‘Ardi’ and Human Evolution - Show tonight on Discovery Channel

[BacktoBasics]

It's not even contradictory. God could very easily have created a billions-of-years-old universe 6,000 years ago, just as he created a grown man from dust and a grown woman from bone.

If Christians would allow themselves to believe in evolution as a part of the miracle God created, they wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing against science.

That's the point I'm trying to make. This is ultimately why I hurl insults at them. The idiocy involved in that pattern of thought is :cough: biblical.

[mouse]

Really just one question should be answered.

Do you argue against evolution because the evidence doesn't support it or do you argue against evolution because it's contradictory to your religious belief structure?

Good question. As for me I have many reasons I argue about Evolution and I suggest many copy this so you don't get me involved anymore in your Holy Roller bible thumper smack that seems to be infecting this topic.


(my opinions)

#1 Evolution is a theory and just like Christianity it's a religion. Christians worship a man called Jesus and believe in the Bible. Evolutionist worship Darwin and believe in his origins of man book and many false fossil charts.

#2 Evolution is taught in schools while intelligent design isn't. To me that is borderline communism you may as well live in China or parts of the USSR where they sensor Google and put you in jail if you are caught reading certain books.

kinda like a moderator deleting your posts and topics and allowing maimiheat's or TLong's posts and topics to not get deleted, would that be frustrating? (if you say no your lying) in other words it's bull that I can't stand or will tolerate. I will not sit here and watch you Darwin lovers have your way with the good people of the club that just happen to not support your half baked theories and have you insult them for supporting them.

It's bad enough you all treat Angel_luv like a Jesus pinata at a Jewish Bar Mitzvah. You think because you have the numbers you can bully posters in the Club well you will get a taste of what it's like to get piled on when I do decide to pull out the smack bat on your ass. But for now I choose to try and conduct myself in a semi adult manor.

#3 This one really bugs me. Why are the Evolutionists and the Schools so afraid to allow Darwin's mistakes and the gaps and holes Evolution has to be taught? Why can't the kids know that this is only speculation and you have the right to think otherwise? Who says you have to teach Intelligent design?
Just take out the lies and fix the text books so it shows the flaws in this theory and carbon dating etc.. why is that such a big deal?

You know why? because then the students might ask other questions like "well if we didn't come from snails where did we come from?" And they are scared someone might bring up a designer or a creator and that is a no no.

I believe for most of you its the latter and you simply hunt and search for anything anti-science that would support your stance. Regardless of whats out there if it doesn't fit the model of your modern day religious beliefs you go right to dismantling it.

Doesn't apply to me I am after the gaps and holes of Darwinism I have no religious agenda.

My point in all of this is that science has changed religion in the past

How about changing the text books? Why still have outdated already proven wrong fossil charts and evolution theories? You guys are fast and have so much passion to point out flaws in creation or Intelligent design and religion, but stick your heads in the sand when Darwin and certain Scientific theories are questioned or proven wrong.

That is a double standard and thus makes people upset and I kinda have to chime in.

so why not now. As the evidence mounts why not consider the idea that evolution could potentially fit with your faith based beliefs.

Evolution does have good points and I have no problem with it just allow the other views as well, and point out the flaws.

Why do the two have to fight.

Ask your Darwin pals in this topic that are using insults.

[Blake]

I can look at the the Earth's time of decay now to know how old I think it is he is the one that needs to prove different

I could post 10 scientific study links on the subject, and you would go into your usual routine of changing the subject by starting a new line of questioning.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)
Is that good enough math?

Which young earth website did you rip that from?

5 second googling dug up the standard response to that:

young earth claim:The processes of erosion are tearing down the continents and sweeping them into the oceans in the form of sediment. The total weight of all of the continents above sea level is about 383 million billion tons. But erosion occurs at the rate of about 27.5 billion tons each year. Erosion would thus completely flatten the continents in less than 14 million years. No matter how high mountains were on the early earth, they would be long gone by now through the process of erosion. Thus, the earth cannot be billions of years old.

