Funny.
I didn’t talk to you. I was talking about you.
And I still don’t like you.
Oops. Now I botched my sacred oath!
Guess I’ll have to repent before my personal religion- the one which you were so deftly attacking (which was it; evilution, reason or atheism, I fergot!?) I’ll repent by lying about the ever elusive missing link on some liberal forum. Or should I tell little kids that their great^18 grandfather was a retarded monkey who hated freedom?
Questions…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
I thought I’d post an article that exemplifies why the claim that scientists have just much faith as creationists is pure and utter bullshit…
Subtle…very subtle…nice little chess move. Trying to differentiate that creationists aren’t scientists. You have much to learn about this topic that so impassions you, my dear satanist e-bud. You surely have swallowed the evolutionism creed hook, line and sinker.
By the way, do you intentionally spell “Bible” without proper capitalization too? Like the other Believer mentioned earlier? Another serious debating skill that should be employed by the ruthless and devout Evolutionist in their battle with the enemy…[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to be subtle, I was trying to be brick-wall obvious; creationists are not scientists. Creationism is not science. Fair enough you might have a physicist who is also a creationist, but if he calls himself a creationist, that is not from a scientific stand point.
I capitalise the B when I’m talking about the collection of books known as the Bible. If I haven’t, then that’s just laziness on my part and you caught me at it.
You still appear to be unwilling to proffer any evidence at all for your standpoint.
EDIT: You appear to have a very real problem with grasping the fact that scientists like to have their minds and theories challenged, changed and consequently, improved. But I guess there is no room for this in Christian dogma.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Or should I tell little kids that their great^18 grandfather was a retarded monkey who hated freedom?
Questions…
[/quote]
If they doubt it, you need only show them the picture.
Retardism vs. science. hm tough pick.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
I thought I’d post an article that exemplifies why the claim that scientists have just much faith as creationists is pure and utter bullshit…
Subtle…very subtle…nice little chess move. Trying to differentiate that creationists aren’t scientists. You have much to learn about this topic that so impassions you, my dear satanist e-bud. You surely have swallowed the evolutionism creed hook, line and sinker.
By the way, do you intentionally spell “Bible” without proper capitalization too? Like the other Believer mentioned earlier? Another serious debating skill that should be employed by the ruthless and devout Evolutionist in their battle with the enemy…
I wasn’t trying to be subtle, I was trying to be brick-wall obvious; creationists are not scientists. Creationism is not science. Fair enough you might have a physicist who is also a creationist, but if he calls himself a creationist, that is not from a scientific stand point.
Good to know we can look to you as the arbiter of the “Which Scientists are Really Scientists” forum of abject objectivity, starring Jab the Judge, Keeper of All That is Right and True.
I capitalise the B when I’m talking about the collection of books known as the Bible. If I haven’t, then that’s just laziness on my part and you caught me at it.
I was joking around about the other poster (may have been the Mak Finds God thread) who is so vehemently “anti-God” that he was not even willing to capitalize “Bible”. I got a kick out of that “rebel with a cause” attitude.
You still appear to be unwilling to proffer any evidence at all for your standpoint.
I find this a fascinating statement coming from the guy who proffered the discredited moths study. Do YOU also want to cite the study cited from a few posts back that proffered the intelligently designed virus experiment in order to refute Intelligent Design?
EDIT: You appear to have a very real problem with grasping the fact that scientists like to have their minds and theories challenged, changed and consequently, improved. But I guess there is no room for this in Christian dogma.
I would say this generally might be the case. However, there are many exceptions. Evolutionism is obviously one of them. Another example is the Global Warming debate. There are literally thousands of bona-fide, well educated scientists who disagree with the politically correct stance on this issue and they are summarily dismissed for not toeing the line.
It happens in the creation/evolution debate as well. There are many brilliant minds, I dare say some of them even approach YOU in their intellectual might, who strongly believe creation proffers a better and more scientific explanation for the question of origins. You will dismiss them as they don’t adhere to the tenets of your sect.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation. A small list.
[/quote]
Firstly, no where do I pretend to be particularly intelligent. I am continually amazed by how scientists discover things, as it’s not an ability I’ve ever discovered in myself.
Secondly, I cannot believe you actually decided to use the appeal to authority rhetorical fallacy. As I noted before, all the creationist canards you use have been debunked, and this is another. Allow me to present to you Project Steve;Project Steve | National Center for Science Education
This is a parody of when creationists do exactly what you have just done; “but guys, look loads of people with PHDs think creationism is cool”. Ok, great. Project Steve shows just how stupid this last-ditch effort at credibility really is. You know actually, among scientists there is debate about various elements of evolution, but there is no debate about the veracity of evolutionary theory.
Also the moth study is not discredited, I already showed you why you saying that is wrong; you are being willfully misleading by saying that.
Again, I ask of you; please, show me some evidence for ID/creationism. Any evidence whatsoever. I dare you. You have repeatedly dodged this with argumentative fallacies but it’s getting quite boring now. Forgo your childish rhetoric and please, give me some evidence; some science.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
…Well, scientists have also created a virus out of no form of life. USATODAY.com - Scientists create a virus that reproduces…
I REALLY got a kick out of this post. Citing an example of intelligent design to argue against intelligent design. Do you realize how badly you fucked up by using the above example?
[/quote]
Lol, seriously? Because saying that scientists created something is the same as saying “God” created something? Wow.
Your second post quoting me was ridiculous. If you say that I take my belief in evolution as a religion, you should go back and read my post again. If you say that me accepting another option would be a heresy, you should go back and read it again. But if you think that I would accept another option without proof, well, I’m not dumb.
Also, the fact that you have a “list” of people who support creationism is laughable. What else? Are you pretty because your mom said so? Well you have a list, we the vast majority of the scientific community.
Other than that I didn’t read much of the nonsense because it was friday night and I have a life.
And quoting something in french doesn’t make you a smart guy. It’s kind of a pathethic attempt actually. But don’t worry, I will take advantage of my life for now, and I don’t have to hope that I didn’t make mistakes. I’m not going to heaven anyway. Apparently it’s full of creationist nutjobs there, doesn’t sound nice to me.
You sound offended by my lack of respect for your book, to dedicate a whole post to it. Thanks.
Be happy. Sounds like your life is so good, you don’t even care to know where it actually came from.
For what it’s worth, I notice that many names on the oft-touted list of learned scholars who embrace Creationism (but who unaccountably didn’t make Push’s list) hail from Cedarville Baptist University, a “Christ-centered learning community equipping students for lifelong leadership and service through an education marked by excellence and grounded in biblical truth.”
Here is how the Dean of Natural and Applied Sciences describes his school.
"Early believing scientists held that the practice of science was for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. This notion was not restricted to science alone. It was extended to the healing arts, to engineering (technology) practice, and to the creation of wealth in the business world. Service to mankind by the practitioner was an act of worship that glorified the Lord.
"Created in the image of God, mankind can do no less–as believers in Christ, science, engineering, nursing, and business faculty at Cedarville University are committed to this balanced view of their professions. NAS faculty challenge each other to wrestle with the question of what it means to be a person of faith, a child of the everlasting King, and expressing that through their chosen profession. They are experts in describing and improving the natural world; the created stuff of life. The obligation in this expertise is seeing and expressing the Creator’s “hand” in every aspect of nature.
“I am thankful to my Lord Jesus for allowing me the privilege of serving scientists, nurses, engineers, and business people who are dedicated to the task of teaching Cedarville students for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind.”
(It occurs to me that peer review of Creationist articles must be a snap. I mean, each scientist is probably on a first-name basis with all of his peers, and nobody’s going to contradict each other, because that would mean contradicting the Creator.)
Seriously, though, of much greater interest to me would be the (likely much longer) list of biologists, paleontologists, and astrophysicists (the only three classes of scientist whose opinions I take seriously on this matter) who have no trouble at all reconciling their faith in Jesus Christ with a belief in evolution. I wonder if their salvation is at all tainted by their skepticism toward a literal interpretation of Genesis.
You mean the people on that list might have some kind of agenda??
Shurely shome mishtake!
Come on push, show me one peer reviewed scientific article that in any way supports creationism. You seem so sure of yourself I’m sure you can manage this simple request.
Indeed, lest anyone think that this is a matter of Christianity vs. Science, here is a statement from the leader of the world’s largest Christian organization:
“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” --Pope Benedict
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3/Evolution-and-the-Catholic-Church-691402.html
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab baby, YOU are the one that said one can’t be both a scientist and creationist. YOU brought it up, not me. You were foolish to do so. That accusation can easily be refuted.
The moth study at best illustrates micro-evolution - something we all can agree occurs. And the study itself has been discredited. You don’t think so. Fine, you hang on to that one.
You have a lot of gall asking me to produce evidence when you have failed in every single instance for providing evidence for your religion. Just throwing out the human genome project and leaving it at that doesn’t cut it. You need to explain why that validates your point of view.
You can’t have it both ways, bud. [/quote]
You have this so astonishingly backwards that I’m actually starting to think you are having me on in some elaborate parody.
As I said before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on you; you are the one proposing something fantastical and unsupported by evidence, not me.
Anyway, evidence for evolution;
Atavisms and vestigial organs/parts
Observable micro-evolution
Observable macro-evolution (whole genome duplication)
DNA
Human chromosome no. 2
Retroviruses
Genetic distances
Fossils/the fossil record (all of which are transitional, just as all living organisms are transitional)
Mutations
Observed instances of speciation
Comparative anatomy
Geographical distribution
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Interspecies fertility (polar bears and brown bears)
There have been other things mentioned previously such as the chain of birds around the planet, the domestication of foxes in to dog like creatures, the domestication of wolves, the similarity of hyenas to dogs.
On the previous page, all the things I mentioned as flaws in the human body if it were designed are evidence for evolution.
On top of this, the predictions of evolutionary theory, such as an old earth, are confirmed by physics and dating methods. And in turn, other scientific fields such as geology help to explain other evolutionary phenomena such as distribution as mentioned previously.
Evolution has helped us with medicines, psychology, farming, physiotherapy and many other things besides.
The sheer explanatory power of evolution is mind boggling to perfectly frank. It’s scope dwarves petty notions of god. It’s majesty is awe inspiring. And yet, I would absolutely LOVE it if someone could disprove the theory. It would mean that we were brought closer to a more complete understanding of the world around us, and who does not want that?
I really can’t stress this enough, if you have any evidence whatsoever that disproves evolution, please write a paper on it and win the nobel prize. If you have any evidence whatsoever for creationism, please, do the same. You will be revered and hailed for all time. Clearly by your firm stance someone is close to this breakthrough, so I urge you to hurry so your glory is not stolen from you.
I can genuinly not think of anything more incredible or wondrous than disproving evolution, it would be one of the single most important discoveries of all time!