[quote]Lorisco wrote:
juerocalvo wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
You have already heard the evidence.
I’ll take that as a no.
Several people have posted evidence. You just ignore it and repeat that “there is no evidence.”
Sorry, but there is no natrual or fossil evidence of a missing link. Theories about these links don’t count as eveidence.
[/quote]
observed instances of macroeveolution-instances of new species evolving from other species:
These are just compilations of evidence and they are by no means a complete list of all fossils or speciation events. Also those links only touch upon fossil evidence, there is much more evidence out there.
Again you repeat that there is no evidence of evolution but if you will open your eyes you will see that it is abundant.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
Again you repeat that there is no evidence of evolution but if you will open your eyes you will see that it is abundant.[/quote]
Dude (and this also goes for all other rational posters), you have to understand that no evidence will ever be good or enough for a creationist. Unless a new book magically pops up on the cristian bible that talks about fossils and molecular biology, creationists will continue deluding themselves.
As I said on my first post, talking to a creationist is useless, they have lost all capacity to reason.
I wonder why God would go to all the trouble to create fossils showing evolution if there was no such thing as evolution…
Hahahahaha. That God, he’s such a joker! And if he’s that much of a joker, you’d better really be taking a close look at the passages in the bible, because there is no telling which ones are jokes and which ones aren’t.
Oh, but wait, if he’s not a joker, then evolutionary evidence wasn’t put up as a sham to hide creation, then what the hell is it doing there? Oh, maybe evolution should be looked into, since there is widespread evidence of it.
Tuffloud you keep on saying that Creationism has yet to be proven wrong or that the bible has, but you obviously didn’t my first post. Those who state that they don’t believe in Creation or the bible are holding a negative belief, meaning they simply lack belief in the subject at hand. They are not claiming that there position is more valid than yours they are simply saying they don’t accept because have no reasoon to.
You have continually stated that creationism is true and that the bible is gods revealed word. That is a positive belief(you claim it to be true). Since you claim that god, the bible, and creation are true then you have the burden of proving your position to those who lack belief in these things. If evidence isn’t forthcoming and there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Its a fucking disgrace that science books at Uconn now have to have a disclaimer sticker on it because of pompus brainwashing religious assfucks sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Keep religious garbage out of our class rooms![/quote]
It should be a different thread, but I think it should be taught and taught in science. If for no other reason it makes for good debate.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Its a fucking disgrace that science books at Uconn now have to have a disclaimer sticker on it because of pompus brainwashing religious assfucks sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Keep religious garbage out of our class rooms![/quote]
Here is a perfect example of how an evolutionist has to resort to direct verbal attack to get their point across. It is also a stratedy that people use in an argument when they are wrong and have to start personally disrespecting someone.
Vroom, this is an excellent post. You hit at the crux of the matter. I don’t quite agree with some of your assumptions, but I appreciate how you outlined it.
So let me ask you a few questions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Science doesn’t claim to have the answers. Science says, this theory seems to fit the evidence best. Creationism is an attempt to make the evidence fit a specific theory, but mainly through criticism of sciences inability to offer complete answers.
[/quote]
What is different about creationists trying to fit the evidence to their creation theory from evolutionists trying to fit the evidence with their evolution theory?
Both start with assumptions that cannot be proved and look to see supporting evidence. So what is the different between a creationists saying that similarities in structure of species is evidence that they were all designed by the same entity and an evolutionists saying that the similarities are because they all evolved from a common ancestor stem-species?
It’s the same evidence with two different perspectives. So what is the difference?
Then why do they proceed as if their theory is proven correct and add aditional theories to their baisic assumption?
When creationists do this you accuse them of not being open minding or thinking they have all the answers. So again, both side proceed as if their assumptions are true without having actually proved those assumptions.
Ok, that is a little misleading. Creationists don’t believe anything “just because”. Having faith in the bible or other religious document is not “just because”. It is an assumption like anything else.
So if evolutionists truly are searching for the best explanation, why do they rule out a creative force without any investigation? Isn’t this just like the creationists ruling out evolution without any investigation as well?
