Creationism vs Evolution

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Awesome, has this become an evolution vs pushharder thread? Every new post makes me cringe a little bit. So far I’ve read more than 3 people asking him for EVIDENCE of his point of view, and what did we get, a bible quote.

I cited several sources/websites. You apparently were to blind with fury to see them.

[/quote]

You did post a whole lot of things. Please spare me the inconveniece of going through all of them again, and give me one example of a fact (preferably one that is not an attempt at refuting a previous statement). Or just pick your favourite.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Awesome, has this become an evolution vs pushharder thread? Every new post makes me cringe a little bit. So far I’ve read more than 3 people asking him for EVIDENCE of his point of view, and what did we get, a bible quote.[/quote]
Part of me still thinks he’s having me on. I’ve never encountered a real person like this before. Sure, I’ve encounted people my own age, or teenagers, but never a grown man with children my age. Push’s behaviour is quite classic of the standard creationist model that I have seen, and I think an interesting psychological study of this behaviour could be made.

For instance you’ll notice that he imputes faith and mindless passion in to my arguments, which is an interesting projection of his own techniques. Admittedly I have demonstrated passion, but it is a passion for truth, regardless of how I think the world should be. He has repeatedly lied about things I have said, either that or has a reading comprehension level below what I would assume from his standard of writing.

As you mentioned he repeatedly dodges requests for evidence, and instead only supplies easily refutable “proofs that evolution is wrong”. As you also mentioned he has quoted the Bible, which has no place in a scientific discussion of biology. He frequently uses comedy or “cuetsy” style writing to try and diminish what I say in respectability. Any articles he cites come only from creationist sources, and not scientific ones. He has used the appeal to authority (“look how many clever people believe this”). He has created an imaginary distinction between macro and mico-evolution that does not exist in the same way in science.

He has denied scientific and technological advances (for example in medicine, physiotherapy, agriculture) only made possible by our knowledge of evolution without which nothing in biology makes sense.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
But really, why are we still arguing? I know I said it’s fun, how arguing with someone on their faith is like trying to kill zombies or something. But when it gets this personal, it’s just boring. Obviously he skips facts that are not relevant to his point of view, he tries to change the topic and make it personal, and he manipulates iformation we present. But after all, who cares what one person thinks?[/quote]

I’m just trying to educate him. I’ve helped some other friends through the maze of creationist lies, and I really enjoy basking in the reflected glow of the profound freedom they feel when they throw off these shackles. Push has captured my attention for this and other reasons.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
I’m happy to see that most guys here are not blind by religion. But honestly, you can’t change someone’s opinion when it’s based on nothign but believing. It’s sad, but true. So let’s just make a thread about how cool science is, we can discuss evolution, scientific articles, the sad influence of religion over American culture, or more light hearted themes like the new Star Trek (love it!), and The Big Bang Theory (best sitcom ever). Let people who want to believe in fairy tales lives their lives, not grasping the sarcasm and music references in our posts, and ignoring the facts we present, quoting the bible and their little list of Baptist Scientist (oxymoron!).
[/quote]
Superb idea, lets try it!

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
On the plus side, just remember that this whole discussion is a deeply cultural thing, and if you want a break from it, travel outside of the US. Or talk to people outside of the US. I mean, maybe you’ll have the same issue if you try to discuss the topic with, say, middle-easterns. Oh the IRONY!![/quote]
This is part of the reason push amazes me so much, living in the UK I’ve only ever met one creationist.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Awesome, has this become an evolution vs pushharder thread? Every new post makes me cringe a little bit. So far I’ve read more than 3 people asking him for EVIDENCE of his point of view, and what did we get, a bible quote.

I cited several sources/websites. You apparently were to blind with fury to see them.

[/quote]
You are still yet to cite a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal (and as I said before, that does not include creationist “journals” or websites).

