PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The religion of evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every single creationist I've ever met says that evolution is a religion. There is no common definition of religion, but at it's most basic a religion must have something to do with the supernatural, have rituals, mythology/sacred or holy writings/scripture, and in some way bind all members to the supernatural element it presents.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it deliberately ignores anything with the supernatural, it neither supports or invalidates anything with the supernatural, it only deals with natural phenomenon. Evolution/science has no rituals and cannot bind anything to the supernatural as it is silent on the issue of the supernatural. Lastly evolution/science doesn't have any sacred/holy writings/scripture, only theories which can and are rejected, and edited based on the evidence presented.

Evolution/science in many ways is the opposite approach to understanding our universe then religion. While religion is about understanding the supernatural and believing, science is based on understanding nature and evidence.

So why do you(creationists) see evolution, or even science, as a religion?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:51 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists keep bleating about the fact that science chooses to limit itself to studying 'naturalistic' processes. They WANT science to give in to their demand to lift this fundamental constraint... in which case, of course, science would revert to being like a 'religion'.  Science as they would have it WOULD be a 'religion'.
Its never going to happen. They'll just have to get used to it.

Creation scientists (so called) have lifted the constraint, do accept supernatural explanations for natural processes and do accept uncritically the words of Scripture as historical fact. Creation science IS a religion and FAILS all accepted criteria for genuine scientific endeavour.  BUT they seem to be able to bring considerable political pressure to bear in the US education world and ARE threatening to undermine the Science curriculum with their supernatural twaddle. For that reason alone it is worth engaging them in some sort of debate if that might prevent the destruction of the science curriculum.









-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:18 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
Every single creationist I've ever met says that evolution is a religion.


Well count me in, I’m just going to have to agree!

at it's most basic a religion must have something to do with the supernatural


Oh evolution does have to do with the supernatural –only evolutionists call it natural. In reality it’s far more supernatural than what we creationists allow for. Reptiles learn to fly, hippos turn into whales by a series of miraculous mistakes otherwise known as mutations, and life evolves spontaneously from dirty water or primordial ‘soup’.

We have a Bible that allows for the supernatural to produce something out of nothing –a creator outside of time and matter that intelligently designs the original ‘kinds’ of animals and programmes them with an intelligent code that allows them to keep making copies of themselves with that original programme. The programmes run down and make mistakes (mutations - a curse on the system in keeping with the 2LOT) and eventually they end up worse off in general with a mutational load that may be beneficial in certain circumstances but in general is a deteriorated version of the original much like making photocopies of photocopies ad infinitum.

Evolution has a big bang of ??? (big ‘scientific’ explanation installed) where matter appears from nowhere and nothing in an enormous explosion and from that hydrogen (and helium) get together to make planets and stars against all explanation. Gases condense into solid molten planets and stars, outward accelerating particles stop to conglomerate and make galaxies. Everything spins in different directions and one planet happens to form lots of water that just happens to be vital to all life. Primitive life forms miraculously; converts through incredible stories into states of increasing complexity until at the pinnacle of it all comes man with a brain and nervous system of awesome complexity all formed by chance and selection of the most ingenious co-ordinated mistakes. Physical laws arrive (‘emerge’) from nowhere and account for innumerable miracles of organization. It’s all quite wonderful and it’s name is called “EVOLUTION” –the god of the evolutionist, the replacer of the God of the stupid Christians who refuse to get with the times and the more ‘intelligent’ non-supernatural explanation.

mythology/sacred or holy writings/scripture


I call the ‘awesome’ stories - of  life arising from dirty water
-reptiles learning to fly and
-hippos converting into whales
- and many many more

-the mythology of the evolutionist. His speculations comprise scripture and his big words are like the latin of the roman catholic priests keeping the lowly in submission to the intelligence of the priests, the only ones allowed to sprout forth in knowledgable ways, heaping ridicule on the peasants who protest in all their ignorant folly.

in some way bind all members to the supernatural element it presents.


