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?

You know what, whenever I think of the sheer amount of effort creation science devotes towards "debunking" evolution the phrase "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" always pops into mind and it seems so ... perfect.

___________________
Retro ...

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.)

Please tell me you aren't serious. God's existence has never been proven, every argument for the existence of god contains a lame logical fallacy of some form or another. No doubt you will retort that you 'speak to Jesus' or something of the sort, it almost isn't worth discussing this with you, it's like talking to a brick wall.

If there was indeed proof of god's existence, don't you think that it would be spread across the Internet/news services etc. rather quickly?

If you showed me proof, actual, real proof, then yes, I would accept it. But sadly, no such proof exists, and if it did, what makes you so sure that a supreme being would turn out to be the Christian god. If it does turn out that the Christian god exists, then I'm pleased that I've 'refused to worship him', so to speak. As the bible clearly outlines, the Christian god has no morals or ethical standards. He condones mass killing, including that of over (40?) toddlers because they laughed at a bald man. Need I even mention the Noah's ark story, where god kills every human on earth, then decides that it wasn't such a good idea after all.

The list is endless, need I even mention 'the earth is flat' fiasco?

i truly don't understand how somebody could believe in rubbish like creation. Do you deny the existence of Dinosaurs? (Assuming that you're a young Earth creationist).

Try reading the stuff that MisterOpus1 posted, hopefully it might open your eyes.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.

Ah yes, I forgot that the multitude of contradictions are not actual contradictions after all, because this is the bible we're talking about here! Logic & reason do not apply, because the bible can have no errors!

On a sidenote:

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yes, I guess I did miss the part.

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.

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:

But, If you are seeing contradictions,then you aren't interpreting it correctly.

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?

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:

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

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:

Evolution is only a "theory" Remeber that.

Yes, but it's a theory based on e-vi-dence.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

If you want to read the full text, head to the following site: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/index.html

Another thing that I should point out, is that Creationism is not even a theory (In scientific terms). It meets absolutely none of the requirements for it to be considered as such, and has been repeatedly falsified. By the way, have you ever seen anything about Creationism in a scientific journal, book or publication? No, of course not. And no, jokes about how stupid it is don't count.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.

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:

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.

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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:

No thanks,I don't need to take a test.

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.

Maybe it does,but what I'm telling you is I have studied it. My biology book goes very deep into the subjects it covers. Creationists propaganda? Sorry, It's not propaganda. But, I'm not able to attend Sunday School. :/

I understand it just as well as you do. You just aren't listening to what I'm saying...
If you'd like though, I can take a trip to the library ( Got my glasses early thankfully. ) and I can speak with my father,he studied geology in school,he knows a lot about the theory of evolution.

Of course work comes before debates to me, I hope you understand.

___________________
~Nessa

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.

I skip over some posts, but if I see a post that interests me,I'll read it. That's probably how I missed it.

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?

Yes, Macro evolution. I already posted a link about that.

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?

No,Of course we don't agree on that. The Bible should be taken literally,It's important.

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

Why would I read a link that is against the Bible? Of course they will make up something to criticize it.

That's not able to proove your point. If you are going to give me the verse,give me the link off an actual Bible webpage.

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.

Adam sinned. That's why he and Eve were banished from the Garden. God wasn't afraid..and God was not walking around the garden.
Further more,there is only ONE God. So now that-that's cleared up.

quote:

Yes, but it's a theory based on e-vi-dence.

Evolution has many missing links, how could you take marcro evolution seriously? Because you can't.

___________________
~Nessa

Nellie, stop posting. Just stop. Please, think of the children.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

Thousands of these missing links are being discovered every year, you tend to forget that science is extremely skepticism based, if there was any reason to doubt evolution, "real" scientist would have found a reason