Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Inconvenient Truth, Inconvenient in Seattle school

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Doc Stupiditity
Newbie


Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have seen a lot of good and bad points on this subject but most of you all have forgetting the rule of a well tuned debate give and take. take what makes sense and give a good one back of the new information....that said my point of view comes from that of a Christian so most of my comments will show that but I will try to make my views as fair as possible

I once heard religion stated as "a way of life". And tend to believe that as a good way to look at it. And under that anything could be a religion.

Now I have a few problems with creationism and evolution.

With creationism my problem on a level of high understanding it only explains that we were made prefect from the beginning nothing more nothing less. And this creates huge problems because as an intelligent life form we like to know where we came from. Like a person who grows up with not knows who there birth parents are.

Now evolutions problem lays in the fact that it is taught as fact not fiction. Now that said I don't mean to say evolution is completely wrong there are some forms of it that are true. And I have yet to hear one person say the facts of micro vs. macro evolution. another problem I have is that though well thought out as it is the earth being 50 billion or more years old because I personally believe that the sun could not have lasted that long.

Sorry be long winded on this side but I have a little more to go through because evolution though well thought out has a lot of question marks

Has anyone looked at the speed of recorded history in which we "evolve?" in less then 15 hundred years we go from swords to guns, tanks, and nukes! Not to mention the computer tech we use today which I find the coolest and marvel at how it all works because by all rights in our wildest dreams it should not. I mean refracting light to shine on a screen of plastic is incredible. Just to create pictures.

But I have yet to hear one idea of how this world came to be. So I will put one out.
In my studies I have found out by put some types of wavelengths of radio wave/ something like it
Into water it will make it shine with blinding white light because of energy produced would make perfect sense because of what we know of the earth being mostly water. It would be theoretical to say that in space a huge well round water droplet is sitting in space this wave comes along and bam a chain reaction is created. Because all elements are created with three things and are all present in water oxy H1 and you can go down farther to the little stuff. Anyways the reaction would be I believe powerful enough to create a planet core because of the energy released in the blast. With all the confusion (think of a mixing bowl and making a cake) and you get the earth in its earliest form.

Arguments for or against I would love your thought and theories
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a note on science, the only thesis of which science does not demand empirical proof is the one that states only empirical proof counts.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc, the main problems you should be having involve poor education, which is manifested quite ferociously throughout your post. I come back to this point again and again: the people who oppose evolution and evolutionary theory do so because they do not really understand them. There are too many popular conceptions of evolution and not enough accuracy, rigorous analysis, or credible information.

First, evolution is a fact. There is more evidence that evolution occurred and occurs than there is evidence that you wrote what you just did, and the latter seems pretty self-evident. Going on, I was not aware that the Earth was "50 billion" years old. That's quite a shocker since the actual age of the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years and the age of the Universe itself is only about 13.7 billion years. Care to explain where you got this tantalizing information that claims the Earth is older than the Universe in which it exists? You may have made a huge breakthrough here.

Pardon my fortitude and straightforward approach, but who really cares that you personally believe the Sun "could not have made it that long"? I'm asking that honestly. Ok you believe it. Congratulations, here's a cookie. The age and processes of the Sun are perfectly in line with what happens to trillions of stars throughout the Universe. Right now the Sun is sort of a "middle weight," if you will, and eventually it will become a red giant, engulfing the Earth and melting the polar ice caps on Mars. After that, it may collapse under its own gravitational strength and become a black hole or, more likely, it will become a puny litte dwarf star as a result of its nuclear reactions tapering off.

The paragraph starting with "Has anyone looked..." is absolutely jarring. You seem to have such a strong admiration for some of the accomplishments of humanity and science, but you apparently do not trust other results and achievements that were attained through similar methodology and analysis. Electromagnetism and special relativity are, together, what fundamentally make a computer work. Nuclear physics makes nuclear reactors work, the same type of physics that allows us to determine the age of the Earth and the Universe. If you have such a marvel for these day-to-day objects created by science, then I'd urge you expand your horizons a bit and discover that science, along with making your computer work, also tries to explain the fundamental characteristics of the natural world. You should not view the two as separate endeavors, but as intrinsically united.

