Evolution is real. Academia is notoriously infested with pinko utopian hippies.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
anonym wrote:
Did you find those quotes on the TalkOrigins website, push?
At this point I can see why you might want to run a misdirection play and not deal directly with the content of those posts.[/quote]
It’s not misdirection, though. You made a claim about the credibility of TalkOrigins and I want you to back up your assertion with evidence. Providing quotes from people who have nothing to do with TalkOrigins doesn’t bolster your position.
In fact, TalkOrigins states on several pages that evolution and God are NOT mutually exclusive. For example:
[quote]Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?
No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.[/quote]
Found here: God and Evolution
So how, pray tell, can it be religious in its atheism when a section of their FAQ clearly states that God may very well exist?
[quote]Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.
What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.
For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?
The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?
How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?
JMHO.
I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.
Linette[/quote]
No where does the bible say the earth is flat.
[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
I couldn’t find the earth is flat, but something on it being stuck in one place and unmoving, so the sun must revolve around it. What it does do is provide a handy price list for a virgin. I think the point was that the bible makes many indefensible statements, do bible literalists believe in these statements too?[/quote]
Yes
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
And this quote explains what? Nothing more than a guy had a lot of time on his hands to sit down and think way to much about peoples “Social Instincts”.
Go read a book? I read ALL of darwins books. The only difference is i read them with objectivity and didn’t just buy whatever the professor was saying 
[/quote]
I think you’ve never read any of his book with any seriousness other than to quote mine.
Put it all in one post or shut the fuck up push. I’m pretty sure you know exactly why I’m saying this, you always do it when you’re on the back foot.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Evolution is really just academia notoriously infested with faithful pinko utopian hippies.
(Always gotta run ‘round fixin’ stuff fer folks)
[/quote]
Oh, now misquoting is OK.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]OK. Have it your way, Makie sweetheart sugar pumpkin, the one guy on TN who has been purposely double and triple posting for years now in a lame attempt to increase his post count.[/center][/quote]
Yeah sure, whatever. Are you seriously that mentally retarded?
[quote]Play this song while you digest this material all in one post, darling:
[/quote]
Stop calling me sweetheart and darling. I’m not interested in you.
Wrong. Scientists would throw aside evolution if it were proved completely and utterly wrong. Creation on the other hand has been proved wrong many a time and you people just cling onto it like the 5 year old who doesn’t want to believe Santa isn’t real.
Wrong again. Take a trip to the Amazon or even Australia. There are literally thousands (if not more) examples of creatures in “intermediate” stages of evolution (i.e. “half” a wing, “half” an eye)
How many times must I post this?
[i]In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as axioms. There isn’t really a word for scientific ideas that covers this similar concept.[/i]
I don’t see you denying things like gravity or Pythagoras. Maths makes a lot of assumptions (i.e. two parallel lines will never intersect) and I don’t see you waving the Bible at them. THIS in particular is what gets so much controversy for the simple reason that it challenges your fairy tales.
Instead of hinting at digging deeper, how about you actually find these quotes and post them in context?
Ah quote mining, the creatonists best friend. Never mind that people change their minds, new theories pop up all the time, some debunked some not. But no, all push needs are out of context data mined quotes from AiG.
[quote]fleeben wrote:
Obviously evolution could be completely false and just happen to explain NEARLY EVERYTHING in the natural world EXTREMELY WELL. Of course…what is your alternative theory? Evolution fits the data so well that there is actually no word that adequately describes those-theories-which-we-believe-to-be-correct-and-possess-remarkably-mind-blowingly-great-explanatory-power-but-have-an-infinitesimally-small-chance-of-not-being-so.
It would seem more profitable that the hardcore religious zealot would just say HURR HURR GOD DONE IT(it being evolution. I have never understood why more religious folks do not take the catholic route and just say God works in many ways(though perhaps the answer lies in the subsequent superfluousness of a Creator in his universe if one accepts natural selection).
But really, how does postulating an unseeable, unknowable divine entity who could be supremely benevolent or thoroughly evil solve any questions you may have about the origin of anything? It just pushes the questions back one level? Who in turn created the creator? If the creator does not require explanation, why does the universe require one?
The very fact that creationists still talk about ‘macro’ and ‘microevolution’ as if they were two different things is extremely telling of their vested interest in not believing that we all have a common ancestor(we do).
Evolution is simply progressive changes in the genetic code. Broadly speaking, there is no difference between primate speciation and the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria. The continued references made to the impossibility of observing major phenotype-level changes in animals is simply false, as scientists examining the fossil record have found what appear to be numerous transitional forms, verified carbon dating, comparative anatomy and now DNA testing.
History denier wrote:
Another example of faith ^^^.[/quote]
No, an example of LOGIC. You do have a vested interest in not accepting evolution, simply for the fact that it contradicts your favorite fairy tale. Kind of sad really. But it’s part of being a grown up, mmkay?
I’ll stop here because to anyone with half a brain, it’s fairly obvious you know what your doing: drowning out any chance of real debate with a wall of text or disjointed posts.
Then when someone asks a question later in the thread good ol’ pushy pops in with his righteous indignation that an EVOLUTIONIST (the greatest of the sinners) is asking a question when sweet ol’ innocent pushy has had his wall of text ignored.
The bible absolutely does say that the earth is flat. There are numerous references to the “disk of the earth” “corners” “edges”. Now before you complain about how we still use those expressions today in a metaphorical sense, let me remind you that most people at the time were not aware of the spherical nature of the earth and thus it would make no sense for them to employ such phrases only as metaphor.
You can say “well still the bible reflects the imperfect scientific knowledge of its human authors!” To which I would as why you accept that in many respects(notably the earth’s position in the solar system/universe) the bible is merely a bronze age collection of religious myths and why in others you accept it as the inerrant word of God(evolution).
Finally, since no one has answered this yet, untestability aside [b]what does the God hypothesis explain, and why should we not wonder about the origins of God?[b]. Extra credit if you can explain how you know your God is anywhere remotely close to the “real” thing.
Great post, Makavali. I couldn’t agree more.
And thanks for reinforcing his point, pushy.
Oh yeah, gravity is just some bullshit “theory”. Everyone knows the reality is that the devil sucks, and if he quit sucking so hard we’d all just float up to heaven and live happily ever after. So there.