If you had any evidence you’d be able to name it and I could search for it for myself. Just like I reeled off a list of evidence that you could educate yourself from.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:

…And yea I was the capitol B rebel. Note I said in my post that yes, it’s a grammar rule to say Bible, since it’s the name of a book, but I like to say bible, because it offends people like push. It’s nothign personal, it just causes a reaction that I find interesting. Works everytime. Note he mentioned it more than once. It’s naughty not to respect his precious little book from where he learns everything he needs to…

Oh, yes, I’m seething. You did a grand job of offending me, little guy.

The rest of your post (sorry for omitting the quote) implicates you as another one of the many Believers who gets the hives if your religion is questioned or refuted. So far, Jab has waged a much more splendid battle. You have your b/B thing going for you and that’s about it. You’d be better off tagging out with him as soon as possible, college boy.

How do I know you (and Jab) are college boys? Sheeeeit, it’s always the college boys that are fresh out of a evolutionist biology professor’s tutelage, full of rage and righteous venom, ready to cut their swath in the world. You boyz are actually quite humorous with all your hubris. But I can’t swat at you too hard; I used to be the same way about many things.

[/quote]
This is a logical fallacy. Your age or experience in the world doesn’t necessarily mean anything with regards to your knowledge of science. Someone who is 20 and has spent 2 years studying science is going to be far more knowledgeable of that facet of life than someone who is 50 and has never studied science.

An analogy can be made with weightlifting; a 20 year old who has spent four years with proper diet and training and sleep will know far more than a 50 year old who has never done this with any consistency and will have the physique to prove it.

I’ll wager that my knowledge of science is better than yours in this area, despite the difference in years. This is not hubris, but is demonstrable within this very thread. For example, it is clearly obvious that you had a misunderstanding of the meaning of “theory” in a scientific context towards the beginning of this thread.

Hubris is claiming that we are the result of a creator who made everything specifically for us, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I can’t think of anything much more arrogant.

EDIT: In addition, your use of belittling or bullying tactics such as calling people “little guy” or “college boy” does nothing to add weight to your argument or the truthfulness of creationism. Since when was being at university with the intention of getting a degree and bettering yourself something to be made fun of? This is akin to the junior school bullies who pick on intelligent kids just for being smart.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Awesome, has this become an evolution vs pushharder thread? Every new post makes me cringe a little bit. So far I’ve read more than 3 people asking him for EVIDENCE of his point of view, and what did we get, a bible quote.
Part of me still thinks he’s having me on. I’ve never encountered a real person like this before. Sure, I’ve encounted people my own age, or teenagers, but never a grown man with children my age. Push’s behaviour is quite classic of the standard creationist model that I have seen, and I think an interesting psychological study of this behaviour could be made.

For instance you’ll notice that he imputes faith and mindless passion in to my arguments, which is an interesting projection of his own techniques. Admittedly I have demonstrated passion, but it is a passion for truth, regardless of how I think the world should be. He has repeatedly lied about things I have said, either that or has a reading comprehension level below what I would assume from his standard of writing.

As you mentioned he repeatedly dodges requests for evidence, and instead only supplies easily refutable “proofs that evolution is wrong”. As you also mentioned he has quoted the Bible, which has no place in a scientific discussion of biology. He frequently uses comedy or “cuetsy” style writing to try and diminish what I say in respectability. Any articles he cites come only from creationist sources, and not scientific ones. He has used the appeal to authority (“look how many clever people believe this”). He has created an imaginary distinction between macro and mico-evolution that does not exist in the same way in science.

He has denied scientific and technological advances (for example in medicine, physiotherapy, agriculture) only made possible by our knowledge of evolution without which nothing in biology makes sense.[/quote]

Yea, he accused me of treating science as a religion as well. Which not only is a mistake, but also shows how he things that dogmas are blinding. But not when said dogmas are religious. In that case they’re just fine.