So you may say that is because modern science cannot measure supernatural evidence. To that I will say that it can’t measure a lot of things like direct effects of medications of brain chemistry, but that doesn’t stop it from coming up with theories of how that medication may be effecting brain chemistry.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I wonder why God would go to all the trouble to create fossils showing evolution if there was no such thing as evolution…
Hahahahaha. That God, he’s such a joker! And if he’s that much of a joker, you’d better really be taking a close look at the passages in the bible, because there is no telling which ones are jokes and which ones aren’t.
Oh, but wait, if he’s not a joker, then evolutionary evidence wasn’t put up as a sham to hide creation, then what the hell is it doing there? Oh, maybe evolution should be looked into, since there is widespread evidence of it.
Retards.[/quote]
vroom,
Have you studied the Bible? Have you read the entire Bible from front to back a few times to understand anything about it? Have you seeked the answers in it?
One of the greatest miracles of the Bible is its unity. Look at the following amazing facts:
The 66 books of the Bible were written:
On three continents.
In three languages.
By about 40 different people (kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, an army general, fishermen, priests, and a physician).
Over a period of about 1,500 years.
On the most controversial subjects.
By people who, in most cases, had never met.
By authors whose education and background varied greatly.
Yet, though it seems totally inconceivable,
The 66 books maintain harmony with each other.
Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject.
Talk about astounding!
Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind. And, indeed, it was: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Ghost “moved” them all. He is the real Bible Author. The four Gospels do sometimes differ in the way they report the same event, but they complement each other.
observed instances of macroeveolution-instances of new species evolving from other species:
These are just compilations of evidence and they are by no means a complete list of all fossils or speciation events. Also those links only touch upon fossil evidence, there is much more evidence out there.
Again you repeat that there is no evidence of evolution but if you will open your eyes you will see that it is abundant.[/quote]
You see, this is what I’m talking about.
Find a piece of bone; say it’s 2 millions years old (when there currently are no reliable measures that can validate that time frame) say it looks like a chimp and a man, so it’s Homo-ape-ass, the new discovered species. They say this not based on DNA or any valid measure, it’s just done on structure. So this is again AN ASSUMPTION1
Also, you then say we have macro-evolution as evidenced by a breading of a Great Dane and German Shepherd and you get some weird-ass looking dog that is now a “new species”. Then you rationalize that by saying that the definition of “species” is now something different.
Using that rationale and definition we can now say that Shaq O’neal is different species than the rest of us.
I don’t know abut you, but I honestly can’t see this as any different than creationists way of “validating” their theories.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Here is a perfect example of how an evolutionist has to resort to direct verbal attack to get their point across. It is also a stratedy that people use in an argument when they are wrong and have to start personally disrespecting someone.
Keep it up man, you sound really intelligent.
[/quote]
Verbal attack? Thats nothing compared to the flood of religious propaganda that fills and brain washes the word the world. You sir are included in that.
Swearing shows lack of intelligence? Thats news to me. If that was the case some of the brightest people on the planet would be considered “dumb,” according to your perspective. And don’t flatter yourself bub, it wasn’t directed towards you but I guess that goes along with your elitist attitude.
If I want to take a religion class I will take it. I dont need it shoved down my throat when I’m studying DNA. That little sticker is an invasion of my freedom of choice. I choose to have absolutley NOTHING to do with religion yet I’m taking a science class and I see a sticker that was forced on there by religious cultists? Fuck that. Its bad enough our money has the word god on it. We wont even touch on those disgusting billboards that churches now have “Find God, He Saves,” and other propaganda bullshit. If there was EVER a sign that read “Evolution is the key,” churches would be up in arms about it and demand it be taken down. Talk about an elitist attitude!?!
I used to be catholic until I realized it was complete bullshit and nothing more than a money making corporation.
Remember, religion has killed more people than every disease combined. You dont believe me, just ask the Native Americans, Jews and Africans!
Lorisco, I’ll try to address some of the issues you raise, but I have to admit I find this a rather frustrating experience.
[quote]What is different about creationists trying to fit the evidence to their creation theory from evolutionists trying to fit the evidence with their evolution theory?
