U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,046 posts, read 30,797,258 times
Reputation: 12226

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan View Post
Sorry, but it is obvious to everybody here (even kdbrich, I imagine) that you do not. Your confusion with abiogenesis betrays you, I'm afraid.
I am not satisfied.
Psst, Dawkins, not Darwin. Yeah, I know, it can get confusing .
I'm glad you agree. It really is. Modern science uses much more precise definitions, and unless you pick one or make your own statements such as "each animal kind will produce its own kind" is meaningless and cannot be debated.
No evidence whatsoever, but extra helpings of undefended affirmations. I give up.
Oops....How did Dawkins get into a conversation about evolution?

 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:32 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,845,239 times
Reputation: 1302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
The OP wasn't about whether or not a deity exists, or whether it's evolution or creation that is the "truth".
note then the fact that i did not say it was about whether God exists or not, or whether creationism or evolution explains the truth.

Quote:
It was about the fact that many creationists refuse to use correct terminology when discussing evolution. This makes them look either ignorant or stupid, depending on the intent. Therefore if a creationist wishes to discuss why they believe evolution is wrong, they need to use terms correctly or at best they'll be ignored -- at worst, mocked.
great. i know what your op was about, and i agree. on top of a refusal to use the same definitions for the terms being argued, the majority of creationism disciples that i have conversed with seem incapable of admitting that they do not actually KNOW of the truth of their beliefs.

that was what i was commenting about.

beyond that, there seem to me to be other logical flaws that make it impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the political doctrine of creationism. but that is certainly my opinion...

Quote:
What happened in the last 20 years to all of a sudden warp the minds of a huge portion of the population and make them lose their power of rational thought?
i don't blame the republicans any more than i do any other party, but it certainly was political. unfortunately, it goes back to the idea that people can't admit what they believe versus what they know, and that they will bend reality to fit their desires and beliefs, rather than bend their desires and beliefs to fit reality.

Quote:
This is standard foder of the pro-evolutionist. Abiogenisis is a different field. It has been separated out because evolutionist including Darwin could not explain it. The "swept it under the rug", so to speak.
i will reiterate what others have said. there was no "sweeoing it under the rug". it is pretty simple, actually--we don't know. it is that simple. the origins of life are a mystery, but that does not devalue the knowledge that we have about how life works currently.

you are using flawed logic; saying that evolution can't be correct because we don't know how life started is like saying that because we don't know what is at the other end of a black hole, black holes don't exist, despite multitudes of proof to the contrary. by extension, astronomy in general must also be wrong?

Quote:
Thank you for that. For now I'll call both evolution and creationism "theories".
roxolan wasn't saying what you are hoping she was saying. saying that the parameters used to define the two terms are fluid does not mean that there are no parameters, or that you can use them however you wish and hope to still have a point. this is exactly what the op was talking about--you are not even discussing the same thing as everyone else because you have changed the definitions to fit your agenda.

aaron out.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:48 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,921,948 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
Sorry, you cannot use theory in connection with creationism until you show it to be observable, testable, and repeatable.
Evolution is neither observable, testable, or repeatable.

Quote:

You haven't managed to do this yet. We'd be interested to see what you consider as "evidence" though.
I would point to the high amount design that is evident in creation. Not to mention the cause for the effect of us being here to begin with.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Moving through this etheria
430 posts, read 502,200 times
Reputation: 186
Regarding the so-called mis-guided evidence against science and for creationism:

To decry a tool (science) because of what it discovers is foolish.

The only people happy with inexplicable occurrences, Satan, angels and a God figure, are those who also demonize honest questioning.

As a minor note to rifleman: your expositions are undeniably interesting and they often put the person you're debating in the logical toilet. But they are just too darned long for these narrow-minded folks! They're far more likely to respond to fewer-syllable words, shorter sentences and fewer concepts for them to struggle with in any given post.

Try feeding your ideas to them one at a time, pre-pablumed. They may then just be able to get the ideas you so eloquently present.

Otherwise as you've seen they just ignore you and your proofs and logic.

Of course they're likely to do that anyhow because as you say, the truth is pretty scary to them!
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,580,539 times
Reputation: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Evolution is neither observable, testable, or repeatable.