Also, not only said “proofs that evolution is wrong” are flawed, they bring another interesting point. According to creationists, the moment they proove one little aspect of evolution wrong, or simply not yet explained, the whole theory is debunked. But foe some reason, that I cannot understand, the rule doesn’t apply to the bible. You can prove hundreds of things about the bible wrong, it still doesn’t debunk the overall view. A few examples: the earth if flat, 6 thousand years old, and goes around the sun, are mere details, that should not be looked at literally. But all the rest should.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
But really, why are we still arguing? I know I said it’s fun, how arguing with someone on their faith is like trying to kill zombies or something. But when it gets this personal, it’s just boring. Obviously he skips facts that are not relevant to his point of view, he tries to change the topic and make it personal, and he manipulates iformation we present. But after all, who cares what one person thinks?

I’m just trying to educate him. I’ve helped some other friends through the maze of creationist lies, and I really enjoy basking in the reflected glow of the profound freedom they feel when they throw off these shackles. Push has captured my attention for this and other reasons.
[/quote]

I’m not sure it’s worth it. Come to think of it, some people need faith. And some people believe that if they deny a small part of their faith, they’ll be denying everything. Which is funny though, when you consider that 99% of these people (I’m leaving that 1% there, but have never encountered such an individual), actually pick what rules to follow like in a menu. I quote: "Andrew I. Kapust wonders why creationists don’t keep kosher, as he proudly does. I accuse them of picking and choosing among Old Testament laws and pronouncements. Anything they like, like the six days of creation, or “Thou shalt not kill” (mainly as applied to fetuses) is the inerrant word of God. However, most of the other 687 laws (like not wearing cotton-polyester blend fabrics, keeping the SABBATH [Saturday] holy, punishing rapists by forcing them to marry their victims, etc.) they have been excused from observing by Jesus. I can’t seem to find the list in the New Testament, however, that details exactly which laws can safely be ignored by fundamentalists. "

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
I’m happy to see that most guys here are not blind by religion. But honestly, you can’t change someone’s opinion when it’s based on nothign but believing. It’s sad, but true. So let’s just make a thread about how cool science is, we can discuss evolution, scientific articles, the sad influence of religion over American culture, or more light hearted themes like the new Star Trek (love it!), and The Big Bang Theory (best sitcom ever). Let people who want to believe in fairy tales lives their lives, not grasping the sarcasm and music references in our posts, and ignoring the facts we present, quoting the bible and their little list of Baptist Scientist (oxymoron!).

Superb idea, lets try it!

[/quote]

Ok, who will create the thread?

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
On the plus side, just remember that this whole discussion is a deeply cultural thing, and if you want a break from it, travel outside of the US. Or talk to people outside of the US. I mean, maybe you’ll have the same issue if you try to discuss the topic with, say, middle-easterns. Oh the IRONY!!
This is part of the reason push amazes me so much, living in the UK I’ve only ever met one creationist.

[/quote]

I know, it can be quite mind-boggling. I had never heard of such a thing in Brasil either, and went to a catholic school from 7 to 17 years old, where we’d actually have religion classes once a week and the nuns would frown if they caught me kissing my boyfriend during breaks (haha, thankfully it wasn’t a girls only school at least!). Talking to dutch friends, they told me they also had never heard such discussion. And I remember reading a german scientist saying that he doesn’t recall the word “creationist” even existing in german. Also, I’d say 50% of the students in the college I went to were japanese (children or grandchildren of japanese immigrant, dang those kids are nerds!), and I had never heard any of them mentioning this kind of belief. Now moving here to the states, and having a creationist husband, it drives me crazy. It simply amazes me that in the (supposedly) land of freedom and progress, such things are still taboo.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:

…And yea I was the capitol B rebel. Note I said in my post that yes, it’s a grammar rule to say Bible, since it’s the name of a book, but I like to say bible, because it offends people like push. It’s nothign personal, it just causes a reaction that I find interesting. Works everytime. Note he mentioned it more than once. It’s naughty not to respect his precious little book from where he learns everything he needs to…

Oh, yes, I’m seething. You did a grand job of offending me, little guy.

