Originally posted by Bardock42
YouTube video
😆
Originally posted by Bardock42
YouTube video
😆
I always find that sort of thing amusing, until I realize the indoctrination many children are put through, how it warps both their scientific reason, as well as their approaches to the world around them. And how those individuals generally hold similarly extremist views about social or political issues that can be damaging and hateful.
Creationism, even ID, isn't really ever worth debating against. That can be hard, given their persistence, and how tempting it can be, but it's probably the best way to approach it. It merely gives it a platform on which is seems to be level with evolution as a theory, when it obviously isn't. But it also creates a conundrum: Debate them in the attempt to curb the wrongness, but also give them more attention? Or ignore it so as to downplay it, but allow their perversions of science to continue?
Neither seems entirely fitting, and it's why it's one of my least favorite things to discuss (despite the irony that I can discuss it quite well most times).
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ah, the Dawkins-esque arrogance rears its head yet again. By that reasoning, I ought not to bother with the religion forum, as debating opposing beliefs might imply that they are somehow equal to mine.
They have more defined reasoning behind them, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. ID has nothing of the sort, and merely attempts to discredit evolution in an attempt to sneak in a "theory" that has never defended itself rationally.
So if by Dawkins-esque, you mean "smart", then yeah.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
They have more defined reasoning behind them, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. ID has nothing of the sort, and merely attempts to discredit evolution in an attempt to sneak in a "theory" that has never defended itself rationally.So if by Dawkins-esque, you mean "smart", then yeah.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea and ud still villify dawkins by referring to a post on the topic of creation vs ID. so really, are you DUMB to disagree with a position your not against in the first place? really, sumthing wierd has happened to you in the last few months or sumthing zeal.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^no you just feal that people outside if your little ideology are insignificant and stupid and perhaps lower than you. infact i think you feal like your doing them {a few} sum kind of favour by talking with them on equal terms.
Dawkins isn't posting on this thread . . .
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^no you just feal that people outside if your little ideology are insignificant and stupid and perhaps lower than you. infact i think you feal like your doing them {a few} sum kind of favour by talking with them on equal terms.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dawkins isn't posting on this thread . . .
Hello, I have been following this forum for some time now and I have found that many of its constituents believe that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is proven scientific fact, though I have heard no plausible explanation for "goo to you" evolution, namely that which shows the change from a "primordial organism" to a human being or even how that "primordial organism" got there. I am always searching for true objective scientific truth. Thank you.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
leonheart or digi feel free to crush him anytime now....
lol. K, sure.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Hello, I have been following this forum for some time now and I have found that many of its constituents believe that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is proven scientific fact, though I have heard no plausible explanation for "goo to you" evolution, namely that which shows the change from a "primordial organism" to a human being or even how that "primordial organism" got there. I am always searching for true objective scientific truth. Thank you.
Evolution accounts readily for the two problems you mentioned. Most basic synopses touch upon it, but the first organisms were simple protein chains that attracted similar chains to themselves, effectively replicating themselves. The other part, your 'goo to you' segment, just takes natural selection and an absurd amount of time. Most evolutionary stumbling blocks fall by the wayside when you begin to fathom the unfathomably long time in which the process takes place.
Ah, he left. A shame. He was lurking in the forum but never responded. I was all prepared to point out that Catholicism (which he mentioned feelingly in the other thread, so my initial guess is that he belongs to the Catholic Church) actually endorses evolutionary theory.
A non-belief in evolution might suggest otherwise, but those "problems" he cited were such softballs (relatively speaking) that it's probably just a lack of knowledge rather than ID indoctrination, which is far scarier and tenacious.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ah, he left. A shame. He was lurking in the forum but never responded. I was all prepared to point out that Catholicism (which he mentioned feelingly in the other thread, so my initial guess is that he belongs to the Catholic Church) actually endorses evolutionary theory.A non-belief in evolution might suggest otherwise, but those "problems" he cited were such softballs (relatively speaking) that it's probably just a lack of knowledge rather than ID indoctrination, which is far scarier and tenacious.
he'll respond, thats the friend i said would come on a long time ago. ill call him and get him to post. supposedly he has some gigantic unarguable point
You mention "simple protein chains". Where did these come from? How were they formed? We cannot create these "simple" living chains of protein even in the laboratory today. You mention a number of these chains "attracting each other" and then "replicating". How did they replicate? What DNA existed to allow them to transcribe and replicate themselves? Are you stating that they replicated without DNA? What possible evidence can you present to substantiate these "stories".