Rebuttal: The fallacy here is that there are additional processes that act to counteract the effects of erosion. There are immense forces from the earth's colliding tectonic plates which are pushing up mountains. There are increases in land mass due to lava from volcanoes, and the addition of rising masses of molten rock from the earth's mantle. The result is that there are many processes involved in mountains: wind and water erosion tear down mountains; other processes build them up. In the U.S. for example, Wisconsin contains a large area of once-tall mountains that "are now worn down so low as to cons ute a rather simple plain..." 2 Here, erosion has been the main process in the past many millions of years. The Rocky Mountains are newer and were caused by subducting tectonic plates. This process continues to build up the Rockies today, overwhelming the forces of erosion. 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young1.htm#col

trolls like mouse are fun.

[Blake]

It's not even contradictory. God could very easily have created a billions-of-years-old universe 6,000 years ago, just as he created a grown man from dust and a grown woman from bone.

If Christians would allow themselves to believe in evolution as a part of the miracle God created, they wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing against science.

why did it take God 6 days to create the universe?

[BacktoBasics]

#3 This one really bugs me. Why are the Evolutionists and the Schools so afraid to allow Darwin's mistakes and the gaps and holes Evolution has to be taught? Why can't the kids know that this is only speculation and you have the right to think otherwise? Who says you have to teach Intelligent design?
Just take out the lies and fix the text books so it shows the flaws in this theory and carbon dating etc.. why is that such a big deal?

I don't have a problem with going back and changing the text books. It would never happen.

I deleted your early point about us worshiping Darwin as a religion but I'm going back to it.

I think this is where you're wrong because most, not all, of us are just wanting to gather more info. Its not as much of an attachment to one man and one belief as it is an attachment to a large collection of facts over the last century.

[Blake]

Good question. As for me I have many reasons I argue about Evolution and I suggest many copy this so you don't get me involved anymore in your Holy Roller bible thumper smack that seems to be infecting this topic.

I doubt anyone thinks of you as a holy roller.

(my opinions)

#1 Evolution is a theory and just like Christianity it's a religion. Christians worship a man called Jesus and believe in the Bible. Evolutionist worship Darwin and believe in his origins of man book and many false fossil charts.

True. I learned about Darwin in my Monday School class.

#2 Evolution is taught in schools while intelligent design isn't. To me that is borderline communism you may as well live in China or parts of the USSR where they sensor Google and put you in jail if you are caught reading certain books.

let me know when someone gets put in jail for reading about intelligent design.

kinda like a moderator deleting your posts and topics and allowing maimiheat's or TLong's posts and topics to not get deleted, would that be frustrating? (if you say no your lying) in other words it's bull that I can't stand or will tolerate. I will not sit here and watch you Darwin lovers have your way with the good people of the club that just happen to not support your half baked theories and have you insult them for supporting them.

Intelligent design pushers tried to take their case to the courts and lost......for good reason.

Even Michael Behe himself admitted ID is not science.

It's bad enough you all treat Angel_luv like a Jesus pinata at a Jewish Bar Mitzvah. You think because you have the numbers you can bully posters in the Club well you will get a taste of what it's like to get piled on when I do decide to pull out the smack bat on your ass.

so your arguments are all agenda driven.

But for now I choose to try and conduct myself in a semi adult manor.

duly noted for future reference when you are trying to "pull out the smack bat"

#3 This one really bugs me. Why are the Evolutionists and the Schools so afraid to allow Darwin's mistakes and the gaps and holes Evolution has to be taught? Why can't the kids know that this is only speculation and you have the right to think otherwise?

what school teaches that there are no gaps or holes to be filled?

Who says you have to teach Intelligent design?

you just said that not allowing it is borderline communism.

so that would would be you.

Just take out the lies and fix the text books so it shows the flaws in this theory and carbon dating etc.. why is that such a big deal?

what lies? show what exactly you are talking about.

You know why? because then the students might ask other questions like "well if we didn't come from snails where did we come from?" And they are scared someone might bring up a designer or a creator and that is a no no.

it's a no-no because design theories are not science.

just ask Michael Behe

Doesn't apply to me I am after the gaps and holes of Darwinism I have no religious agenda.

there are gaps and holes in many scientific theories. That's why scientists earn paychecks.......to work on filling the gaps and holes.

How about changing the text books? Why still have outdated already proven wrong fossil charts and evolution theories? You guys are fast and have so much passion to point out flaws in creation or Intelligent design and religion, but stick your heads in the sand when Darwin and certain Scientific theories are questioned or proven wrong.

what exactly should be changed? What text book are you studying that has you all worked up?

That is a double standard and thus makes people upset and I kinda have to chime in.

there is no double standard. That has been proven in a court of law thanks to testimony from the country's biggest ID pusher.

Evolution does have good points and I have no problem with it just allow the other views as well, and point out the flaws.

what other views are there besides ID?

ID is flawed because it's based on faith and will always be during our life time.

Ask your Darwin pals in this topic that are using insults.

I thought you were a little more thick skinned than getting butthurt over a calculator comment.

Trolls are fun. When are you going to bust out the "Blake." troll again? You seem just about butthurt enough to do it.

[Phenomanul]

I could post 10 scientific study links on the subject, and you would go into your usual routine of changing the subject by starting a new line of questioning.

Which young earth website did you rip that from?

5 second googling dug up the standard response to that:

young earth claim:The processes of erosion are tearing down the continents and sweeping them into the oceans in the form of sediment. The total weight of all of the continents above sea level is about 383 million billion tons. But erosion occurs at the rate of about 27.5 billion tons each year. Erosion would thus completely flatten the continents in less than 14 million years. No matter how high mountains were on the early earth, they would be long gone by now through the process of erosion. Thus, the earth cannot be billions of years old.

Rebuttal: The fallacy here is that there are additional processes that act to counteract the effects of erosion. There are immense forces from the earth's colliding tectonic plates which are pushing up mountains. There are increases in land mass due to lava from volcanoes, and the addition of rising masses of molten rock from the earth's mantle. The result is that there are many processes involved in mountains: wind and water erosion tear down mountains; other processes build them up. In the U.S. for example, Wisconsin contains a large area of once-tall mountains that "are now worn down so low as to cons ute a rather simple plain..." 2 Here, erosion has been the main process in the past many millions of years. The Rocky Mountains are newer and were caused by subducting tectonic plates. This process continues to build up the Rockies today, overwhelming the forces of erosion.

trolls like mouse are fun.

While that is true... the "magic wand of time" doesn't quite explain many other geological observations... just for the record I've never bought into the erosion of the continents-to-flats theory...

For example, with so many processes shaping/eroding/building the coastlines why is it that the South American continent still fits almost seamlessly into the nook of the African continent? After millions of years no less... This is particularly poignant because both the Brazil and Benguela currents are notoriously strong (the two major currents of the South Atlantic Gyre).

Anyhow, not that I subscribe to the creationist timeline, but let's face it, most people aren't capable of wrapping their minds around the large geologic/cosmic timeframes required by the prevailing theories. 4 billion years is pretty damn long... 13 billion years? unfathomable... BTW it was Richard Dawkins himself who once blurted that time itself was the 'magic wand' behind most of modern science's theories... We can disagree all we want, just don't pretend that you have it all figured out.

One last thought... if the singularity that began it all, is by most models infintessimally small... almost to the point of non-existence (we really can't build models where the laws of the universe break down)... that means that everything in the universe was produced by nothing. That's right. It all came from NOTHING.

Think about that for a second... nothing... nothing... nothing... POOF... EVERYTHING!!! Space... Time... Matter... Order... Physical Laws

If that doesn't yell supernatural, I don't know what does...

Queue insults.... 3, 2, 1....

[BacktoBasics]

Think about that for a second... nothing... nothing... nothing... POOF... SIZE="5"]EVERYTHING!!! Space... Time... Matter... Order... Physical Laws [/SIZE]

If that doesn't yell supernatural, I don't know what does...