I would point to the high amount design that is evident in creation. Not to mention the cause for the effect of us being here to begin with.

Evolution is observable at the level of the individual organism, in the form of observable differences between parent and offspring. Look it up.

Evolution is observable in that it makes predictions of what kinds of animals to expect to find fossils of in a given geologic stratum. Look it up.

What do you mean by "design"? You don't seem to know enough biology or comparative anatomy to recognize the "incomplete" design solutions manifested in organisms of all kinds, INCLUDING HUMAN BEINGS. Look it up.

The scientific community documents its work. You don't. The onus is on YOU to make the case against the products of modern science. You haven't done that yet.

Members of this forum have repeated these assertions to you over and over, yet you insist on resisting acceptance of their validity. Please give it a rest. You can believe the myths of the Bible but not the work of scientists over hundreds of years found in SPECIFIC REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS. Get yourself educated, please.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 05:17 PM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,459,061 times
Reputation: 586
The creationist spiral of ignorance seems to follow this pattern:

-Ask for evidence for evolution.
-Refuse to look at it when given on a plate.
-Keep asserting that there is no such evidence.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,580,539 times
Reputation: 1023
(1) Brief interview with paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:
Evolution: Library: Library: Steven Jay Gould: Understanding Evolution

//
... as a factual proposition, evolution is about as well-documented as anything we know very broadly in science; that there is a tree of life, that all organisms are tied by genealogical connectivity, that the history of life is, to use Darwin's words, "descent with modification." I would say that's as well known as that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice-versa.
//


(2) Interesting interview with Ernst Mayr, author of What Evolution Is:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html

Mayr has this point of view about one of the ideas from Richard Dawkins:

//
EDGE: Where do you think Darwinism is going to go in the next 50 years?

MAYR: Well, Darwinism will not have to do any going, because it's already here. In the last 50 years, ever since the "Evolutionary Synthesis" of the 1940s, the basic theory of Darwinism has not changed, with perhaps one exception, that is the question of the target of selection. What's the object of a selective act? For Darwin, who didn't know any better, it was the individual — and it turns out he was right.

An individual either survives or doesn't, an individual either reproduces or doesn't, an individual either reproduces very successfully or it doesn't. The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30's and 40's, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years.
//

And there's this:
//
EDGE: What important questions have I not asked you?

MAYR: One question that is very difficult one to answer is whether the Darwinian framework is robust enough to remain the same for many years, which I think it is, yes. The real question is what the burning issues in evolutionary biology are today. To answer that you've got to get back into functional biology. Take, for instance, a particular gene. Say this gene makes amino acids that determine which side of the egg is to become the anterior end of the larva and which will become the rear. We know that's what it does but how it can do that is something about which we don't have the slightest clue. That's one of the big problems, but it's in the realm of proteins and functional biology rather than of DNA and evolutionary biology.

In evolutionary biology we have species like horseshoe crabs. The horseshoe crab goes back in the fossil record over two hundred million years without any major changes. So obviously they have a very invariant genome type, right? . Wrong, they don't. Study the genotype of a series of horseshoe crabs and you'll find there's a great deal of genetic variation. How come, in spite of all this genetic variation, they haven't changed at all in over two hundred million years while other members of their ecosystem in which they were living two hundred million years ago are either extinct or have developed into something totally different? Why did the horseshoe crabs not change? That's the kind of question that completely stumps us at the present time.

Then there are issues that no one besides a few biologists can fully fathom. Like how and why do prokaryotes, bacteria that have no nucleus, differ in their evolution from eukaryotes, organisms that do have an nucleus. Eukaryotes have sexual reproduction, genetic recombination and well-formed chromosomes, whereas prokaryotes have none of the above. So how do they get genetic variation, which they must have in order to survive according to the principle of natural selection? The answer is that prokaryotes exchange genes with each other unilaterally; one bacterium injects a set of DNA into another bacterium, which is an amazing process. Genes of course also go from one chromosome to another via this old-fashioned process that all bacteria use to reproduce. Beyond that, we don't really know how much such gene transfer occurs in higher organisms.
//

Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-19-2009 at 06:36 PM..
 