Both start with assumptions that cannot be proved and look to see supporting evidence.[/quote]
No, this isn’t the case. Originally, the theory of evolution arose because of direct observation. Due to this observation, someone had an inspiration and wrote it down.
Now, and this is key, in science, the observation can be repeated by another to test that the evidence does seem to support the theory.
If and when real evidence arises that were to invalidate the current theory of evolution, the theory itself would evolve if the problem was minor or be thrown out if the problem was large enough.
The reason the theory of evolution still holds sway in scientific circles is that nobody has found credible evidence to either disprove the theory of evolution or to suggest a different theory is more viable.
Again, every test performed, the results of the test and the thinking about the possible conclusions from the test are published and available for any other scientist to repeat and analyze for themselves if they so wish. This is a very open and honest approach to investigation.
Creationism isn’t developing in such a way. Creationism is a static snapshot based on nothing other than very old writings. There is nothing else to investigate and nothing else to enquire about. Either you “believe” that God created everything or you are left looking for another solution.
If creationism wants to be treated as a legitimate non-faith based science it needs to develop its own supporting evidence. Trying to argue that real science doesn’t have all the answers is not supporting evidence.
The ability of science to explain the nature of the universe around us has grown over time.
Often, this growth has come against religious doctrine, and even though people were declared heretics and punished severely, eventually science prevailed. The fact the Earth isn’t flat and that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe are very illustrative examples of this.
It’s very likely that creationism is another one these religious doctrines that will be swept aside as evidence continues to mount. Especially since evolution has already been addressed and accepted by the Pope himself, who is to some God’s representative on Earth.
[quote]Then why do they proceed as if their theory is proven correct and add aditional theories to their baisic assumption?
When creationists do this you accuse them of not being open minding or thinking they have all the answers. So again, both side proceed as if their assumptions are true without having actually proved those assumptions.[/quote]
Science doesn’t always have the ability to test everything out. Working theories are used as a base point and either modified or replaced as new theories arise. Take for example classical Newtonian physics. This works very well for classical large objects. However, in quantum situations it falls apart.
Scientists don’t try to claim that Newtonian physics is applicable in all situations, but that it does do a very good job at describing the observed behavior of large bodies. New theories have been developed to support cases where Newtonian physics don’t apply.
When we don’t have the ability to perform other tests, and no previous tests have shown the theory to be in error… why not run with it until something else arises?
For example, they recently did some physics tests that would examine some esoteric aspects of Eintstein’s theory with some orbiting object. I don’t remember the details, but if science always assumed it was right, why bother with this test just to verify that things actually happened as predicted by the theory?
Science checks, double checks, and checks again when new capabilities arise to allow these tests. The method, and outcome of these tests are published, publicly, for the review of all, such that any flaws in the test or the results can be found. This is complete openness and scrutiny to ensure that everyone can determine if a test (the evidence) truly supports a theory or whether it doesn’t.
Creationism doesn’t do any of this. It just complains that science doesn’t have an answer for various things as if that means science is at fault or somehow incorrect because of this. Science is a process of questioning, investigating, discovering, theorizing and testing. It is a process of logic and development. Creationism is not.
It is not at all an assumption like anything else. It is a belief based on the word of someone. It is not something that can be tested and repeated and verified independently. It is simply someone, the writers of the bible, stating something is fact, and then holding that fact above question.
Science does not hold anything above question. Science does not consider something proven because someone says something is proven. There is no comparison between the two systems in any capacity. That is why I use the words “just because”.
The fact you have faith and believe it, does not make it so. No matter how much you believe and know yourself to be correct, there is no evidence and no process of testing to perform. The words “just because” are not a criticism of your faith, but they are an accurate reflection of the reasoning under the faith.
There is no reasoning under faith. Faith just is. Just because. Because you believe and don’t need proof. That’s the whole point of religion, you must believe without proof, you must have faith.
Science does not ask you to believe without proof. It gives you tests you can apply to attempt to verify that something stated is indeed correct. You can argue with science, you can put forth different theories, you cannot with faith.
Well, at one point science could not create a working light bulb. Would you claim then that science could not put forth a theory concerning light? Science usually has theories and ideas well beyond it’s ability to prove them. That is the nature of science.
This is not a weakness or a flaw, it is the way science is supposed to work. We make theories about things we don’t already know the answers to. Then, later, when we’ve progressed, we can devise ways to determine if those theories are indeed correct, or if they must be adjusted.
Again, science doesn’t claim to have all the answers and it probably never will, but this in no way has anything to do with the accuracy of current scientific theories.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Remember, religion has killed more people than every disease combined. You dont believe me, just ask the Native Americans, Jews and Africans![/quote]
Every religion has been persecuted.
However, last time I checked, African and Native American are not religions.
Have you read up on the theory of evolution? Have you become a scientist yourself so you could understand the scientific process and have a chance to critique it knowingly?
There was a point in my life when religion seemed to have something interesting to say to me. However, I can think for myself and know the difference between right and wrong without needing something thousands of years old to enlighten me.
If I am not supposed to think and reason, how come I have such a well developed brain? And no, I’m not speaking personally, I am talking about humankind. We don’t have these brains so that we can simply be stupid animals. We are created to think, to investigate, to ask questions, to find answers.
Who would be stupid enough to design something so curious and so good at problem solving if there were no problems that needed solving. Either God wanted us to think for ourselves, or God made a mistake.
I say this in the same light that I’d say we have hands for touching, pointing, grabbing and carrying. We have mouths for eating and talking. We have eyes to see. We have a brain to think. I mean think, not just read a roadsign and go where it tells us to.
No amount of babble can convince me that our brains aren’t meant for our use just like every other part of our bodies. No mention in the bible says that we must be stupid and not educate ourselves or not think. Surely, if this was the case, we’d have been given some instruction in the matter?
It isn’t there, is it? Use the brain God gave you to think, or you dishonor the gift you have been given. As someone who is a devout believer, I suspect you don’t want to do that…
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
Here is a perfect example of how an evolutionist has to resort to direct verbal attack to get their point across. It is also a stratedy that people use in an argument when they are wrong and have to start personally disrespecting someone.
Keep it up man, you sound really intelligent.
Verbal attack? Thats nothing compared to the flood of religious propaganda that fills and brain washes the word the world. You sir are included in that.
Swearing shows lack of intelligence? Thats news to me. If that was the case some of the brightest people on the planet would be considered “dumb,” according to your perspective. And don’t flatter yourself bub, it wasn’t directed towards you but I guess that goes along with your elitist attitude.
If I want to take a religion class I will take it. I dont need it shoved down my throat when I’m studying DNA. That little sticker is an invasion of my freedom of choice. I choose to have absolutley NOTHING to do with religion yet I’m taking a science class and I see a sticker that was forced on there by religious cultists? Fuck that. Its bad enough our money has the word god on it. We wont even touch on those disgusting billboards that churches now have “Find God, He Saves,” and other propaganda bullshit. If there was EVER a sign that read “Evolution is the key,” churches would be up in arms about it and demand it be taken down. Talk about an elitist attitude!?!
I used to be catholic until I realized it was complete bullshit and nothing more than a money making corporation.
Remember, religion has killed more people than every disease combined. You dont believe me, just ask the Native Americans, Jews and Africans![/quote]
You are wrong. Religion has not killed people. People not following the Bible and God’d word has killed people.
Also, I’m not a Catholic. I simply go off what the Bible says. So, don’t bring Catholics into this conversion as a means of going against me when I am not a Catholic in the first place.
Also, you have some issues if you think a little sticker on a book is an invasion of your freedom of choice. How can you get that angry over a sticker?
Why should 80% of the people that believe in God in this country have completly change for the rest? You need to do a little research on what this country was founded on in the first place.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Remember, religion has killed more people than every disease combined. You dont believe me, just ask the Native Americans, Jews and Africans!
Every religion has been persecuted.
However, last time I checked, African and Native American are not religions.
[/quote]
When did I say they were religions? O wait, I didnt. They were killed by religious barbarians doing it in the name of “the church.”
“Every religion has been persecuted.” Yeah all those molesting priests sure got what they deserved.