Originally posted by FeceMan
My point is that one can't dismiss it like that.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Kind of like what was said by that graph, and I'd bet that most of the public would agree with the statement that apes evolved into humans.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Neither do you.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You have not once made such an offer.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You do not even know my opinion.
Originally posted by FeceManAnd I smack those people around too, because they are just as much a danger to evolution as IDers/creationists.
Just like it's easy for any dick with a mic to stand up and say, "EVOLUTION DISPROVES CHRISTIANITY HAHA STOOPID.".
Originally posted by FeceManYeah, but the thing is, you use terms without knowing their actual meanings and you carry those connotations with you, despite your ignorance of them. If you support creationism (as opposed to creation) you begin to imply those statemetns.
Besides, that wouldn't be a respectable form of debate. I make no such statements.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Then perhaps they ought to learn to support their arguments and refute creationists before they step into the public arena.
Originally posted by FeceMan
If creationists can support their claims with science, then evolutionists ought to refute those claims with science. Hence, it is a job for both.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Even non-literal interpretations of Genesis fail when dealing with the evolutionary origins of life--again, that is the issue, not evolution itself.
Originally posted by FeceManI'd rather have impotent rage rather than an impotent mind (which, incidentally, I do not think you have, but you seem to be exhibiting one in this case imo).
Tool? Heh. Your indignance, your impotent rage is inspirational.
Originally posted by FeceMan
They don't disagree with either of those. IDT says that natural selection/random mutations are guided by a designer. YEC says that God originally created basic forms as per Genesis 1/2 and all the species split off from there.
Maybe part of the reason this discussion is so poor is that you have a poor concept of ID.
ID DOES disagree with natural selection. Natural Selection = Evolution. This should be logically obvious. If central tenants like “irreducible complexity” rely on all “parts” to be created at one time, how the hell would natural selection fit into that? ID is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute, whose policy I have provided for you above. The main textbook of Intelligent Design, Of Pandas and People used to be a creationist textbook. After 1987, when the USSC ruled that creation could not be talked in public schools, the textbook was renamed Of Pandas and People and the word “creation” was changed to “intelligent design”
The central tenants of ID is that there is a designer and that natural selection is not a viable scientific explanation for the development of life. However, there is no one concrete definition of ID. However, “natural selection/random mutations are guided by a designer” is not a correct definition of ID. I will try to locate one.
It also should be pointed out that there are many views on creationism and there is no one “creationist” conception of creation and its implications. Dumbing it down to “God originally created basic forms as per Genesis 1/2 and all the species split off from there” is also a ill-formed definition as many creationists would disagree. Genesis 1 and 2 also conflict, further complicatign the problem. You also forgot the CENTRAL tenant of YEC, which is the Earth is 6000 some years old.
Originally posted by Alliance
Except you've made no such point. I don't see you requireing astronauts to address how soap is made.
I've never supported the poll, thats the other idiots on the forum. My point on the poll is this...if the USA is so ahead on this issue, why is there such a disparity between the USA and other educated nations.
The difference, is that I have couter-pointed your points with two statements that completely invalidate your original point, none of which have been refuted by anything other than usless one-liners.
I have repeatedly and it still stands.
I know more than you think I do, but the issue is that you never argue your actual opinion.
And I smack those people around too, because they are just as much a danger to evolution as IDers/creationists.
Yeah, but the thing is, you use terms without knowing their actual meanings and you carry those connotations with you, despite your ignorance of them. If you support creationism (as opposed to creation) you begin to imply those statemetns.
We have jobs, most don’t step into the public, because we have real responsibilities. Those that have stepped in have been failures. Debating lends credibility. Let us get back to science and the poets can battle it out.
I must have missed the point where there was science in creationist arguments. Wait...no I didn’t, its not there.
No, the issue is that idiots try to use evolution to attack creation and creationists use thier personal faith to attack evolution. CREATION and EVOLUTION to not conflict nor do they speak to one another. Only philosophy can bridge the two, and that is not practical in my opinion. It is creationism that I have a problem with, because there is evidence against it.
Maybe part of the reason this discussion is so poor is that you have a poor concept of ID.ID DOES disagree with natural selection. Natural Selection = Evolution. This should be logically obvious. If central tenants like “irreducible complexity” rely on all “parts” to be created at one time, how the hell would natural selection fit into that? ID is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute, whose policy I have provided for you above. The main textbook of Intelligent Design, Of Pandas and People used to be a creationist textbook. After 1987, when the USSC ruled that creation could not be talked in public schools, the textbook was renamed Of Pandas and People and the word “creation” was changed to “intelligent design”
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
It also should be pointed out that there are many views on creationism and there is no one “creationist” conception of creation and its implications. Dumbing it down to “God originally created basic forms as per Genesis 1/2 and all the species split off from there” is also a ill-formed definition as many creationists would disagree.
Genesis 1 and 2 also conflict, further complicatign the problem. You also forgot the CENTRAL tenant of YEC, which is the Earth is 6000 some years old.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Were astronomy involved with soapmaking, I would hope they should be able to do so.
basically, you've streched the meaning.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Dangerous religious fundamentalism.
Originally posted by FeceManI haven't seen evidence of any of it. Their beliefs are incorrect.
No, you haven't. Can creationists support their beliefs with scientific evidence? They believe so.
Originally posted by FeceMan
A danger...to evolution? Evolution is not in any danger. If it is the truth, then it will stand against criticism.
