Creationism vs Evolution

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just a thought for Pook and Ferg. Have you ever considered contributing to a weight training discussion here on this site?[/quote]

At times, but talking about training bores me. And the last time I bothered, I wasted more time fending off Prof X than answering the initial poster’s questions.

Are you considering the “I answer training questions and have more posts than you, so I must be right!” approach?

[Lorisco]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?

Christianity has nothing to do with science.

Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.

Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.
[/quote]

So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.

So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.

Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Just a thought for Pook and Ferg. Have you ever considered contributing to a weight training discussion here on this site?

At times, but talking about training bores me. And the last time I bothered, I wasted more time fending off Prof X than answering the initial poster’s questions.

Are you considering the “I answer training questions and have more posts than you, so I must be right!” approach?

No, you just seemed aggravated and bored here on this thread so I thought a little excitement (like posting about hoisting a BB or DB) in your life might just brighten your day.
[/quote]

Me? I just pump irony.

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, you just seemed aggravated and bored here on this thread so I thought a little excitement (like posting about hoisting a BB or DB) in your life might just brighten your day.[/quote]

There might a little annoyance at having you post various URLs from the same two or three sites, but then deflect any discussion about what you posted with “light banter.”

For someone who claims to have weighed the evidence and spent hundreds of hours debating the pros and cons, you seem oddly shy when it comes to actual discussion.

Aren’t you at least curious as to why an article you post first explains vertical trees by claiming they had a heavy “root ball” but later mentions that the trees showed no root? That comes across as honest and rational to you?

I’m not as much interested in flood geology as I’m rather fascinated as to how anyone can honestly think any of it makes sense. In most debates, you generally end up with two, maybe three, sides; and each has a fair number of adherents. But here we have an example of one against all; and even when fellow believers whom you respect comment on the craziness of your views, you persist. I find the level of self-delusion required rather fascinating.

I’m also wondering if maybe you’re a bit more doubtful about FG than you were initially, but simply have invested to much of yourself into this - much of it to people outside this site - to be able to face being wrong.

[pookie]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Just a thought for Pook and Ferg. Have you ever considered contributing to a weight training discussion here on this site?

At times, but talking about training bores me. And the last time I bothered, I wasted more time fending off Prof X than answering the initial poster’s questions.

Are you considering the “I answer training questions and have more posts than you, so I must be right!” approach?

No, you just seemed aggravated and bored here on this thread so I thought a little excitement (like posting about hoisting a BB or DB) in your life might just brighten your day.

Me? I just pump irony.[/quote]

Yeah, those discussions involve a lot of wait training.

Then, at the end of the day, you’re never sure if you’ll get hype or trophy.

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re annoyed because your faith is being challenged here. You are as religious as any person anywhere on TN. ANY objective observer of this thread can plainly see that.[/quote]

Man, I would love nothing more than to be challenged. I’d be nice if you would actually do so instead of claim to do so.

I have spent more than enough time on this thread. More than any other thread I’ve ever posted on. Some of it was fun banter. Some was serious. If it doesn’t meet your “standards”, move on. Go post on the “Better Biceps” thread. Go post on the Christianity thread. Rate Your Physique could use you as well.

You seem awfully anxious to get everyone off this thread. Why is that?

The fact that you think my arguments are shallow but yet you persist here speaks volumes about your religious zealotry. BTW, your idea of “actual discussion” is more often than not, simple derision. Nothing more. And THAT is the sign of a weak debate as well as a weak debater.

Maybe I should alternate between posting other people’s article and making flat-falling jokes. Those are the signs of a strong debater, right?

I have posted some links because I was urged to do so many times. Some of you had questions. I attempted to answer them. It was insufficient according to some so I referred you to other websites and listed some articles as well. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else. Hit the dusty trail, pard.

And miss all those lovely colloquialisms of yours? Come on.

I’ll go back and reread the article and get back to you. If I don’t feel free to lance me clean through. I don’t have the time right this minute.

Haven’t you already read it?

The “one against all” thing bothers me not at all. And I honestly don’t know of the “fellow believers whom you respect” that you speak of.

Ok, my bad.

Pook, you are a self important legend in your own mind who fashions himself as some sort of stylish atheistic philosophical debutant. But in reality you’re just a little man who makes his mark on TN strictly through the use of derision. Not that you don’t inject some reasoning from time to time but you do make your mark strictly through disparagement. You even drag your hard feelings from this thread into lighthearted ones on GAL. You are truly a pathetic individual. I feel sorry for you. Your life must be filled with misery.

