Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

Sonnikke:
this is LOL stuff...WHO is spreading propagandistic nonsense?M: You areS: I tell you, the evolutionist has MUCH greater faith than the creationist.M: Glad you told us since you are obviously such an expert S:
To believe that everything we see and feel happened by chance without a designer...it goes contrary to all else that we know.M: What "we" know? Let's see "you" even state what the principles of evolution are...most of the creationists on this board can't even state the most basic tenets.S: No building ever builds itself;M: No building is capable of self reproduction or undergoes heritable mutation...your analogy is inappropriateS: no organization runs smoothly without managament& planning (design)...M: smoothly? LOL!!!...nature is a mess.S:there's design in virtually everythingM: Show us the designed parts and the natural parts and the way to distinguish the two.S: why is it so hard for the evolutionist to attribute design to something so complex as life?M: Because it is not necessary and is a non testable hypothesis i.e. pseudoscienceS:
It's all about faith in either THE God or the evo-god...M: It is all about people who are blinded by a literal interpretation of some book about some mythological god and people who are not.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonnikke: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:M: It is all about people who are blinded by a literal interpretation of some book about some mythological god and people who are not.QUOTENo, it's about people who can't accept that there is a GODM: Why should I accept something for which there is no evidence? Should you accept that a pink unicorn with a banana in its ear causes tidal waves? There is the same amount of evidence for both i.e. none.S:
and thus must do everything conceivable to invent stories (sugar coated and technical-jargon coated)M: Why is technical jargon sugar coated and why should those who study science use coloquial words to describe phenomenon, observations, etc?S:
and denounce the opposition in order to attempt acceptance of their quasi-plausible theory,M: You mean not just accept anything you say? No thanks. It is a debate after all S:
and make themselves feel good that they discovered that contrary to all else, order and life appeared spontaneously by accident.M: It does not make me feel good or bad. Just interested.S:
It's ironic that evolutionists so often say to creationists what THEY are guilty of (ie. blinded to the truth) M: the blindess of creationists to the truth is reproducible and supported by a huge amount of data And on that subject..since you cannot understand why "we" don't just fall down on our knees and accept your god..maybe you can help us all out here and supply the following...Is there a testable hypothesis for the existence of your god/a god/gods?
Is it a falsifiable hypothesis?
Can you make testable predictions based on the hypothesis?
Is there supporting data you can gather?
Can you think of any tests i.e. lab experiments etc. that would support your hypothesis?If you can (you would be the first creationist ever) then there would be some merit into looking into your views as valid..or at least they might be possible to substantiate. If you cannot, you are not dealing with something scientifically valid and the only support you have for your assertions is your own personal belief...and I have no reason to accept it merely because you say so.

S:
Once again, the very same thing you are asking me, is what you have failed to do..macroevolution has never been observed, life has never been created by man, the evidence (ie. fossils, etc) points towards creation...your "science" is also faith.M: So at least you admit that you cannot propose a testable hypothesis for creation and that it is purely religion and not science.Psalms 19:1. ... The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:That's your evidence. M: And poor evidence it is..I do not believe in god so your to passages are meaningless. How can you confirm anything in the above two passages?You believe creationism because of your religious beliefs that instruct you to accept creationism. Let's take it another way...what is to say it was not Vishnu who created everything and your god is not real? Who created your god? What is the evidence in either case?I have no more reason to believe your assertion or the two passages you quoted than to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe.As to failing to provide evidence for macroevolution...um..you never asked me to so that is a ridiculous statement. How does life not being created by humans have anything to do with evolutionary theory..but in case you do not think life was created by humans do you think babies are brought by storks?
And you did not support your assertion that fossils show creation...how exactly? What specifically.I will be happy to discuss the evidence for evolution but I asked you to first provide answers for the following which you ignored.Is there a testable hypothesis for the existence of your god/a god/gods?
Is it a falsifiable hypothesis?
Can you make testable predictions based on the hypothesis?
Is there supporting data you can gather?
Can you think of any tests i.e. lab experiments etc. that would support your hypothesis?This should not be very hard if you are correct...you answer the above or admit you cannot and then I will be happy to discuss evolution, macro and micro and any other topic you want.cheers,
M

S:
No, it's about people who can't accept that there is a GOD and thus must do everything conceivable to invent stories (sugar coated and technical-jargon coated) and denounce the opposition in order to attempt acceptance of their quasi-plausible theory, and make themselves feel good that they discovered that contrary to all else, order and life appeared spontaneously by accident.M: Actually, upon further reflection on this post you made...what about all those people who do accept god AND accept evolution...and even study it professionally?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.

