Interview with an evolutionist

[Mokele]

2)The fighter plane and the eagles from robbins thing. Some evolutionists like to point out the "2 percent difference" thing. So I was just showing that this isn't evidence that we came from apes. Eagles and robbins are quite similar creatures. Hawks and eagles are even more similar. But it would be quite incorrect to state that eagles came from hawks because of the similarities. The same with apes and humans.

 

They evolved from a common ancestor. Open a book, you might learn something.

 

3)What qualifies as a transitional form? What a question. Any animal halfway or partway to becoming another.

 

Your transparently obvious deception won't work here. If we show you *anything*, you will say, "yes, but what's between that and what you showed me?", and will continually do so to the point of absurbity.

 

Google "Fossil whales". That should silence your baseless objections.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

Okay, you've just made the transition from "pesky idiot" to "full blown f*cktard"

 

Charles Darwin in his book "The Evolution of Species", wanted readers to believe that Black people were less evolved than whites.

 

1. Darwin never wrote a book called "The Evolution of Species." Perhaps you're thinking of "The Origin of Species"

 

2. You're describing eugenics/social Darwinism, which was the creation of Francis Galton, not Charles Darwin.

 

Darwin also wrote that men have come to "A higher esscence than women". That men are better with reasoning, AND (--are u ready?) "simple use of the hands feet."

 

Where? Googling for this quote turns up nothing. Considering you got the title of the book you pretend to be quoting wrong, I'm guessing this is pure bullsh*t

 

Yet, no one throws out Darwinism because of his racist and sexist views.

 

All of this is an ad hominem argument, and therefore your logic is fallacious. Even if Darwin were "racist and sexist," that doesn't make him wrong.

[Mokele]

Oh, and the other two:

 

1) The lung fish. That's just one life form. If life originated out of the sea, this brings up a few questions. Like when the animal started to develop lungs, you're saying it came out of the water, couldn't breathe, then kept going back until lungs developed? See, it's just not logical. And I noticed some of you have put what you believe is the way it happened. Is there any proof at all that there was such a change? Or do we just take your word?

 

Lungfish are simply a highly-modified example of a trait that occurs throughout bony fish. Most such fish have swimbladders, which are used to adjust bouyancy (sp). *Numerous* lineages of fish who live in lakes, ponds, or other environments that can dry or become anoxic for other reasons have developed the ability to breathe using their swim bladder. They cannot leave the water, but they can come to the surface to get air, should the oxygen content of the water drop too low. This includes musskippers, garfish, catfish, and numerous other genera. Some fish, including lungfish, mudskippers, walking catfsih, and others, have developed the ability to move over land, presumably to escape dessication as the seasonal ponds they inahbit dry up. This is actually the basis from Romer's original idea, that the first land vertebrates did the same. Now, however, it's considered more likely that the first tetrapods were simply moving ashore to hunt to insects that had already colonized the land.

 

Lungfish are unique in being so modified that they can no longer breathe water; their gills are strictly for nitrogenous waste excretion, and they will drown if held under.

 

They has been a very sucessful lineage, and, like sharks and frogs, have therefore not faced any pressures to modify their form. Evolution does not proceed at a constant rate, but rather in spurts and jumps, usually caused by environmental changes. Since their niche has been stable, they have not faced any pressure to evolve since the late Carboniferous, when they arose (lungfish, not tetrapods).

 

Aside from that, they're not terribly fun animals, and don't move much except to bite you. Dullest thing I've ever worked with.

 

Yet, no one throws out Darwinism because of his racist and sexist views. People just try to look at the science of it.

So if ID has a religious agenda, as long as it continues to show logic, that doesn't matter.

 

Yes, it wouldn't matter. Except that ID does *NOT* show logic, nor evidence. There isn't a single scrap of empirical evidence to back up ID. "Irreducible complexity" is a logical fallacy (and has been disproven every time and example has been brought up), and they haven't produced any other arguements that haven't been used by creationists before and refuted 1000 times over.

 

Go to talk.origins and read their FAQ. Ask anything you like, the answer will be in there somewhere.

