[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.
[/quote]
What?
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
earthers when you’re done with them…
I agree, Iago, you’re wasting your time. I’ve never seen such a concerted effort at willful ignorance by two people in my life.
I really just think you should let this thread die. You and many other people have presented good solid evidence for evolution, while refuting WAY to many of throttle’s posts. Meanwhile these two crackheads you’re arguing with have been attacking macroevolution with the zeal of a dog humping the leg of an uncomfortable dinner guest, playing semantics games and acting downright childish and insulting. I’m not saying that I haven’t been any of these things, but Iago certainly hasn’t.
Iago, unless you for some sick reason enjoy this, I implore you stop responding to these people. Honestly, I think they’re just trying to annoy you with the ridiculous number of posts and absurd arguments that the earth is 6000 years old. Anyway this thread ceased to have a point to it well over 100 posts ago.
Have a good day boys, and remember, just because a book claims to be non-fiction, doesn’t mean it is.[/quote]
I agree. I’m showing that “grass is green” and I’m getting back “no it’s purple.” They do not understand how science works to indirectly show how something in the past happened (which completely baffles me, since Forensic science depends on our ability to do so), or I’m called arrogant because ID is faith based (as the founders of ID have called it) and doesn’t belong in a science class (huh?).
If I want to understand the natural world I’m bound to to explain natural phenomena through scientific methods. Science explains the natural world, not the supernatural (as the realm of God is called, it’s not a knock). Faith is a supernatural tool and therefore can not explain the natural world. I can only conclude that those against it here really do not understand the scientific method, how evidence is tested, theories are formed (and what that means), or even the way specific words are used in science. There’s even confusion over the theory and the fact of evolution (even most ID supporters involved directly and indirectly with the current Dover trial recognize the fact of evolution, what they are arguing over is the theory and the aid of a supernatural force. You read that from the transcripts and news interviews).
Well look, there’s really nothing else I can do. Everyone can argue over semantics and not understand how the words are used, or state that faith is a good tool to understand the natural world - but then we have to let all the Native American creation myths in along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I’m sticking with science to explain the natural world, and I’m letting my faith explain the supernatural. I don’t want science to explain God to me because last I checked God is greater than the method to understand God (what’s the value of faith if the supernatural can be proven?), and I don’t want faith to explain the physical world to me because it doesn’t allow itself to be over-turned when new theories provide better ways to understand the natural world (Newton to Einstein). Keep faith in a religious, philosophy, mythology or humanities class. Keep science in the science classes. And that’s not because-I-say-so-so-it’s-true. That’s a conclusion to an argument based on the provided facts leading to the conclusion.
I’m done here.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
This is obviously a religious thread. Just when you think it’s dead, three days later it’s up and running around again![/quote]
You’re right about that!
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.
What?[/quote]
Why would you urge a cessation to this conversation and then turn around and ask a question?
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.
What?
Why would you urge a cessation to this conversation and then turn around and ask a question?[/quote]
I just wanted to know what you meant by ‘I am referring to goo to you evolution’.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
I can only conclude that those here… really do not …understand …how…even the way specific words are used in science…
[/quote]
Wow! I was surprised you were brave enough to say this after getting your fanny spanked earlier on this subject.
Failure to distinguish between “evidence” and “proof/fact” illustrates a lack of ability to employ sound scientific principles.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.
What?
Why would you urge a cessation to this conversation and then turn around and ask a question?
I just wanted to know what you meant by ‘I am referring to goo to you evolution’.[/quote]
Glad you asked.
I guess I should have punctuated it as “goo-to-you” evolution. Another way to phrase it would be “microbe-to-man evolution”.
It refers to the thoroughly unsubstantiated, unobserved, untestable hypothesis of evolution in the sense of transitions of life forms where an increase of genetic information takes place. Observable speciation/microevolution with the aid of genetic mutations is speculated to make this possible. The problem is these mutations, which are genetic copying mistakes, corrupt information. With corrupt information you can’t have the necessary increase in information which leads to the biological transitions so desired in the goo-to-you hypothesis. (Can it even legitimately be called a hypothesis? I don’t think so.)
