Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a Religious Issue
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 303 (202672)
04-26-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Arkansas Banana Boy
04-26-2005 2:37 PM


Or Jack T. Chick.
It also made it into the Chick tract "Big Daddy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 2:37 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 2:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 303 (202676)
04-26-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
04-26-2005 2:41 PM


thanks
Yep, the best phrases make the rounds and the tracts. Chick is a hoot, thanks!
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 2:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 303 (202677)
04-26-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jman267
04-26-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
Child, you are simply wrong. You are ignorant of what is in the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life or the universe. They are two entirely different areas of study. If you believe otherwise, provide supporting evidence.
Until you have the basics it will be impossible for you to learn anything.
Let's get this one settled and then we can go on.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:25 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 3:18 PM jar has replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 303 (202683)
04-26-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chiroptera
04-26-2005 2:17 PM


Re: What did I do to make you angry?
"Merely repeating that you are correct does not make you correct. Correctness and wrongness (is that a word?) are determined by logical reasoning and presentation of relevant facts. So, let us reason together."
I did NOT say I was right because "I said so". You said that, not me. And, my answer was perfectly scientific. Yours is not. It is not my problem that you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermo. You have absolutely no basic understanding of the Law. None, zippo, nada. Who cares that you have a college degree? I have one too. That doesn't make you smart! It's hilarious actually taht you are running to some pathetic idiotic award to say you're smart just like I said earlier...wow you went to college so you can say "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That's called charge the sucker money!
And, frankly, you're not reasoning at all. It is not reasoning it is your opinion. You say we don't know. That isn't reasoning, it isn't science. You don't know what science is. What is the definition of science? If you don't know something then that is not science or fact! Do you know what entropy is? Why are you going to die, scientifically speaking? Why are you decaying, distintegrating? Can you explain these to me.
And, if the universe has always been here then mathematically show me from let's say 500,000 years ago if each family had only 3 kids(which is extremely conservative and unrealistic) and they lived only to 40 years old (to account for wars another rotten fruit of evolution)? Show me how many people would be on the face of the earth TODAY and hey Mr. I have a degree in Physics its gonna be a lot more than the 6 billion we have presently. In fact, you'll soon realize that we don't have enough room on the earth for that many people. Then you will have to explain how in the world can you not find ANY transitional forms in the fossil record to prove macroevolution? There would be billions upon billions upon billions of them and you can't find any? ROFL! What about the plant life? There's more plant life than anything on this earth? Why no transitional forms there either? How did all the sand on the earth get here? Let's see you reproduce it then! How did all the salt get in the oceans? Let's see you reproduce it then? Let's see you or the "scientific" community reproduce all the snow flakes in the world? Have you studied snowflakes before? All 6 sided and no two alike? Yea, try that one for size. The list could go on and on and on and on and you have ZERO answers. You could go to college for 45 years and not only will you come out not knowing the answers, you won't know the questions. The proof is in the pudding.....to say the earth has always been here is stupid and ridiculous. That is not scientific....that is your opinion because you can't prove that at all. I can prove its hasn't been here by the Second Law of Thermo. Everything dies....its simple unless of course you don't think that then of course you'll have to find out the hard way. And, I can prove it had a beginning by the First Law. That means something or somebody had to create it which laughs in the face of evolution.
The only scientific answer to my question is #2. That's science by ruling out the other 3. It could NOT have gotten here accidentally because you can NOT create energy or matter. It's already here. That's the First Law. It hasn't been here always because it would have turned to mush 35 million years ago because of entropy. That's the 2nd Law. And, if its not here then pop the pills, do the drugs, blow your brains out, they are not real anyways. There's only one scientific answer. It got here supernaturally. And,then you better find out what the Creator expects from you and find out quick. You are ONLY one heart beat away from your eternal destination. You really gonna trade eternity for a measely 70 year life full of problems, sickness, disease, and finally death? That's insane brother!
The rest I will answer later. I've been doing this for over 3 hours. But, I will get back to you scientifically unlike the rest of y'all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 2:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 3:17 PM Jman267 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 303 (202689)
04-26-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jman267
04-26-2005 2:56 PM


