Reply With Quote
you're a whiny who can't respect anyone with a different set of ideals. i'd tell you to go your mother if you didn't have a bloody pussy.
Because he's a ing moron.
you're a whiny who can't respect anyone with a different set of ideals. i'd tell you to go your mother if you didn't have a bloody pussy.
I didn't accuse you of being one, nor did I imply it. I used your statement to further my own idea instead of answering it.
About the discoveries, science would be much better off if they stopped acting like they already knew evolution exists - if only a small % of the evidence says otherwise, it is more than enough to abandon the theory altogether. I have found, in my mind, more than a small percentage of evidence discrediting the theory, and more than enough to abandon believing these indirect assumptions based on evolution's "truth."
Science cannot even tell you why birds flock together, much less how a language of information and coded like DNA naturally arose from matter and energy. Its funny that people look and see we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and think that somehow proves we evolved from them when ancient protozoans have a much larger genome than any complex creature. I saw a sign on 281 the other day that says our genome is 60% of a fruit fly. Will i be growing wings soon?
The common evolutionists answer is like Baseline_Dumb said, "You dont understand evolution." That is not the problem at all. The problem is, it just doesn't make sense and never did to me. You can't create the type of order in even a single bacterium from disorder and near nothingness - much less the human brain. Its not just unlikely, its statistically impossible. You keep your faith some miracle happened and life was formed, I'll keep searching for the real answers.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-25-2009 at 03:43 PM.
well you were wondering how many really believe that evolution has not been disproven in science as opposed to just being god-haters. I'm just saying you can take me off of your list of possible god haters.
you know it's funny, I think the exact opposite.About the discoveries, science would be much better off if they stopped acting like they already knew evolution exists - if only a small % of the evidence says otherwise, it is more than enough to abandon the theory altogether. I have found, in my mind, more than a small percentage of evidence discrediting the theory, and more than enough to abandon believing these indirect assumptions based on evolution's "truth."
I think a lot more could get accomplished if religious hacks would stop trying to shove the 7 day theory down our throats and if people like Behe would stop wasting court time with trying to sneak creationism into a public science classroom.
I think it's funny that people like you see that we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and still say that science has disproven evolution.Science cannot even tell you why birds flock together, much less how a language of information and coded like DNA naturally arose from matter and energy. Its funny that people look and see we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and think that somehow proves we evolved from them when ancient protozoans have a much larger genome than any complex creature. I saw a sign on 281 the other day that says our genome is 60% of a fruit fly. Will i be growing wings soon?
How does abiogenesis somehow always get mixed up in evolution discussions?The common evolutionists answer is like Baseline_Dumb said, "You dont understand evolution." That is not the problem at all. The problem is, it just doesn't make sense and never did to me. You can't create the type of order in even a single bacterium from disorder and near nothingness - much less the human brain. Its not just unlikely, its statistically impossible. You keep your faith some miracle happened and life was formed, I'll keep searching for the real answers.
You know how much time you could be saving all these evolution debates around the world? Don't keep this information to yourself please share it with us!
You can Google it yourself.
You don't understand , z0sa, as evidenced by your second law of thermodynamics bull . You're a re .
I'll pass on that, thank you. When people do like that babies like you pop out 9 months later.
you don't understand humor, but you are good at copying and pasting it.
I can also Goggle BigFoot playing twister does that make it true?
Don't lie to me like that. It is highly disrespectful.
The fact that you took up the 2nd law of thermodynamics schtick with phrases that were specifically cherry-picked by creationist websites pretty obviously tells anyone with some common sense where you get your information.
The manner in which you criticize "evoloution", and the specific material you put forth both are fully consistant with someone who spent the majority, if not the entirety, of their time looking into this issue on creationist websites.
You have never taken a genetics course, you have never taken a biology course, and you have probably never taken more than a rudimentary chemistry course.
Anyone with a TRULY open mind might have seen through the "geological column is a lie" bit after I painstakingly laid out that it is more of a data summary than anything else.
Anyone with a TRULY open mind might have asked themselves the important critical thinking question, "well, the creationists said that it was based on circular logic, and this guy asked me what that was, so maybe I should find out for myself."
If you had really truly spent any time debunking with an open, honestly skeptical mind, the creationist claims by actually learning about the science underlying those claims, you would know exactly how the creationists are lying.
The only people with any real motivation to paint the theory of evolution as somehow being "not science" or "philosophical" are young earth creationists.
Because only by proving somehow that hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers are somehow faking evidence, can creationists really try to drag the debate to someplace they think they can win.
They do this by either an unintentional faulty understanding of the science, or by deliberate distortions of what that science is or says.
That is what is taking place here, and exactly what z0sa and mouse are attempting to do.
Let's begin our analysis to see what evidence we can find to support the assertion that z0sa doesn't really read websites about evolution, and instead spends his time reading through creationist websites to support his already existing belief system.
Here is where the language usage starts becoming rather important.
Google the words: evolution circular logic
and you come up with things like this:
"Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology" on the Ins ute for Creation Research website
or this:
The Circular Reasoning of Biological Evolution
This claim is debunked here, with appropriate links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html
The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.
The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.
I could easily go through the rest of z0sa's posts and quite clearly show that he uses rather easily debunked claims that are VERY commonly distributed ONLY on creationist websites.
If z0sa's claims of spending the majority of his time on "evolutionist" websites were really true he would have stumbled upon the "evolutionist" responses to the standard litany of creationist claims.
The fact that he uses the word "evolutionist" itself is the most damning indicator of where he spends his time reading.
There is really no such thing in science as an "evolutionist". There is no "evolutionology".
There are physics, biology, chemsitry, etc.
The ONLY people who use such language are creationists themselves in an attempt to portray a scientific theory as some sort of theologic belief system.
I will leave it at that. Anyone with some common sense can see through this particular seeming self-delusion.
As, I said before z0sa, you can lie to yourself, but you cannot lie to me. I know better. You have neither an open mind nor critical thinking skills.
You have demonstrated neither, and the more you post rather obviously false information and distortions about evolutionary theory, the less inclined I am to think that your distortions are inadvertant, and the more I am inclined to think they are deliberately misleading.
The problem with creationists is that they view themselves as fighting some great evil that is the cause of all manner of immorality. In this they allow themselves the moral leeway to deliberately lie and distort, in order to "save souls".
THAT is not science, that is lying.
If you are telling the truth then you must have stumbled across this gem:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This is an index of EVERY creationist claim that has been made, and the ALL have been pretty easily shown as either false or a distortion of actual science.
If your statement were true, and you had the open mind you claim, then you would not so readily and unflinchingly regurgitate active distortions from ONLY one side of the debate.
Since you do, it is only logical to assume that you are deluding at least yourself if not actively lying to us about these claims of never reading creationist websites and truly considering both sides of the debate.
curb stomp
I am not sure how to describe what I just read from RandomLie. It was a combination of Mike Tyson,John Holmes, and Jim Rome all wrapped into one. For a brief moment there I was almost sexually stimulated.
The only argument that a creationist really has at this point against evolution is saying "God made it look that way"
That is completely and utterly impossible to combat if you have faith in that sort of thing.
When you try to get into arguing logic with the science of evolution, the observed evidence crushes pure creationist dogma.
Creationists should stick to the realm that they have almost complete dominion over and that is faith. It is something that is admirable.
I never understood the huge outrage over the evolution theory anyway... Darwin didn't set out to disprove the existence of God... he was a religious guy who just reported the evidence he found.
The theory of evolution isn't inconsistent with the Creationist story... you are just going about it wrong. Instead of trying to fit creation into evolution... fit evolution into creation and there is no conflict.
Why can't a person not agree with evolution without being labeled a creationist? The same reason you can't talk about 9/11 without being called a left wing Conspiracy nut?
I have read both sides of the arguments and I have come to the conclusion man is to advanced and the human body is to complicated to say it came from some snail 900 Billion years ago.
Well if you don't believe in evolution and you aren't a creationist then what are you?
as to snails 900 billion years ago... I have no idea if they existed 885 billion years before the big bang... but you are probably right... if there were snails then... they probably didn't turn into people...
I don't agree with that kind of one way or the other logic. It's the same thing the religious use on atheists when we say we don't have the answer to where we came from; when we acknowledge the big bang theory is still incomplete because our knowledge of physics still is.
I didn't say you had to be one way or the other... I just asked him if he wasn't one or the other... what was he?
Really that whole reply was kinda disjointed... I have no idea where you are coming from. Nothing in science is an absolute... especially things we know so little about... like the big bang/crunch whatever
I've tried to stay out of this particular thread... But to claim that science has crushingly rebuttaled every observation that doesn't support the evolutionary mindset is a lie.
You go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. If anything; your self delusion of having single-handedly put this controversy to rest is laughable. You've done that on three occasions in this thread alone. Wow....
So go ahead and pick on those who might not be 'smart' enough to explain their dissention... question their motives... but don't ridicule them for questioning those things which are unanswerable through science. Further still, don't step out and try to make claims that science itself has yet to define and settle... otherwise your own motives, and your own atheistic agenda are the ones taking centerstage... on a side note, having the 'landslide' support of other spurstalk members who share a similar mindset is little to rave about. Mob-mentality carries very little weight on such matters.
Science cannot explain the unnatural... or the supernatural; particularly because the supernatural is not bound to the physical laws that define our universe. The very ones that Science attempts to explain. Hence to claim that Science can disprove GOD's existence is foolish at best. There is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.
And for the Umpteenth time... Science, by definition, cannot address the subject of origins (neither the cosmological event or the biological one is testable, repeatable, or for that matter even observable). Hence your quoted source (and the very name of the link itself):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
fails to adhere to the very principles Science is trying to uphold. It is one of many arrogant attempts to settle controversies that lie outside of the capabilities of Science. I mean, one of your quoted arguments against the use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as a deterrent to evolutionary principles was to claim that biological en ies (such as seeds) frequently overcome entropic hurdles to produce order where none exists. Really?I'll let you sit on that a little longer, to see if you can figure out how ridiculous an argument that really is. In anycase, don't presume to lecture us about dogmas and then proceed to beget arguments from an agenda-filled cesspool of your own.
If you don't believe in GOD... fine. That is your perogative. Just don't ask me to buy the fact that you've reached that conclusion purely from the use of the scientific method.
Cue the predictable stonethrowing mob...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-26-2009 at 05:11 PM.
Just another American with my own thoughts and views on a subject . I know it must drive you crazy not being able to label me like some Nazi would during WWII
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions