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
     Are there Withchdoctors in the
       Poll to see how many would agree there are.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many people here consider Doctors who don't believe that man decended from lower animals by "natural" means to be Witch doctors?
I have been told lately that evolutionist take this as a self-evident truth.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:31 AM on June 9, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is wrong with you??

#1. Doctors don't obsess on whether or not they support evolution. Like other people, I don't think they any more express their opinions to the public.

#2. If anything, a creationist is far more likely to believe in "witch-doctors" than an evolutionist. Get the science vs. creationism, science vs. witchdoctor concept? Hmmm? ;-)...

#3. I doubt you were "told" this. By any valid source. Now stop talking peddler, just stop.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:38 PM on June 9, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 9:38 PM on June 9, 2005 :
What is wrong with you??

#1. Doctors don't obsess on whether or not they support evolution. Like other people, I don't think they any more express their opinions to the public.

#2. If anything, a creationist is far more likely to believe in "witch-doctors" than an evolutionist. Get the science vs. creationism, science vs. witchdoctor concept? Hmmm? ;-)...

#3. I doubt you were "told" this. By any valid source. Now stop talking peddler, just stop.


You overestimate my creativity and underestimate Demons connection to the real world.

I enjoy this .

He said any Doctor who does not accept the toe is a witchdoctor .
Do you agree?

Long ago and far far away!



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:49 AM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He was obviously joking. I don't think creationists have the ability to be or understand sarcasm.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 2:43 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 2:43 PM on June 10, 2005 :
He was obviously joking. I don't think creationists have the ability to be or understand sarcasm.


Perhaps if you said it I would. He is dead serious. He says lots of things like that .It's even funnier to see the responses from his peers as it is mortal sin to side with a creationist. No matter what he say everybody defends hims.

Actually I am suprised by your comment on sarcasm. That is my favorite hobby.
As a matter of fact the only evolutionary theory I believe in is the one I made up.

It is my theory that evolutionist have no sense of humor because the common sense gene and the humor gene cannot co-exist. :}



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:14 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I certainly wouldn't go to a doctor who was a creationist.  Luckily, i've never met one.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:31 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:31 AM on June 11, 2005 :
I certainly wouldn't go to a doctor who was a creationist.  Luckily, i've never met one.


You really stepped in it this time. it will be fun to see what happens next.
Did you ask?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:22 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 9:38 PM on June 9, 2005 :
What is wrong with you??

#1. Doctors don't obsess on whether or not they support evolution. Like other people, I don't think they any more express their opinions to the public.

#2. If anything, a creationist is far more likely to believe in "witch-doctors" than an evolutionist. Get the science vs. creationism, science vs. witchdoctor concept? Hmmm? ;-)...

#3. I doubt you were "told" this. By any valid source. Now stop talking peddler, just stop.


It appears you don't know Demon yet. He has confirmed what I said. Are you going to "educate" him?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:24 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 2:43 PM on June 10, 2005 :
He was obviously joking. I don't think creationists have the ability to be or understand sarcasm.

You need to read Demon's confirmation that what I said was true.
Let's see if there is an evolutionist who will critisize another.
And you say I don't understand how to be  sarcastic or recognize it?
Checkmate!





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:28 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You really stepped in it this time. it will be fun to see what happens next.
Did you ask?


I stepped in nothing, the overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses accept evolution. As usual, you can provide no evidence to back up your stupid claims.  
have I asked doctors if they're creationists, yes I have, and everyone has stated they accept evolution, and most of them laughed at the idea of a creationist doctor!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:59 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To be honest, I wouldn't be bothered if a doctor was a creationist, as long as they knew the human body etc. However considering much of modern science is based on evolution, I belive you will have difficulty in finding a creationist doctor, and I do not belive we should continue this meaningless topic until you find us a MODERN creationist doctor.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:47 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:59 AM on June 12, 2005 :
You really stepped in it this time. it will be fun to see what happens next.
Did you ask?


I stepped in nothing, the overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses accept evolution. As usual, you can provide no evidence to back up your stupid claims.  
have I asked doctors if they're creationists, yes I have, and everyone has stated they accept evolution, and most of them laughed at the idea of a creationist doctor!

ROFL
Go to the emergency room and ask the people there if they believe in miracles from God!
I have lots of medical people in my family and they don't know any body in the field that thinks people are chemical accidents.
You are making this up and believing your own fairy story!
People who believe in particles to people are a minority, medical people who do are exceedingly rare.
Here's a deep thought :
Would you choose go to a Doctor that believes you are one of God's children made in His image that he is commanded to love as he loves himself .
Or one that believes you are a pile of random chemicals with no soul that is an unneccessary blight on the planet?

Would you prefer a nurse who sees you as a genetic mistake or her brother in Christ?




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:18 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 09:47 AM on June 12, 2005 :
To be honest, I wouldn't be bothered if a doctor was a creationist, as long as they knew the human body etc. However considering much of modern science is based on evolution, I belive you will have difficulty in finding a creationist doctor, and I do not belive we should continue this meaningless topic until you find us a MODERN creationist doctor.


Perhaps you are unaware that Doctors have to go to Medical school. In the course of these studies the subject of the human body does come up from time to time. You should hear yourself from my point of view.
No offense but the statement :
"I wouldn't be bothered if a doctor was a creationist, as long as they knew the human body etc."
Makes you sound either very bigoted or less than bright. How could a Doctor not know the human body? The he/she would not be a Doctor!

