one of the gods? Interesting. |
| quote: |
| Yes, but it's a theory based on e-vi-dence. |
Nellie, stop posting. Just stop. Please, think of the children.
Nellie you're in the wrong forum
try the Humour / Funny Stuff forum
| quote: |
| Evolution has many missing links, how could you take marcro evolution seriously? Because you can't. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Nellie, stop posting. Just stop. Please, think of the children. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PHALPAX I going to have to agree....we've heard your case and there is no need for you to keep up with this ignorant dribble. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.