Evolution has nothing to do with going from swords to tanks. Again, here is evolution in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. Evolution is connected to biological and physiological changes in organisms over time.

" by all rights in our wildest dreams it should not. I mean refracting light to shine on a screen of plastic is incredible."

Sorry for parsing this paragraph, but it really is surrealistic in some sense. Why should it not work? What's with this deep mysticism? Our physics now is more powerful than it has ever been before. As Isaac Asimov once stated, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To people in ancient times, what we have now would be something like magic, but we know why it works, and it has nothing to do with magic. Refracting light is not incredible at all; it is merely a property of an optical process, fully explained by our physics.

There are plenty of ideas on how "our world" came to be. The most prominent one currently is M-theory. On your "theory": are you serious? Do you actually want our opinion on that? Right now I have the distinct sense that it was meant as a complete joke, but I'm also having a recalcitrant hunch that I should rethink that suggestion. Well, if you do want my opinion: it's crap. What you just said is cow crap piled on top of horse shit and sprinkled with some lemon lime. I did not even quite get much of what you wrote, but what I did understand was non-sensical and empirically incompatible with our universe. First of all, and one struggles with where to begin here, the Earth is not mostly water. The top three elements that constitute the chemical composition of Earth are iron, oxygen, and silicon. You lost me with a "huge well in space" after this. One would be tempted to ask how the frick did a huge well in space get there? It seems this "theory" of yours attempts to explain just the existence of Earth, but not everything around it (the whole damn Universe, for one).

For the behavior of the multiverse and the possible creation of our universe, I highly recommend you take a look at String Theory and its derivative, M-theory. For the behavior and expansion of our universe, after it came into existence, I recommend you look at the Big Bang Theory. These do a far more professional and satisfactory job at explaining the vast richness of the world in which we live. Oh and also: your "theory" contains no mathematics. What are you trying to pull? Unless I see some math, this is all facetious to me.
Back to top
Amin
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"No kidding. Subterrainian reptilian humanoids control the world governments, too."

are you suggesting i believe in that?

you shouldnt stereotype people hahaha
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Doc, the main problems you should be having involve poor education, which is manifested quite ferociously throughout your post. I come back to this point again and again: the people who oppose evolution and evolutionary theory do so because they do not really understand them. There are too many popular conceptions of evolution and not enough accuracy, rigorous analysis, or credible information.

First, evolution is a fact. There is more evidence that evolution occurred and occurs than there is evidence that you wrote what you just did, and the latter seems pretty self-evident. Going on, I was not aware that the Earth was "50 billion" years old. That's quite a shocker since the actual age of the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years and the age of the Universe itself is only about 13.7 billion years. Care to explain where you got this tantalizing information that claims the Earth is older than the Universe in which it exists? You may have made a huge breakthrough here.

Pardon my fortitude and straightforward approach, but who really cares that you personally believe the Sun "could not have made it that long"? I'm asking that honestly. Ok you believe it. Congratulations, here's a cookie. The age and processes of the Sun are perfectly in line with what happens to trillions of stars throughout the Universe. Right now the Sun is sort of a "middle weight," if you will, and eventually it will become a red giant, engulfing the Earth and melting the polar ice caps on Mars. After that, it may collapse under its own gravitational strength and become a black hole or, more likely, it will become a puny litte dwarf star as a result of its nuclear reactions tapering off.

The paragraph starting with "Has anyone looked..." is absolutely jarring. You seem to have such a strong admiration for some of the accomplishments of humanity and science, but you apparently do not trust other results and achievements that were attained through similar methodology and analysis. Electromagnetism and special relativity are, together, what fundamentally make a computer work. Nuclear physics makes nuclear reactors work, the same type of physics that allows us to determine the age of the Earth and the Universe. If you have such a marvel for these day-to-day objects created by science, then I'd urge you expand your horizons a bit and discover that science, along with making your computer work, also tries to explain the fundamental characteristics of the natural world. You should not view the two as separate endeavors, but as intrinsically united.

Evolution has nothing to do with going from swords to tanks. Again, here is evolution in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. Evolution is connected to biological and physiological changes in organisms over time.

" by all rights in our wildest dreams it should not. I mean refracting light to shine on a screen of plastic is incredible."

Sorry for parsing this paragraph, but it really is surrealistic in some sense. Why should it not work? What's with this deep mysticism? Our physics now is more powerful than it has ever been before. As Isaac Asimov once stated, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To people in ancient times, what we have now would be something like magic, but we know why it works, and it has nothing to do with magic. Refracting light is not incredible at all; it is merely a property of an optical process, fully explained by our physics.

There are plenty of ideas on how "our world" came to be. The most prominent one currently is M-theory. On your "theory": are you serious? Do you actually want our opinion on that? Right now I have the distinct sense that it was meant as a complete joke, but I'm also having a recalcitrant hunch that I should rethink that suggestion. Well, if you do want my opinion: it's crap. What you just said is cow crap piled on top of horse shit and sprinkled with some lemon lime. I did not even quite get much of what you wrote, but what I did understand was non-sensical and empirically incompatible with our universe. First of all, and one struggles with where to begin here, the Earth is not mostly water. The top three elements that constitute the chemical composition of Earth are iron, oxygen, and silicon. You lost me with a "huge well in space" after this. One would be tempted to ask how the frick did a huge well in space get there? It seems this "theory" of yours attempts to explain just the existence of Earth, but not everything around it (the whole damn Universe, for one).

For the behavior of the multiverse and the possible creation of our universe, I highly recommend you take a look at String Theory and its derivative, M-theory. For the behavior and expansion of our universe, after it came into existence, I recommend you look at the Big Bang Theory. These do a far more professional and satisfactory job at explaining the vast richness of the world in which we live. Oh and also: your "theory" contains no mathematics. What are you trying to pull? Unless I see some math, this is all facetious to me.


Damn you're good! Kudos. Shocked Wink
I'm so glad you're here. I don't have the patience for people who won't reconsider their opinions in the face of fact, reason and knowledge beyond what they think they know themselves.


....I missed out on a killer thread here. Sad
Back to top
Doc Stupiditity
Newbie


Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is a nine on a rector scale. You honestly do not understand give and take debates. Plus do you really have to devolve to a level of attacking someone for just thinking? There is no need to yell at all. I came here because I want to learn others views and ideas.

Now onto the defense

Evolution is not fact but theory the evidence you mostly refer to is circumstantial like the finding of bones of different animals that look similar but as we all know looks can be deceiving. DNA is the famous argument. The problem is that 1% though we may look a lot of it being the same just that one percent of different is all it takes maybe even that 1% is the part that makes everything differ. I even once heard it said we are more related to a mouse then an ape. I'm not sure how valid it is but the point stands.

I was merely giving you a random date for the earth age because I can only being to guess as well as others like yourself as to its age because we have very little knowledge from that time period unless you created the first time machine in that case you are a moron for not saying so sooner.

And speaking of the Universe itself do you realize that we could not hope to comprehend the fact that our Galaxy and every other are moving in a rotation. And it is that rotation that is making the North Star not true north? Does your science explain that?

Oh and by the way our sun would not just dim it will most like explode in a super nova or implode in a black hole but as with all science they are not total sure.

Speaking of physics there are weird anomalies that can not be explained with science. Here is a good example George Washington I trust you heard of him?
While fighting in the seven year war, as a young officer he was in battle. a chief of a tribe was fighting with his braves was fifteen feet or less away from Washington and fired at his head now the chief rarely missed but the bullet he fired never touched Washington but somehow hit the tree he was up against were his head was.

If you don't believe me read his journal its there.