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.
What?
Why would you urge a cessation to this conversation and then turn around and ask a question?
I just wanted to know what you meant by ‘I am referring to goo to you evolution’.[/quote]
A little more on goo-to-you:
Rushing in?where wiser heads might not
Popular writer uses ?AIDS evolution? to attack creationists
by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG?Australia
12 April 2005
One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda).
A favourite ?boo-boo? they commit is to point to instances of changes in living things (even sometimes in ?less than living things?, like viruses) and then, often puffed up with high-and-mighty sarcasm, they say, in effect, ?Look at this?we?re seeing evolution happening in front of our eyes. Yet these poor religionists are so blinded by their beliefs that they are denying this obvious fact.?
One example a few years ago was the popular science writer Jonathan Weiner, who in his book Beak of the Finch waxed eloquent on the subject of ?evolution happening? (in Darwin?s Gal?pagos finches, mostly; he also gave examples like antibiotic/insecticide resistance, also refuted on our site).
Yet ?blind Freddy can see?1 that the examples he gave are classic examples of deceptive (whether intentional or not) equivocation (see this section of the article ?Logic and Creation?, including an example of this questionable practice by leading atheistic anti-creationist activist Eugenie Scott). The issue is not whether changes happen?the issue is whether the changes that happen force belief in goo-to-you evolution. I.e. are they in the right direction (see The evolution train?s a-comin? (Sorry, a-goin??in the wrong direction))? Finch beaks get a little bigger when the rains fail for a while, and then get smaller again when the weather swings back the other way. And for this, one is supposed to fall backwards in awe and accept that fish turned into philosophers, and microbes into microbiologists? Weiner?s work was reviewed in depth in an article published in TJ (see our website version).
The latest example is provided by another popular science writer, Carl Zimmer, who recently wrote Evolution at work and creationism nowhere in sight.
Zimmer refers to the way the AIDS virus is mutating and changing. Is it evolving? It depends on one?s definition of evolution. If it means ?change?, then the answer is ?yes, by definition?. What the reader is presumably intended to glean from this further example of evolutionary equivocation is something like this: ?Wow, I?ve just seen that evolution [meaning change] is a fact, so that means that if evolution [meaning goo-to-you and everything else over millions of years] is a fact, then I guess frogs really can turn into princes in time.? For more on such equivocation (switching definitions), see the article ?Who?s really pushing bad science??, the section Definitions as slippery as eels.
Had Zimmer checked this website first, he would have known that far from creationists ducking for cover at this ?blinding new evidence? (as his article, especially its title, implies), we wrote an article years ago Has AIDS evolved which, in principle, raised and dealt with the points his piece makes.
Watch what happens when Dawkins is asked to provide one single example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information in the genome. (requires Macromedia Flash Player.)
One can have compassion for their misunderstanding, but it?s hard to comprehend when such otherwise highly intelligent people burst into print in such ill-informed ways. And yes, it even provokes twinges of embarrassment for them, because it?s so blatant. (Of course, professional anti-creationists like Scott have no excuse for such misrepresentation because they clearly do read our material.)
For a great teaching and outreach tool which deals with the whole issue of changes in living things in a powerful, documentary style, I highly recommend the DVD From a Frog to a Prince. It features both creationist and evolutionist experts. This includes the famous (and ardently atheistic) evolutionist Professor Richard Dawkins. Watch what happens when Dawkins is asked to provide one single example of the sort of change in a living thing which one would expect to have hundreds of examples of, if bacteria really have turned into basketball players.
Note: The Australian Skeptics complained bitterly that Dawkins had been ?misrepresented? in the interview. The implication was that the answer Dawkins gave in his video was another one to another question, which had been ?doctored in?. However, this is not the case. Dawkins asked for the camera to be switched off to give him time to think, as a tape recording of the interview demonstrated, and the answer he came back with was the one shown in the documentary. The website of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association collates much relevant documentation?see ?Richard Dawkins and the 11 Second Pause?. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the Australian Skeptics gave Dawkins three whole pages in their magazine to ?set the record straight??yet despite Dawkins? bitter attacks on creationists, the requested example (of an uphill evolutionary change) was conspicuous by its absence.