All you are doing is making assertians.
quote:
It is not my problem that you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermo.
Actually, the two statements that I gave of the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be found in any undergraduate text book on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It is not my fault that you don't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. But all you have to do is go to a library and look at some actual text books on thermodynamics. You will see that the statements that I gave are the precise statements of the Second Law.
If you want, you can enlighten me as to what the Second Law really says, and how it shows that the universe cannot have always existed. Otherwise, you are just repeating the phrase, "An endless universe is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics." Hell, any parrot can be taught to repeat a phrase over and over again. Please, actually explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says and explain how it shows that the universe could not have always existed.
--
quote:
You say we don't know. That isn't reasoning, it isn't science.
What? Are you saying that scientists never say that they don't know? Are you saying that scientists claim to know all the answers already? I know for a fact (from my own experience in science) that scientists very often say that they don't know. That is why we do science -- there are things that we don't know, and we try to find out the answers. "I don't know" is a very scientific response -- it is certainly more scientific than claiming infinite knowledge, or just making up fake answers.
Do you know any scientists?
Edited another minor minor typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 04-26-2005 02:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:56 PM Jman267 has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 303 (202690)
04-26-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
04-26-2005 2:46 PM


Re: Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
"Child"
I am NOT your child. I could just bet you're a sodomite(that's ok Jesus died for you too). And, again, I am not your child. I came from humans who came from humans who came from humans who came from humans. That's called FACT and SCIENCE. If you believe you came from an ape or a banana that's your business. You accept that on faith. It's your religion. Now, go recruit since you can't reproduce!
"The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life or the universe. They are two entirely different areas of study. If you believe otherwise, provide supporting evidence.'
That is exactly the Theory of Evolution that is taught everywhere today. I have already provided supporting evidence up and down. I have backed everything up with Science. You have DONE nothing but call names. You have provided nothing scientific or factual. A big fat NOTHING is what you have provided. Do you know what science is? I don't think you do. And, I already told you that microevolution is true. It is scientific. And, it is nothing but horizontal variations which cause mutations (duh, things get worse and worse the 2nd Law of Thermo), deteriorations and death.
If you want to add something then go ahead. It better be scientific and it had better not be your opinion, conjecture or belief which is all I have heard. Furthermore, you had better be able to prove your Theory whatever it is. If not,then it is not science and don't be calling it science. If you believe that man evolved from an ape then prove it by observable evidence. If you believe that there are new species (of course that violates the First Law) then prove it with observable, provable, demonstratable, and repeatable FACTS. If you believe animals or humans change into new kinds then PROVE it with observable FACTS. If you can't then it is based on faith and it is your religion. And, frankly, this is laughable because you can't prove it because then you would have to violate the Laws that govern all natural processes. You see...I am on the winning side. You are not. You are on the fairy god mother's side of imaginatory beliefs and calling it science. So, go ahead blow your wad....shoot your gun....let's see what scientific FACTS you can show about macroevolution, cosmic evolution or anything of the sort since they all fall into the same line.
"Until you have the basics it will be impossible for you to learn anything."
You see? This is exactly what you idiots do. You just provided NO FACTS, NO SCIENCE but you have provided your opinions, beliefs and you have said "I am much smarter than you and you are much dumber than me" because you don't have the basics. That's not scientific, that's your damn personal arrogant pious belief. Now go home and play with your dolls because you don't even know what the basics are! The basics are how did you, the universe, stars, planets, sky, moon, star, house, mom, dad, boat, car, grass, etc... get here? Those are the basics. Don't you even begin to attempt to get me off track with your liberal BS agenda by trying to change the subject that is exactly what the devil does. I got the basics. You don't. I got the First Law, the Second Law, Law of Biogenesis, Laws of Probability, Laws of Right/Wrong, Law of Causality, Basic Math Skills, etcc.... Some of you can't even count on your hands! ANd, it is obvious that I know more than you. You haven't provided any FACTS whatsoever. You have provided...."I am smarter than you because you don't have the basics so it's impossible to learn anything." That is NOT science. That is your opinion. Got it? I doubt it.
"Let's get this one settled and then we can go on."
You haven't given me anything to settle but your opinion, your beliefs and your religion. So, bring some facts with you or be gone. And, like I said, it better be scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 04-26-2005 2:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 04-26-2005 3:21 PM Jman267 has not replied
 Message 124 by Morte, posted 05-28-2005 11:51 PM Jman267 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 303 (202692)
04-26-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jman267
04-26-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
So far you have provided NO evidence, only rantings and assertions.
You say that the TOE is taught as also covering the origin of life and of the Universe. But you provided nothing except assertion, no support.
Please provide evidence that the TOE addresses either the Origin of Lif or the Universe.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 3:18 PM Jman267 has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 98 of 303 (202696)
04-26-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Okay, I'll bite
Since I'm just butting in here, I'm going to restrict my post to just one comment you made. I'm sure any reply I could give to your post wouldn't be as erudite and well crafted as General Krull's. So I won't.
I was interested in the stuff you were saying about macroevolution. If you can give a good explanation how a mechanism that would prevent little changes acruing into big changes given sufficient time, I'd start to take your position on macroevolution much more seriously.
You say:
quote:
Dogs are always dogs even tho they come in many varieties.
There's no arguing with that. Dogs are dogs. Its a bit of a truism, really.
I'm never quite sure what to make of this kind of approach. It sounds to me like a big misunderstanding. I want to ask you - if macroevolution was true, would you EXPECT to see dogs turning into other things? I don't. I think that macroevolution probably happens, but also accept that a human timescale, even thousands of years, aren't going to see cats turn into dogs, or amoeba turn into frogs, or whatever else you think sounds silly. You are right. It IS silly expecting that to happen in a way that humans can see. But we can observe small changes in a more human timescale.
I think the onus is on you to explain, as I mentioned at the start of this post, what mechanism might concievably allow some small changes, but prevent larger ones - given sufficient time.
[edited to make my final paragraph clearer.]
This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-26-2005 02:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:26 PM Jman267 has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 99 of 303 (202722)
04-26-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by satrekker
02-06-2005 9:12 AM