Originally posted by FeceManIts a lot easier to call dolphins and whales fish by referring to all sea-going creatures, that doesn't make it correct.
No, it doesn't, because it's a lot easier to type out than "the evolutionary origins of life" or "molecules-to-man evolution" every few sentences.
Besides, one would wonder if "the evolutionary origins of life" or "molecules-to-man evolution" actually are questions that can be answered under the jurisdiction of natural selection.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And they would argue that the evidence you see only exists because you are viewing the evidence from an evolutionist's standpoint.
Except if I could disprove evolution, I'd become famous. Unlike creationists, I don't have to defend my beliefs, the evidence speaks for itself. Creationists must peddle to the ignorant to gain traction.
As to the discovery institute, please don't confuse evolution with Natural Selection.
Originally posted by FeceMan
They don't conflict, as I have proven earlier in this thread. And, yes, I didn't mention that--because that has to do with the evolutionary origins of life.
Originally posted by Alliance
oh, but it is. All the elements came from stars.basically, you've streched the meaning.
Maybe, but more importantly, I want to know WHY there is a gap.
I haven't seen evidence of any of it. Their beliefs are incorrect.
--The "winding up dilemma."
--Not enough supernova remnants.
--Not enough sea-floor sediment.
--DNA decay.
--Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
--Helium in minerals.
Etc. I am, of course, sure that there are any number of rebuttals to these points by evolutionists (and counter-rebuttals), but, the point is, you haven't done your research.
Its a lot easier to call dolphins and whales fish by referring to all sea-going creatures, that doesn't make it correct.
Except if I could disprove evolution, I'd become famous. Unlike creationists, I don't have to defend my beliefs, the evidence speaks for itself. Creationists must peddle to the ignorant to gain traction.
As to the discovery institute, please don't confuse evolution with Natural Selection.
The do conflict, you didn't prove anything. And yes it has everythign to do with evolution.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I have done no such thing.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Because 95% of the population are ignorant of things?.
vAge of the Earth--millions vs. thousands?
--The "winding up dilemma."
--Not enough supernova remnants.
--Not enough sea-floor sediment.
--DNA decay.
--Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
--Helium in minerals.
Etc. I am, of course, sure that there are any number of rebuttals to these points by evolutionists (and counter-rebuttals), but, the point is, you haven't done your research.[/B][/QUOTE]
Neither have you. I don't specialize in geophysics. I know very little on the subject, but the arguement's I 've heard are crap. You haven't actually explained issues, you made a list, and I can't really address, especially when issues like sea floor sediment can likely be explained away by plate tectonics.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Huge difference there, not that it matters.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Or maybe the evidence only "speaks for itself" because your ears are tuned to it.
since i know more about it than others who disagree, thats not a very likely answer.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And all that I posted said that some aspects were better explained by a designer rather than evolution.
Of course, because evolution does not make up answers, it searches for them. "God made is so" is an answer to any question, not an actual answer. The answers are better explained in ONE worldview. These "answers" are not actually explanations, they are not derived, they are simply fabricated. Thats not an answer. Evolution is not going to tell you the moral implications of having five fingers, but thats not a question that it sohuld answer.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Do I need to re-post my reply? Because they don't.
I also added a short post before yours, I hope you saw it.
Originally posted by Alliance
Neither have you. I don't specialize in geophysics. I know very little on the subject, but the arguement's I 've heard are crap. You haven't actually explained issues, you made a list, and I can't really address, especially when issues like sea floor sediment can likely be explained away by plate tectonics.
The only difference is the person who says it. If you say it, you're right. If I say it, I'm magically wrong.
since i know more about it than others who disagree, thats not a very likely answer.
Of course, because evolution does not make up answers, it searches for them. "God made is so" is an answer to any question, not an actual answer. The answers are better explained in ONE worldview. These "answers" are not actually explanations, they are not derived, they are simply fabricated. Thats not an answer. Evolution is not going to tell you the moral implications of having five fingers, but thats not a question that it sohuld answer.
The order of creation is different.
I also added a short post before yours, I hope you saw it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
"Molecules-to-man evolution" is a lot longer than "macroevolution," and "mammals" is quite short compared to "fish."
Originally posted by FeceManSome forms are against evolution. All are against natural selection. Even though they maintain mechanisms that even thier little myopic minds can't even distort as untrue, they reject the idea of a natural process based on survival. There is no natural selection, its supernatural selection and merely a 400 year old turd still in the toilet.
The point is, I wasn't confusing evolution and natural selection; I was merely stating that IDT is not wholly against natural selection.
Originally posted by FeceMan
So you did. My bad, then, although I didn't realize we were talking about a formal debate.
Originally posted by Alliance
Its still an incorrect term. Using it incorrectlyt, especially out of laziness is wrong.
Some forms are against evolution. All are against natural selection. Even though they maintain mechanisms that even thier little myopic minds can't even distort as untrue, they reject the idea of a natural process based on survival. There is no natural selection, its supernatural selection and merely a 400 year old turd still in the toilet.
Define formal/terms.
Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Its hard for me to believe that an Amino acid and a protein were zapped in a primordial soup to create a single cell. And for that matter were did the Protein and amino acid come from?
Thats what they thought in the 60s. Besides, if stars can make amino acids, then they can be on earth too. besides, a cell is a hell of a lot more than one amino acid and one protein, especially since proteins are made of amino acids. those two things get you nowhere.
Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Has any one read Zecharia Shitchen? "The 12th Planet"
way to double post and be off topic.