I have repeatedly insisted that credible, indisputable evidences of increased genetic information type evolution be posted here but you pro-evolutionists haven’t responded. Despite claims to the contrary, examples of uphill evolutionary changes are conspicuously missing.
Now if that is the case why are you all screaming so loudly for examples and evidence for intelligent design?
(Maybe in a perverse kind of way, my earlier paragraph answers the question posted in the second?)
For those truly interested in “dissecting I.D.” you may want to read the book Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology by William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1999
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
I’m done here.[/quote]
Sorry to see you leave. Thanks. It’s been fun.
throttle, I am very impressed!
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And yet, you, and everyone like you, still can’t explain where the matter came from to have a “big bang” in the first place. So how stupid it that?
What in the world does that have to do with anything? Just because something cannot be explained yet (there are theories gaining credibility, check the links posted earlier) doesn’t make me or everyone like me stupid (and what does everyone like me mean?). There’s no cure for cancer, are cancer researchers stupid? I’m diabetic. There’s no known cure, so are endocrinologists stupid? How does not knowing something that isn’t knowable yet make someone stupid? Also, I’ve been posting about biological evolution, so your topic is a little (slightly) off topic. [/quote]
Is the fact that creationists can’t prove their theories about the origin of man (yet), stupid? If you want me and others to not think that things currently unknown are stupid, then you have to offer the same curticy.
Also, Isn’t a biological evolutionary theory useless unless it can account for where the organic materials originated in the first place? Or like much of science today do you just ignore those facts and continue on as if your theory was not based on unscientific conjecture?
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Having discussed it with philosophy profs, chemisty profs, social science profs, etc… I’m amazed at really how simple and obvious the whole thing is. It’s not the lack of information, as much as the evo’s want to make it seem that way, but rather a blind bias against considering ALL the info. But of course we’re ignorant and uneducated. Oh man!
;-0.
Best,
DH
throttle132 wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
I really enjoy getting down to it. There is a LOT more to demolish evolution with. Also, after a while it’s the same argument. Not to sound arrogant, because it’s not my info to begin with, but evolution is really pretty flimsy. The hardest part is getting people to see past the ingrained assumptions. It’s religious programming at it’s best. How ironic.
DH
throttle132 wrote:
Enjoyed your posts on the Dissecting I.D. thread. Wished you woulda hung around and played with us a little longer.
Thanks for your reply. I think the thread just may have died today but it was an awful amount of fun at the end. They gave up and went home!
[/quote]
You’re right on! The repeated claims that evolution has been proven over and over again and should be accepted as fact by everybody with a brain is simply astonishing as well as patently dishonest. (These claims are all over this thread) It is a notoriously weak hypothesis that does not even have a chance at this point in time of legitimately claiming even “theory” status much less “fact” status. Its influence so heavily saturates society that the average person does not realize what a truly flimsy idea it is and the average person is being duped - big time! The average person is intimidated by the potential ridicule he might suffer if he were to question or reject evolution (see this thread for examples). So the average person goes along with it, consciously or sub-consciously and the mass conversions continue.
These mass conversions will continue especially if the young can be indoctrinated with this stuff right off the bat in their schools and classrooms (the evolutionists’ “sanctuaries”). The I.D. movement worries these folks because for several generations now the evolutionists have had an exclusive domain there. They’ve had the opportunity to preach one religion and to exclude any others.
If I.D. was indeed such a terribly poor theory, as they say it is, full of holes and lacking evidence then you’d think it would be to the evolutionist’s advantage to have it taught and exposed in the classroom. Then the so-called vastly superior tenets of evolution could be contrasted with the so-called piss poor, feeble principles of I.D./creation.
Their shrieking hysteria against the teaching of I.D. is evidence of their fears and exposes their agenda of exclusion. They use the “your-religious-quackery-stuff-is fine-in-your-churches-and-homes-but-leave-it-out-of-the-classroom” tactic as a means to invoke the infamous “separation of church and state” Nazis to assist them in their noble - noble in their view anyway - mission.
When they are unsuccessful in their attempts they get emotional - they get mad - as they have on this thread. They resort to name calling and ridicule as a means of debate and if that doesn’t get them anywhere they eventually pack up their toys and go home and sulk. They can be soundly beaten in the arena of debate and their reaction is basically, “You religious nuts are so stupid and deluded. It is beneath us to continue.” This is not true just on this thread but throughout this whole arena worldwide. All in all it’s behavior you would expect from a loser and evolution as a valid scientific theory is a loser.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And yet, you, and everyone like you, still can’t explain where the matter came from to have a “big bang” in the first place. So how stupid it that?
What in the world does that have to do with anything? Just because something cannot be explained yet (there are theories gaining credibility, check the links posted earlier) doesn’t make me or everyone like me stupid (and what does everyone like me mean?). There’s no cure for cancer, are cancer researchers stupid? I’m diabetic. There’s no known cure, so are endocrinologists stupid? How does not knowing something that isn’t knowable yet make someone stupid? Also, I’ve been posting about biological evolution, so your topic is a little (slightly) off topic.
Is the fact that creationists can’t prove their theories about the origin of man (yet), stupid? [/quote]
Careful, careful. You’re dangerously close to exhibiting your naivete and unscholarliness here. Iago got stuck in that shithole and believe me, he didn’t smell that good when he got out. Go to your very own often cited website http://www.talkorigins.org/...c/sciproof.html for schooling on what “proof” means.
Also, Isn’t a biological evolutionary theory useless unless it can account for where the organic materials originated in the first place? [/quote] Did you actually intend to type this? It works against your argument. [quote] Or like much of science today do you just ignore those facts and continue on as if your theory was not based on unscientific conjecture?
[/quote]Again, see above cited evolutionist website for the definition of “fact”.
No, creationists cannot “prove” their theories and neither can evolutionists. You might also want to explore the definitions of “theory” and “hypothesis”. Evolution, at best, is a hypothesis, not a good one by any means IMHO.
Listen kids,
you really have to learn to tell the difference between “winning” something and being so stubborn and annoying that all the grown-ups get their stuff and play somewhere else.
Being clever and being mindnumbingly-closeminded both make you “win” discussions, but they are not even distantly related.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Again, see above cited evolutionist website for the definition of “fact”.
No, creationists cannot “prove” their theories and neither can evolutionists. You might also want to explore the definitions of “theory” and “hypothesis”. Evolution, at best, is a hypothesis, not a good one by any means IMHO.[/quote]
You assume too much throttle-boy. Did I say I was a creationist? No. You just assumed that because I wasn’t bowing to the western God of science. My point, if you would pull you head out enough to grasp it, was that both camps are exactly the same. Both hypotheses are unproven (in terms of the actual scientific method-which western “science” uses very loosely). As such, both take faith or belief in the institution originating the idea.
My issue is that evolution is taught in western societies as if it is fact and can be proven. No, actually, it is treated as if it has already been proven. And modern evolutionists bend and manipulate scientific rules and principles applying all manner of conjecture and speculation to “prove” their hypotheses.
So do ID or creationists do the same thing? Yes. The difference is that creation is not taught as a fact in public schools or even as a theory.
Both have equal merit and scientific basis (or lack thereof) and should both be treated as equally valid THEORIES!
[quote]orion wrote:
Listen kids,
you really have to learn to tell the difference between “winning” something and being so stubborn and annoying that all the grown-ups get their stuff and play somewhere else.
Being clever and being mindnumbingly-closeminded both make you “win” discussions, but they are not even distantly related.
[/quote]
Isn’t that one of those Gay tele-tubbies? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!) Rrrrriiiiight!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Listen kids,
you really have to learn to tell the difference between “winning” something and being so stubborn and annoying that all the grown-ups get their stuff and play somewhere else.
Being clever and being mindnumbingly-closeminded both make you “win” discussions, but they are not even distantly related.
Isn’t that one of those Gay tele-tubbies? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!) Rrrrriiiiight!
[/quote]
That is the most MASCULINE teletubby EVER! All you have is antenna-envy!