Well that goes without saying, just look at this forum.

it neither supports or invalidates anything with the supernatural


It completely invalidates the Christian ‘myths’ that allow for a supernatural creator as an original cause, an intelligent cause programming the information into life. It defies the Christian Bible’s story of kinds staying within the kind by claiming that any kind can progress via numerous mistakes to form another new and (always) better kind. It claims death as a natural part of life and says there is nothing wrong with it because through death and struggle, life progresses. It claims that there is no soul, no immaterial portion that is beyond natural law and that there is no afterlife, no such thing as sin and redemption all being utterly unnecessary. The Jesus story is thus a joke/myth/portion of folklore of ignorant peasants because if death did not come as a result of sin, what need have we of a saviour to conquer death and sin?

Evolution/science has no rituals and cannot bind anything to the supernatural as it is silent on the issue of the supernatural.


While summonsing up supernatural occurrences in the name of natural processes whenever it is convenient to do so.

Lastly evolution/science doesn't have any sacred/holy writings/scripture


Oh, it has its science magazines or journals which only believers may contribute to which regularly derides opposing religions. It has its peer review priests who know what is kosher and what is not. All carefully selected to feed the believers only that which is wholesome for the progression and furthering of the common cause.

only theories which can and are rejected, and edited based on the evidence presented.


Much like the Jehovah’s watchtower version of the Bible, portions are corrected and deleted whenever new information comes to light in keeping with the common cause and the presentation of a united front to the outsiders, the unbelievers, the rabble, the dhimmi, the stupids.

science is based on understanding nature and evidence.


I only wish you were right about that. I used to see science as all ‘truth’, I was sadly mistaken.

So why do you(creationists) see evolution, or even science, as a religion?


I don’t see real observable, repeatable science as religion, I see it as knowledge. Evolution however, is religion.

Creationists keep bleating about the fact that science chooses to limit itself to studying 'naturalistic' processes.


Evolutionists have chosen to explain all of life via natural processes and in so doing they make up incredible ‘natural’ stories that sound worse than science fiction to the uninitiated. ‘Since there is no god’… they say – ‘all must and will be explained as a natural process’ - even when it sounds utterly ludicrous.

 

   



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:58 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, so how do you know that what the Bible says is true?  How do you know that Jesus even existed?  If he did, how do you know he wasn't gay - he seemed to hang out with the guys all the time in Biblical stories, washing their feet.  I actually suspect that he might have been gay, if he existed at all.

But you know what, if he was gay, I don't have a problem with that.  That's okay.

But go ahead, prove me wrong.  Present your evidence that Jesus really existed, or that he wasn't gay.  

Go ahead, present your evidence that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus - if that really did happen.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:08 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:08 PM on July 29, 2009 :
Lester, so how do you know that what the Bible says is true?  How do you know that Jesus even existed?  If he did, how do you know he wasn't gay - he seemed to hang out with the guys all the time in Biblical stories, washing their feet.  I actually suspect that he might have been gay, if he existed at all.

But you know what, if he was gay, I don't have a problem with that.  That's okay.

But go ahead, prove me wrong.  Present your evidence that Jesus really existed, or that he wasn't gay.  

Go ahead, present your evidence that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus - if that really did happen.



Jesus certainly had poor family values (LUKE 14:26).

I have always favored a more reasonable explanation for the Virgin thing - it was customary to kill by stoning unfaithful wives in those days.  How to avoid such a cruel death?  Employ the superstitions of the day - say you were impregnated by an angel, and you are no longer a soon-to-be-dead slut, you are Mother of the Savior...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:20 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:58 AM on July 29, 2009 :
at it's most basic a religion must have something to do with the supernatural


Oh evolution does have to do with the supernatural –only evolutionists call it natural. In reality it’s far more supernatural than what we creationists allow for. Reptiles learn to fly, hippos turn into whales by a series of miraculous mistakes otherwise known as mutations, and life evolves spontaneously from dirty water or primordial ‘soup’.



When creationists write things like this, they ,make it abundantly clear that:

1. Their claims of having been evolutionists before are witnessing tools, not reality

2. they truly either do not understand evolution (are ignorant) or do and are purposefully employing caricatures of it (are dishonest)

3. they are poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:26 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Evolutionists have chosen to explain all of life via natural processes and in so doing they make up incredible ‘natural’ stories that sound worse than science fiction to the uninitiated. ‘Since there is no god’… they say – ‘all must and will be explained as a natural process’ - even when it sounds utterly ludicrous.