All I have to do to find a creationist Doctor is call my brother. He is a board certified Neurologist and head of that department at his hospital. He spends a great deal of his personal wealth buying medicine for his missioary trips to India where he saves lives and souls for the Buddist in the mountains.
He does not know any Doctor that things we evolved from apes.
Hi Father in law was one of the Doctors that helped develop the artificial heart. He also believed God formed Adam from the dust of the earth.
If I want to talk to a creationist nurse I can walk next door and talk to my cousin or up  the hill and talk to my Aunt. She was a nurse for 50 years and knows no doctor that believes we decended from pond scum.
My Granmother and my Great Grandmother were nurses and had the same experiance.
When I asked my brother and my aunt if they knew anyone in their field who thought we are the result of random mutations over millions of years that turned monkeys into men they thought I was joking!

It is obvious that your educators had the same bias that caused a brilliant Doctor to be snubbed by the Nobel Prize Committee for the invention of the M.R.I.

You want a Creationist Doctor as an example?  I will give you one. He thinks that evolution is the scourge of mankind.
Evolution has nothing to do with the science of medicine. It was a Creationist who read that you should wash your hands after touching a dead body in the Bible that got Doctors to wash theirs before surgery.
He was treated far worse than Damadian. they put him in a mental ward for going against the method that MOST SCIENTIST AGREED ON!

The Nobel Prize in Medicine - Was there a Religious Factor in this Year's (Non) Selection?

By Michael Ruse

Dr. Raymond Damadian failed to be included in this year's Nobel honors for work in Medicine, and feels sore about it. Although he was the inventor of the first machine that discovers cancers through magnetic resonance imaging, the award went to two other and somewhat subsequent scientists, Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield. Notoriously, the Nobel committees never reveal their deliberations (until everyone is long dead) and never change their minds. So, although by having taken out advertisements of protest in the New York Times and the Washington Post may make him feel somewhat better, and draw attention to his bad luck, Damadian seems fated to remain with the rest of us who are not Nobel Laureates. He will join Charles Best of Banting and Best fame who discovered the significance of insulin treatment for diabetes - Frederick Banting and his boss J.J.R. McCleod (who was on vacation at the time) got the award and Best the junior scientist was left out.

But perhaps Dr. Damadian does have reason to feel having been slighted for the wrong reasons. He is not just an inventor, but also a very prominent Christian. And not just a Christian of any bland kind, but a Creation Scientist - one of those people who believes that the Bible, especially including Genesis, is absolutely literally true - six days of creation, Adam and Eve the first humans, universal flood, and all of the rest. It is as least as likely a hypothesis that Damadian was ignored by the Nobel committee because they did not want to award a Prize to an American fundamentalist Christian as that they did not think his work merited the fullest accolade. In the eyes of rational Europeans - and Swedes are nothing if not rational Europeans - it is bad enough that such people exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach their silly ideas. Especially a scientific pedestal from which to preach their silly anti-science ideas.

Is this unfair? One certainly feels a certain sympathy for the Nobel committee. Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous. It does represent everything against which good science stands. However, even the best scientists believe some very strange things, and if we start judging one area of their work in terms of other beliefs that they have, we could well do more harm than good. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of them all, had some very strange views about the proper interpretation of such Biblical books as Daniel and Revelation, and in respects believed things about the universe - its past and its future - that make today's Creation Scientists seem comparatively mild. More recently, Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection along with Charles Darwin, became an enthusiast for spiritualism, believing that there are hidden forces controlling every aspect of life. People knew this and were embarrassed by it, but it did not stop them from celebrating and praising Wallace's great scientific work. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, and given Britain's greatest award for achievement, the Order of Merit.

All of my life I have fought for evolution and against Creationism - in writings, on the podium, and in court in 1981 as a witness in Arkansas against a law demanding that Creation Science be taught alongside evolution in the state supported schools. But as one who loves science above all and thinks it the greatest triumph of the human spirit - as one who has no religious beliefs whatsoever - I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.










-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:46 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I have to do to find a creationist Doctor is call my brother. He is a board certified Neurologist and head of that department at his hospital.

So what, has he done any research into evolution/creationism?  Why is he a creationist?  Because he's been brainwashed since birth by creationist propaganda.  he has no credibility here, he's just another creationist loon.  And you still haven't given us any evidence that more doctors are creatinist than accept evolution.  So once again, you can't back up your pitiful claims...

In your next rant the only thing that i agree with is this:
"Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous. It does represent everything against which good science stands."
Everything else is meaningless nonsense and does nothing to support creationism and nothing to falsify evolution.
The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :

The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.



You are living in Lala Land

The Gallop Poll
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm


Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?
Humans developed, with God guiding [1]Humans developed, but God had no part in process[2]God created humans in present form[3]OTHER (vol.)/No opinion[4]
%%%%
1 2 3
2001 Feb 19-213712456

1999 Aug 24-26409474
1997 Nov 6-93910447
1993 Jun3511477
1982389449


The majority of Americans do not believe in evolution according to Gallop.
Where did you get your numbers? Demonology perhaps?
Long ago and far far away !





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:32 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler, my comment on knowledge on the human body, was not meant to be interpreted as creationists wouldn't know. It was more along the lines of, to become a doctor they would have to know the human body, so that is aceptable, I know that, I'm not stupid and I'm not uninformed, or uneducated and if you keep refering to me in that way it will be clear that it is you that cannot formed a propper response and simpily use, "its a fairy tale" or "you are wrong".

The problem with your example is that they are, or at least grew up in a localised area, where it is likly that the majority of people do belive creation. But how do they explain HIV treatment/control?

The Nobel Prize selection, has nothing to do with us, its to do with the judges and they have their reasons, and you realy should just acept that. It sounds like this guy was just bitter about.

On those statistics:-
-Where were they taken?
-Random or stratified samples?
-What kind of standard error and standard deviations were there?
-Sample size?

But if we are using people we know as evidence, I cannot think of one creationist I know, and I do know alot of people, and alot of which are Christian.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:36 AM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 07:36 AM on June 13, 2005 :
Peddler, my comment on knowledge on the human body, was not meant to be interpreted as creationists wouldn't know. It was more along the lines of, to become a doctor they would have to know the human body, so that is aceptable, I know that, I'm not stupid and I'm not uninformed, or uneducated and if you keep refering to me in that way it will be clear that it is you that cannot formed a propper response and simpily use, "its a fairy tale" or "you are wrong".

My response was that you are either very bigoted or less than bright. I would say you are bigoted from this response. Maybe you don't realize just how deeply biased you are. All through school you were trained to think how you were told to.
If this was not the case you would never have made the statement:
"To be honest, I wouldn't be bothered if a doctor was a creationist, as long as they knew the human body etc. However considering much of modern science is based on evolution, I belive you will have difficulty in finding a creationist doctor, and I do not belive we should continue this meaningless topic until you find us a MODERN creationist doctor"

This is either the statement of someone who is very bigoted or not very bright.
Modern science started with people like Mendel and Boyles and Pasteur , not Darwin and Haeckel.
Dialetical Materialism is not science. I know from personal experiance that very few Medical Doctors believe anything other than there is a living God that created us.
Go to the hospital and asks the nurses in the E.R. if they believe in miracles from God.
I can tell you matter of fact that not one single person at the hospital my brother is on staff at is an evolutionist . If you don't believe me go do your own poll.
It will dissapoint you I am sure. The fact it would disappoint you to find out that brilliant people believe in a creator is disturbing.
Maybe you would not be but it seems that way to me.
Your comment absolutely did give the inpression that there was a high likelyhood a creationist Doctor might be incompetent.
"I wouldn't be bothered if a doctor was a creationist, as long as they knew the human body etc."
That is not my interpretation it is what you said.
I will accept your retraction but I still believe the bias exist even if you don't realize it.

The problem with your example is that they are, or at least grew up in a localised area, where it is likly that the majority of people do belive creation. But how do they explain HIV treatment/control?

I grew up 10 minutes from the hospital where Debakey and Cooley developed the artificial heart.
I am close friends with the lady who was his personal secretary. The internist on their staff was my brothers wife !
Debakey ,I believe, worshipped the Devil himself but the others believe in a Creator. I have heard it from their own lips. You really should go ask for yourself, you are repeating what you have been told not what you have learned.
Hiv is a virus! It is studied by scientist! It does mutate! That is not what we are discussing.
It does not mutate into something other than a virus!
That is a fairy tale, pure imagination! Give me an example of a virus becoming something other than a virus?
It does not occur , even if you add the millions of years to the story.


The Nobel Prize selection, has nothing to do with us, its to do with the judges and they have their reasons, and you realy should just acept that. It sounds like this guy was just bitter about.

It shows the stupid bias and anti-science of the evolutionist.
The man invented the M.R.I. machine. He holds the patent! Michael Ruse , who is as avid an anti-creationist as exiset on this planet said it was religious persecution and anti-science. Are you more qualified to give an opinion than he?
Is he lying? Was the entire article a "misquote" , "quote mining" , as Demon puts is-a dispicable creationist lie?

On those statistics:-
-Where were they taken?
-Random or stratified samples?
-What kind of standard error and standard deviations were there?
-Sample size?

That would take a while to document as they have occurred hundreds of times over the last 45 years?
Are you propsing these were all incorrectly measured? The only one of the scientist that made these observations that was a creationist was Doctor Austin.
Are you saying all these other scientist are incompetent ?
The evidence is overwhelming!

But if we are using people we know as evidence, I cannot think of one creationist I know, and I do know alot of people, and alot of which are Christian.

You don't know a single Christian that believes he was created in the image of God?
I find that a bit of a stretch since 1/3 of Americans do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.[b] A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.


Either the people at Gallop are part of the vast creationist conspiracy or my contention you were taught what to think , not how to think is true.










-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:18 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:18 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Either the people at Gallop are part of the vast creationist conspiracy . . .


There's never been much question about that.  

Gallup

How a question is phrased can strongly influence the result of a poll.




-------
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: 1:38 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 1:18 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Either the people at Gallop are part of the vast creationist conspiracy . . .


There's never been much question about that.  

Gallup

How a question is phrased can strongly influence the result of a poll.



"When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure."
Does this seem leading to you?

So the people at Gallop are creationist? That's funny.

Are the religious[atheistic] tolerance people creationist. Creationst don't flex much in my experiance.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3773fc94.b06,.html

Author: Eric BlievernichtSubject: PoliticsDate: Essays by AuthorEssays by SubjectEssays by Date
According to a 1993 Gallup poll, 47% of the American public adopted the young earth creationist view that humans were created by God around 10,000 years ago. Another 35% were theistic evolutionists, and only 11% believe the universe has evolved naturally. This makes evolutionists who try to portray young-earth creationists as a small fringe group look a bit silly.
Especially when you realize that young-earth creationism is actually growing: a similar Gallup poll in 1982 showed only 44% believed in a young, created earth. Since scientific creationism only dates to the early 1960's, belief in a special creation was probably even less prevalent prior to 1982.
These facts conflict rather badly with the popular myth of evolutionists that creationists are "behind the times" or "throwbacks." Indeed, in a recent debate a non-creationist historian acknowledged that belief in a young, created earth was more prevalent now among Christians than any time since at least 1830.
Another important fact to consider is that this surge in belief in divine creation is not based on religious beliefs so much advances in science. In fact, polls and informal studies suggest that the percentage of scientists who believe in a young, created earth is at least as high and probably higher than the percentage of theologians who believe the same! Certainly, a majority of Christian scientists now accept Genesis literally; yet one informal poll indicated that only around 10% of so-called Christian theologians teach a literal Genesis! We are now literally in a position where scientists are trying to get the theologians to stop compromising and butchering God's Word because of "scientific" objections that have been largely overcome.

This is fact . Just because you want to believe you are the majority does not make you the majority.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:42 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Regardless, this argument is foolish. I dismiss it. This thread is foolish. Peddler, you should be ashamed for calling other people intelligent, a then creating a topic that was just asking for a flame.

Furthermore, I note that you easily digress to observe the holes in people's arguments rather than take note of the point they are trying to make. You don't "win" arguments by fussing with your opponent's words or sense of judgement, you win them by listening.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 8:36 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Plase delete-double post

(Edited by peddler8111 6/14/2005 at 12:31 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:23 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:23 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Quote from Pallim at 8:36 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Regardless, this argument is foolish. I dismiss it. This thread is foolish. Peddler, you should be ashamed for calling other people intelligent, a then creating a topic that was just asking for a flame.

Furthermore, I note that you easily digress to observe the holes in people's arguments rather than take note of the point they are trying to make. You don't "win" arguments by fussing with your opponent's words or sense of judgement, you win them by listening.


You never win arguments. But trying to have a conversation with someone who calls you a liar if you disagree with them is a waste of time.

I don't see anyone telling Demon he is wrong to call me a liar and call my father names. He is the one who came started this by saying my brother was a witchdoctor. You are supporting him.
Who are you to judge? If a creationist said something equally stupid like Dr. Crick was a voodoo prist would you support that?
If you are this fair minded person like you present yourself to be you would have to.

If I was an evolutionist it would not matter what I said. Your support of Demon is proof of that.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:30 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actualy you infered that meaning upon my post. I did not imply that creationist doctors were incopetent, you infered that meaning upon my post. I was actualy agreeing with you, that I wouldn't be bothered if the doctor was a creationist. And I'm certainly NOT a bigot.
For a virus to evolve it doesn't have to change into somthing other than a virus, but why do I bothered to post this again, we have told you this countless times and you simpily ignour it, just as you ignour all the other evidence we have given.
Did you even understand my post on the validity of your statistics? All that information must be taken at the time of sample collecting and published with a sample. And this was in refrance to your post from gallop.
I used to be a christian, and thus I knwo alot of people from church and alot of christians, and I do not know of one that belives in the direct interpretation of the bible, but they belive in god guided evolution. The creation story being symbolism.
Also using your exact same statistics, we can see that 37% of people belive in god guided evolution, 12% in god not involved and 45% in creation. Therefore we can see that 49% of people belive in evolution, thats more that literal interpretation of the bible. I used the latest figures (2001) but looking at the earlying figures we can see that the percentage of creationists decreases from 1999 to 2001.



-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:50 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 07:50 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Actualy you infered that meaning upon my post. I did not imply that creationist doctors were incopetent, you infered that meaning upon my post. I was actualy agreeing with you, that I wouldn't be bothered if the doctor was a creationist. And I'm certainly NOT a bigot.
For a virus to evolve it doesn't have to change into somthing other than a virus, but why do I bothered to post this again, we have told you this countless times and you simpily ignour it, just as you ignour all the other evidence we have given.
You did not say you would not be bothered if he was a creationist. You said said you would not be bothered is he was a creationist who knew the human body etc. That implies that there are those [creationist Doctors} who don't know the human body. If you really did not mean to say it just rephrase it something like this:
I am not concerned about a Doctors religious beliefs just his ability.
This is an unbiased statement.

As far as me ignoring your instructing me about virus's changing I find it is as useful as being informed that it is difficult to breathe underwater. I know that. Everybody knows that.

What it does show is that you think creationist are stupid and that you are in fact bigoted towards them.
If you want to "teach" me something tell what on earth does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why do you think it is necessary to believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor to study the mutability of virus's? Your semantics are dishonest. When I challenge you by asking what do virus's change into you use one definition of evolution-change over time. But the subject at hand is do animals change into other types of animals.
My cat is getting fat, that is evolution . I think he will always remain a cat though.

Did you even understand my post on the validity of your statistics? All that information must be taken at the time of sample collecting and published with a sample. And this was in refrance to your post from gallop.
Maybe not I don't recall but I am sure I have no clue know. These polls have been taken for quite a few years and there has been a slow gradual rise in the percentage of people who believe in special creation . There is no poll that can be said to be 100% accurate unless you poll everyperson the figures refer to. However to say this poll which has been repeated many times for many years is wildly inaccurate is a political statement, not logic. Is that what you mean to imply?
[quoe]
I used to be a christian, and thus I knwo alot of people from church and alot of christians, and I do not know of one that belives in the direct interpretation of the bible, but they belive in god guided evolution. The creation story being symbolism.
Try another church. I know a church where they worship satan, not a lot of evolutionist there either. A month ago I went and met Ken Ham at the First Babtist Church in Clarksville Tenn. Not a lot of evolutionist there my friend. Yes there are churches that teach the bible is a story book and that science has disproved it. They should not call themselves christian Churches in my opinion. Evolution theory requires no miracles from God. If that is true then Jesus Christ was an insane person , not God. He did not rise from the dead according to evolution theory because there is no naturalistic explanation to explain that event. Therefore He was not the Christ. Does it follow logically to say you are a Christian but there was no Christ?
This is why so many lose there faith.  Hell is full of people who bought the Piltdown Hoax.
I have been in lots of Christian Churches , many of the people there believed in long ages etc. . But overwhelmingly they believed God made man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.
Almost half of all Americans believe that. To think it would be unheard of to believe that in the Christian community is absurd.
Evolution is an atheisic concept that only allows a weak god who does not interfere with "science".
Also using your exact same statistics, we can see that 37% of people belive in god guided evolution, 12% in god not involved and 45% in creation. Therefore we can see that 49% of people belive in evolution, thats more that literal interpretation of the bible. I used the latest figures (2001) but looking at the earlying figures we can see that the percentage of creationists decreases from 1999 to 2001.


That seems about right. So why are you defending Demons 99% figure? Why does everyone here say that most people believe in evolution. Unguided atheistic evolution is a fringe idea. Allmost everyone here is an atheist. More people believe in special creation than "theistic" evolution.

It makes no sense , it is truly absurd to say most people believe in particles to people. It is just not true.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:01 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 7:30 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 12:23 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Quote from Pallim at 8:36 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Regardless, this argument is foolish. I dismiss it. This thread is foolish. Peddler, you should be ashamed for calling other people intelligent, a then creating a topic that was just asking for a flame.

Furthermore, I note that you easily digress to observe the holes in people's arguments rather than take note of the point they are trying to make. You don't "win" arguments by fussing with your opponent's words or sense of judgement, you win them by listening.


You never win arguments. But trying to have a conversation with someone who calls you a liar if you disagree with them is a waste of time.

I don't see anyone telling Demon he is wrong to call me a liar and call my father names. He is the one who came started this by saying my brother was a witchdoctor. You are supporting him.
Who are you to judge? If a creationist said something equally stupid like Dr. Crick was a voodoo prist would you support that?
If you are this fair minded person like you present yourself to be you would have to.

If I was an evolutionist it would not matter what I said. Your support of Demon is proof of that.







This isn't an argument about supporting/not supporting. Just because I'm arguing with you doesn't mean I support Demon.

Furthermore, how can you be the judge of "fair-minded?" Not taking sides? Or taking both sides of an argument?

I recall you starting a thread of witchdoctors. I felt that this argument was a waste of time, so I decided to dismiss it. However, it doesn't really matter who "started" it. We're not 7 years old anymore.

You never win arguments. But trying to have a conversation with someone who calls you a liar if you disagree with them is a waste of time.

I never called you a liar, and you never called me one. But we disagree. Or did you, in your spectacular subtleness, imply that I thought you were lying? Lying is intentional. I just don't think you know you aren't correct.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 09:42 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler:

You never win arguments. But trying to have a conversation with someone who calls you a liar if you disagree with them is a waste of time.

I don't see anyone telling Demon he is wrong to call me a liar and call my father names. He is the one who came started this by saying my brother was a witchdoctor. You are supporting him.
Who are you to judge? If a creationist said something equally stupid like Dr. Crick was a voodoo prist would you support that?
If you are this fair minded person like you present yourself to be you would have to.

If I was an evolutionist it would not matter what I said. Your support of Demon is proof of that.
[/b}

This isn't an argument about supporting/not supporting. Just because I'm arguing with you doesn't mean I support Demon.

[b] Then what's your point?


Furthermore, how can you be the judge of "fair-minded?" Not taking sides? Or taking both sides of an argument?

There are only 2 sides to this argument. Either I am right and Demon is wrong or vise-versa. If you think I am right go argue with Demon.

I recall you starting a thread of witchdoctors. I felt that this argument was a waste of time, so I decided to dismiss it. However, it doesn't really matter who "started" it. We're not 7 years old anymore.
We may not be. I have my doubts about Demon. But I find it telling that you are not telling him he is wrong but me. He came up with the comment that Doctors that believe in Creation are witchdoctors , not me. Everyone , almost everyone, supports him no matter what he says to a creationist. If I said something similar about evolutionist I would be roasted. If you continue attacking me and saying not a word to Demon you are proving my point. Most evolutionist will compromise their ethics before ridiculing a fellow evolutionist.


I never called you a liar, and you never called me one. But we disagree. Or did you, in your spectacular subtleness, imply that I thought you were lying? Lying is intentional. I just don't think you know you aren't correct.
I never said you did , I was refering to Demon. I apologize if you took it that way but it was in context. That's why I post his nonsense. I am waiting for an evolutionist to tell him he is wrong. I am not holding my breath.




(Edited by peddler8111 6/14/2005 at 2:04 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:01 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :

The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.
You are living in Lala Land
The Gallop Poll
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm


Hey moron, is simple math beyond you also?!?!
From the site YOU posted:

Humans developed, with God guiding:  37%
Humans developed but with no God:    12%
God created humans in present form:   45%


humans developed with God guiding, theistic evolution   37%
humans developed with no God   12%

37 and 12 equals 49%!!!
God created humans in present form  45%

I got news for you, 49 Is more than 45!

The majority of Americans do not believe in evolution according to Gallop.
Where did you get your numbers? Demonology perhaps?
Long ago and far far away !


I got my numbers from YOUR site and you can't read or do simple math!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:08 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was my comment demon.

"If you really did not mean to say it just rephrase it something like this:
I am not concerned about a Doctors religious beliefs just his ability." Yes that is what I meant, and I didn't mean to imply that creationist doctors were incopetent. I was tired at the time of writing and couldn't think of the correct way to word the sentence.

Ok just to show peddler I'm not a bigot or a blind follower of demonology I disagree with the 99% of people believe in evolution in america. But as your own figures showed more people belived in evolution than creation. There also wasn't a creation increase it went up down up down. And that would be unexpected meaning there is most likly a reasonable amount of error.

I would say however that the 99% figure is probably correct for Britain.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:43 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok just to show peddler I'm not a bigot or a blind follower of demonology I disagree with the 99% of people believe in evolution in america.

but I never said 99% of the people believe in evolution, I said over 99% of biologists in America accept evolution.  Big difference.  As you can see by my post above, I agree with you, the majority of people in the USA acceptevolution (49% to 45%).  But I think it's much more significant that the experts who actually study biology accept the theory of evolution so unitedly.  From here:
Polls
"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 "

Now puddler hasn't produced ANY statistics to refute this claim and the statistics he did produce, he didn't read very well because they clearly show the majority of americans accept evolution 49% to 45%.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:59 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:08 PM on June 14, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :

The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.

You are living in Lala Land
The Gallop Poll
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm


Hey moron, is simple math beyond you also?!?!
From the site YOU posted:

Humans developed, with God guiding:  37%
Humans developed but with no God:    12%
God created humans in present form:   45%


humans developed with God guiding, theistic evolution   37%
humans developed with no God   12%

37 and 12 equals 49%!!!
God created humans in present form  45%

I got news for you, 49 Is more than 45!
So 49% and 99% are the same. Why did I miss that? You are the man echo when think! [b]

[I got my numbers from YOUR site and you can't read or do simple math!  
[b]I don't know anyone who thinks as simply as you Demon. You are special !





(Edited by peddler8111 6/16/2005 at 11:50 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:03 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actualy if you read the last post before you post you would have noticed that he explained the 99% was not the population in general. I have to agree with Demon on this one, peddler your wrong.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:17 AM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So 49% and 99% are the same. Why did I miss that? You are the man echo when think!


You missed it because you are either a lousy reader or your intentionally dishonest.

I said:
"but I never said 99% of the people believe in evolution, I said over 99% of biologists in America accept evolution.  Big difference."

You're still a liar.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:11 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:11 PM on June 15, 2005 :
So 49% and 99% are the same. Why did I miss that? You are the man echo when think!


You missed it because you are either a lousy reader or your intentionally dishonest.

I said:
"but I never said 99% of the people believe in evolution, I said over 99% of biologists in America accept evolution.  Big difference."

You're still a liar.

I am not impressed coming from someone who can't read there own post.
Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :

The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.]

99% of the USA
99% of the USA
99% of the USa
99% of the USA

So I guess that makes you a sh&t for brains scientist?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:33 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 07:17 AM on June 15, 2005 :
Actualy if you read the last post before you post you would have noticed that he explained the 99% was not the population in general. I have to agree with Demon on this one, peddler your wrong.

I thought you were one of the smarter ones here. Pity.

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :

The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.]
accepted by over 99% of the USA.
accepted by over 99% of the USA.  
accepted by over 99% of the USA.
accepted by over 99% of the USA.

Guess you lose. Pity







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:38 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well it looks like he has retracted that statement now that we have statistics, but still show more people belive in evolution than creation.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:23 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 07:23 AM on June 17, 2005 :
Well it looks like he has retracted that statement now that we have statistics, but still show more people belive in evolution than creation.

Is this your idea of a retraction?
Demon's last post.

"You missed it because you are either a lousy reader or your intentionally dishonest.

I said:
"but I never said 99% of the people believe in evolution, I said over 99% of biologists in America accept evolution.  Big difference."

You're still a liar."

It is hard to take you seriously if you defend this guy. Over and over he says I am a liar. Over and over I show him that he said what I said he did. Take my word for it. I am smarter than Demon. My cat is smarter than Demon.
The more you defend him the dumber you look.
I don't think you are dumb, I think you are so biased that you ignore this self-evident truth.
I don't defend someone just because he /she is a creationist.
That is intellectual dishonesty.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:05 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I have to do to find a creationist Doctor is call my brother. He is a board certified Neurologist and head of that department at his hospital.

So what, has he done any research into evolution/creationism?  Why is he a creationist?  Because he's been brainwashed since birth by creationist propaganda.  he has no credibility here, he's just another creationist loon.  And you still haven't given us any evidence that more doctors are creatinist than accept evolution.  So once again, you can't back up your pitiful claims...

In your next rant the only thing that i agree with is this:
"Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous. It does represent everything against which good science stands."
Everything else is meaningless nonsense and does nothing to support creationism and nothing to falsify evolution.
The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.

Looking at the context of this post it seems obvious that Demon was talking about 99% of the scientific establishment accepting evolution not the population in general


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:32 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 12:32 PM on June 17, 2005 :
All I have to do to find a creationist Doctor is call my brother. He is a board certified Neurologist and head of that department at his hospital.

So what, has he done any research into evolution/creationism?  Why is he a creationist?  Because he's been brainwashed since birth by creationist propaganda.  he has no credibility here, he's just another creationist loon.  And you still haven't given us any evidence that more doctors are creatinist than accept evolution.  So once again, you can't back up your pitiful claims...

In your next rant the only thing that i agree with is this:
"Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous. It does represent everything against which good science stands."
Everything else is meaningless nonsense and does nothing to support creationism and nothing to falsify evolution.
The theory of evolution is STILL the unifying concept of biology, it is still accepted by over 99% of the USA.  The overwhelming majority of medical proffesionals accept evolution and those who don't are unscientific loons.

Looking at the context of this post it seems obvious that Demon was talking about 99% of the scientific establishment accepting evolution not the population in general

Obvious to someone who is blinded by their bias. This is not the first time Demon has claimed that almost everyone believes in evolution.
Do you argree that a doctor that believes in special creation is a withchdoctor? You imply that by support the doctrine of Demonology.
I posted this to see if there was one evolututionist here with the integrity to say it is wrong to say that.
I felt there was not. So far I am batting 1000!
One said that he would not care as long as the doctor knew about the body. Not exactly a condemnation.

big·ot    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Of course there is more than I way to look at this definition. I may qualify as well.
One major difference between me and you is I won't support someone just because they are a creationist.  I roasted the last one here.
You on the other hand have no problem with supporting someone just because they sre an evolutionist.
Why should I care what you have to say? If a man has no principles he is nothing.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:12 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not impressed coming from someone who can't read there own post.
Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 12, 2005 :


yeah, fine, a typo on my part.  What amazes me is that you even printed the correct post here and just ignore it, you are pathetic.

I said:
"but I never said 99% of the people believe in evolution, I said over 99% of biologists in America accept evolution.  Big difference."

You're still a liar.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:59 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is hard to take you seriously if you defend this guy. Over and over he says I am a liar. Over and over I show him that he said what I said he did.

But every time you did lie!  You never showed you were right, you always tried to weasel out of it.  You've lied numerous times about what I've said and you've been caught, you just don't have the personal integrity to admit you're a liar!

Take my word for it. I am smarter than Demon.

hahahahaahaaaa!!!  oh my, you are stupid!  This coming from the guy who still doesn't understand biology, still doesn't understand geology, still doesn't understand astronomy!
This from the guy who thought moths picked up mutations AFTER they were born!  This from the guy who didn't realize fossilized coelacanths are a different genus from modern coelacanths!  This from the guy who doesn't realized evoltuion and abiogenesis are fundamentally different!  This from the guy who still can't seem to understand radiometric dating!  This from the guy who can't even count!  Yeah, you keep telling yourself how smart you are...

(Edited by Demon38 6/18/2005 at 02:10 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:05 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Obvious to someone who is blinded by their bias.


And you have no bias? Remember that I have no emotional need for evolution to be true. If it was disproven tomorrow and replaced by a new "better" more accurate theory I would accept the new theory. You on the other hand have a huge emotional investment in creationism without it your world view would be incabable of surviving. In your own literal bible mind the creationism must be true.

Do you argree that a doctor that believes in special creation is a withchdoctor?

No I dont. People have all sorts of irrational beliefs and profesional people are no different. I think demon is being quite naive with the level of elementry biology that the average doctor is exposed to. The majority have little knowlage in bits and bobs of biology, the exception would doctors that actually do research.
A doctor who believes in creationism wouldnt be a problem for me it would be the same as a doctor who believes in ghosts and I'm sure there are quite a few of those.

You imply that by support the doctrine of Demonology.

What is that exactly? Is anyone a Demonologist if they disagree with you?

One major difference between me and you is I won't support someone just because they are a creationist.  I roasted the last one here.
You on the other hand have no problem with supporting someone just because they sre an evolutionist.


And you got that from 2 posts? If demon said something really stupid like DNA being a protein or isotope decay rates changing then I would disagree with him and correct him.  I strongly believe debate is a good way to learn providing you research your and your opponents arguments. I dont engage in debate to win, I debate to learn and to teach.

You on the other hand have no problem with supporting someone just because they sre an evolutionist.
Why should I care what you have to say? If a man has no principles he is nothing.


Ouch, like that hurt.

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/18/2005 at 05:16 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 04:10 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You seem to think that an evolutionist should debate with other evolutionists. Why should we, if our system of claims are evidence are the similar enough to co-exist without spectacular conflict?

Creationists are perfectly applicable to debate with each other because there are hundreds of different kinds of creationism. We don't care if you debate with another creationist-- it doesn't make you a more rational or reasonable person than we.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 4:48 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 04:10 AM on June 18, 2005 :

And you have no bias? Remember that I have no emotional need for evolution to be true. If it was disproven tomorrow and replaced by a new "better" more accurate theory I would accept the new theory.

Of course I am biased. Everybody is .The difference is if a creationist was calling you a liar for no reason I would admonish him.
You live in a dream world where you are an objective intellectual.
There is no third theory. If evolution cannot be replaced a better theory.
Are you intellectually superior to this guy?


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"

I don't think so. Materialism is an absolute to you. To call yourself objective is a lie.
You absolutely have an emotional need for evolution to be true. You are not even honest enough with yourself to admit it. [/b]



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 8:16 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps, but we more simply more objective than others. Because we don't obsess in the "absolute" means we are not only more objective, we can justify our scientific process.

As for the person you quoted, he is wrong that it would be God. It might be that we were created by some intelligent being, but God is out of the picture. God is too humanized, to idolized, to fanatical to be real, and he hasn't philosophically revealed himself since at least 1500 years ago. Why not? No one knows, and I don't want some foolish creationist to rationalize an answer, so don't.

I'll assume evolution is true. I'll admit that evolution can only explain so much about our beginning, but it shows the true age of the earth, not some fantasized absoluteness of age, and shows most forms of stroy-Creationism to be untrue.

Then how did DNA assemble, some ask? Some claim the intelligent design idea. I don't find it unreasonable. But at least creationism isn't true ;-).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:21 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course I am biased. Everybody is .The difference is if a creationist was calling you a liar for no reason I would admonish him.

To quote you from an earlier post -

Peddler

You on the other hand have no problem with supporting someone just because they sre an evolutionist.
Why should I care what you have to say? If a man has no principles he is nothing.


In the above post you seem to imply that I am untrustworthy, essentially calling me a liar. You did this after reading 2 posts at most. My first post was in response to your claim that DNA is a protein, which is blatantly false and the second was a suggestion that you took one of Demons statments out of context of the post, true Demon should have made it clearer.  

Do you retract your origional statment?


Are you intellectually superior to this guy?


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"


For starters his name is Dr. George Wald not Wall. But we all do mistakes.
Ok the quote smells like a quotemine to me. The main reason for this is ask yourself why would he say this in Scientific american? it doesn't make sense and the statment doesn't seem to flow properly. I'm going to check this article at the library but I strongly suspect this is a quote mine. You do know what a quote mine is do you? Its when a debater takes a quote out of context thus changing its meaning. I notice you do this quite often and I would guess that you are copying and pasting them from creationism apologetics sites. Here is a piece of advice read the entire article before using a quote from it.

You absolutely have an emotional need for evolution to be true. You are not even honest enough with yourself to admit it

Why would I have a need for it true? If it was proven false and creationism true tomorrow then my lifestyle would hardly change at all to try to avoid hell and I would have the comfort that I may be going to heaven by trusting in Christ. At the moment I believe when I and everybody I know die we are gone for ever;distroyed So which viewpoint would you find most emotionally comforting Evolution with oblivion or creationism with its promise of heaven.

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/19/2005 at 07:09 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 07:05 AM on June 19, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And let's not forget how Piddler was shooting his mouth off about the Big Bang and didn't even realize it wasn't an explosion...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:19 AM on June 20, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've checked the quote and its worst than a quote mine, It's more or less fictional. For clarity the sentence

"I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution"

doesn't appear in the article; go on check for yourselves.


(Edited by mabfynhad 6/20/2005 at 6:07 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:26 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 5:26 PM on June 20, 2005 :
I've checked the quote and its worst than a quote mine, It's more or less fictional. For clarity the sentence

"I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution"

doesn't appear in the article; go on check for yourselves.


(Edited by mabfynhad 6/20/2005 at 6:07 PM).

That's a bit hard since it is no longer on their site. Will find an old copy for you.

To make an organism demands the right substances in the right
proportions and in the right arrangement.  We do not think that
anything more is needed-but that is problem enough.  One has only to
contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are, as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation (Wald G., "The Origin of
Life," in Bowen M.E. & Mazzeo J.A., eds, "Writing About Science,"
Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1979, pp.289-291).





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:41 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aha, I see your logic here... you are thinking backwards. Let me explain.

See, you take this source which states that the chances are next to nothing for our current state to have developed. But there wasn't a set path. anything could have happened and caused humans or other species to evolve differently. So, in theory, a combined infinite number of improbable chances equal a safe bet.

So next time, when you try to disprove evolution, don't come at it from the wrong end.

(Sorry I haven't been around, I was gone for a while)


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:56 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2005 :

That's a bit hard since it is no longer on their site. Will find an old copy for you.


Maybe truth is harder than you are able to deal with at this point in your life.





-------
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: 12:11 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.