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
     Help Creationist in poll
       Help balance the poll result.

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

    
johnE

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionist from Pharyngula site broke the poll recently. After their raid this pointless poll indicates 99% of population support Evolutionist theory. Help balance the poll result.

http://electionsmeter.com/polls/creationism-versus-evolution
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 06:50 AM on June 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about looking at the results of a professional poll.  A Gallup poll conducted earlier this year near Darwin's 200th birthday showed the following result among Americans:

39% believed in evolution
25% did not believe in evolution
36% did not have an opinion

But what was interesting about the result of this poll was that it shows the strong influence that education has on beliefs on this question.  The more educated, the greater the belief in evolution.


Gallup Poll on Evolution

Belief in Evolution
21% - high school or less
41% - some college
53% - college grad
74% - postgraduate

Of course, the degree of religiousness also influences a person's answer.

From the article:
In answer to the question "Can you tell me with which scientific theory Charles Darwin is associated?" only a little over half knew. That was asked before all the other questions. And, knowing or not knowing the answer to that question went way way up with higher education levels, not surprisingly.

These results are not surprising.  It also shows the deplorable lack of general scientific knowledge among the general American population.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:13 PM on June 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After their raid this pointless poll indicates 99% of population support Evolutionist
theory.


Since evolution is a fact, I don't see the problem...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:02 PM on June 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The more educated, the greater the belief in evolution.


...or the more brainwashed. I think 'belief in the correctness of communism' was on the high end of the scale in communist Russia and China -did that make it right? Were they allowed to think or were the 'more educated' actually 'the more indoctrinated?' It's not like they had a choice -much like the children of today with evolution.

When creationists suggest that the scientific evidence for and against evolution be taught, evolutionists hit the roof. What are they so scared of? If evolution is so obviously correct, let's quit the indoctrination and get education back into the schools.

Of course, the degree of religiousness also influences a person's answer.


And the degree of atheist inclination... so I spose we're saying the same thing.

It also shows the deplorable lack of general scientific knowledge among the general American population.


Maybe they're not watching enough of the Discovery channel or any of the very many others that actively promote and never shut up about 'evolution.' Lets face it, with the general subject matter of TV these days, you will believe in evolution as long as you don't try to think for yourself.
Garbage in, garbage out.


-------
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: 05:21 AM on June 8, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

You dismiss modern education as 'indoctrination'. Sounds like rampant conspiracy theory to me.

Most Christians I know have no problem distinguishing religious literature from scientific hypothesis and appreciate the fact that it is unreasonable to expect scientifically accurate material in religious texts written in the mythopoeic cultures of the Ancient Near East.

Since you raise the issue of education and indoctrination, I, for one, believe that fundamentalist religious schools are much more likely to resort to 'indoctrination' to impose their belief systems than are secular institutions.

In Australia creation is only taught in extremely fundamentalist schools. Evolution is taught in ALL mainstream church sponsored schools.

Its easy to explain how indoctrination could take place in church schools that are not regulated and whose only accountabilty is to the fundamentalist churches that run them. It is much harder to implement a program of propaganda in schools where the curriculum is set by broad-based committees and where peer-review and accountability structures exist to prevent the abuse of children through pedantic and doctrinaire teaching.

The dissemination of creationist material has all the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign and the teaching of creation in fundamentalist religious schools has all the characteristics of a program of indoctrination.

Your last post exposes the extremely anti-intellectual nature of your position.








-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:31 AM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy

Most Christians I know have no problem distinguishing religious literature from scientific hypothesis


Unfortunately most Christians these days go to secular schools where they are educated in secular philosophy under the name of 'evolution.' They are never educated in the evidence opposing evolution (and please don't say there isn't any) because apparently evolutionists fear the opposing evidence so much that they refuse to have it heard in the classroom, insisting that it does not exist.

I know of no Christians that are asking to have the Bible brought into the science classroom. They only ask that all the 'science' be brought in so that we have less indoctrination and more actual education.

I, for one, believe that fundamentalist religious schools are much more likely to resort to 'indoctrination' to impose their belief systems than are secular institutions.


I, for one, do not believe that that is true. Fundamentalist Christian schools know that their kids are going out into the world where they will be indoctrinated into another worldview so they have to show them all the science not just that which they prefer. Meantime in secular schools, the kids will never learn the other side, only the indoctrination of evolution.  

Evolution is taught in ALL mainstream church sponsored schools.


I know and that is because the teachers in those schools have already been indoctrinated into evolution at their church-sponsered schools by people that compromise their faith for that brings human approbation. Pride - it is a common human failing.

Its easy to explain how indoctrination could take place in church schools that are not regulated and whose only accountabilty is to the fundamentalist churches that run them.


As it is easy to understand how those who control the media and the schools can deliver any agenda that they prefer. Why should fundamentalist churches come under their control? So that we can all believe the same thing whether it is true or not? I do not believe that evolution is true. It is the science that has confirmed it in my mind. I was a perfectly happy compromising non-Christian and then a happy compromising Christian until I met the evidence. Now I am no longer in the 'cool' camp and I could care less because I'd rather believe the truth than go along with a lie.

The dissemination of creationist material has all the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign


Actually the dissemination of pro-evolution everything in the mainstream media has all the hallmarks of a propoganda campaign. When are they ever going to bring out all the evidence? Never, it seems.The evidence against evolution just doesn't get shown and evolutionists fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.

Your last post exposes the extremely anti-intellectual nature of your position.


It's all in the definitions and hinges on what's currently intellectually popular -if you believe in evolution, you are an intellectual, you are smart, you are well informed; if you don't, it doesn't matter on what evidence you changed your mind, you are stupid, anti-intellectual and brainwashed. Amazing!


-------
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: 11:11 AM on June 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
...or the more brainwashed. I think 'belief in the correctness of communism' was on the high end of the scale in communist Russia and China -did that make it right? Were they allowed to think or were the 'more educated' actually 'the more indoctrinated?' It's not like they had a choice -much like the children of today with evolution.


Right Lester, relate evolution to the 'Godless Communists'.  You sound just like Anne Coulter.  Sorry, your indoctrination argument doesn't carry any weight - except maybe with like-minded creationists.  

TOE explains the history of life on this planet very well.  All you have done is express your ill-thought out opinions, but I have yet to see you present any compelling scientific evidence supporting Creationism.

But there is a reason for that - because there is NO scientific evidence supporting Creationism.

When creationists suggest that the scientific evidence for and against evolution be taught, evolutionists hit the roof. What are they so scared of? If evolution is so obviously correct, let's quit the indoctrination and get education back into the schools.


Lester, you just don't get it, do you.  You just don't understand why Creationism is not a scientific theory.  You just don't understand why Creationism has no place in the science classroom - even though it has been explained to you over and over again.  You just don't get it because you really don't understand how science operates.

Lets face it, with the general subject matter of TV these days, you will believe in evolution as long as you don't try to think for yourself.


Look at those Gallup poll numbers again Lester.  The poll clearly shows a strong relationship between education and acceptance of evolution.  

I'm curious, what does TV have to do with evolution?  You mean that science programs on TV support evolution?  Well, what would you expect - it's science.  

And as far as atheism goes, I see no problem with it.  I prefer it to the alternative.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:53 AM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...or the more brainwashed. I think 'belief in the correctness of communism' was on the high end of the scale in communist Russia and China -did that make it right? Were they allowed to think or were the 'more educated' actually 'the more indoctrinated?' It's not like they had a choice -much like the children of today with evolution.

Yeah, much like today how children don't have a choice in accepting a flat earth!  They've been indoctrinated with the claim that the earth is a spheroid!  Poor kids can't even choose between learning the earth is flat!  Why won't schools teach the controversy!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:03 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They've been indoctrinated with the claim that the earth is a spheroid!  Poor kids can't even choose between learning the earth is flat!  


I know that you think that that is an outstandingly clever comment Demon 38 but you see there is a difference between science that can be observed, tested and repeated and the sheer baloney of evolution, our modern creation story.

Why won't schools teach the controversy!


The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing so I don't know who is arguing this point anywhere. If there was a controversy over this one, I'm sure it's easily sorted out if anyone wants to show the evidence for the flat earth. The point is if there is a controversy over the shape of the earth, especially something as big as the controversy over evolution, then we should be allowed to see the evidence and it shouldn't be hidden by the media or the education system.  


-------
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: 12:53 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Long silence and fresh start, right, Lester?

They are never educated in the evidence opposing evolution (and please don't say there isn't any)
There isn't any.

Lets face it, with the general subject matter of TV these days, you will believe in evolution as long as you don't try to think for yourself.
No TV in my household. No indoctrination in my life. I studied law. Evolution wasn't mentioned in my education (sadly).

And this isn't about me. I don't think i'm special. Your conspiranoia can't account for people like me (not that it makes much sense when it tries to account for the rest of the smart and educated).

You've managed to believe that brains and education blind people from the obvious truth.

Well why don't you explain claws and venom carrying hollow fangs, if it's that obvious?

Why don't you name specific evidence against Evolution, instead of that obscure phrase i quoted up there? (Remember that you'll have to defend it afterwards.)

Would help your cause better than conspiranoia, blaming TV, comparing Evolution with Communism (or Nazism, or whatever), etc.

I know that you think that that is an outstandingly clever comment Demon 38
I bet he was trying to make a comment that you would understand.
but you see there is a difference between science that can be observed, tested and repeated and the sheer baloney of evolution, our modern creation story.
Predicting the Tiktaalik and finding it afterwards is the perfect example of what is observed, tested and repeated (we'll find more in the same layer, i bet).

The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere
To you a circle is a sphere.

Jesus was taken by the Devil to a mountain high enough to see all kingdoms of the Earth.

that hangs on nothing so I don't know who is arguing this point anywhere.
Flat earthers are.
There, now you know.

If there was a controversy over this one,
There is no controversy over this one either.
I'm sure it's easily sorted out if anyone wants to show the evidence for the flat earth.
Certainly.
The point is if there is a controversy over the shape of the earth, especially something as big as the controversy over evolution,
There is no controversy. No matter how hard you wish for it.
then we should be allowed to see the evidence and it shouldn't be hidden by the media or the education system.
I agree.


(Edited by wisp 6/8/2009 at 2:28 PM).


-------
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: 2:13 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:53 PM on June 8, 2009 :
They've been indoctrinated with the claim that the earth is a spheroid!  Poor kids can't even choose between learning the earth is flat!  


I know that you think that that is an outstandingly clever comment Demon 38 but you see there is a difference between science that can be observed, tested and repeated and the sheer baloney of evolution, our modern creation story.

Why won't schools teach the controversy!


The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing so I don't know who is arguing this point anywhere. If there was a controversy over this one, I'm sure it's easily sorted out if anyone wants to show the evidence for the flat earth. The point is if there is a controversy over the shape of the earth, especially something as big as the controversy over evolution, then we should be allowed to see the evidence and it shouldn't be hidden by the media or the education system.  



Lester - wrong again.  Demon presents a perfectly valid point.  If you are going to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible then you are going to teach that the earth is flat.  

However, this presents a bit of a dilemma for Creationists, and also must be a bit embarrassing to them.  So, like you Lester, they try to reinterpret what is actually written.  

See the following compiled list of Biblical quotes:

Flat Earth Bible

A line from Oliver Hardy (of Laural & Hardy fame) comes to mind as he says to Stanley:  

"Here's another fine mess you've gotten us in to!"

Go ahead Lester, weasel your way out of this one.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:39 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah... And that little thing about the Earth being fixed and unmovable only means that the laws don't change, right?

Except for those that seem to oppose a young Earth, of course.

Trees used to make many rings per year.
Light used to travel quite faster.
The decaying rates of radioactive isotopes was faster too.
And speciation! A couple of felines in some ark 4k years ago gave birth to all feline species we know today... AND WITHOUT EVOLUTION!

Praise the Lord!



-------
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: 12:07 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know that you think that that is an outstandingly clever comment Demon 38 but you see there is a difference between science that can be observed, tested and repeated and the sheer baloney of evolution, our modern creation story.

Well, not terribly clever, just clever enough to show the stupidty of your argument.  Science is science, evolution can and is observed, tested and repeated.  Thats' why all biologists agree it's science (and valid).  