Yes, scientists do this all the time. eg

Matter isnt solid but made up of atoms magically hanging in space.  Obvious nonsense everyone can see that matter is solid.

The earth revolves around the sun.  Ridiculous.. The sun obviously rises in the east and sets in the west going around the earth.

The sun is 149 million km from the earth. Cant prove that because no-one has ever taken their ruler out and measured it.

The earth is a sphere moving in space. I cant feel it moving. Can you? And what would hold it up anyway. More scientific drivel.

The bottom line is...  if you can't see it then you can't know it and God must have done it!

Science is obviously a complete waste of time and money!








-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:40 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is obviously a complete waste of time and money!


Why is it so easy for you all to forget the difference between real science and evolution?
Do you all work in the evolution department and need to justify spending of funds on storytelling? Otherwise stop using real science as a mask for the uselessness of evolution because the pushing of evolution as science drags you and science down with it.

As for you Orion, how do you know that Julius Caeser existed or George Washington or Christopher Columbus? -I'm not going to believe it till you prove it to me! Dumb hey? Why don't you go check out the historical records of Jesus' existance, that should help.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:18 AM on July 30, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Did you really miss the point?

Evolution satisfies the criteria for good science.

Creation theory is not a satisfactory scientific hypothesis UNLESS you remove the  accepted scientific constraint that supernatural explanations are not satisfactory.

That is the central point of this whole debate. You can believe anything you like. I dont care if you believe the universe emanated from a sneeze of the flying spaghetti monster.
What YOU personally believe is uninteresting and irrelevant. But dont fret because MY personal beliefs are equally boring and irrelevant.

ToE IS interesting because its a very powerful scientific idea. IT WORKS and LOTS of REAL scientists are doing LOTS of interesting work deriving from ToE.

Science, you see, is pragmatic to its core. Its primary interest in what WORKS. There is, of course, a notion that theories that work really well are probably pretty close to the truth (but that's not really the point). As a scientific hypothesis, Creation doesnt work very well at all SO its just UNINTERESTING. Even Creation scientists aren't trying to prove or disprove creation. All they ever do is try to discredit evolution so they're not really 'CREATION SCIENTISTS' at all because they AREN'T investigating Creation as such. In fact they are only investigating minor aspects of evolution.

I personally dont believe there is any such thing as 'creation science' but who cares what you and I believe anyway.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 07:33 AM on July 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:58 AM on July 29, 2009 :
Fencer27
Every single creationist I've ever met says that evolution is a religion.


Well count me in, I’m just going to have to agree!


To be honest I kind of started this thread because you kept on saying such

Oh evolution does have to do with the supernatural –only evolutionists call it natural. In reality it’s far more supernatural than what we creationists allow for. Reptiles learn to fly, hippos turn into whales by a series of miraculous mistakes otherwise known as mutations, and life evolves spontaneously from dirty water or primordial ‘soup’.


Despite all the straw man arguments you substitute hear for the real ones, they all can be explained by natural processes, and even if they didn't evolution doesn't claim to have anything to do with the supernatural.

We have a Bible that allows for the supernatural to produce something out of nothing –a creator outside of time and matter that intelligently designs the original ‘kinds’ of animals and programmes them with an intelligent code that allows them to keep making copies of themselves with that original programme. The programmes run down and make mistakes (mutations - a curse on the system in keeping with the 2LOT) and eventually they end up worse off in general with a mutational load that may be beneficial in certain circumstances but in general is a deteriorated version of the original much like making photocopies of photocopies ad infinitum.


I may have missed it, but I don't see anything about evolution in here, only creationism. Although I would like to see how you would explain lactose tolerance as a loss of information and harmful to the organism in all but certain special conditions.

The next part has a lot of different scientific theories embedded in it, so I'm going to try to break it down as best as possible.

Evolution has a big bang of ??? (big ‘scientific’ explanation installed) where matter appears from nowhere and nothing in an enormous explosion and from that hydrogen (and helium) get together to make planets and stars against all explanation...