The rest of your post (sorry for omitting the quote) implicates you as another one of the many Believers who gets the hives if your religion is questioned or refuted. So far, Jab has waged a much more splendid battle. You have your b/B thing going for you and that’s about it. You’d be better off tagging out with him as soon as possible, college boy.

How do I know you (and Jab) are college boys? Sheeeeit, it’s always the college boys that are fresh out of a evolutionist biology professor’s tutelage, full of rage and righteous venom, ready to cut their swath in the world. You boyz are actually quite humorous with all your hubris. But I can’t swat at you too hard; I used to be the same way about many things.

[/quote]

You amuse me. I’m not the one here who is “blind with fury”. If you’re going to make this personal, at least take your time and pay more attention to things before trying to offend me, otherwise the one that comes off as a “boy” is you. When you called me “amigo” I thought it was just bad spanish, but apparently my nickname BetaBerry isn’t clear enough. But surely, my other posts ought to be. I’m neither in college (finished my 6 years pharmacy and biochemistry majors last year), nor a boy.

Not very observant, are you?

Well your attempt at offending me by calling me a college boy was a failure.

Inserts LotR refernce just for the geeky value. I just felt like Eowyn here! Thanks!

Edit:

[quote]
EDIT: In addition, your use of belittling or bullying tactics such as calling people “little guy” or “college boy” does nothing to add weight to your argument or the truthfulness of creationism. Since when was being at university with the intention of getting a degree and bettering yourself something to be made fun of? This is akin to the junior school bullies who pick on intelligent kids just for being smart. [quote]

Ditto.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

OK, little college boy, I said what I said because I realized the perspective you and your twin missionary were coming from…and that gives me some perspective as to who I’m dealing with here. FWIW, I think you are a smart guy. You probably did/do well in many of your classes. But you have little wisdom. That is, fortunately for you and a zillion other boys, a potentially improvable situation because you will age. If you work on it you will age and acquire wisdom at the same time.
[/quote]

The perspective of not being a tired old person, and still believing that we can “change the world” and “educate people”. Yes, naive indeed. But fortunately we still have many years of it to enjoy. I hope I don’t “improve” too soon, I actually hope I never improve. Because honestly, “picking your battles” might sound wise, but the moment I stop defending my beliefs, I might as well be dead. You should know. You might be old, but you still realize that being able to defend your point of view is one of the most valuable things in life.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  • Side note: you really do need to go back and examine the meanings behind the words “theory” and “hypothesis”. You are the one who is, in fact, in error. I understand your tenacious belief in your cult will inhibit you from grasping what I’m saying but nonetheless…[/quote]

Sorry, you’re wrong on that one. Theory is what can be observed (but not necessarily reproduced in different conditions). Hypothesis is what can’t be observed, it remains as a thought until an observation changes it into theory.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I do see some of me in you, figuratively speaking of course, and I do remember what it was like to KNOW I was soooooo right about sooooooo many things and if I’d have had the internet 28 years ago I suppose I would’ve taken my electronic chain saw and logged my way through a few forests as well, thinking fuckin Paul Bunyan himself would have taken his hat off to such a splendid effort as mine.[/quote]

Really? No wonder you remember, that’s exactly what you’re still doing. The only difference is that is sounds just plain sad when you try to pull off this “wise old man” attitude while you’re the one here dropping cursing and offenses.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t worry or fret, you have a lot to learn about science, philosophy, spiritual matters, non-spiritual matters, love, hate, intellectualism, the world you see and the one you don’t. Someday you’re likely to look back on your little temper tantrum that you threw over peer-reviewed articles (which professor told you to press for this one?) and think, “Wow, I was an obnoxious little cocksucker. I wish I had that to do over again.” [/quote]

You, on the other hand, seem to have learned nothing about science, and still argue over it, and when you run out of arguements, you go with cursing and personal offense (failing at it, though). You may have learned a lot about love, hate, spiritual matters, or whatever else that makes you think so highly of yourself, but all that is irrelevant to this topic

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I know I’ve had to concede things like that in my life. I doubt you’re that much different than me in that respect.
[/quote]

For someone so wise, who has learned to much about changing what you can, accepting what you can’t, and knowing the difference, you seem to be having a really hard time with this one.