Queue insults.... 3, 2, 1....

Do you debunk it all? Think all of science that's related to evolution is ultimately just misinformation. What can you believe?

Can't billions of years and the ideas of evolution still fall under the scope of what you consider to be "supernatural"? So much time and energy fighting evolution because its become the enemy. Why is it impossible to think that evolution could rewrite the religious ways of thinking?

Why does "supernatural" always have to equate to the modern day interpretation of "god"? Couldn't it in theory be something completely different?

I'm still wanting some of you guys to go ahead and address the question.

Give me an example of a significant historically changing discovery that contradicted your beliefs but were eventually founded to be true.

[Phenomanul]

Do you debunk it all? Think all of science that's related to evolution is ultimately just misinformation. What can you believe?

Can't billions of years and the ideas of evolution still fall under the scope of what you consider to be "supernatural"? So much time and energy fighting evolution because its become the enemy. Why is it impossible to think that evolution could rewrite the religious ways of thinking?

Why does "supernatural" always have to equate to the modern day interpretation of "god"? Couldn't it in theory be something completely different?

You're responding with the presumption that you know exactly what I believe... therein lies the problem... you feel you have to fit my beliefs into a box, and that I am incapable of understanding scientific thought when 'in that box'...

I'm still wanting some of you guys to go ahead and address the question.

Yes sir... I'm on it!

Actually no. Not really... don't feel like tending to this thread all day long for the next several days...

[BacktoBasics]

You're responding with the presumption that you know exactly what I believe... therein lies the problem... you feel you have to fit my beliefs into a box, and that I am incapable of understanding scientific thought when 'in that box'...



Yes sir... I'm on it!

Actually no. Not really... don't feel like tending to this thread all day long for the next several days...

I'm responding to the pattern of responses and past responses over the last couple of years that I've read from you and other people with similar stances. I'm not assuming anything. If I was trying to force you into a perfect little box I wouldn't have asked the question that you and others have refused to acknowledge.

Nor am I making bold statements about your perceived beliefs. Have you noticed that a large portion of my responses have actually been questions.

[mouse]

let me know when someone gets put in jail for reading about intelligent design.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...inst-humanity/

Teaching ID = A crime against humanity
William Dembski

Last week I reported on the Council of Europe denouncing ID as a threat to democracy (go here). I also asked how long it would be before advocating ID in Europe would be regarded as a hate-crime. We may have to wait no longer.Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail.

[BacktoBasics]

Jail time for ID. What a concept.

[mouse]

what school teaches that there are no gaps or holes to be filled?
.

Board vs. Teachers
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. The school board decided against adopting the book, but Buckingham and his curriculum committee soon after drafted a policy mandating that before every biology unit that involved evolution, students be read a statement telling them that "gaps [and] problems" with Darwin's theory exist.

[Phenomanul]

I'm responding to the pattern of responses and past responses over the last couple of years that I've read from you and other people with similar stances. I'm not assuming anything. If I was trying to force you into a perfect little box I wouldn't have asked the question that you and others have refused to acknowledge.

Nor am I making bold statements about your perceived beliefs. Have you noticed that a large portion of my responses have actually been questions.

See that's another problem... you can't have the best of both worlds... you can't shift from your typical B2B persona (derisive, bold, sarcastic, trollish, angry-at-the-world) into one that wants to elicit genuine discussion without the backlash from your regular persona looming over the discussion waiting to burst out at any given point....

No one wants to deal with that scenario... I know I don't.

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply don't wish to involve myself in this type of discussion (more than a cursory response here or there) with people who have shown a history of mocking anything and everything that doesn't jive with their belief set. I don't have the time for it anymore, nor is it fruitful.

[mouse]

it's a no-no because design theories are not science.
.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...cience&spell=1

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Download PDFDownload Evolution Is Religion--Not Science PDF

The writer has do ented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

‘Evolution’ Series
is Propaganda, not Science

http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp




Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494


Evolution is not science,
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamaz...nce_its_a.html

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION - FICTION, NOT "SCIENCE"

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...ion---fict.php

[mouse]

ID is flawed because it's based on faith and will always be during our life time.