 

Mokele

[ydoaPs]

http://www.chick.com/tractimages20116/0055/0055_18.gif\

 

iirc, gluons have been experimentally detected. so much for made up.

[bascule]

http://www.chick.com/tractimages20116/0055/0055_18.gif\

 

iirc' date=' gluons have been experimentally detected. so much for made up.[/quote']

 

This deserves its own thread

[AL]

And if anyone wants to make thier own "Interview with a creationist" type thread' date=' or post it here, I invite you to do so. Only if you do, don't point out any specific religion, since creation/inteligent design as taught in schools doesn't advocate any specific religion[/quote']

 

Interview with a Creationist:

 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to make your case?

 

--No, but we do have a lot of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

[ydoaPs]

Interview with a Creationist:

 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to make your case?

 

--No' date=' but we do have a lot of hearsay and conjecture. Those are [i']kinds[/i] of evidence.

gah, i can't remember where that is from....SImpsons?

[AL]

gah, i can't remember where that is from....SImpsons?

Yup.

"[intelligent Design] is the greatest case of false advertising I've seen since I sued the movie 'The Never Ending Story.'" -Lionel Hutz, attorney at law.

[shinbits]

1. Darwin never wrote a book called "The Evolution of Species." Perhaps you're thinking of "The Origin of Species"

Yes. Thank you my good man.

 

 

Where? Googling for this quote turns up nothing. Considering you got the title of the book you pretend to be quoting wrong' date=' I'm guessing this is pure bullsh*t[/quote']

*sigh*.... Here.

 

This links to Wikepedia. Everyone trusts them. Scroll toward the bottom of the link.

I'll also paste it for you:

In Descent of man Darwin wrote:

 

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"(Chapter 19, 1871 edition Darwin, Descent of Man - Chapter 19 - Secondary Sexual Characters of Man Darwin's errant thoughts on male superiority in respect to "whatever he takes up" probably reflected the views of many living at the same time in Victorian England.

 

 

 

All of this is an ad hominem[/i'] argument, and therefore your logic is fallacious. Even if Darwin were "racist and sexist," that doesn't make him wrong.

That's exactly the point I was making. Even if ID is religious in nature, that doesn't make it wrong.

[ydoaPs]

*sigh*.... Here.

 

This links to Wikepedia. Everyone trusts them. Scroll toward the bottom of the link.

really? i've heard reports of creationists vandalizing wiki.

[ydoaPs]

That's exactly the point I was making. Even if ID is religious in nature, that doesn't make it wrong.

but it does make it unfalsifyable and unscientific.

 

i find it odd how ID proponents scream "Irreducable complexity" yet they introduce unnecisary complexity.

[bascule]

And if anyone wants to make thier own "Interview with a creationist" type thread, or post it here, I invite you to do so.

 

So you're inviting us to respond to your strawman by concocting one of our own?

 

How about we engage in logical discourse instead?

[ydoaPs]

And if anyone wants to make thier own "Interview with a creationist" type thread, or post it here, I invite you to do so. Only if you do, don't point out any specific religion, since creation/inteligent design as taught in schools doesn't advocate any specific religion

"so why don't you believe in evolution?"

 

"organization can't come from an explosion"

 

"evolution doesn't say it does"

 

"like cannot spontaneously appear from non-life!"

 

"evolution does not say it does"

 

"the idea of humans evolving from monkeys is rediculous"

 

"evolution doesn't say that"

 

"life is too complex to have arisen naturally"

 

"so, you introduce unnecesary complexity my means of an imaginary creature that defies the laws of physics?"

 

"uh......God is real"

 

"where is the proof?"

 

"um....I don't have any"

[shinbits]

So you're inviting us to respond to your strawman by concocting one of our own?

 

How about we engage in logical discourse instead?

Logical discourse' date=' huh?

Okay, you've just made the transition from "pesky idiot" to "full blown f*cktard"

so much for logical discourse.

 

Something I've been noticing is that when the heat is put on evolution, people seem to start to attack ID. But that's only a cop out when evolution starts to be revealed as something faulty.