Old 02-19-2009, 06:34 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,921,948 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
The creationist spiral of ignorance seems to follow this pattern:

-Ask for evidence for evolution.
-Refuse to look at it when given on a plate.
-Keep asserting that there is no such evidence.
I could say the same thing regarding the evidence for creationism. You ask for it, we give it, you bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Seriously. Pick your favorite and let's talk about it. Let me see that you can do more than just post links. Show me that you actually have looked at the evidence and are doing more than just regurgitating what some teacher taught you.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,098,757 times
Reputation: 3719
Default "eight....nine....TEN! We have a WINNAHHHH!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Evolution is neither observable, testable, or repeatable.

I would point to the high amount design that is evident in creation. Not to mention the cause for the effect of us being here to begin with.
This just in!! "The popular online Forum City-Data.com has been discovered to actually be a time machine. Just go on line and visit the Religion & Pholosophy forum> "Theory of Evolution vs the Hypothesis of Creation" They are still arguing, some at least, that Evolution hasn't been proved! That was last seen in the '80s and early '90s!"

Creation is neither observable, never testable unless God himself shows up and "poofs" a giraffe in front of us all, and of course never repeatable. (How can you repeat something that hasn't ever pre-curred?).

The "high amount design" speaks legions to the simple Lego™ philosophy of expanding little complexities on top of little complexities. Exponential growth of complexity. Mathematically, quite simple really...

Did you not read my post #31? It was built for you, kd! I spent a lot of time on it answering YOUR previous questions. Don't you WANT to expand your knowledge? Aren't you a polite debater?

Furthermore Creationism doesn't stand simple, logical and philosophical tests. It requires a complete suspension of rationality, as shibumi notes above. It requires that you denounce simple curiosity and the tools we use to reliably satisfy it.

To denounce science as you so often do with great flaming hostility, kd, is to blame the hammer for pulling the nail.

And yet, once this is pointed out, you move on to blame the level for the guy building the house off-kilter.

Hmmm... I wonder what Mystic the psycholgist-philosopher would say about you? Or better yet, June7? Goose girl, where are you when we need you? Professionally of course.

Your desperate statements that always follow others' usually polite efforts to provide meaningful opposing views [which have been scientifically validated] is frankly humiliating to us fellow humans, and is spectacularly mis-informed, or just plain intellectually dishonest.

BTW, the simple evidence you've occaasionally provided is no evidence at all. It's certainly no more solid than the story of the coyote creating the fox to harass the wolf. Tha'ts observable out in the wilderness every evening, and hence MUST BE. But that would be why Christian missionaries in the late 1800s smacked the heads and hands of rexervation children to "correct" their mythology and replace it with the correct one!

Such rivetting arguments you've previously provided, such as "It states in Genesis that such and such happened, and there it is right in front of us all, so I'm right!" doesn't cut it past about Grade 5. When atheists and scientists do provide exacting and concrete evidence, such as the 2008 Lenski paper, you dismiss it as not being "real evidence" because it was done in a controlled environment so as to limit or eliminate alternate conclusions. It is precisely because it was done in a lab, and is hence irrefutible, that you then must of desperate needs dismiss it!

Ever wonder why Christians don't like both atheists AND scientists. The two aren't related after all. But the scientists have used their finely honed tool systems to answer many atheist's questions with the sort of answers that pretty much have discounted most of what a devout fundamentalist-literalist Christian must believe. "Coos" postulation above (#41) is quite an accurate and succinct summation.

So I guess it's a conspiracy for sure, right?

Can we get a new debator in here please?
This guy's down for the count but still trys to get up, only to be immediately TKO'd back down again. It's getting to be too cruel to watch, and it's lost all of its entertainment value!

People paid to see a fair fight, fur christmas' sake!

Last edited by rifleman; 02-19-2009 at 07:41 PM.. Reason: typos
 
Old 02-19-2009, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,046 posts, read 30,797,258 times
Reputation: 12226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
I could say the same thing regarding the evidence for creationism. You ask for it, we give it, you bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Seriously. Pick your favorite and let's talk about it. Let me see that you can do more than just post links. Show me that you actually have looked at the evidence and are doing more than just regurgitating what some teacher taught you.
There is no testable evidence for creation. I have to assume that creationists are willfully ignorant...You know you're wrong but just cannot admit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top