​

I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

---

​

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

---

++++++++++++++++++++So your statement is in effect, that if something cannot be simplified to a level that you understand, it is false and therefore your views on science are correct and should be taken seriously? That is ridiculous. Scientific understanding is not determined by the lowest common denominator. I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?And you are still asserting that evolution is false without even providing YOUR own definition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

++++++++++++++++++++

​

So your statement is in effect, that if something cannot be simplified to a level that you understand, it is false and therefore your views on science are correct and should be taken seriously? That is ridiculous. Scientific understanding is not determined by the lowest common denominator. I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

And you are still asserting that evolution is false without even providing YOUR own definition.

---

​

Did I say that science was false if you can't understand it? NO!
There's also a HUGE difference between non-evolution science and evo-science.
Any decent scientist should be able to simplify something so a layman can understand it...it seems when the truth is too hard to swallow, it's easier to hide behind complex calc's and terminology so the avg. person loses interest in the topic and just says "well, I guess it's true...".

​

---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.
The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.
What protects it?
What supports it?
What force causes it to change?
How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).
Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...all of a sudden there are two different species...male female? Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!

​

And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...

​

---

​

---

**************Despite your obvious confusion of abiogenesis and evolution (a common creationist problem so don't take offense) is this really the basis of your understanding of evolution or are you joking? You always end with a so it is hard to tell...but there is so much wrong in what you said I would like to know if this is where your knowledge really stands before proceeding.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

++++++++++++++++++++

​

... I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

---

​

I would imagine you probably don't know much about finite element analysis, yet when you see a building you don't think it just made itself...you recognize that there was a designer behind it, right??

​

Toodles

​

---

I also know that a building does not reproduce and is not subject to heritable mutations so the analogy is inapplicable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

I also know that a building does not reproduce and is not subject to heritable mutations so the analogy is inapplicable.

---

​

Why is every design analogy I submit dismissed by you? How about you give me an everyday analogy that would describe ToE?

---

Your design analogy is not valid for exactly the reasons I stated. A building cannot reproduce and is hence not subject to heritable mutation. As to the second part, in post 34, Karl gave you one very simple broad overview of evolution by natural selection to which you never responded. Either it was to complicated for you or you ignored it. If you did read it, what did you not understand?

deleted by M due to duplication[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-02-2002]

S:
That's a lovely story..it doesn't really say much and what is does say sounds more like micro-evolution than macro...nobody's is arguing against micro-ev.M: So you beg for an explanation that a 6 year old can understand, you get a dumbed down version and then complain that it does not say very much? LOL!!! I guess next you will require hand puppets and a guy painting with crayons before you believe the world is not flat S:
I checked my University "mainstream science" biology textbook, and guess what, the "story" of evolution is even more laughable in the textbook, than the summary I gave of your "theory" earlier.
BTW, even though you guys don't include origin of life anymore (how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient ) the text did,...sad to see such "busch league" material in a university textbook.M: Let's see you summarize what you read...if it is so simple and everyone here is stupid and you are such a wonderful genius then let's hear your synopsis of what you read.S:
yet even though God describes a world wide catastrophic event, you dismiss it.M: For complete lack of evidence.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.M: To bad it was originally proposed by christians and supported by believing christians. But given that there is no evidence for god induced creation, how can there be evidence that humans are the crown?S:
It doesn't make any sense scientifically, or linguistically.M: Why not scientifically? We are composed of the same chemicals as everything other living being. Linguistics are irrelevant to the issue.S:
Apart from going against established religion,M: Like the earth not being flat?S:
it also goes against Holocaust teaching, which emphasizes the difference between man and animal.M:???S:
It also goes against common sense knowledge.M: It used to be common knowledge in France that tying your left testicle off with rope would help in conceiving male children.S:
It makes evolutionists look like they are completely out of touch with society and reality.M: Quantum mechanics are also non-intuitive, seem "out of touch with reality" and are poorly understood by "society". Guess people should give up on that science to? Or should all science be determined by the personal incredulity of the religous fundamentalist?S:
If you can't find a significant enough difference between animals and humans to warrant putting them in different categories, then you must simply not be using observation as your source of knowledge.M: Ok, if SLPx is so blind then why don't you give him (and me) a comprehensive list of the biological and chemical distinctions between humans and other animals that you claim are so obvious.cheers,
M