Replay of message 1 etc. - AM declared the topic to be a "disaster area"
Message 1 of this topic, in its entirety:
This thread began life as Message 23. It was off-topic and so was used to begin this new thread. --Admin
"Anyone who doubts this is a religious issue need only spend a little time here watching the less experienced Creationists talk about God and the Bible in threads that are strictly about science."
This is the real crux of the debate. It is a God issue. Evolution requires a staggering amount of faith, moreso than creationism in my opinion, and since God alone, or nobody if you are an atheist, was present "in the beginning," neither side will be able to "scientifically" prove their assertion. It is from this viewpoint that I am contemplating the practicality of participating in these discussions. It really is a God issue.
I imagine that I will be criticized for the following unsupported statements, but please permit me a few cursory observations regarding this site:
1. Horizontal variation within a genotype is quite a different thing than vertical evolution. Genetic mutation leading to increasingly complex processes/organizations is illogical and "unscientific." While being overly simplistic, reading about the assertion that taking 200 steps backward (negative result of a mutation/Devolution) and one step forward (some perceived "beneficial" mutation/evolution) has resulted in intelligent life from a primordial soup is outright comical, except for the fact that it has so many proselytes.
2. When you boil evolution down to its quintessence, all you really have is spontaneous generation standing upon some magical amount of time that is "theorized" to overturn everything that current, repeatable, observable, scientific inquiry tells us - life does not come from non-life, or for that matter something from nothing, which would by definition speak of a First Cause, but I digress.
3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's a bit late, so I'm not going to elaborate. A rudimentary understanding of physics, I hope, will render this citation self-evident.
I apologize in advance if this post is a bit off topic and out of place.
Regards,
Bryan
This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2005 09:19 AM
Getting back to message 1, I see that (IMO) it was a rather poorly defined start to a topic. I also don't like the topic title. Had message 1 been run through the "Proposed New Topics" process, I think it would have been forced into a refinement into a better topic. I think this illustrates the problem of spinning a message of another topic off into becoming its own new topic.
Jman267 has apparently taken message 1, or the fallout of message 1, as a launching point to further diffuse the topic into way too many diverse themes. What can I say? - We got a mess of a topic here. The options are to either close it down, or to try to make the best of it that we can. My preference would be the first option, but I will for now go with the second option.
Participents beware - You are taking part in a "disaster area" of a topic.
Please make any responses to this topic, to the "General..." topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by satrekker, posted 02-06-2005 9:12 AM satrekker has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 100 of 303 (212057)
05-28-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
02-06-2005 9:49 AM


I probably should not post this.
But care to prove the following?
"There is no blind belief, only voluminous evidence and thousands and thousands of borne-out preditions."
That was the first response to the opening post, and one of if not the first point in that post. I have not read further, I must admit, but it strikes me that claiming thousands upon thousands of borne-out predictions is an exegerration, and cannot and is not subtantiated here, and will not be since no is probably going to list, or even be able to list the thousands upon thousands of born-out predictions.
So why make that point? It reminds so much of TalkOrigins by the way.
Seems to me that this point is made to bolster the real points made subsequently. In other words, make a statement that cannot and will not be verified, but one that already makes it appear like the debate and argument has been won on advance, is over, etc,...
It's a cheap shot, in other words.
Personally, I don't care that much if evolution is true or not, but the fact that such tactics are employed to argue for evolution, basically the tactics of propoganda, that makes me doubt the validity of the entire theory as real science.
If it's real science, then let's don't deal in exegerration, propoganda, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 02-06-2005 9:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:27 AM randman has replied
 Message 132 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 8:28 AM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 303 (212100)
05-28-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by randman
05-28-2005 2:39 AM