The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing so I don't know who is arguing this point anywhere.

No, the bible claims the earth is a flat disk that is held unmoving on pillars, a typical primitive belief of many cultures.

If there was a controversy over this one, I'm sure it's easily sorted out if anyone wants to show the evidence for the flat earth.

As long as you ignore the bible's claims of a flat, unmoving earth, there's no problem.

The point is if there is a controversy over the shape of the earth, especially something as big as the controversy over evolution, then we should be allowed to see the evidence and it shouldn't be hidden by the media or the education system.  

There is no controversy about evolution, 99.9% of biologists accept it, it is observed, experimented with, and practically applied in farming, medecine, industry.  It's only the lunatic fringe who don't understand science and ignore the evidence that claim it's wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:40 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats' why all biologists agree it's science


I'm sure that one day they will wake up and see that philosophy is what it is and be astonished that they could be so blind to their own deception. Remember you have to believe either that there is no God or that God has nothing to do with life on this planet in order to limit 'science' to naturalism. It's all about faith.

No, the bible claims the earth is a flat disk that is held unmoving on pillars, a typical primitive belief of many cultures.


I have heard that the Hindus believe something about the earth being held on the backs of 4 elephants -maybe you are getting mixed up. I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars. How do we know it is not saying that God has put it where it is and it stays right there and cannot be moved out of its orbit? I see nothing about 'flat'. As for 'moving' -that is always subject to your reference point, so maybe it is immovable in another sense.

There is no controversy about evolution, 99.9% of biologists accept it, it is observed, experimented with, and practically applied in farming, medecine, industry.


You are talking about 'micro-evolution' or preferably and more accurately 'variation' within the species or kind, whatever you prefer. It is the big claim, the common ancestor, the turning of monkeys into men that there is no evidence for. That is where faith and philosophy are called for. That is what we say is NOT science.

Evolution is a slippery term which is why we prefer to separate it into micro and macro or variation and macroevolution so that everyone knows where they stand. Evolutionists have this nasty habit of getting you to agree to micro-evolution as a fact (we all agree with genetic variation -it is observable) and then just throwing in the whole baby with the fingernail. It is disingenuous.

It's only the lunatic fringe who don't understand science and ignore the evidence that claim it's wrong.


We are so stupid, stupid, stupid; you are so clever, clever, clever. If it is repetition that makes you happy, there you have it!Wisp will appreciate that I have got the point ....apparently.Whatever makes you happy.


-------
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: 02:45 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

What do you think Gen 1:6-8 means?

6. And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7. And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8. And God called the firmament Heaven. ...


What do you think the firmament is? what are the waters above the firmament? and where is the firmament now?

Keep in mind Gen 7:11  ... and on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of heavens were opened...  where the great deep is quite obviously another reference to the waters above the firmament.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 10:11 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:45 AM on June 9, 2009 :
No, the bible claims the earth is a flat disk that is held unmoving on pillars, a typical primitive belief of many cultures.


I have heard that the Hindus believe something about the earth being held on the backs of 4 elephants -maybe you are getting mixed up. I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars. How do we know it is not saying that God has put it where it is and it stays right there and cannot be moved out of its orbit? I see nothing about 'flat'. As for 'moving' -that is always subject to your reference point, so maybe it is immovable in another sense.


Once again Lester demonstrates his knack for denying anything that conflicts with his fundamentalist Christian faith.  As the article Flat Earth Bible, posted above, points out - Genesis does not make any sense in terms of modern cosmology.  But it does make perfect sense in the context of the notion of a flat earth.  Read the article Lester, you might learn something about the Bible that you profess to be the accurate truth.

The writers of the Bible believed in a geocentric flat earth.  No question about it.  Right in line with the prevailing notions of their times.  It was actually later Greek philosophers that proposed a spherical earth.  But the flat earth notions pervailed.  Even later New Testament writers continued to believe in a flat, geocentric earth.  

Lester, you expose yourself as one who denies what is obvious in order to support your own fallicious beliefs, even to the point of denying what is in the very book you base your beliefs on!  Incredible!  You are the pinnacle of ignarance.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:27 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure that one day they will wake up and see that philosophy is what it is and be astonished that they could be so blind to their own deception.

That's pretty hard to do when evolution is observed.  No deception involved, we see it happening, it's a fact.  Virtually no biologist disagrees.

have heard that the Hindus believe something about the earth being held on the backs of 4 elephants -maybe you are getting mixed up.

Not me, the bible says:

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them.  - 1 Samuel 2:8"

Pillars, it says pillars, in the bible.  No, I'm not the one mixed up.

""He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.   (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)""

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.  - Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30"

So according to the bible God set the earth on foundations and it is unmoving.

How do we know it is not saying that God has put it where it is and it stays right there and cannot be moved out of its orbit?

Because the earth moves, that's what an orbit is, it moves around the sun, aside from rotating in orbit to give us night and day.  How you can possibly imply that when the bible says the earth is unmoving it really means it's really moving but it stays in it's orbit, is beyond me.  Just more of the same illogical rationalization.  
and clearly in many places in the bible it talks about a moving sun, not the earth orbitting the sun.  From here:
MovingSun
"For instance the Bible says, "He can command the sun not to rise" (Job 9:7), rather than, "He can command the earth to stop moving." That God would direct His command at the sun rather than the earth, implied an unmistakably geocentric perspective. Likewise, Martin Luther pointed out that when the book of Joshua discussed the miracle of "Joshua's long day," that day was lengthened because "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth." (Joshua 10:12) Speaking of the sun's movement, the Bible also states: "The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5, NASB) Verses that spoke of the "rising" and "setting" of the sun might be disregarded as being due to one's earth-bound perspective, but speaking of the sun "hastening to its place" so that it may "rise there again," is not so easy to explain away. It means the author of Ecclesiastes believed that the sun moved daily around the earth. Compare Psalm 19:4-6, "In [the heavens] He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them." "

So we see that the bible does say the earth is unmoving and rests on pillars.  Just as the bible describes the earth as flat, ovder and over again.

You are talking about 'micro-evolution' or preferably and more accurately 'variation' within the species or kind, whatever you
prefer.


No, i'm talking about evolution, not "micro-evolution".  All biologists (well, 99.9%) agree that all life evolved from a common ancestor.  Again, there is no controversy about that..
From here:
NationalAcademyofScience

"Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process. The concept has withstood
extensive testing by tens of thousands of specialists in biology, medicine, anthropology,
geology, chemistry, and other fields. Discoveries in different fields have reinforced one another,
and evidence for evolution has continued to accumulate for 150 years."

"The fossil record, DNA research, the evidence that species have common ancestors, and other findings add up to overwhelming evidence that evolution by natural selection is how life on Earth arose and became diverse."

The theory of evolution, which includes common descent, is accepted by over 99.9% of the world's biologists.  There is no controversy about that.

It is the big claim, the common ancestor, the turning of monkeys into men that there is no evidence for.

Nope, they agree on this to.  From here:
HumanChimpFact

"The comparisons of the two genomes, published today in the journal Nature by 67 researchers in the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, provide unambiguous confirmation of the common and recent evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees, as first predicted by Charles Darwin in 1871."

And from the same article:

"The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness."

Notice how they say the evidence has confirmed the evolutionary origins of chimps and humans.  So, there is overwhelming evidence that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, so much so that all the experts agree it is a fact now.

That is where faith and philosophy are called for. That is what we say is NOT
science.


so far every attempt you've made to support this claim has been proven wrong.  You debate in poorly and will never admit you are wrong, no matter how much evidence you've been shown, why should we listen to you anymore?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:06 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars.
Read your Bible.
How do we know it is not saying that God
Did something that makes sense?
has put it where it is and it stays right there and cannot be moved out of its orbit?
Right... Cannot be moved from where it's moving...
Around the Sun...
And the Earth's orbit moves with the Sun around the center of the Milky Way.

But how do we know that the Bible doesn't mean exactly everything we find afterwards, expressed in a manner so obscure that no reliable knowledge can be extracted from it?

It's a possibility.

How do we know that when it says that Yahweh made everything in 6 days it doesn't mean that he did nothing, and everything evolved so that he could take the credit?

How do we know?



-------
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: 5:06 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Probably the most interesting question you could ask is:

Where in the bible is a description of breakthroughs that are still going to happen ?

creationists are very good in explaining things after the facts are layed out "oh, well, the bible always said the earth was a globe, these passages explain it"...

And there's many cases of this technique, where "facts" are explained after they've been realized to be facts.

Where in the bible are facts that are not yet discovered, if the bible really had this kind of descriptive power to it, then where are the predictions of new technologies and new discoveries ?


 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:02 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy
What do you think the firmament is? what are the waters above the firmament? and where is the firmament now?


Apparently there are 3 heavens -the first is called the firmament and simply means the air of our atmosphere. The second heaven is out in space and the 3rd heaven is where God is.
There were waters above the firmament (clouds? or bigger water?) and I don't know where it is now because I'm not sure if that's what came down during the flood. Aren't we supposed to be having a science debate? Since when has it become a Bible debate?

Demon38
That's pretty hard to do when evolution is observed.


Helloooo? Are you in there? Remember 'evolution' is not observed. Variation within the kind or species is observed -evolution in the sense that you mean it, is NOT observed, it is inferred. (without good reason).

It is extremely dishonest to say that 'evolution' is observed (meaning small scale changes) and then say we have observed 'evolution' (meaning big scale changes). We observe the one - it is also called genetic variation. The other never happened. Try putting a little 'micro' and 'macro' in front of that rather than just assuming the one from the other. I call that 'undue extrapolation' otherwise known as 'imagination'.

Wisp
I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars.


Read your Bible.


Do you think he was referring to cement pillars in the sky or what? If not how do we know what pillars are being referred to? Maybe, like the currents in the ocean there is something holding the earth stable. Who knows? Have you run out of scientific evidence for your position or do you want to start a new topic?  



-------
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: 05:57 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where in the bible is a description of breakthroughs that are still going to happen ?


Well the Bible doesn't make mention of everything -just the most important stuff that has happened or is going to happen. Like it doesn't mention elephants but it does mention Behemoth (which is obviously a dragon), it mentions a dove but not a finch so just because you don't find a specific thing in the Bible doesn't mean that God didn't know about it.

As for future discoveries, it says a few interesting things about future technology like that we are going to be forced to take a 'mark' on our right hand or our forehead without which we will not be able to buy or sell -sounds like a computer chip? Try googling 'verichip'. It also mentions a global economy with one leader of the whole world -sounds pretty global to me.
Then there's the story about Russia and Iran being the main players (with some other middle east countries -very specific ones) that are going to attack Israel and lose. Seems to me Russia is getting quite close with Iran right now for the first time ever.
Then there's the story about the one world leader promising peace to the whole world and promising to rebuild the Jewish temple. Of course the Jews won't have it anywhere else but where it is meant to be so what is going to happen to the Dome of the Rock which sits on that site ? Well something is going to happen to the Dome of the Rock but we know not what... but the temple will be rebuilt. Russia and Iran will attack Israel and lose (it's going to take 6 months to bury the dead apparently) and we are going to have one leader of the whole world who will quickly wreak havoc on the entire planet. The one controlling him always said he wanted to be God and have the whole world worship him. It'll be a very ambitious human but he will be controlled by the devil (who is just as real as God.)

There's also the part about the children having no natural affection for their parents, being proud and boastful and blasphemous and cruel. It's the way the world is going I'm afraid and I'm not telling you any of this after the event.



-------
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: 06:22 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Helloooo? Are you in there? Remember 'evolution' is not observed. Variation within the kind or species is observed -evolution in the sense that you mean it, is NOT observed, it is inferred. (without good reason).

Evolution is observed.  Until you can define "kind", it is meaningless and so is your claim.  since we have seen new species arise, both in the wild and in the lab, evolution (macro-evolution at that) is observed.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:57 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Until you can define "kind", it is meaningless and so is your claim.  since we have seen new species arise, both in the wild and in the lab, evolution (macro-evolution at that) is observed.  


How about 'kind' is pretty obvious. It's pretty much the same as 'species' but species is just a word that I would say is often incorrectly used. For example, if you have a whole bunch of finches and you say some finches are this species and others are another species, I would have to disagree since they are obviously the same Genesis 'kind'. So they should then be divided into subspecies of the same species which is a finch 'kind'.

Of course evolutionists are prone to calling a new subspecies a new species because then they can say that speciation has occurred and that is proof of macro-evolution but anyone with a brain that is not too wrapped up in 'scientific ' terminology as a measure of all things can see the same 'kind' even if. like dogs, they can look pretty distinct and different in a lot of their features. So a dog is a dog and ever will be a dog and cannot cross any vast barrier because it hasn't the genes to do so and thus will never be a cow or a whale (no matter how long it floats around hoping that its respiratory equipment will change -like that mammal that apparently became a whale.)

So how about you give me some examples of new species and I'll tell you whether they're a new 'kind' or the same 'kind' (preferably supply pictures) and then we can decide whether it really should be called speciation or whether 'speciation' might be somewhat misleading.


-------
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: 11:12 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about 'kind' is pretty obvious. It's pretty much the same as 'species' but species is just a word that I would say is often incorrectly used.

Incorrectly used?!?  According to you?!?!  don't make me laugh.  Here's a good definition of species, from here:
Species

"A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."

That sounds pretty definitive.

For example, if you have a whole bunch of finches and you say some finches are this species and others are another species, I would have to disagree since they are obviously the same Genesis 'kind'.

Do they mnormally interbreed?  Are they isolated from each other?  Do they live in different ecological niches?  Hve you examined their genetic code?  

Of course evolutionists are prone to calling a new subspecies a new species because then they can say that speciation has occurred and that is proof of macro-evolution but anyone with a brain that is not too wrapped up in 'scientific ' terminology as a measure of all things can see the same 'kind' even if. like dogs, they can look pretty distinct and different in a lot of their features.

First of all, it's not 'evolutionists' it's biologists, all of them.  Scientific terminology serves a purpose, unlike bible double talk.  and what about ring species, the ends of the ring can no longer interbreed, are they the same "kind" even though they can't breed together?  And dogs are bred by man and the breeds are maintained by man.  Everyone knows there's no way in hell a great dane can mate with a Chihuahua, it isn't physically possible.

So how about you give me some examples of new species and I'll tell you whether they're a new 'kind' or the same 'kind' (preferably supply pictures) and then we can decide whether it really should be called speciation or whether 'speciation' might be somewhat misleading.

Ha ha ha, who gives a damn what YOU think is a species or not, you don't understand science, biology  or evolution!  Just answer the question about ring species and we'll go from there.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:59 PM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well the Bible doesn't make mention of everything -just the most important stuff that has happened or is going to happen. Like it doesn't mention elephants but it does mention Behemoth (which is obviously a dragon), it mentions a dove but not a finch so just because you don't find a specific thing in the Bible doesn't mean that God didn't know about it.


This isn't about god knowing something, because according to the myth, he is "all knowing".

It's about the fact that creationist tend to point and say "ahhh, the bible predicted this, and thus it is a scientific book" after something was discovered through real scientific means.

It is always, and has always been a "real science figured something out, and then creationists act as though their book already told them about it"

The rest of your post is meaningless in that context, none of those "predictions" are really specific for this time and era, and can just happen in any time and era, basically I can make predictions like this, the only problem is, they really aren't accurate predictions, there is no "time limit" involved, if you're talking about a whole world under one leader, then the chance that someone accomplishes this, is higher if you have 10.000.000 years as opposed to 100 years.

There is no limit, so 10 million years from now, if we would have a world order under one leader, people could technically look back and go "fuck yeah, the bible predicted it"

These are not scientific predictions in any way though, scientific predictions limit themselves as narrowly as possible, and try to be as precise as possible.

We've done a test with bacteria and the emergence of a lactose fermenting gene over 1000 generations in a lactose high environment

We predict, that if we use the original parent bacteria, and put it under the same conditions, that it can evolve a lactose fermenting gene in roughly the same time.

There's also the part about the children having no natural affection for their parents, being proud and boastful and blasphemous and cruel. It's the way the world is going I'm afraid and I'm not telling you any of this after the event.


Well you are actually, there was a period where children actually rebelled against authority, it was the hippy/punk period, that has passed, and it has slowly shifted back again.

You're basically wrong, it shifts around all the time.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 04:05 AM on June 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good points Demon & Zuca.

Lester-
There's also the part about the children having no natural affection for their parents, being proud and boastful and blasphemous and cruel. It's the way the world is going I'm afraid and I'm not telling you any of this after the event.


It is in the nature of kids to rebel to some degree as they get older.  By 'rebel' I mean that as they get older they will not always agree with their parents.  They are going through the process of becoming independent adults.  It's a normal and healthy process.  Though it certainly can lead to a lot of consternation.  Obviously it can lead to disappointment and bitterness in some cases.

A great deal of the Bible is geared to obeying authority (and honoring your parents, etc).  Those messages are going to clash (in general) with the psychology of children growing up, as Lester has so clearly shown by his statements above.  

But to suggest that children are becoming less affectionate to their parents than children in the past, I think that is just nonsense.

Children are not clones of their parents - and thank goodness for that!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:48 AM on June 11, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Children are not clones of their parents - and thank goodness for that!  



If they were why then there would be no evolution!


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:51 PM on June 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ain't that the truth!  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:52 PM on June 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 9:51 PM on June 11, 2009 :
Children are not clones of their parents - and thank goodness for that!  



If they were why then there would be no evolution!



Wrong, things that reproduce a-sexually produce clones as their offspring. Of course evolution still happens because of random mutations over an organisms life and errors in copying the DNA in meiosis.


-------
"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: 01:13 AM on June 12, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 12:13 AM on June 12, 2009 :
Quote from Mustrum at 9:51 PM on June 11, 2009 :
Children are not clones of their parents - and thank goodness for that!  



If they were why then there would be no evolution!



Wrong, things that reproduce a-sexually produce clones as their offspring. Of course evolution still happens because of random mutations over an organisms life and errors in copying the DNA in meiosis.


Good point, otherwise prokaryotes would be in a bit of bind.  However. let's make sure that we're not talking about acquired traits (soft evolution) being passed on to later generations.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:12 AM on June 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 06:12 AM on June 12, 2009 :
Quote from Fencer27 at 12:13 AM on June 12, 2009 :
Quote from Mustrum at 9:51 PM on June 11, 2009 :
Children are not clones of their parents - and thank goodness for that!  



If they were why then there would be no evolution!



Wrong, things that reproduce a-sexually produce clones as their offspring. Of course evolution still happens because of random mutations over an organisms life and errors in copying the DNA in meiosis.


Good point, otherwise prokaryotes would be in a bit of bind.  However. let's make sure that we're not talking about acquired traits (soft evolution) being passed on to later generations.




Organisms do mutate over their life, although it is rare, if a mutation occurs in the organisms sex cells then their acquired trait can and does pass down from generation to generation. But you are correct in that if a mutation happens in non-sex cells then the trait would not be passed down.


-------
"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: 5:26 PM on June 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27
Of course evolution still happens because of random mutations over an organisms life and errors in copying the DNA in meiosis.


Yup - there we have it -random mutations and copy errors except when evos are defending it, then it is suddenly not random anymore -as if natural selection solves that problem.

Strange errors that can apparently produce complex feathers from scales, hollow bones where there weren't any hollow bones and a complete makeover in the respiratory system while the intermediates apparently stay alive through all these random major morphological mistakes. Oh and don't forget, all we get in the fossils are the reptile and the bird with nothing inbetween(unless we include that archeopteryx bird into the equation so as not to be left with a complete void)? It's such a good story, I don't know why I can't believe it. Have you heard the one about the frog that turned into a prince?


-------
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: 07:59 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - are you a YEC?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:47 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:59 AM on June 18, 2009 :

Yup - there we have it -random mutations and copy errors except when evos are defending it, then it is suddenly not random anymore -as if natural selection solves that problem.


The mutations themselves are random, but which mutations are kept with in the population are controlled by natural selection. Evolution as a whole is not random, however certain aspects are.


Strange errors that can apparently produce complex feathers from scales, hollow bones where there weren't any hollow bones and a complete makeover in the respiratory system while the intermediates apparently stay alive through all these random major morphological mistakes.


This happened over millions of years with even more mutations. Each mutation was either neutral or beneficial to the organism/population. If an organism had a mutation that was harmful, it died.

Oh and don't forget, all we get in the fossils are the reptile and the bird with nothing inbetween(unless we include that archeopteryx bird into the equation so as not to be left with a complete void)? It's such a good story, I don't know why I can't believe it. Have you heard the one about the frog that turned into a prince?


Most organisms will not leave behind fossils, and we have yet to find all the fossils, and we probably never will. But you cannot dismiss archeopteryx lightly as an obvious transition between the sauropod dinosaurs and birds. Arch. has feathers, which means diagnostically it is a bird, yet it has many features of dinosaurs, so much, that with one specimen of arch. the paleontologists that found it thought it was a dinosaur and classified as such on site. It wasn't until they examined it later did they realize that it was Archeopteryx.



-------
"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: 5:39 PM on June 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars.
Read your Bible.
Do you think he was referring to cement pillars in the sky or what?
I don't think. You just said you didn't see the word "pillars" (although you saw the words "unmoving"), so i said "read your Bible".


Helloooo? Are you in there? Remember 'evolution' is not observed.
Are electrons observed?

Fuck electrons: is air observable?

Is sight the only sense that can give an event such an honorific position?

Imagine walking with a guy with a Geiger counter. He says "Uh oh... Don't go over there..."
What will you do?
Say "That is NOT sience!", and get cancer?

Is inertia observable? Is it a part of science, according to the YEC?

What about mass, or force?
Can you postulate a theory of motion without those?

What will you say? "Oh, but we observe the effects"?
We observe the effects of Evolution too.

Actually science always relies in unobservable entities to explain the behavior of the observable ones. I can't think of a single case that doesn't.

There is NOT just ONE way to draw the distinction between "observable" and "non observable". There are many.

How about 'kind' is pretty obvious.
How about go and help your YEC fellows because they're clueless and never knew where to draw the lines?

How about telling us if all felines come from two animals in the ark?

How about telling us if all butterflies and moths belong to the same kind?

How about telling us where the lie begins down there?


Cladus: Eukaryota
Supergroup: Opisthokonta
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Divisio: Neoptera
Subdivisio: Endopterygota
Superordo: Panorpida
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Divisio: Ditrysia
Sectio: Cossina
Subsection: Bombycina
Superfamilia: Bombycoidea
Series: Saturniiformes
Familia: Saturniidae
Subfamilia: Saturniinae
Genus: Rothschildia


-------
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: 9:30 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:21 AM on June 8, 2009 :
The more educated, the greater the belief in evolution.


...or the more brainwashed.



Right - because little folks who are forced to go to Sunday school and recite bible verses and pray are the only TRUE open minded folks out there....



I think 'belief in the correctness of communism' was on the high end of the scale in communist Russia and China -did that make it right? Were they allowed to think or were the 'more educated' actually 'the more indoctrinated?'

How much 'indoctrination' in evolution do you suppose an english major gets?

It's not like they had a choice -much like the children of today with evolution.


Right - to be 'fair' and give kids a choice in what to 'believe', they should be taught that the Holocaust might not have actually hapened, that the moon landings may have been faked, that vaccines cause autism, that sex ed causes pregnancy, that Zeus might really be King of the Gods, etc., and let them decide what the 'truth' is.

When creationists suggest that the scientific evidence for and against evolution be taught, evolutionists hit the roof.

What is this evidence against evolution, exactly?


What are they so scared of?


Perhapos that anti-science religious zealots will try to confuse kids with nonsense and disinformation?


If evolution is so obviously correct, let's quit the indoctrination and get education back into the schools.


Right - because I know when I went to school, I was always told all possible angles on every subject and allowed to 'choose' which was right (i.e., which coincided more with my parents' belief systems)...


Of course, the degree of religiousness also influences a person's answer.


And the degree of atheist inclination... so I spose we're saying the same thing.

Interestingly, the more religious people are, the more likely they are to get divorced, have extramartital affairs, be on welfare at some point in  their lives, etc...

It also shows the deplorable lack of general scientific knowledge among the general American population.


Maybe they're not watching enough of the Discovery channel or any of the very many others that actively promote and never shut up about 'evolution.' Lets face it, with the general subject matter of TV these days, you will believe in evolution as long as you don't try to think for yourself.


Right, because ID and YEC promote free thinkinng and those promulgating such information would NEVER misrepresent wsither themselves or the material they present.

I mean look at Steve Austin...

Garbage in, garbage out.

Yup - look at all the garbage from the Discovery Institute and ICR and AiG that comes out on here...




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:56 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:53 PM on June 8, 2009 :
They've been indoctrinated with the claim that the earth is a spheroid!  Poor kids can't even choose between learning the earth is flat!  


I know that you think that that is an outstandingly clever comment Demon 38 but you see there is a difference between science that can be observed, tested and repeated and the sheer baloney of evolution, our modern creation story.

Why won't schools teach the controversy!


The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing so I don't know who is arguing this point anywhere. If there was a controversy over this one, I'm sure it's easily sorted out if anyone wants to show the evidence for the flat earth. The point is if there is a controversy over the shape of the earth, especially something as big as the controversy over evolution, then we should be allowed to see the evidence and it shouldn't be hidden by the media or the education system.  






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:58 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:45 AM on June 9, 2009 :
Thats' why all biologists agree it's science


I'm sure that one day they will wake up and see that philosophy is what it is and be astonished that they could be so blind to their own deception.


Projection.



Remember you have to believe either that there is no God or that God has nothing to do with life on this planet in order to limit 'science' to naturalism. It's all about faith.


For you folks, yes it is.  Do not assume that all people rely on such weak philosophical underpinnings as evangelical fundamentalists.


No, the bible claims the earth is a flat disk that is held unmoving on pillars, a typical primitive belief of many cultures.


I have heard that the Hindus believe something about the earth being held on the backs of 4 elephants -maybe you are getting mixed up. I see the words unmoving but nothing about pillars. How do we know it is not saying that God has put it where it is and it stays right there and cannot be moved out of its orbit? I see nothing about 'flat'.


A circle is a 2-dimensonal, i.e., flat, shape.

But I guess that is just what I was brainwashed into believing by those math nazis who would not present alternative ideas about shapes.


There is no controversy about evolution, 99.9% of biologists accept it, it is observed, experimented with, and practically applied in farming, medecine, industry.


You are talking about 'micro-evolution' or preferably and more accurately 'variation' within the species or kind, whatever you prefer. It is the big claim, the common ancestor, the turning of monkeys into men that there is no evidence for.


Of course there is evidence for common ancestry.

You not understanding it or being told to reject it does not mean that there is none.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:02 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:59 AM on June 18, 2009 :


Yup - there we have it -random mutations and copy errors except when evos are defending it, then it is suddenly not random anymore -as if natural selection solves that problem.



It seems to me that Christians like to claim that they are honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that a Christian should try to BE honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that Lester should admit that he is truly ignorant of evolution and, being a humble servant of the Lord, stop making such asinine proclamations demonstrating his ignorance of the subject.

It is the honest thing to do.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:05 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
It seems to me that Christians like to claim that they are honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that a Christian should try to BE honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that Lester should admit that he is truly ignorant of evolution and, being a humble servant of the Lord, stop making such asinine proclamations demonstrating his ignorance of the subject.

It is the honest thing to do.


Only too true!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:32 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Talking a little about indoctrination, in U.S. public schools there is almost no indoctrination when it comes to evolution. Beyond two weeks spent in high school biology there is no mention of evolution in the high school curriculum. And in college you do not need to take biology to get a degree, and if you did take introductory biology your professor would spend about a week or two talking about it and then move on.


-------
"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: 11:11 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
It seems to me that Christians like to claim that they are honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that a Christian should try to BE honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that Lester should admit that he is truly ignorant of evolution and, being a humble servant of the Lord, stop making such asinine proclamations demonstrating his ignorance of the subject.

It is the honest thing to do.


So little science, so much crap. Stop with the ad hominems Derwood, it only makes you look proud, pompous and arrogant… oh and short on facts.

Of course there is evidence for common ancestry.

You not understanding it or being told to reject it does not mean that there is none.


There is more than one interpretation of the evidence, Derwood. That is what you apparently find so difficult to understand. Your interpretations are biased because your conclusion is already decided before you see the evidence. Then you take the evidence and shove it into what you already are sure is true. You accuse us of doing the exact same thing but you don’t appear to understand that nobody is without a bias. What we are arguing about is whose interpretation is the better interpretation –whose interpretation has less anomalies to explain; whose bias is more likely to be correct given the anomalies that exist.

Do not assume that all people rely on such weak philosophical underpinnings as evangelical fundamentalists.


Again, look to your own weak philosophical underpinnings before criticizing others.

How much 'indoctrination' in evolution do you suppose an english major gets?


It depends on how much TV he watches. It’s pretty much unavoidable even on the cartoon channel, don’t know if you would have noticed.

What is this evidence against evolution, exactly?


The same evidence you have only with a different interpretation...oh and all the other evidence that evolutionists don’t like to mention. If it doesn’t fit, ignore it, misinterpret it and don’t tell the children. It might give them wrong ideas that they might interpret incorrectly. The state of the fossil ‘evidence’ is always a good place to start. Then there’s the dating problems, the missing strata all over the world, living fossils, historical stories and cave paintings of dragons and the fact that evolutionists are desperate to keep any alternative explanations for the same evidence out of the classrooms as well as any contrary anomalous evidence that is inexplicable in evolutionist terms.

Right - to be 'fair' and give kids a choice in what to 'believe', they should be taught that the Holocaust might not have actually hapened, that the moon landings may have been faked, that vaccines cause autism, that sex ed causes pregnancy, that Zeus might really be King of the Gods, etc., and let them decide what the 'truth' is.


There’s nothing worse in that lineup than what materialists already want to teach   (and are getting away with.) I’d actually expect you’d want to teach that stuff as it is probably just as much rubbish as evolution.

Perhapos that anti-science religious zealots will try to confuse kids with nonsense and disinformation?


Who are these anti-science religious zealots?
It sounds much like how I would describe you… Did you know that evolution was a religion?
And as for zealots –you fit that description rather well.
Anti-science? Evolution is anti-science.
Nonsense and disinformation? That is what evolutionists spread every day.
Labels are such wonderful things, aren’t they?!

Right - because I know when I went to school, I was always told all possible angles on every subject and allowed to 'choose' which was right


Strange school you went to –I was taught math and the answer was the answer; English was pretty much ‘the rules is the rules,’ no choices in geography and I don’t remember science teachers ever letting me decide about gravity and so on. Unfortunately when it comes down to evolution, children think that it is one of those ‘science’ things not realizing that because it is about things that happened in the past, unobservable and unrepeatable, it is not actually science at all – no matter how much science may be used to prop it up. If only they’d show kids how philosophy is used in interpreting the evidence; I for one wouldn’t have quite such a problem with it. Education, rather than indoctrination into a secular religion, as is happening now. I remember well being taught about Haeckels fraudulent embryos in embryology –it was taught as fact more than 100 years after Haeckel was charged and convicted of fraud –that is anti-science, propoganda and disinformation. The problem is that if the evolutionists had to let go of those few ridiculous ‘proofs’ that they rely upon, there would be nothing left and then what would they teach to support their religion??  



-------
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: 07:52 AM on June 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
U.S. public schools there is almost no indoctrination when it comes to evolution


And for those who might slip through the evolutionists indoctrinal fingers at school, there's always the TV! How many of us have to force our kids to watch TV?


-------
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: 08:02 AM on June 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:52 AM on June 25, 2009 :

There is more than one interpretation of the evidence, Derwood. That is what you apparently find so difficult to understand. Your interpretations are biased because your conclusion is already decided before you see the evidence. Then you take the evidence and shove it into what you already are sure is true. You accuse us of doing the exact same thing but you don’t appear to understand that nobody is without a bias. What we are arguing about is whose interpretation is the better interpretation –whose interpretation has less anomalies to explain; whose bias is more likely to be correct given the anomalies that exist.


So what is your interpretation of the Casimir effect?  Angels pushing on microscopic metal plates?

We have the same evidence you keep saying. . .



-------
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: 08:25 AM on June 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the indoctrination i had came from my ignorant (at least in biology) father who told me that his father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's  father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father was a dinosaur.

Then i grew smart in spite of my father. That's it.

My father:


A dinosaur!!


-------
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: 1:33 PM on June 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a



Rate this post:
 Insightful Poignant Thought Provoking Comprehensive Funny Neutral Obfuscated Paltry Trite Off Topic Ambiguous    
DerwoodIt seems to me that Christians like to claim that they are honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that a Christian should try to BE honest.

If that is so, it seems to me that Lester should admit that he is truly ignorant of evolution and, being a humble servant of the Lord, stop making such asinine proclamations demonstrating his ignorance of the subject.

It is the honest thing to do.




So little science, so much crap. Stop with the ad hominems Derwood, it only makes you look proud, pompous and arrogant… oh and short on facts.


Lester, I think your problem is that you can't think of any good replies to counter Derwood's remarks pointing out the weaknesses and flaws of Creationists arguments.

'Proud, pompous, arrogant'?  No, he's just knowledgable and stating things honestly, and probably more than a little annoyed at Creationists dishonest practises and naive beliefs.

As for science and facts, you're hardly in position to suggest someone providing more details when you provide none of your own!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:47 PM on June 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your problem is that you can't think of any good replies to counter Derwood's remarks pointing out the weaknesses and flaws of Creationists arguments.


Orion, I think you haven't bothered to read Derwood's posts (I don't blame you) - I quickly ran over his last 4 in this thread; not one bit of science just full of arrogant jerk remarks. Tell me where the science is that I'm ignoring? Must I read between the lines?
Does he even understand what I am telling him about philisophical prejudice?



-------
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: 02:15 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - I take it you didn't have a TV nor any teachers when you were growing up? Did you grow up in a vacuum?


-------
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: 02:20 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:15 AM on June 26, 2009 :
Tell me where the science is that I'm ignoring?



Explain the Casimir effect.

This experiment measures the Casimir force between two gold-coated cylinders positioned at right angles to one another.

The upper cylinder can be lowered using the piezoelectric tube, which changes shape when a voltage is applied. The lower cylinder is mounted on a piezoelectric deflection sensor (known as a bimorph spring) that generates a charge when it is bent. When the two cylinders are close together, the Casimir force causes the lower cylinder to be attracted to the upper one, thereby deflecting the spring in the process.

The linearly variable displacement transducer (LVDT) monitors the nonlinear expansion of the piezotube.


You keep maintaining that particles do not pop out of existence.  The Casimir effect demonstrates that they do.  We both have the same evidence.

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/26/2009 at 08:34 AM).


-------
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: 07:58 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That seems complex, Apoapsis. I don't understand it. :S

Lester
Wisp - I take it you didn't have a TV nor any teachers when you were growing up?
I had teachers. They were amazingly ignorant about Evolution.
I had a TV. I watched cartoons mostly. I had two channels. None of them touched the subject of Evolution. Not that i recall. Then cable came, and i watched even MORE cartoons!
I had only heard the very basics (and more by name than anything deep): common ancestors, fitness, natural selection... And i had no clue about how DNA worked. Yeah, nature shows on TV named them...
But only with that i figured it all out.

Well, not ALL of it... I could never figure out the electric eel's superpower (till i read about it). I could never figure sex out (how could such a thing evolve? i know now).

Besides i developed the concept of "group selection", and i believed in it, till fucking Dawkins trashed it, making me very fucking happy about learning something new, and standing corrected.
Seriously, i love being corrected.

Lester - I take it you'll play dumb and avoid answering my post in the thread Information?

Did you grow up in a vacuum?
I grew up in an environment of superstition and magical thinking.

The only reasoning person i knew as a kid was my father.



A DINOSAUR!!!



-------
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: 08:47 AM on June 26, 2009 | 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.