Life is a full of things that can't be explained
With numbers, words, or just thinking about it.

But I congratulate you on being learned from all the people places, and theories you have stated you have done more then your fair share of homework.
But you’re not winning any contests here because most people like my self are avg. Joe's and Jill's and would laugh at the fact that you use words that would in your field study make since. But rather you use them to try and confuse people with things they have to run to the dictionary to understand. And that’s every time a word comes out of your mouth.

now as for the fact I stated in about fifteen hundred years we went from swords to nukes is completely relevant if you got off your high horse and looked past your nose because it means how highly intelligent we are as humans. I have yet to see a monkey make a spear. Create cloths, cloth, or even a nuke because if they have been around longer then us. Should they not have created these things before us? It is logical

Or are they so intelligent they have to be trained in a lab.

and Oolon Colluphid you really don't have to prove your own point. next time add to the debate
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Stupiditity wrote:

Now evolutions problem lays in the fact that it is taught as fact not fiction. Now that said I don't mean to say evolution is completely wrong there are some forms of it that are true. And I have yet to hear one person say the facts of micro vs. macro evolution. another problem I have is that though well thought out as it is the earth being 50 billion or more years old because I personally believe that the sun could not have lasted that long.


Your science education is severely lacking. If you want me to point out where you've gone wrong, i can try, but you'll need to be prepared to learn some things.

Quote:

Has anyone looked at the speed of recorded history in which we "evolve?" in less then 15 hundred years we go from swords to guns, tanks, and nukes! Not to mention the computer tech we use today which I find the coolest and marvel at how it all works because by all rights in our wildest dreams it should not.


Why should computer technology not work?

Quote:

But I have yet to hear one idea of how this world came to be.


That is, again, because your education in the matter is lacking.
If you want to learn about it, i can easily point you to some internet resources that will tell you how earth came to be.

Quote:

So I will put one out.
In my studies I have found out by put some types of wavelengths of radio wave/ something like it
Into water it will make it shine with blinding white light because of energy produced would make perfect sense because of what we know of the earth being mostly water. It would be theoretical to say that in space a huge well round water droplet is sitting in space this wave comes along and bam a chain reaction is created. Because all elements are created with three things and are all present in water oxy H1 and you can go down farther to the little stuff. Anyways the reaction would be I believe powerful enough to create a planet core because of the energy released in the blast. With all the confusion (think of a mixing bowl and making a cake) and you get the earth in its earliest form.


That's total nonsense.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, I never attacked you personally, unlike you in the last post, but I did bring up some ad hominem aspects that I thought were relevant, like poor education regarding the subject. But this is not an ad hominem attack; I'm not saying that you are not intelligent, just that you are not knowledgeable on these topics and that it's easy to tell. This supposition on my part, that you do not know much about the subject, seems mostly correct. It also should not be shocking; there are many intelligent people out there, for example, who are not well-versed in this or that field. I myself am not an expert in evolutionary theory at all, but I do understand the basics of evolution well enough to form quasi-cogent arguments concerning the points that evolutionary theory addresses. On the other hand, your inexperience with evolution all but denies you the ability to make an even remotely persuasive argument about these issues. In fact, you even tacitly admit something like that yourself, "But you’re not winning any contests here because most people like my self are avg. Joe's and Jill's and would laugh at the fact that you use words that would in your field study make since." At least you're not pretentious; I'll give you that.