I have not read further, I must admit, but it strikes me that claiming thousands upon thousands of borne-out predictions is an exegerration, and cannot and is not subtantiated here, and will not be since no is probably going to list, or even be able to list the thousands upon thousands of born-out predictions.
It's true that there are far too many to list; there's easily more than thousands. Confirming evolution is such a commonplace event, like confirming gravity, that it happens every day in the lab without being specifically recorded.
For instance my wife is conducting research that would not be possible if evolution were not true; every research success she experiences is further proof of evolution but since that's not the focus of her research, she doesn't keep track.
It reminds so much of TalkOrigins by the way.
Apparently you don't understand the degree to which evolution has been substantiated by every field of biology. These statements may appear as hyperbole to you, but they're quite correct - if not understated - in every aspect.
That's the burden creationists are under - trying to disprove a theory with more experimental and practical verification than our current theories of gravity, atomic structure, or stellar processes.
Combined.
In other words, make a statement that cannot and will not be verified, but one that already makes it appear like the debate and argument has been won on advance, is over, etc,...
The debate has been won in advance and is over. Evolution is the most successful theory in the history of science, a fact that I'm intimately familiar with as I observe the theory employed to do real research every single day.
If it's real science, then let's don't deal in exegerration
We're not. We're not exaggerating. That's how much evidence there is for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:02 PM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 303 (212128)
05-28-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 10:27 AM


OK, well list 2000 predictions, and the time they were made, that are specific to evolution and have borne out, and then the statement will have been backed up.
Not trying to be ugly, and as a newbie here, I was just recently told you are not suppossed to make assertations without being willing to back it uo by documentation. So I guess we can wait for the documentation for that statement?
Btw, my point here is as much about the use of rhetoric and honest debate tactics as evolution per se, just in case anyone did not get that the first time around. Thanks.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 05:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 5:30 PM randman has not replied
 Message 105 by EZscience, posted 05-28-2005 7:33 PM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 303 (212167)
05-28-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
05-28-2005 2:02 PM


OK, well list 2000 predictions, and the time they were made, that are specific to evolution and have borne out, and then the statement will have been backed up.
Not to be flippant, but it is sometimes the case that statements about the scientific community and process are made that cannot be verified short of experiencing a life, or at least several years, as an intimate part of that community.
This is one of those statements. The internet is an conduit for much information, but it cannot be a conduit for something that takes great familiarity with a community to judge.
You can believe the claim, or you may opt not to. It's your choice. I recognize that it is not the sort of claim that can be substanitated over the internet. It is, nonetheless, true. It's a claim that should carry no weight in the debate, of course. It was probably a mistake for that claim to have been made to you.
But it is nonetheless true. You would discover this were you exposed to real, ongoing biological research.
Btw, my point here is as much about the use of rhetoric and honest debate tactics as evolution per se, just in case anyone did not get that the first time around.
If you would be so kind as to set the bar; that is, propose a burden of evidence that, when met, would be sufficient to sway you to evolution, then we will make every effort to meet that burden. Provided that the burden is within the scope of posts on an internet message board. If you insist on setting the bar so high that it cannot be met in this venue then all you've accomplished is to set yourself in a position of unassailable ignorance.
Congratulations, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:02 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mick, posted 05-28-2005 7:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 104 of 303 (212181)
05-28-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 5:30 PM


2000 hypotheses
Crashfrog writes:
OK, well list 2000 predictions, and the time they were made, that are specific to evolution and have borne out, and then the statement will have been backed up.
Not to be flippant, but it is sometimes the case that statements about the scientific community and process are made that cannot be verified short of experiencing a life, or at least several years, as an intimate part of that community.
This is one of those statements. The internet is an conduit for much information, but it cannot be a conduit for something that takes great familiarity with a community to judge.
Well, the internet can probably provide you with 2000 hypotheses, if you are willing to put in the groundwork (you would have to read at least 2000 articles, for example).
But i feel pretty confident that the contents of the journal Genetics since 1916 would provide at least 1000 tests of evolutionary theory. I guess it's up to randman to read them.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 105 of 303 (212182)
05-28-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
05-28-2005 2:02 PM


Hi randman,
Just as Chrashfrog's wife, I also make a living predicated entirely on inferences from evolutionary theory. I work to solve problems in applied biology. If evolution was not a reliable model for inferences, we wouldn't be using it. We wouldn't have jobs!
Farmers wouldn't go to a plant breeder (who uses many inferences from evolutionary biology) for a new variety to plant, they would go to their local priest to pray for the crop or the weather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:02 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 8:03 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 107 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 8:24 PM EZscience has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024