|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nephilim_X |
| 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.
|
Baseless? Evolution is based on logic and what we've seen in the real world. Just because we weren't there the entire time doesn't mean we can't figure out what happened. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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.
|
I suppose they can be considered baseless suppositions ... but then again I guess that physicists are similarly making baseless suppositions to describe the characteristics and interaction of particles. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
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 It is a common fallacy for Creationist websites to draw upon outdated information.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. |
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.
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.
I do want to make a couple of statements, and pose a few questions if I could:
-Those "missing links" you refer to have become smaller and smaller as more discoveries are being made. Just to give you an idea, it's actually come down to bacterial flagella (Behe). The "God of the Gaps" argument is often seen, and unfortunately for creationists, the gaps are becoming ever so smaller.
-Scientists are not afraid to say, "I don't know", when they actually do not have enough current information. Can the same be said for creationists? What do creationists say instead?
-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).
-Have you ever noticed that all creationist theories live and die on attempts to disprove another theory (evolution)? Why is that? Do they have a model of their own that can be tested? Can those tests be repeated? IOW, do they have any POSITIVE evidence to support their hypothesis? Can they falsify their Null hypothesis?
-The method by which scientific research is conducted is called Methodolical Naturalism (MN). It is the most sound approach to observe, test, and predict findings in the natural world. If the supernatural (i.e. God) is to be included in the study, there has to be a means by which to test the supernatural. Unfortunately, MN has found no way by which to be able to test this. Is there another sound model by which to test the supernatural that can test, observe, have repeatable tests, and make predictions for future phenomena and findings?
-Creationistism is by all accounts a religious-based belief in nature. It will therefore already have an unshakeable conclusion about all findings and phenomena. What does that say about it's data collection processes? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kia Kaha
Aaaahhhh christian-baiting - the sport of kings :D
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. |
Please clarify. Am I to understand you correctly that you say evolutionary theory is supported by baseless suppositions? Interesting.
| quote: | | The way to make fundamentalists see what 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 :) |
I more or less agree, though I think it's a little too much of a generalization to slap on all fundies.
Why did you have to bring this piece of out of the woodworks?!?
I ing hate this douchebag. This piece of lives but 30 miles from me, and I had to put up with his ing antics on the KU campus all the time. He's esp. prevalent during Lesbi-Gay week. He also added a nice touch when he showed up at a gay KU student's funeral in Wyoming with Gay-hate signs all around. Of course the kid was murdered by homophobic heads, but that didn't seem to phase Phelps.
People like him make me want to believe in Hell- he certainly belongs there. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| 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. |
First off,Sorry about being so late on my reply. (Getting even more sick as we speak. :/ )
I studied evolution last year,and I will be studying it once again very soon. This infortmation I posted was also drawn up by scientists. I read a chapter about evolution in my physical science book last year,and I'm reading it in my biology book this year. So yes, It's all coming from scientists.
| 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. |
I'll read them Friday,Getting my reading glasses then. Until then, I can only read things like chats,and some posts.
| 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). |
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.
I will get back to you on the rest of it Tonight. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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.
|
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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.
|
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: |
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.
|
I'll save you the trouble of all that reading ;)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| 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. |
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
Yes however, it's a much more established and verifiable theory than the theory of creationism. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| 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.
|
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.) |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes however, it's a much more established and verifiable theory than the theory of creationism. |
I wouldn't say that. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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.) |
Sigh ... ok well I have a source that proves that God is a big giant banana that lives in my backyard. My proof is a banana in my backyard that looks like God. But I'm not going to show it to you because you won't accept it right? More likely than not, you'd find a reason to criticize it. Therefore I'm not going to show it to you.
Unfortunately that logic doesn't fly in any circumstance. If your proof can't stand the test of criticism than it's not much of a proof. |
|
|
|
|