I don’t know where you get that from. Looks like I said something that really stuck a burr under your saddle somewhere back there. Was it the insecurity thing?

Of this you can be sure - I am just as confident in flood geology as a viable theory as I ever was. I’m not sure where you could’ve pulled that from.

Just wondering. I find your, well, fanaticism is the only word that really describes it, darn fascinating.

Again, you’re too lathered up. Relax and enjoy the discussion, both the serious stuff and the banter. Or leave. The door is unlocked.

I’d like to enjoy the discussion… do you think we’ll eventually have a real one?

I’m pretty sure everyone around here is aware that they’re not compelled in any way to participate; and they’ve noticed the “Forums” menu with the other topics in it. Is “inviting people to leave” your theme for the day? Is that what replaces your “fixed it for you” schtick?

You’re a repetitively simple man, flushy.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?

Christianity has nothing to do with science.

Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.

Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.

So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.

So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.

Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…
[/quote]

Ok. I have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry. Evolutionary theory must be at least falsifiable, if not verifiable.
And you, Friend Lorisco, imply that science, or in this case, evolution, can not be disproved.

Jab suggests that evolution will be found false when Push finds a pre-Cambrian rabbit. This will prove exhausting, even for Pushharder’s considerable energies.

Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.

1. Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
2. Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
3. Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).

If one can do this, an evolutionist may say there are missing forms in transition.
But if one can show that this be the case repeatedly, and randomly, only Intelligent Design would be left as an answer.

It hasn’t been done yet.
No one at the peripatetic ICR has suggested anything so elegant.
(I suppose the obvious examples would be lactate dehydrogenase, or phosphofructokinase, or other enzymes which separate aerobes from anaerobes, but that may be a stretch open to too much conjecture. Let’s keep it restricted to aerobic species.)

None of this requires faith, just work.
None of this requires hypotheses about tree root balls and tilted whales, and 10 million divine interventions. Just work

On the other hand, if we find the Easter Bunny with that basket of pterodactyl eggs…

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
…
But what does this say about this “ICR,” for which he is author of “the biological sciences course material for the Creationist Worldview blahblahblah?” Seems like they have mighty low standards of inquiry and honesty.
…
Like I said before, Santee is what, maybe a 15 minute drive from you? Spend a few hours over there putting ‘em in their place and report back here. I think it would make for interesting sidelight to this thread. Tell you what, I’ll even send you the gas money and a gift certificate at Denny’s. So there, ol’ Flushy is willing to pay for your expenses for a day at the zoo.

…
OK…That’s it! I’m gassing up the Chevy and gettin’ myself an education![/quote]

OOPS! It looks like I will be needin’ more than just one tank of gas to get to ICR, which has up and evolved over to Dallas, TX.
Did they leave you off the mailing list again, Push?

[Fergy]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.

1. Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
2. Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
3. Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).

[/quote]

Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

Have you seen this video Dr. Skept? Your post reminded me of it.

[pookie]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.

1. Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
2. Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
3. Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).[/quote]

A similar challenge, addressed to the Discovery Institute: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover - YouTube

[Fergy]

Haha, we posted the same video -_- .

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And maybe you’re a repetitively miserable one, Vicar.[/quote]

So it was the insecurity poke after all. Damn you insecure people are so… insecure.

Come on flushy, don’t be like that. Smile. You know we’re all in awe at your carnal prowess. Sure, most of us outgrow that phase in our early twenties - not the prowess mind you, but the constant bragging - but it’s ok. If we can humor that guy at the office, we can do it here too.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Fergy wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.

1. Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
2. Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
3. Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).

Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

Have you seen this video Dr. Skept? Your post reminded me of it.
[/quote]

Dang! Scooped again!!! Well, I am not going to Stockholm this year either.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

OOPS! It looks like I will be needin’ more than just one tank of gas to get to ICR, which has up and evolved over to Dallas, TX.
Did they leave you off the mailing list again, Push?

Shucks, now you’re off the hook. You would’ve visited if they had just stayed put in the San Diego area?

OK, make you another deal. You AND me meet in Dallas and do the field trip together?[/quote]

Dallas? Texas?

Why not some place on the habitable planet?

[pookie]

[quote]Fergy wrote:
Haha, we posted the same video -_- .[/quote]

Yeah, it’s been mentioned on a few science blogs since it came out.