Well now I have an avatar, should make it easy for people who apparently pay no attention to other’s posts.

Reeeaally? The offense started in the post above? Are you sure?!? Do you really think it started with my post, not when you called us “college boys”. Not when you said "and think, “Wow, I was an obnoxious little cocksucker”. Not 5 pages ago when you said I was “souless”? I assume you also don’t think your post was sexist. Now I’m not denying that my post above was a little bit offensive, and more than a little bit sarcastic. Clearly, it got to your nerves, so I’m glad it accomplished its goal. I wasn’t trying to be polite, since apparently that doesn’t work with you.

On a side note, for someone who thinks a few words in french and spanish make him sound smart, I would expect to understand that in latin languages, the words berry and fruit are feminine. While that is lost in English, since most nouns here don’t have a feminine/masculine conotation, it’s still rather obvious that “Beta” wouldn’t be a male name. Plus, even though cherries aren’t technically berries, the association is rather obvious, so if you perceive cherries as feminine, the same would apply to berries.

And PLEASE can you drop the “blinded” thing already? You’re been repeating it for what, 6 posts? It doesn’t make sense, it’s gettign boring, and it’s making me doubt your ability at coming up with something new.

Do you skip people’s posts or what? How can you still be repeating that macro-evolution cannot be observed? Are you purposefully ignoring information that is presented right before your eyes or do you honestly not grasp the concept? How is it possible that after all the talk about fossils, common ancestors, vestigial organs, DNA, etc etc… you still simply don’t get it?!? How is that even possible???

And why do you still refuse to answer simple questions such as my dinossaur-related questions, and my questions about what parts of the bible do you chose to take literally and what parts you don’t?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is a logical fallacy. Your age or experience in the world doesn’t necessarily mean anything with regards to your knowledge of science. Someone who is 20 and has spent 2 years studying science is going to be far more knowledgeable of that facet of life than someone who is 50 and has never studied science.

An analogy can be made with weightlifting; a 20 year old who has spent four years with proper diet and training and sleep will know far more than a 50 year old who has never done this with any consistency and will have the physique to prove it.

I’ll wager that my knowledge of science is better than yours in this area, despite the difference in years. This is not hubris, but is demonstrable within this very thread. For example, it is clearly obvious that you had a misunderstanding of the meaning of “theory” in a scientific context towards the beginning of this thread.

Hubris is claiming that we are the result of a creator who made everything specifically for us, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I can’t think of anything much more arrogant.

EDIT: In addition, your use of belittling or bullying tactics such as calling people “little guy” or “college boy” does nothing to add weight to your argument or the truthfulness of creationism. Since when was being at university with the intention of getting a degree and bettering yourself something to be made fun of? This is akin to the junior school bullies who pick on intelligent kids just for being smart.

OK, little college boy, I said what I said because I realized the perspective you and your twin missionary were coming from…and that gives me some perspective as to who I’m dealing with here. FWIW, I think you are a smart guy. You probably did/do well in many of your classes. But you have little wisdom. That is, fortunately for you and a zillion other boys, a potentially improvable situation because you will age. If you work on it you will age and acquire wisdom at the same time.