.

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

http://www.discovery.org/a/3191

[DoubtingThomas]

Interesting thread.

[BacktoBasics]

See that's another problem... you can't have the best of both worlds... you can't shift from your typical B2B persona (derisive, bold, sarcastic, trollish, angry-at-the-world) into one that wants to elicit genuine discussion without the backlash from your regular persona looming over the discussion waiting to burst out at any given point....

No one wants to deal with that scenario... I know I don't.

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply don't want to deal with a discussion where there are people who have shown a history of mocking anything and everything that doesn't jive with their belief set. I don't have the time for it anymore, nor is it fruitful.

I hardly think I'm "trollish". So yeah I have a unique or maybe predictable outlook on life but I've hardly shown that its just some act. I've had hundreds if not thousands of pertinent and meaningful conversations here. I can't be (derisive, bold, sarcastic and angry-at-the-world) and elicit genuine discussion? News to me because almost every thread I make sans a few rants here and there have and usually involve quality discussions. If I was just trolling away I hardly think my threads would go 5,6,7,8 pages like they do. You know there's actual conversation in dem der pages. I find entertaining ways to provoke quality talk. I don't just make your typical boring post and expect people to jump in. You mistake my style of communication for trolling.

I'll boldly and sarcastically say that I think your lack of engagement here is a cop out. Reasons unknown to me other than it sounds like you think I'm beneath you. Funny how I'm not the one not hurling insults here.

I've asked reasonable questions. Made reasonable points. Held a civil conversation.

I think you're far more guilty of being presumptuous than I've been. You want to sound like you know what I'm all about. You got my shtick all figured out? It really sounds like you've hardly read me.

[Phenomanul]

I hardly think I'm "trollish". So yeah I have a unique or maybe predictable outlook on life but I've hardly shown that its just some act. I've had hundreds if not thousands of pertinent and meaningful conversations here. I can't be (derisive, bold, sarcastic and angry-at-the-world) and elicit genuine discussion? News to me because almost every thread I make sans a few rants here and there have and usually involve quality discussions. If I was just trolling away I hardly think my threads would go 5,6,7,8 pages like they do. You know there's actual conversation in dem der pages. I find entertaining ways to provoke quality talk. I don't just make your typical boring post and expect people to jump in. You mistake my style for trolling.

I'll boldly and sarcastically say that I think your lack of engagement here is a cop out. Reasons unknown to me other than it sounds like you think I'm beneath you. Funny how I'm not the one not hurling insults here.

I've asked reasonable questions. Made reasonable points. Held a civil conversation.

I think you're far more guilty of being presumptuous than I've been. You want to sound like you know what I'm all about. You got my shtick all figured out? It really sounds like you've hardly read me.

You read far too much into that one post... I wasn't insulting you. Your style has always been the same (case in point would be to point you to the thread you started earlier today about "putting your boss through today")... I simply don't want to be caught on that end of your rants. Why is that so hard to understand?

Then again, it didn't take very long did it? One response and that scenario I was talking about already reared it's ugly head.

You simply can't expect me to believe you can act civil in this type of discourse. You can say it all you want... but I'll believe it when I see it.

[mouse]

I thought you were a little more thick skinned than getting butthurt over a calculator comment.

Trolls are fun. When are you going to bust out the "Blake." troll again? You seem just about butthurt enough to do it.

How tender my anus feels at the moment has nothing to do with the insults. My comment was many in this topic are getting insulted and they just want to respond. You can insult me all day long. The reason I discourage it is because if you get upset (like many Atheist do) then your showing weakness and your making it look like your losing the debate.

Why not ask a question and then answer a question? Why belittle others for believing in the Bible or young earth? You and the anti 9/11 people use insults so that we all look like kooky tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. That is an old tactic to discredit the messenger.

If I was on your talk show and you told the audience "our next guest mouse another bible thumping idiot is here to talk about the big man in the sky made the earth" you think anyone will take me serious?