 

Let's not stray too far from the thread topic. I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

 

But if no one can, than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.

[ydoaPs]

Let's not stray too far from the thread topic. I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

 

But if no one can' date=' than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.[/quote']

evolution does stand on it's own. your stawman, however cannot. evolution is directly observable.

[Xyph]

What qualifies as a transitional form? What a question. Any animal halfway or partway to becoming another.

That's not an answer, it's just a rephrasing of what you've already said. So I repeat my question: What, exactly, do you want? Would something half fish and half elephant satisfy you?

 

Inteligent design has religious undertones--So? Charles Darwin in his book "The Evolution of Species", wanted readers to believe that Black people were less evolved than whites. Darwin also wrote that men have come to "A higher esscence than women". That men are better with reasoning, AND (--are u ready?) "simple use of the hands feet."

The difference here, even if what you've said were true (which I'm skeptical about, to say the least) is that modern day scientists are not all pushing racist or sexist agendas, whereas all Creationist organizations are pushing religious agendas. Further, even if it were true that whites simply evolved from blacks, there's no inherent racial bias here, since there's no absolute standard of evolutional superiority.

 

And you haven't responded to my main point.

If Creationism was a science (and don't fool yourself, it isn't) the next step would be to [scientifically] extrapolate the methods used by the creator and the properties of the creator itself[/b']. The fact that pretty much all Creationist organisations adhere to religious doctrine that has not been scientifically obtained, and spend more time poking imaginary holes in established scientific theories than doing this should be proof enough of how unscientific (yet deceptive!) Creationism is.

So how can you consider Creationism science?

[AzurePhoenix]

Let's not stray too far from the thread topic. I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

 

But if no one can' date=' than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.[/quote'] Evolution does stand on it's own. The problem is, those who want it to be wrong refuse to accept the proof as being real or meaningful. And when more proof is discovered, it's just p'shawed as a another fairy tale. How can anyone be expected to make it stand in your eyes eyes if people like you continue to gouge out your eyes rather than just look and see?

[The Peon]

I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

 

But if no one can' date=' than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.[/quote']

 

Sure. White people exist, black people exist. To science this change occured over 10s of thousands of years. Multiply the changes they made from each other over millions of years without any interbreeding and BAM!!! You got evolution, 2 species which cannot procreate sterile offspring, much like a horse and a donkey which produce a mule. In fact, if you believe the earth was here for only 10000 years like some creationists, and the racial changes occured in that short period of time, evolution happens at an extremely rapid rate compared to what science shows it to occur.

 

Edit: Another example. Microbes evolve at a much higher rate due to the simplicity of them. Scientists found microbes deep under the earth which were anaerobic (did not need oxygen to survive), yet they still had genes to breath air. Why? Its obvious they evolved over time to accomadate themselves to there new underground enviroment and as they went deeper they became anaerobic. You want evolution in progress just look at killer viruses and bacteria. Higher organisms simply need more time. Or do we somehow not follow the same laws that apply to other forms of life?

[Hailstorm]

So if ID has a religious agenda' date=' as long as it continues to show logic, that doesn't matter.

 

So in the same way we don't bring up racism and sexism at the heart of the "Father of Evolution", don't point out any specific religion with respect to ID.

 

Okay?[/quote']

 

Yes' date=' it wouldn't matter. Except that ID does *NOT* show logic, nor evidence. There isn't a single scrap of empirical evidence to back up ID. "Irreducible complexity" is a logical fallacy (and has been disproven every time and example has been brought up), and they haven't produced any other arguements that haven't been used by creationists before and refuted 1000 times over.

 

Go to talk.origins and read their FAQ. Ask anything you like, the answer will be in there somewhere.

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

Notice how he neglected to answer that.

[ydoaPs]

notice how racism and sexism isn't the basis of evolution?

