Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

Evolutionists are arrogant and egotistical in their belief.

BS, we're sick and tired of quietly stating that 2+2=4 only to be told by people who can't add that it isn't. So we stop pulling our punches and call and idiot an idiot, as we likely should have done in the first place. We're also sick and tired of yielding to the religionists Political Correctness and pretending that all opinions start from an equal place and have equal weight. Stupid opinions that have no evidence for support except some book of fables (fill in your choice of fable) does not deserve equal standing with carefully collected and analyzed data. If I told you your wife was cheating on you would you ask for some supporting data? Would you insist on careful examination of that data before confronting her? You bet you would. But you want unsupported and unexamined fables to be taught to our children in the stead of solid science. Now which is arrogance and egotism?

Furthermore, they insult and belittle anyone that believes in a Biblical account of creation. As a matter of fact, Gould himelf went out of his way to thrash the Kansas Board of Education for allowing "intelligent design" in the Kansas School System. Why?

See above.

According to what I read here, most of you leave room in abiogenesis for "God". If I walk into a church and find a pastor with "all the answers"...I never go back to that church. However, most evolutionists seem to revel in the belief that they have all the answers, or at least enough of them to conclude that any other belief is false.

I don't need a god. The fact is that abiogenesis is the only possibility that there is any evidence for. The evidence is not yet clear and perfect, but at this stage it's that, or the rantings of misogynistic pederasts who'd do best living in the bronze age, concerning the meaning of a several thousand year old set of fables that few if any of them have (or even can) read in the original.

Scientists do not pretend to "have all the answers" if we did, science would be over. But once we know that something is crap ... we do find it a waste of time to have to keep going back over, and over, and over, the same old ground.

So grow up. Just like 2+2=4, evolution is fact, abiogenesis of some form provided the origin of life, the world is spherical, the earth rotates around the sun and is not 6,000 years old, and there is no god.

Again, I challenge you to come up with just one definitive example of a controversy between a scientific conclusion and a religious illusion where the religious illusion turned out, in the end, to be closer to reality? Just one. You can't.

 

[sheck33]

BS, we're sick and tired of quietly stating that 2+2=4 only to be told by people who can't add that it isn't. So we stop pulling our punches and call and idiot an idiot, as we likely should have done in the first place.
See above.
I don't need your stinkin' god to understand that abiogenesis is the only possibility that there is any evidence for. The evidence is not yet clear and perfect, but at this stage it's that or the rantings of misogynistic pederasts concerning the meaning of a several thousand year old set of fables that few if any of them can read in the original. Scientists do not pretend to "have all the answers" if we did science would be over, but once we know that something is crap ... we find it a waste of time to have to keep going back over the same old ground. Grow up, 2+2=4, evolution is fact, abiogenesis of some form provided the origin of life, the world is spherical, earth rotates around the sun, the earth is not 6,000 years old, there is no god.

Again, I challenge you believers to come up with just one definitive example of a controversy between a scientific conclusion and a religious illusion where the religious illusion turned out, in the end, to be closer to reality? Just one. You can't.

Really, you should be scientific and say that (a) god's existence is highly unlikely since, as of yet, there is nothing in the natural world that we can see or measure that would suggest there is one

Not to mention it is irrelevant to science in any case.



PS: I wish English was my native language so I could formulate my thoughts as eloquently as you

 

[Thalassamania]

Really, you should be scientific and say that (a) god's existence is highly unlikely since, as of yet, there is nothing in the natural world that we can see or measure that would suggest there is one

Not to mention it is irrelevant to science in any case.



PS: I wish English was my native language so I could formulate my thoughts as eloquently as you

I'm a biologist ... 95% confidence makes something "highly unlikely," the things that the creationists and the IDers spew is so much, much, much, more unlikely than "highly" unlikely that it falls into the sewer of plain old stupid. When one goes out 10²² standard deviations then grasps at straws and stands up with a straight face and whines that they are not taken seriously, but should be given equal time and consideration, then I have to say that person is an idiot.

 

[Thalassamania]

Really, you should be scientific and say that (a) god's existence is highly unlikely since, as of yet, there is nothing in the natural world that we can see or measure that would suggest there is one

Not to mention it is irrelevant to science in any case.