You don't have to win the argument as long as its a draw that means I don't win. It's a very old tactic.

I love the fact that people like you think we evolved from some hot soup that cooled off after billions of years rather than some intelligent being had a hand in it it really shows how far people will go to not have to own up to there actions on earth. That is why Evolution is so popular you can go though life thinking you have no one to answer to when you die. It's a neat way to have fun and sleep in on Sunday. Well I do the same the only difference I don't feel like I crawled out of some lake 5 billion years ago I rather think someone or something far away put me here. Am I wrong to have my point of view?

[BacktoBasics]

You read far too much into that one post... I wasn't insulting you. Your style has always been the same (case in point would be to point you to the thread you started earlier today about "putting your boss through today")... I simply don't want to be caught on that end of your rants. Why is that so hard to understand?

Then again, it didn't take very long did it? One response and that scenario I was talking about already reared it's ugly head.

You simply can't expect me to believe you can act civil in this type of discourse. You can say it all you want... but I'll believe it when I see it.

I wasn't insinuating that you were insulting me. I was referring to the other posters in this thread that have already hurled a few big ones.

I wasn't even ranting on you. You're way off base by assuming that everything I post is some kind of rant. Just making my point. Did I cap anything. Did I curse?

I did say sans a few rant threads. Take notice though. That thread is already working itself out and there is about to be a page or so of real world conversation in there.

Ultimately I don't care what you do.

I asked a good question and made some decent points. You can choose to ignore them. You're not the only one in here to dance around it.

[Phenomanul]

I wasn't insinuating that you were insulting me. I was referring to the other posters in this thread that have already hurled a few big ones.

I wasn't even ranting on you. You're way off base by assuming that everything I post is some kind of rant. Just making my point. Did I cap anything. Did I curse?

I did say sans a few rant threads. Take notice though. That thread is already working itself out and there is about to be a page or so of real world conversation in there.

Ultimately I don't care what you do.

I asked a good question and made some decent points. You can choose to ignore them. You're not the only one in here to dance around it.

I mean, you did respond to my post and accuse me of copping out... Is there any other way of interpretting that? Like I said, it's not important... And I haven't danced around your 'question'... I simply don't feel like answering it. Am I not en led to that approach without having to read that somehow failure to address it is a sign of concession? I don't even know the context behind your question or why it was posted it in the first place...

There are certain posters I don't get in -for-tat arguments with, largely because they are futile. People get upset. Resentment lingers... I don't want to be construed as having a grudge against anyone here. Simple as that. Your other posts are for the most part hilarious (like having your own Reality TV channel).

[BacktoBasics]

Am I not en led to that approach without having to read that somehow failure to address it is a sign of concession?

Answer.

No.

Even though I didn't say it was a sign of concession.

....and well you did cop out.

You chose to enter the thread and respond. You engaged here. I offered opinion, insight and questions pertaining to your posts and others. Your response was that (in so many words) I was beneath you so I shouldn't expect you to acknowledge my remarks. Specifically because you don't approve of my style of writing.

You could leave the thread and not come back. Its an option. I'm not going to stop asking my question though. Any of them.

I haven't been a third of an ass as half the participants here.

[mouse]

Trust me B2B is rather cool level headed as far as Evolution debaters go. And he does ask question that seem to need answers unlike MimaiHeat WildCobra and ChumpDumper that ask questions to get you to pull your hair out of your head or get you upset after you post a link or a youtube video they try and make you out to have a tin foil hat.

of course that can all change after a beer or two and B2B can turn into a head, it does happen from time to time when on the www.

[BacktoBasics]

Trust me B2B is rather cool level headed as far as Evolution debaters go. And he does ask question that seem to need answers unlike MimaiHeat WildCobra and ChumpDumper that ask questions to get you to pull your hair out of your head or get you upset after you post a link or a youtube video they try and make you out to have a tin foil hat.

of course that can all change after a beer or two and B2B can turn into a head, it does happen from time to time when on the www.

Really don't even need the beer to get there either.