[JPQuiceno]

talk.orgins.org

[Molotov]

This links to Wikepedia. Everyone trusts them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[bascule]

Let's not stray too far from the thread topic. I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

 

But if no one can' date=' than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.[/quote']

 

Have a look at these:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/9157

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2509

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

[shinbits]

Evolution does stand on it's own. The problem is, those who want it to be wrong refuse to accept the proof as being real or meaningful. And when more proof is discovered, it's just p'shawed as a another fairy tale.

well, it's not p'shawed, just anylized. And if flaws with the evidence given arises, it's not "gouging our eyes out" if we discuss these flaws. That's just being scientific.

 

That's not an answer, it's just a rephrasing of what you've already said. So I repeat my question: What, exactly, do you want[/i']? Would something half fish and half elephant satisfy you?

Any form whatsoever would satisfy me. But let's say for example you find

one transitional form. It wouldn't prove evolution, because you'd have to have at hundreds of forms, and from different types of animals from humans to cats to bears to whatever. After all: they was "billions" of years for this to happen.

But I'll make it easy for you. Post one. Anyone.

 

 

And you haven't responded to my main point.So how can you consider Creationism science?

Well, let's remember again, ID does not point to any specific religion.

 

If you walked to your house, and discovered the front door was is kicked in'; you're TV was gone; all your jewelry is missing; and yet things like pot's and pans were left behind--things of not much value.

From these clues, we can determine that your house was robbed by some one, or some people.

 

It's the same with ID. From looking at just how organized things like our DNA structure is, and our eco-systems, how cyclical the rotation of our earth and the planets are, these things point to the fact that perhaps these things were planned and then set in motion.

 

Now with the house example, sure--perhaps some freakish earthquake could've shook the valuable somewhere else; and perhaps by accident, the rest of the house was unaffected by it. Perhaps some household appliances are more adapted to earthquakes than others. But no one who comes home to this would think it was just an "accident". The clues would justify that some intelligent being orchestrated this.

 

See, ID does not first assume that there is a God, then try to prove it.

 

Rather, by reason of all the scientific clues, such as our incredibly complex brain, ID leads us to conclude that there must be a God.

 

The same way we knew Pluto was out there because of Neptunes wierd orbit.

 

ID stands up to logic, and there's millions of things that prove it. After all, there are millions of species, of which are complex and organized.

 

Evolution can barely cough up one transitional form.

[ydoaPs]

well, it's not p'shawed[/i'], just anylized. And if flaws with the evidence given arises, it's not "gouging our eyes out" if we discuss these flaws. That's just being scientific.

what flaws? show me one valid flaw.

 

Any form whatsoever would satisfy me. But let's say for example you find

one transitional form. It wouldn't prove evolution, because you'd have to have at hundreds of forms, and from different types of animals from humans to cats to bears to whatever. After all: they was "billions" of years for this to happen.

But I'll make it easy for you. Post one. Anyone.

are forms are transitional or extinct.

 

Well, let's remember again, ID does not point to any specific religion.

ID is creationism presented in such a way that they think it could get put into schools. basically ,it says in an undetermined amount of time, something that acts just like God created everything.....sounds like creationism to me

If you walked to your house, and discovered the front door was is kicked in'; you're TV was gone; all your jewelry is missing; and yet things like pot's and pans were left behind--things of not much value.

From these clues, we can determine that your house was robbed by some one, or some people.

 

It's the same with ID. From looking at just how organized things like our DNA structure is, and our eco-systems, how cyclical the rotation of our earth and the planets are, these things point to the fact that perhaps these things were planned and then set in motion.

nice falacy. try physics and chemistry.

See, ID does not first assume that there is a God, then try to prove it.

mo, it says "God did it" and then sticks its fingers in it's ears

Rather, by reason of all the scientific clues, such as our incredibly complex brain, ID leads us to conclude that there must be a God.

no, it takes observations(real and otherwise) and tries to make it fit the bible. and it also spouts the "it's too complex" rubbish.

The same way we knew Pluto was out there because of Neptunes wierd orbit.

pluto was found because of existing theories.

 

ID stands up to logic,

an imaginary creature that defys the laws of physics creating the universe 6,000 years ago is logical?

 

and there's millions of things that prove it.

really, lets see some

 

Evolution can barely cough up one transitional form.

i actually laughed out loud at that one