You have probably seen me refer to "evolution" and to "evolutionary theory." There is a strong distinction between the two. Evolution, if we include its historical connotations starting with the propositions of Georges Louis Buffon in the 18th century, means the general biological and physiological change in organisms over time. This is indisputable, absolute, dead-on, god-like truth. In fact, with all the honor that I am allowed to hold as a human being, I am not afraid to tell you that believing in evolution is just about the easiest thing you can do in life and have no worries. That's evolution, which, as a natural process, is analagous to soil erosion or a falling apple. It's just something that happens in nature; species change over time. Then there's evolutionary theory, which refers to the corpus of scientific theories that explain the process of evolution. The most prominent theory in the history of evolutionary theory is, obviously, natural selection, first proposed by Charles Darwin and publicized in The Origin of Species, released in 1859. Since then, there have been other theories used to fix some of the gaps left by natural selection. Today, the most eminent position is held by what we call the modern evolutionary synthesis, which basically unites Darwin's natural selection and Mendelian genetics. It does even more than that; it practically unites all of biology, which is why I was telling Mike earlier that if you get rid of evolutionary theory from public schools, you're basically getting rid of the entire scientific field of biology. The modern evolutionary synthesis has been one of the pinnacles of human intellectual achievement; its importance, beyond what I've already told you, lies in the fact that it showed how genes are related to natural selection. In terms of explanatory power, it is a beast, akin to what a Theory of Everything would be in physics. In fact, it explains so much that we are virtually confident of its general veritable status. Biologists have been conducting research under its auspices roughly since the 1930s, though obviously many specifics have changed in the interval.

All-right, so that's an important distinction that we have to keep in mind. You, however, seem to be challenging the basic fact that evolution even occurs. This is extreme to the point of being utterly irrational, but I will entertain your notions nonetheless. Others have put it better before me, so I'll just recommend you visit some of the following sites that talk about the evidence for evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E....._evolution

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

...and one of the best and most succinct sites out there:
http://books.nap.edu/html/crea.....dence.html

All of them basically say the same thing: the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, so much so that no person thinking rationally would dispute it. Doing so would be a great example of unreasonable doubt. We should all be skeptical, but skepticism has limits, and at this point you've violated them quite egregiously. The best evidence for evolution lies in the fossil record, which is largely complete. Genetically, we are also similar to other species, which is what you were referring to. However, and I am not trying to be rude, your lack of understanding is hurting your efforts again. The "1%" is, where it applies, the difference. So there's no "maybe;" those few different genes are what give us our 'peculiarity,' if you will. The fact that we are so genetically similar to other species merely proves the hypothesis of common descent, which states that all current organisms on Earth came from one ancestor. I am not quite certain what you were talking about with the apes and the rats, but, genetically speaking, humans are more closely related to apes. I would sure love to learn more about this stuff that you "heard" though.

There's no need to "guess" with the age of the Earth. We are pretty damn sure that it is 4.5 billion years old. How sure? Pretty damn sure. What's that again? Absofreaking bullseye sure that it's around 4.5 billion years old. You don't have to worry about this at all. That aside, let me get this straight: did you actually think I gave you a bs number with 4.5 billion years? That's puzzling. Aren't you curious how we got that figure or something? One would think that you'd ask that instead of telling me that it's a random guess. I do believe that you actually are here to learn more, as you said, but this is a bad way to show curiosity. For a great article on measuring the age of the Earth, I recommend the following: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....earth.html. We have legitimate and accurate ways of measuring the age of the Earth; we're not taking a stab in the dark here or something.

I am completely lost on your paragraph concerning the rotational motion of galaxies and the Universe. Can you explain, in far more detail, what you meant here? Galactic material rotates around the centers of all galaxies, which we now know have black holes located there, hence the rotation (the black holes have stretched the fabric of spacetime so deeply that all nearby material, like a galaxy, curves around them). There, "my science" explained it. I don't have any idea what you mean when you mention the North Star (currently Polaris). I think you may be confusing rotation with precession, which is something entirely different. Precession, in Earth's context, is the gradual change in the direction of the axis of the North Pole. Because of precession, we don't always have the same North Star. For example, to ancient Egyptians, Thuban was the North Star, not Polaris. The gradual precession of Earth, however, has placed Polaris nearer the line of axis extending from our North Pole. The precession cycle of Earth lasts roughly 26,000 years. So Polaris will not be our North Star again until about the year 28,000.