PS: I wish English was my native language so I could formulate my thoughts as eloquently as you

I'm a biologist ... 95% confidence makes something "highly unlikely," the things that the creationists and the IDers spew is so much, much, much, more unlikely than "highly" unlikely that it falls into the sewer of plain old stupid. When one goes out 10²² standard deviations then grasps at straws and stands up with a straight face and whines that they are not taken seriously, but should be given equal time and consideration, then I have to say that person is an idiot.

Still don't see a thing on my challenge, it's been out there for five hours now. I guess they can't find one on any of those creationist sites.

 

[sheck33]

I'm a biologist ... 95% confidence makes something "highly unlikely," the things that the creationists and the IDers spew is so much, much, much, more unlikely than "highly" unlikely that it falls into the sewer of plain old stupid. When one goes out 10²² standard deviations then grasps at straws and stands up with a straight face and whines that they are not taken seriously, but should be given equal time and consideration, then I have to say that person is an idiot.

Still don't see a thing on my challenge, it's been out there for five hours now. I guess they can't find one on any of those creationist sites.

I was trying to be nice by using the words 'highly unlikely'

Well now, you don't honestly expect them to come up with something do ya.

We'll wait & see

 

[Thalassamania]

I say put up, or admit defeat and shut up.

I'm frankly sick and tired having to shovel bantha poodo.

And I don't like being put in a position by some cretinous fundamentalist that forces me to insult some folks, like Mike and Marvel, whom I genuinely like and respect (at least in other arenas). People are entitled to their own beliefs and they should be able to go to hell in the handbasket of their choice. But private belief and public policy are two very different things and when private belief threatens to intrude into public policy it must be dealt with.

 

[Soggy]

Hey, look - proof of evolution....in my arm.

I find this discussion even more humorous/annoying/foolish as I sit here in a a hospital with an MRSA infection in one arm and an IV pumping crazy antibiotics into the other.

 

[Sas]

Hey, look - proof of evolution....in my arm.

I find this discussion even more humorous/annoying/foolish as I sit here in a a hospital with an MRSA infection in one arm and an IV pumping crazy antibiotics into the other.

Hope you get better soon Soggy~

 

[Sordello]

Hey, look - proof of evolution....in my arm.

I find this discussion even more humorous/annoying/foolish as I sit here in a a hospital with an MRSA infection in one arm and an IV pumping crazy antibiotics into the other.

That is some nasty stuff. Hope you got to help in time and the antibiotics are working for you.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Looking back I see you arguing both science and theology, oft in the same post...

Regardless, the end goal is the same - you want to disbelieve evolution, and so you look for excuses to do so.

Looking back at your posts, you've failed at two levels:

Maybe it would help if you point out which posts you're refering to. You're assigning motives that I don't think you can support.

I question data, measurement methods and conclusions, in part, because that's what I've done for a living most of my adult life.

1) Most of your "points" about science were based on misunderstanding, or out-and-out twisting of sciences actual discoveries. As such you weren't pointing out holes in science, but rather pointed out holes in your understanding of science. I may have missed it, but I don't see any evidence that you managed to undermine even one aspect of science's findings.

The holes may or may not be there and I don't claim to be an expert on the science being examined...which is why I read and asked questions.

BTW, none of that reading included any religious or creationist sources. Any "misunderstanding" was an honest and there was NO intentional "twisting".

Did I undermine any subject principles? Unlikely with so little research. However, if you look you'll see that I was able to ask a few questions that, as I recall, weren't answered very well by anyone here.

To prove that your religious view of how the universe arose, you need to do exactly what I asked - provide a theory which explains all of the data in the context of your creationist beliefs. Anything less than that means you're working from a framework which is a puny shadow of what evolutionary theory provides.

Bryan

Your do such a great job of relating science and supporting your case and then you go and say something like this. You apparently misunderstan or misrepresent any position or beliefes that I have stated in this thread.

Of course, I wouldn't start by presenting an alternate theory. That's reinventing the weel and I'm far to lazy (all good engineers are lazy). On the contrary I would procede in a manor consistant with my training and experience in engineering and system analysis/design.

Again, if you examine my posts, I think you'll find that I did just that. If you disagree, I'm going to ask you to support your case so that we can discuss specifics.

While I have been wrong once or twice in my life, please note, that I stand behind my statements and opinions by using my name rather than committing the intellectual cowardice of using an alias.