S:
We love and we hate, we design and we destroy,M: So do apes and monkeysS:
we birthM: And other animals do not give birth?S: and we buryM: neandertals buried their dead...S:, we conquer and we are conquered,M: So do other primatesS: we believe and we doubt,M: How do you know other animals don't have doubts?S: we laugh and we cry,M: Hmmm lots of other primates laugh and cryS: we create...M: So do other primates...so do crowsS:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
It's not the point to make a comprehensive list, that humans and animals are distinct should be held as self-evident similar to that humans are equal should be held as self-evident.M: It is the point. It is not "self-evident". There are no significant biological distinctions between humans and other animals that would justify separating humans from the rest of earths lifeforms. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that there are in fact such differences...I am asking you to prove a positive. "self-evident" is an assertion of equal merit to "it is self evident that the earth is a big blue banana".S:
The implication here is of course that those who would argue the opposite are not merely wrong but are lying.M: No, you are implying that anyone who disagrees with your religous belief is lying.Seople who want to put humans and animals in one group, typically also want to change morality.M: Have any evidence for this or is this another one of those "self-evident" thingies?S: Lying would neccessarily lead to changing morality, and although this is not proof they are lying, the evidence is in accordance with them lying.M: Completely illogical and unrelated to humans being animals.S:
I think your response shows you don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, I think you adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of very questionable ideas through the ruthless struggle for debatingpoints.M: I think your response shows that anyone that opposes you will be considered 1) a liar 2) immoral 3) and (as taken from your next example) a nazi by you. But that is irrelevant to the fact that humans are animals.S:
The article I recently referenced in the post about the anti-evolutionist Thomas Paine surprisingly coincides with much of what's argued here. You should read that, and maybe some books about the Holocaust like Klaus Fischer's "The 12 year reich".M: Thomas Paine argued that humans are animals? And your trying to associate me with the 3rd Reich is more a testament to your own lack of ethics or "morality" than mine. Oh and by the way, I live in Germany so don't lecture me on the what was done here.S:
"the rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (Klaus Fischer in a letter to an evolutionist on talk.origins)M: So I am supposed to accept an unsupported statement from a creationist at talkorigins as support for your contention? That is like saying "my mommy says I am right therefore I am."If you really want to know about eugenics (which is what you are actually referencing) read Daniel Kevles book In the name of Eugenics.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

S:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!

​

M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

---

​

Mammuthus, are you getting paranoid my hairy, betusked friend? Perhaps this wouldn't be the time to tell that joke about the nun, the policeman, & Cyrano de Bergerac.

​

Mark

​

---

I am not paranoid...the paranoids are all out to get me

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Klaus Fisher is not a creationist as far as I know, the evolutionist he wrote this to said to agree with it. (although some weeks later when I expressed the *exactsame* words as my own opinion to the *same* person, he said it was "nonsense") For reference about people who re-categorize which then proceed to change morality, read the reference in the Thomas Paine post. (edited to add: I wouldn't have bothered with it, if people didn't typically proceed to change morality)M: I see, so if you suddenly did accept the fact that humans are animals you would run into the streets and start killing people? Do you regularly torture and kill other animals? I see this entire line of argument as handwaving away the fact that you cannot come up with the distinction between humans and animals but due to your religious views still cling to the fallacy.S:
You can't have read much about the Holocaust if you don't know about the importance of the human-animal distinction. Obviously you have a problem with accepting the possibility that you may be morally wrong in argument, you just can't handle it, which disqualifies you for debating this.M: I love it when creationists with no argument claim that I am disqualified from debating with them because I disagree...Wordswordsman said he would no longer debate me because I am a sorcerer...what next, aliens told me I cannot talk to you?
Why are humans being animals such a threat to your morality? And why am I immoral? We have DNA just like all other animals...wow, that makes me immoral.S:
You should leave this debate to intellectuals, and Holocaust-scholars and the like who can handle this regardless of whether they are creationist or evolutionist. I'm not including myself in this, but what I mean to say is that it should be discussed in connection to that established debate.M: Having read Galton's influence in beginning the eugenics movement (with opposition from Darwin) I think I know more about this than you do. And what established debate? You claim all your points are self evident and refuse to provide support for your claims.S:
The doctrine of truths self-evident has served people well,M: LOL! Yes, dictators can claim it is self evident that they should remain in power and that they are the best possible choice all evidence to the contrary. Self evidence does not cut it.S:
you are really very callous for ramrodding over it in the usual ruthless style of Darwinists.M: Get used to it..lots of people will disagree with you..this is a DEBATE forum. People disagree with me all the time and I keep debating them.S:
It is selfevident, you should try and accept it as such, and see if it holds true from there on.M: Nope, I am not that gullible...or are you going to now try to sell me stock in Enron?S:
The recategorization is nothing new, Darwinists have tried this before.M: Trying to link evolution and specific evolutionists to Hitler is nothing new..it is the debating tactic of the creationists who has no other possible way to make a point since they cannot support themselves with science.cheers,
M