  • Side note: you really do need to go back and examine the meanings behind the words “theory” and “hypothesis”. You are the one who is, in fact, in error. I understand your tenacious belief in your cult will inhibit you from grasping what I’m saying but nonetheless…

I do see some of me in you, figuratively speaking of course, and I do remember what it was like to KNOW I was soooooo right about sooooooo many things and if I’d have had the internet 28 years ago I suppose I would’ve taken my electronic chain saw and logged my way through a few forests as well, thinking fuckin Paul Bunyan himself would have taken his hat off to such a splendid effort as mine.

Don’t worry or fret, you have a lot to learn about science, philosophy, spiritual matters, non-spiritual matters, love, hate, intellectualism, the world you see and the one you don’t. Someday you’re likely to look back on your little temper tantrum that you threw over peer-reviewed articles (which professor told you to press for this one?) and think, “Wow, I was an obnoxious little cocksucker. I wish I had that to do over again.”

I know I’ve had to concede things like that in my life. I doubt you’re that much different than me in that respect.
[/quote]

The lecture was not needed. I have a very good idea of just how little I know. I can tell, for instance, that you know more about weightlifting than I do. You also know more about sex and fulfilling relationships than I do.

No professor has ever told me to press for anything. In fact, my major is English Language. Incidentally a large proportion of this subject would be un-workable without the scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Repeatedly telling me that I am wrong about the definition of theory does not change the fact that actually, you are wrong, and I have demonstrated this with evidence on several occasions. Your refusal to acknowledge this is just one example of the wilful mendacity so often displayed by creationists.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You deserved to be taken down a peg or two, sweetheart, when you decided to make it personal and the post above make it quite obvious when and where the personal stuff began; your hypocrisy befits you. But don’t sweat it, for crying out loud. Take your lickin’ and move on.[/quote]

I actually burst out laughing at your final sentence there. Why on earth did she deserve to be taken down a peg? Because she has an actual background in science and knows what she’s talking about?

The fact that you have to resort to personal insults, sexist remarks and blatant falsehoods is embarassing for all of us. Just because you know nothing about biology doesn’t mean you should insult people who do, or try and bully or belittle them for knowing more than you.

I suggest that either you start supporting your statements with evidence, or you stop hurling childish insults, or both.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:

Plus, even though cherries aren’t technically berries, the association is rather obvious, so if you perceive cherries as feminine, the same would apply to berries.

[/quote]

It’s certainly more obvious than Betadrupe would have been.

Then Push would have concluded you were an impotent male.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

BTW, all ribbing aside, how does it work having a creationist husband when you have such a blatant animosity for creationism? Honest, I’m not poking fun at you here. I’m seriously interested.[/quote]

Well it works because I’m part of the outstandingly beautiful Brazilian women. Ok maybe not. We have had serious fights about it before, but mostly we have fun discussions about it. I know when to say things and when it’s not a good moment though. Like during Easter and Christmas I endure a couple hours at the baptist church, mostly in silence, and when we go out for dinner with his dad and he starts to talk religion or says grace before eating, I just keep the mocking inside my head. I’m also a vegetarian and he’s a meat eater. I’m democrat and he’s republican. But those aren’t big issues for us. The once or twice that this kind of thing became big fights was when I was thinking things like “what if we ever decide to have a kid?” or “what if this becomes a problem 10 years from now?”. But I’m not an easy person and he knows it, and I don’t think he would want it another way. We’re both stubborn so it helps, otheriwse I’m sure we wouldn’t even be married, (long distance, cultural differences, we had some hardships)

Now if I’m posting in a thread like this I assume that anyone who decided to read it might be prepared to see both sides, so don’t click if either is going to make you mad. On a side note, I met my husband online (playing an MMORPG), so I don’t really see “the internet” as this virtual place where you can say anything because it doesn’t matter. I acknowledge that I’m a person and I’m talking to another person. It doesn’t mean I take things seriously all the time, the same way I don’t take in person converstations seriously all the time.

And please don’t say thing like “baby” and “I’ll take it easier”. It sounds patronizing and offensive. I’m far from a feminist, but I don’t need anything easier on me either.