You kind of combined a few different scientific things here. First off you're combining evolution with the big bang. Because of CBR, and expanding universe ect. we have very good evidence the big bang happened. Unlike religion, because there is no way, as of now, to tell how the big bang happened, it is considered an unknown in science. But not nothing came out of the big bang, but energy which is another form of matter. You have many misconceptions of cosmic evolution, or you are too lazy and stubborn to actually say the right things. If you want to talk about cosmic evolution bring it up again in a more synthesized, or specific way.

one planet happens to form lots of water that just happens to be vital to all life.


Mars has water, comets have water, I think Europa has water as well as Triton. I don't know if contemporary scientists think this or not, but it used to be the case that they thought Venus might have had water oceans and primitive aquatic organisms before it burned up.

Primitive life forms miraculously; converts through incredible stories into states of increasing complexity until at the pinnacle of it all comes man with a brain and nervous system of awesome complexity all formed by chance and selection of the most ingenious co-ordinated mistakes. Physical laws arrive (‘emerge’) from nowhere and account for innumerable miracles of organization. It’s all quite wonderful and it’s name is called “EVOLUTION” –the god of the evolutionist


Okay, abiogenesis is a scientific field of study based off of facts and evidence. So is evolution. Everything that has ever been established from science is not exempted from criticism, this is exactly the opposite we see from religion. Evolution was examined, got in the scientific ring and won as the best natural explanation for the diversity of life, and it has only been confirmed since then. If you disagree take it up in the evidence for creation thread.

mythology/sacred or holy writings/scripture


I call the ‘awesome’ stories - of  life arising from dirty water
-reptiles learning to fly and
-hippos converting into whales
- and many many more


Okay, but none of it is sacred writings. None of it is deemed holy or impervious to any criticism. We find organism with features A and one with features C. In the strata in-between the two we find a basal form B, and we conclude findings from there. How would that be considered holy writings?

-the mythology of the evolutionist. His speculations comprise scripture


Only holy writings cannot change, theories, hypotheses, models, they all can change, they are not separate readings given to us by some God, angel or some other divine inspiration nor do scientists claim such.

and his big words are like the latin of the roman catholic priests keeping the lowly in submission to the intelligence of the priests, the only ones allowed to sprout forth in knowledgable ways, heaping ridicule on the peasants who protest in all their ignorant folly.


Et de facto, this is not the case.  

in some way bind all members to the supernatural element it presents.


Well that goes without saying, just look at this forum.


How does evolution bind me to the supernatural?

It completely invalidates the Christian ‘myths’ that allow for a supernatural creator as an original cause...


Just because it invalidates your interpretation doesn't mean that it invalidates the supernatural as a whole.

It claims that there is no soul, no immaterial portion that is beyond natural law and that there is no afterlife, no such thing as sin and redemption all being utterly unnecessary.


Evolution denies this the same way the theory of gravity denies this.

The Jesus story is thus a joke/myth/portion of folklore of ignorant peasants because if death did not come as a result of sin, what need have we of a saviour to conquer death and sin?


Spiritual death is the result of sin, our physical bodies will die with or without sin. Through sin our spirit is dying, but through repentance and acceptance of Jesus our spirit is healed and eternal life is granted.

Evolution/science has no rituals and cannot bind anything to the supernatural as it is silent on the issue of the supernatural.


While summonsing up supernatural occurrences in the name of natural processes whenever it is convenient to do so.


Do you have an actual example that isn't a straw-man?

Lastly evolution/science doesn't have any sacred/holy writings/scripture


Oh, it has its science magazines or journals which only believers may contribute to which regularly derides opposing religions.


In what ways is it holy?

It has its peer review priests who know what is kosher and what is not.


And by kosher you mean academic integrity and valid scientific claims backed up with evidence.

Much like the Jehovah’s watchtower version of the Bible, portions are corrected and deleted whenever new information comes to light in keeping with the common cause and the presentation of a united front to the outsiders, the unbelievers, the rabble, the dhimmi, the stupids.


Interesting, these people use a deceptive form of adapting their religion to the social mores of their time. While admittedly interesting, this is not how science works. Often times science doesn't change to go with the flow, usually quite the opposite.

science is based on understanding nature and evidence.


I only wish you were right about that. I used to see science as all ‘truth’, I was sadly mistaken.


It is two different things to say it is truth, and there is strong evidence for it. There is strong evidence for evolution, but science doesn't claim evolution as truth.

I don’t see real observable, repeatable science as religion, I see it as knowledge. Evolution however, is religion.


No one has seen a quark, an electron, or even an atom. But we know they exist because of the evidence. Evolution has been directly observed! Speciation has been directly observed in the lab and in nature! If you truly saw evolution as nothing more than bad science, and or a religion, because we cannot observe it you would be going after string theory with thrice the amount of enthusiasm.

Evolutionists have chosen to explain all of life via natural processes and in so doing they make up incredible ‘natural’ stories that sound worse than science fiction to the uninitiated.


Only they don't make up things, they just go where the evidence leads, and don't assume that a book written a few thousand years ago is correct pertaining to scientific facts about biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, ect. ect. ect.  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:26 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two ants:

-I've found evidence that trees come out of seeds.
-Father Ant made the trees and plants so we could eat.
-Well, i have evidence that they come from seeds.
-If i don't see it, i don't believe it.
-Well, you haven't seen Father Ant. But nevermind. Here, look at this.
-What's that?
-A seed, with a sprout.
-That's not a seed. Father Ant made them like that.
-Isn't it weird that He chose to make them just like a middle step between seed and plant?
-I don't see why. How much time does it take for a seed to become a tree, according to your crazy theory?
-Hundreds of our lifetimes.
-How convenient! So there can be no witness!
-Nevermind that. Witnesses are unreliable. I have hard evidence.
-My interpretation of it is different.
-Mine is simpler, and it allows predictions.
-What can you predict?
-Well, that we can find a longer sprout... That we'll find progressively hardened stems as they grow taller...
-I don't buy it.
-Look! There's one right over there?
-Ok, so what. Perhaps Father Ant wanted to make them like that.
-But how did i guess?
-Your theory is a nice piece of fiction. But is it true?
-You're not answering. How did i guess?
-Well, perhaps Father Ant repeats his designs, and likes to make things with ingredients from other things...
-You're not answering. How did i guess?
-Well, where are the missing links?
-Have i not found one right there?
-That's not a missing link. It just happens to look A LITTLE BIT like both.
-And i guessed before we found it. Besides, sometimes we see seeds falling. I think they fall from trees.
-Father Ant sends them from Heaven.
-Why do they fall under trees?
-Look over there! A seed! And it's not under any tree!
-Well, you're right... I don't know how it got there. But we clearly see more seeds under trees.
-But a single seed that's not under any tree proves you wrong.
-Only because i don't know how it got there? I could investigate the issue...
-No. Father Ant sent them.
-There could be other explanations...
-You're being dogmatic.
-What????



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:09 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice analogy, Wisp.  

PS - good to see you back!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:38 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doesn't the religion of electrons deserve equal time?

The existence of electrons is as much in doubt as the theory of evolution.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:42 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Father Ant made the trees and plants so we could eat.


Note 1: Who programmed the seed to bring forth plants?

Well, you haven't seen Father Ant. But nevermind. Here, look at this.


Note 2: You believe in what you've never seen, namely macroevolution.

Isn't it weird that He chose to make them just like a middle step between seed and plant?


Note 3: Seeds turning into trees doesn't equate to the sorting out of the vast gaps in the fossil record -there is no gradualism.

Note 4: Evolutionists can explain everything with their elastic story. Everything and its exact opposite, so it cannot be falsified, thus it is not science.

Well, where are the missing links?
-Have i not found one right there?
-That's not a missing link. It just happens to look A LITTLE BIT like both.



Note 5: There are no missing links regardless of the frequent announcements by evolutionists that they have finally, definately, for sure, absolutely, found it!

But a single seed that's not under any tree proves you wrong.


The pervasive pattern in the fossil record proves evolution wrong.

You're being dogmatic.


Never mind that no-one has ever seen macrevolution; never mind that mutations are taking us in the wrong direction -evolution is TRUE!!!

Dumb story Wisp, but no dumber than evolution I suppose.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:21 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Nice analogy, Wisp.  

PS - good to see you back!
Thanks! I'm not sure i'm back back. I don't have as much time as i used to. :/

Lester
Father Ant made the trees and plants so we could eat.
Note 1: Who programmed the seed to bring forth plants?
Father Ant.
Well, you haven't seen Father Ant. But nevermind. Here, look at this.
Note 2: You believe in what you've never seen, namely macroevolution.
It's not me who has a special place in his heart for sight. I've never seen electrons, and that doesn't bother me.
And it doesn't bother you either (be honest), except when it refutes your faith.
Isn't it weird that He chose to make them just like a middle step between seed and plant?
Note 3: Seeds turning into trees doesn't equate to the sorting out of the vast gaps in the fossil record -there is no gradualism.
You insist on gradualism. Just another demonstration of your ignorance on the matter. Once again, you lose.

I'm tired of explaining to you that there's no reason why we should expect to see gradual steps all over the fossil record. I've given you the reasons, and you ignore them.
Note 4: Evolutionists can explain everything with their elastic story. Everything and its exact opposite, so it cannot be falsified, thus it is not science.
Well, we can explain the lack of minute gradualism for sure. But you're wrong. Rabbits in the precambric... That would screw us. A crocoduck would screw us too. Animals with a combination of traits and DNA from other animals that makes them unfit to the phylogenetic tree of life.

There's no reason why we shouldn't find lots of them, and yet we have found none.
Well, where are the missing links?
-Have i not found one right there?
-That's not a missing link. It just happens to look A LITTLE BIT like both.
Note 5: There are no missing links regardless of the frequent announcements by evolutionists that they have finally, definately, for sure, absolutely, found it!
You're avoiding the question.

How_did_we_guess?

You know we were looking for it, and we found it in the right place and strata.
But a single seed that's not under any tree proves you wrong.
The pervasive pattern in the fossil record proves evolution wrong.
You still don't know what a proof is, and what evidence is. Again, you lose.
You're being dogmatic.
Never mind that no-one has ever seen macrevolution;
So you say. And only by defining it with weird rules.

You define it as something that cannot be seen.

We've shown you species turning into other species (like yeast). Your only way out is to say "But that's not macroevolution!" (without supporting your claim, of course).
never mind that mutations are taking us in the wrong direction -evolution is TRUE!!!
"Us" whom? Humans, or all the animals?

We've given you tetrachromatic women. It's not a real advantage right now because, the way things happened (random chance, that's correct) they tend to have daltonic sons. It could quite easily have happened in a more favorable way.

But there's a problem for current human evolution: we are too many, travel a lot, and die too little. That's quite unusual.
Dumb story Wisp, but no dumber than evolution I suppose.
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:32 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the thread She's like, 'This is not true! Lester provided a definition that seems to help his position a little bit. I'll paste it here, for the sake of order:
Another definition of religion: personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
Note: no deity mentioned
Ok...

So, personal beliefs OR values.

I don't lie, because i value truthfulness. What's my religion then?

I believe my son is cute. What's my religion then?

Science holds strongly the value of evidence. So Science is a religion then?

What's the source of that definition, Lester?

I know that "no deity is mentioned". I never said a religion should have deities. Buddhism and Taoism don't.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:42 AM on March 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh and, by the way, even if i had no objections to that definition, you still have to show us how Evolution fits (and Science doesn't).

Good luck!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:48 AM on March 13, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:21 AM on October 7, 2009 :
Father Ant made the trees and plants so we could eat.


Note 1: Who programmed the seed to bring forth plants?

1. Who programmed the programmer?
2. Who decided that what was in the seed should be called 'programming'?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:04 AM on March 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

* Saying the Universe doesn't need programming is ridiculous.
* So it had a programmer.
* The programmer doesn't need programming.

That's it.

God is just the thing that makes the things for which there is no known maker.

Or, more precisely, the thing that made the things for which there WAS no known process during the bronze age.

Who painted the skies?
a) I don't know.
b) A sky painter.

"b" is silly, but it could help people from that time avoid the horrible phrase "i don't know".

Religion is a way to deal with what you ignore. Science is another.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:46 PM on March 13, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.