Regarding the Sun, there is some uncertainty, as you said. It could explode into a supernova or it could become a dwarf star (or a local black hole). That aside, the original point was that your doubts about the Sun "lasting that long" were completely irrelevant because, as I explained, the Sun can, in fact, last "that long." The Sun will survive thanks to nuclear fusion for many more years, don't worry about that.

Physics has much work to do. There are a number of unresolved problems and we still do not have a Theory of Everything, though we are expecting the latter some time in this century (or the next at the very latest). However, we must be careful about offering anectodal stories and hoping that they provide a compelling argument. A few years ago, the Mexican Air Force noticed some UFOs "flying" nearby. They were not sure what they were looking at then, and speculation flourished thanks to the recorded video, but it was later discovered that the "flying aliens" were nothing more than distant burning oil rigs. There is a crucial difference, one which you'd do well to heed in order to avoid future nomological fallacies like the one you made, between science not being able to explain some particular naturalistic phenomena and science not being given enough information towards explaining it. If there is a lack of evidence to adjudicate on a matter, then yes scientific explanations can be difficult. For example, if someone had never figured out that what the pilots were seeing were just burning oil rigs, then we'd still be here talking about that case, wondering what those bright objects could have been. But that would not have been a stain on naturalistic explanation; what we're actually saying is that such an explanation does, in fact, exist, but we are not able to offer one because there is a scarcity of evidence to permit decision-making. This happens all the time in scientific matters. Scientists just have to keep courage alive and keep doing bitch work, trying to gather more evidence until an explanation for a particular phenomena becomes plausible. I have not heard that story regarding Washington. However, going by what you've written, I'm not surprised in any way. The chief shot and missed. Unlikely, yes, but obviously it happened. What's your point? The chief shot a bullet and hit the tree; what a shocker! Stop the presses!

I would agree that several aspects of life are inexplicable, but these aspects do not involve materialistic problems. Physics is lunging after a Theory of Everything and physicists are generally confident that one day we will find it. The Theory of Everything will explain all materialistic phenomena, everything from why a pencil falls to the ground to how brane collisions produce new universes. Things like numbers (mathematics) and words are just tools that we use to explain and describe reality. Some of these tools are better suited towards certain categories of reality. Mathematics, for example, is much more effective in describing something like angular momentum than love for your wife, your children, or your country. The more powerful our mathematics becomes, and it is becoming more and more powerful as we speak, the more aspects of materialistic reality we can describe. It's pretty cool.

What I write here is inspired by a genuine and innocent search for truth. There is truth in the world, but often the problem is that people adopt horrible standards for gathering it. I am not here to try and force you to "run to the dictionary." If that's how you feel, then I would hope you ask for clarification on a topic that you do not feel comfortable about. I really do want to explain this stuff to you and show you that it's true, not just some hocus pocus. That's my primary motivation in this case.

Human intelligence can be explained in terms of the process of evolution. Humans are more intelligent than other species because we evolved to be that way. What you're saying is not logical at all; the evolutionary paths taken by monkeys never allowed them to develop the cognitive abilities evident in humans. Therefore, it only makes sense that they wouldn't be able to build, say, a nuke.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amin wrote:
"No kidding. Subterrainian reptilian humanoids control the world governments, too."

are you suggesting i believe in that?


No, i'm suggesting that you believe something of a similar magnitude of absurdity.

Well, it's a bit of an exageration. But that's the idea.
Back to top
Doc Stupiditity
Newbie


Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you

For this debate I know when to concede the point and I do so quietly. If only you had stated it like this before. And I am sorry. and as for the argument your right but for me it is well thought out I'm only 18 =P so I'm allowed the need to grow a little and I come from Oregon and you can't learn anything there with out have a debated/ arguments about it but my problem there was being a Christian anything you said is going to be used against you. The worst is they never saw reason in anything beyond saying something to attack. But I personally learn better from people then books. But any who I have grown to dislike attacks of any kind against anything.
And by the way I love computers I could not tell the inside parts of them or why I love them but I have been playing with them since I was 2 1/2 or so. That is why I marvel at them.

as for the mouse thing I learned it in biology and if I remember core it was 96%is apes or monkeys not sure... and 98% mice.

And the last thing I will say is I have had no real out side study. I listen to others and have learned many theories over time. And the water droplet in space is a real theory so to speak I ran across it in biology class when they wanted us to write a paper.

I hope this answers your questions but guys weather your new here or not refrain from all out war unless you use knowledge. and if someone says something that is wrong don't blast him/her out of the water just let them know it is wrong while I realize it is harder to do so in a subject that a lot of people are touchy about. But I issue a challenge to all who read this. join the debate but I beg you to be smart and reasonable here create and define theories by what you know and let others look at it and try to find problems in them it is very simple request but if you take it seriously it will be the hardest challenge you will ever understand trust me I fought someone knows more about it then me CryxicKiller. And no cheer section unless you have something to contribute. To the debate. And one last challenge I give out CryxicKiller flip sides on the debate it will make it more interesting because I have only seen a one other person so far who is for creationism and tons that are not. No disrespect intended but with that many people saying the same thing it is kind of hard to get in edge wise.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Stupiditity wrote:
Thank you

For this debate I know when to concede the point and I do so quietly. If only you had stated it like this before. And I am sorry. and as for the argument your right but for me it is well thought out I'm only 18 =P so I'm allowed the need to grow a little and I come from Oregon and you can't learn anything there with out have a debated/ arguments about it but my problem there was being a Christian anything you said is going to be used against you. The worst is they never saw reason in anything beyond saying something to attack. But I personally learn better from people then books. But any who I have grown to dislike attacks of any kind against anything.
And by the way I love computers I could not tell the inside parts of them or why I love them but I have been playing with them since I was 2 1/2 or so. That is why I marvel at them.

as for the mouse thing I learned it in biology and if I remember core it was 96%is apes or monkeys not sure... and 98% mice.

And the last thing I will say is I have had no real out side study. I listen to others and have learned many theories over time. And the water droplet in space is a real theory so to speak I ran across it in biology class when they wanted us to write a paper.

I hope this answers your questions but guys weather your new here or not refrain from all out war unless you use knowledge. and if someone says something that is wrong don't blast him/her out of the water just let them know it is wrong while I realize it is harder to do so in a subject that a lot of people are touchy about. But I issue a challenge to all who read this. join the debate but I beg you to be smart and reasonable here create and define theories by what you know and let others look at it and try to find problems in them it is very simple request but if you take it seriously it will be the hardest challenge you will ever understand trust me I fought someone knows more about it then me CryxicKiller. And no cheer section unless you have something to contribute. To the debate. And one last challenge I give out CryxicKiller flip sides on the debate it will make it more interesting because I have only seen a one other person so far who is for creationism and tons that are not. No disrespect intended but with that many people saying the same thing it is kind of hard to get in edge wise.

You came in here and gave us four paragraphs of run on sentences about scientific research you, as an 18yo, apparently conducted, demonstrated little understanding of basic science, made things up when you knew you didn't know something, and stated that you feel that much of science is nearly magical that it functions. There are some "flip sides" to the evolution debate. Yours is not one of them, merely a long, ill-informed rant that would be more replied to if more of us had the time and inclination to dispute you. If you want a debate, bring in facts, not sketchy figures you made up and interpretations of physics you admit to not understanding. Or, as I do, post in the top three sections on the main page, avoid anything where you NEED a knowledge of science. We're happy to hear about your personal opinion in a thread more devoted to that. Thanks for joining up!
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc, you are right that this particular thread, and I believe this forum in general, has a certain "leaning" and "bias," if you will. It's difficult for opposing views to say much, but, ultimately, these sociological concerns yield no solutions to the nomological and ontological questions that we are debating. The latter two quests are far more important. If you have good evidence for creationism and intelligent design, then provide it and you can win the day. But if you don't, and you don't because none exists, then you should not be surprised that you will get pummeled.

