Forum: Darwnist Ideology

How odd! Yet you can't seem to find one person on this evolution and creationist board who agrees. Bwahahahaha!!!I suppose when Darwin ran into all that controversy, it was because of all the social Darwinists around at the time who knew his theory was coming and had already prepared their social reforms around it?Let's try this. There would be no big controversy (over evolution and creation) if it weren't for Biblical literalists who need a 6,000 year old earth to maintain their religion.Is that really so hard to see?I was a fundy, and I hung out with YECers. There were many among us who created a morality based on evolution and atheism and charged others with holding that morality, but all of us knew the only thing we cared about was defending our Bible.

I don't see that anything you said answered anything I said. I don't think some guy named Bryan's opinion of the evolution creation debate matters at all, no matter how much authority you attribute to him, because you are applying your ideas to people here, and no one here agrees with him.And if you're referring to William Jennings Bryan, then a man's opinion about evolution from 80 years ago is totally irrelevant to this discussion.And you're correct that I have no intentions of reading the links you provided, until you say something reasonable enough to make me think you have a point. I read links when someone makes a cogent, effective, or intriguing argument that makes me think it's worth following up. You've providide no such argument, nor a hint that any such argument is available.Why read your links when you can't even address or answer my arguments? They didn't equip you to answer me, so why should I think they provide answers themselves?

Amen I'm not a creationist, and I don't want to quibble over what you said, because what you said was great, but I can name at least one creationist scientist who has produced something useful to mankind: John Baumgardner. He produced the computer program Terra, which can simulate movement of tectonic plates or something like that. I read an evolutionist site that listed him as a creationist that has produced something important. A pro-evolution web site by a Dr. Foster of Eastern Kentucky Universtity (Professor of Biological Studies) says:

quote:

---

For example, John Baumgardner is a lab scientist at the Theoretical Division of the National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy at Los Alamos (New Mexico). He is the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates (plate tectonics). He is the creator of a unique supercomputer program called Terra. Terra graphically models thermal convection of the Earth's mantle over time and can calculate its past and future.

---

So someone who's an evolutionist thinks Baumgardner's program is awesome, even if I've heard he's not terribly honest with evidence about an old earth. Baumgardner is a young earther.I also read once about a YEC scientist who was involved in finding a cure for some disease. YECers trumpeted it around a lot, and research on the web seemed to indicate the guy was at least heavily involved in the cure, but I can't remember much else about it.Anyway, I agree with your overall point about what creationists have produced in their science, which is pretty much nothing, but I couldn't resist putting forth Baumgardner's terra.

Who said that? Not me. This is so patently untrue that I can't believe you would even suggest it. Generally, the public outside of Christian fundamentalists are concerned about the immorality associated with evolution theory? Surely, this was meant as a joke to elicit a laugh.Fundy's are concerned about their literal Bible, and Americans in general have a morality different from fundy's (and different from me, as I'm not very happy with America's morals, either), but don't blame evolution for that. The Romans managed to hold some pretty objectionable (to me) morals just fine without it. Okay, creationists are concerned about morals, and they insist that evolution is responsible for general American morals, which they (and I) object to. I'll buy that, but I doubt that's news to anyone. However, you are saying that it is morality that fuels the creation evolution debate. No one agrees with you, including me, and you've provided nothing to support your position except that some guy about 80 years ago agreed with you.

To all of you:Thanks. Sheesh, I of course realized it already. Is there some sort of pill one can take that helps one restrain from answering posts that are clearly not worth answering? Whoever came up with it would be rich, because looking around these boards I see I am not the only one who has this terrible problem.