Finally, Peace identified the main problem with your methodology here. What concerns us relates to your effrontery, which is somewhat misguided given your level of knowledge, self-admitted as low. Normally, one would think that a person that does not know much and wants to learn will defer to already established evidence and commentary. But you ignored all that and merely spouted your personal conjectures and ideas. Hopefully we did not appear estranged to you, but if we did, you can at least understand why. The frustrations run both ways.
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Stupiditity wrote:

and Oolon Colluphid you really don't have to prove your own point. next time add to the debate


Huh? What exactly does this mean?

First, the only reason why I haven't added much here is because I couldn't be here the last few days to check on the thread.
Second, I don't "debate" evolution. It's like arguing whether or not you need oxygen to breathe. There is nothing to debate- only people to set straight in either their own misunderstanding of the process, or just plain ignorance on the subject.
Third, the only point of this thread I intended to put across was to expose the block-head ignorance of people who don't even care to learn, or understand, scientific subjects that have been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt to be true before they say things like "it's only a theory" or "Well, I don't believe it". Others just don't care to know any better because it doesn't interest them enough to pay attention to what the facts are, and then continue to spew nonsense in the face of knowledge. For example:

Mike wrote:

Okay, but not everyone cared about evolution. Save middle and high school for courses that everyone has to take, like math and English. Save the specialty courses for college. I've always like anime, for example, but it wasn't until college that they offered a class about the history of anime. Or, if it is in grade school, don't force people to learn about it, make it an elective, like band or metal shop. It is a theory after all, never been proven nor disproven, and it's not like having no knowledge of the theory of evolution and Darwinian theory will hinder them should they decide to not attend college. All I'm saying is don't force it on people, and don't treat it as fact.


I completely missed this part of the thread so I left it alone - until now, of course. This is a complete bullshit answer. Science is a part of all our lives, whether we "like" it or not. Just like math. I don't like math - does this mean that I shouldn't have to learn about it until I'm interested in it? Do you know what happens to people who only learn what they "like" to learn about? Maybe something like this:

Doc Stupiditity wrote:

But you’re not winning any contests here because most people like my self are avg. Joe's and Jill's and would laugh at the fact that you use words that would in your field study make since. But rather you use them to try and confuse people with things they have to run to the dictionary to understand. And that’s every time a word comes out of your mouth.


Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. Learn something instead of laughing at it because you don't understand it. COMPREHEND. At least make an attempt, damn.

You only speak for yourself here anyway. I've understood almost all of what Cryxickiller has ever said in his/her posts. And if I didn't, I'd research it and try to either understand, or figure out for myself if the statements are right.

Now I'm sure my writing skills are far from perfect but what does confuse me is when you, yourself, write sentences that don’t make sense, are horribly mis-punctuated, or are complete run-ons. Such as the following, for example:

Doc Stupiditity wrote:

now as for the fact I stated in about fifteen hundred years we went from swords to nukes is completely relevant if you got off your high horse and looked past your nose because it means how highly intelligent we are as humans. I have yet to see a monkey make a spear. Create cloths, cloth, or even a nuke because if they have been around longer then us. Should they not have created these things before us? It is logical

Or are they so intelligent they have to be trained in a lab.


Look, that really doesn't hold any water "logically", but Crycixkiller has given you some really good links. They've been helpful to me in the past for questions that I've had as well. Take some time (when you have hours to waste) and check out the archives at TalkOrigins. It's a great site. Here's a link to things that may interest you on the creationist arguments similar to what you've attempted to use in your posts. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

You could be there for days! Save it to favorites or something and reference it when you have questions. It really is a fascinating subject when you start to understand the process.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On global warming I think it's better to be safe than burnt to a crisp.
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anym wrote:
On global warming I think it's better to be safe than burnt to a crisp.


Well, unfortunately, science predicts that this will happen to our planet (because of the sun) in time anyway. It's called a "red giant". But yes, I would want our own planet to be safe from being torched for as long as possible.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites