|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2001 : 23:02:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No argument here. Call it what you like. Still doesn't prove I came from an ape.
Who's claiming that you did?
quote:
You're attempt to insult my intelligence does not change the fact that evolution is a THEORY.
We should stop the teaching of Atheistic Gravitation in our schools. I mean, after all, gravity is just a theory. (If gravity is real, why aren't we all being sucked up into black holes?)
We should stop the teaching of the Atheistic idea that there are photons. I mean, after all, the idea that there are photons is just a theory. (If there are photons, why aren't we dying when we're being bombarded by them?)
Edited by - Antie on 11/05/2001 23:18:29 |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 03:16:30 [Permalink]
|
 You guys spout the same old tired stuff I've been getting since gradeschool and now my TAX DOLLARS are being wasted trying to INDOCTRINATE my son. Here are some real logical quotes from his textbook about your ABSURD "theory"(HOLT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,on p 209) sunlight is said to have given off "Intense radition,...bombarded the Earth surface.Scientist hypothesize that under these conditions,life [popped]developed FROM NONLIVING MATTER"[emph mine].That my friends is neither science nor theory it's pure fiction.
|
|
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 04:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You guys spout the same old tired stuff I've been getting since gradeschool and now my TAX DOLLARS are being wasted trying to INDOCTRINATE my son. Here are some real logical quotes from his textbook about your ABSURD "theory"(HOLT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,on p 209) sunlight is said to have given off "Intense radition,...bombarded the Earth surface.Scientist hypothesize that under these conditions,life [popped]developed FROM NONLIVING MATTER"[emph mine].That my friends is neither science nor theory it's pure fiction.
I repeat a quote by PhD, "Evolution, for our purposes, is the change in allele frequency over time. Abiogenesis (what you just described) is the emergence of organic molecules from inorganic molecules. Neither requires the other in order to be true."
Furthermore, it is referred to as an Hypothesis, it is how Science, moves Forward. You should also remember this, it is Impossible to be Right, unless you First, Dare to be WRONG, oh, so very Wrong!
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 06:30:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anyways,I apologize TokyoDreamer for not sticking to the subject which, to my observation has resulted in nothing but everyone patting each other on the back and blowing smoke up each other proverbial holes. That seems to be the purpose of this website anyway.
How snotty of you. 
WWJD?
quote:
Our subject: The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed!
Who's teaching you this crap? The effects have been observed. The evidence is overwhelming, so much so that it is completely unreasonable and ridiculous to deny that evolution is a fact. Do you also believe that God planted dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith? Because with this logic, you can't believe dinosaurs ever existed, because they've never been observed!
quote:
Reason #2) Aquired Characteristics
They CANNOT be inherited! (e.g. the giraffes long neck is not a result of it's ancestors straining to reach higher leaves. Similarly, a body builder will not pass on his muscle tone to his kid!
Right. The giraffe's long neck is the result of it's ancestors with shorter necks dying off, because only the one's with longer necks could reach their food and survive. Are people actually telling you that those ladies in Africa that put rings around their necks to stretch them will give birth to long necked babies, and that this is evolution?
All else aside, I'd really like to ask you to honestly think about one question, and give us an honest answer. Me and everyone else here that knows evolution is a fact, would change our minds in an instant if new evidence showed conclusively that evolution as we think of it is not true. In other words, our "beliefs" (I hate using that term, it's too misunderstood in various contexts) will change based on available evidence.
Can you honestly say the same?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 08:32:34 [Permalink]
|
  To Zap:I was going to also from that same textbook (I think it was on p.43), that states how HARMFUL radiation from the Sun is to living organisms.You can't have it both ways the radiation from the 4to6 billion years ago would only have been intensified.That's not science. 
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 08:42:21 [Permalink]
|
What isn't science is your argument. You are using the same old creationist tactict of bringing up issues that have little or nothing to do with evolution and twisting what you can not because you have a good point but because you don't understand what's being said and think you can get a quick one in. If you are going to try and counter evolutionary science you are going to have to use science and not just science but science that is relevant. Your tactics are not smart or witty when you bring up things that have nothing to do with evolution. What is obvious is that you don't know what you are are talking about. You have merely read the creationist pamplets and now think you are ready to go toe to toe with scientists that spent a lifetime studying evolution. If only it were that easy. Real science takes work and you have yert to demonstrate that you are willing to do the work it takes just to catch up to where evolutionary science is today.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 08:46:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...now my TAX DOLLARS are being wasted trying to INDOCTRINATE my son.
No. If your son grows up with a solid grasp of real science, and the knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of evolution that you obviously can't give him, then that money is not being wasted. Should I complain if my children get a better education than I did, and go on to do better in life? Is that a 'waste'?
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP!
Edited by - The Rat on 11/06/2001 08:47:39 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 09:55:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I'll just about guarantee you this kid got his "26 reasons" straight from a creation science website
1) I challenge you to prove that accusation,
2) ME using information that you may have heard or read from a creation scientist is like me saying, "No fair, you got your 'facts' from someone who believes in evolution!" Pretty stupid, eh?
I wasn't accusing you of anything. That message wasn't even directed at you. I was, however, making Tokyodreamer aware of my suspicions, given a) your petulant bravado, and b) your apparent total lack of scientific knowledge, specifically about evolution and evolutionary theory.
quote:
quote:
At least evolutionary science can say that despite claims to the contrary from creationists that haven't bothered to actually check it out for themselves and offer nothing but quotations from the ICR.
quote:
…given that he boldly posts his first without realizing his "law" is sophistry, I doubt we'll even see an acknowledgement of error.
No acknowledgement of error is correct, Dion Warwick, I mean PhDreamer..
LAW of biogenesis:
"The teaching that living organisms come from other living organisms, as opposed to abiogenesis. The author of the modern formulation of "the fundamental law of biogenesis" was German physiologist and comparative anatomist Fritz Müller (1864). Ernst Heinrich Haeckel [1] led Müller's formulation "the biogenetic fundamental law," which can be stated briefly as the teaching that in its development from the egg to adult stage, the animal tends to pass through a series of stages which recapitulate the stages through which its ancestry passed in the development of the species from a primitive form. In other words, the development of the individual is a condensed expression of the development of the race."[2]
I shall continue with my banter, no apologies. There really wasn't much to respond to anyway in the last few rebuttals…AND seeing how there's one of me and well, too many of you, I digress from any arguments concerning reason #1.
Well, already resorting to contextual games, are you? As you well know, the error I indicated my original post was your equation of abiogenesis and evolution. You haven't exactly warmed up to the denizens of this board and this kind of intellectual dishonesty will earn you nothing but disrespect. My brief criticism of your "law" was perfunctory, but since you make it a point...
quote:
So without further ado-
For those of you who just tuned in:
Our subject: The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed!
Balderdash.
quote:
Reason #2) Aquired Characteristics
They CANNOT be inherited! (e.g. the giraffes long neck is not a result of it's ancestors straining to reach higher leaves. Similarly, a body builder will not pass on his muscle tone to his kid!
No shit Sherlock. Want to take a stab at the actual mechanism of inheritance or would you rather let your strawman do the talking?
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 10:26:14 [Permalink]
|
However, you've done nothing for me as far as convincing me that I should accept the THEORY of evolution,
Back to mis-defining the word Theory again?
Do Creationist's wish not only to ban biology from public school but to take out the Language Arts programs too?
Anyways,I apologize TokyoDreamer for not sticking to the subject which, to my observation has resulted in nothing but everyone patting each other on the back and blowing smoke up each other proverbial holes. That seems to be the purpose of this website anyway.
Credit is given where credit is due around here. You are probably used to all praise going to Jesus and all men being unworthy in your neck of the woods.
"the fundamental law of biogenesis"
It is not a law, much less a fundamental law, it is merely a principal. One which, since work done at Cornell in 1954, appears to be very faulty.
"the biogenetic fundamental law," which can be stated briefly as the teaching that in its development from the egg to adult stage, the animal tends to pass through a series of stages which recapitulate the stages through which its ancestry passed in the development of the species from a
primitive form. In other words, the development of the individual is a condensed expression of the development of the race."
Huh, what? How did we leap from "biogenesis" to "bio-genetic"?
And why are you quoting a speculation that was discredited 150 years ago?
There really wasn't much to respond to anyway in the last few rebuttals…AND seeing how there's one of me and well, too many of you, I digress from any arguments concerning reason #1.
We must have missed them.
Speaking of lack of response, how are you coming with the experimental proof of the existence of god?
Why, when you came to a web site with "Skeptics" in the title, do you find it strange that there are a bunch (too many) of Skeptics there? Isn't that why you sought this place out to begin with?
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed!
Organic evolution has been observed, and is being observed on a daily bases. Most notably (due to their rapid reproduction) in bacteria. It is also closely monitored in all "pest" insects-mosquitoes, termites and the like.
If these critters aren't big enough for you it has also been observed in the Heike crab, the Galapagos finch, the southern white rhino, leopard seals, the western red oak, the Japanese ginko, etc, etc.
Reason #2) Aquired Characteristics They CANNOT be inherited! (e.g. the giraffes long neck is not a result of it's ancestors straining to reach higher leaves.
No one ever said that they could be. You really must be careful with these "straw men" arguments. They show that you are fibbing when you claim to have studied both sides of the argument. Anyone who had even picked up a high school text on biology would know that no one is saying these things.
Here's how evolution works.
Bunch of giraffes in a confined area. They all eat the leaves of trees. Climate change, like El Niño, come along, there are less leaves. Most of the giraffes are short. They gobble all the leaves within reach and are left without a food supply.
A few giraffes just happen to be a couple of feet taller. Their genes are slightly imperfect compared to those of normal sized giraffes, their necks are funny looking. However, they are tall enough to reach the few leaves that the others can't reach. They remain fit and healthy and therefore can get laid while the shorter giraffes keel over.
Their children look like them, tall.
The dead giraffes don't have new children-duh-the're dead.
El Niño passes as it always does, the leaves come back-but giraffes are now taller.
El Niño comes back again, and again only those who can reach the leaves, that the others cannot, survive. Giraffes are now taller still.
Don't you look like your mom and dad? Probably you have your mother's father's hair line?
Don't your kids, in turn, look like you?
That's basically all there is to it.
The truly startling thing about Darwin's natural selection is that it is so simple and so obvious that people were shocked that it hadn't occurred to any one before.
Only those brain washed by strange magic dust bunny worshiping cults couldn't see it. And I stand by the "brain washed" remark. The fact that you are so dead set against evolution, while not even knowing what it is, shows your deplorable mental state. See what these creationist bastards have done to you. That's why I'm so opposed to them.
… Haeckel'…Rudolf … Lamarck.
Okay, I'm lost.
You reprinted stuff about scientists who lived one hundred and two hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that we haven't learned any thing new in the mean time?
So what do you think is happening in the world? Why do you think that ALL scientists are so sold on evolution? Do you think it's a plot against god by the devil. I can't help but notice your tagline, which implies a very primitive (almost savage) understanding of the world.
Why do you think evolution is anti-god when all the leading Christian denominations agree that it is not?
Here's another title, which might do you more good than Dawkins The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Darkby Carl Sagan.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 11:22:15 [Permalink]
|
To Atomic: The stuff I brought up was right out of my son's science textbook teaching about the naturalistic evolutionary view on the origin of life .Now if your argument is that its(the evo view) not science, AMEN!I whole heartily agree.But my simple question is (as Iam a layperson)how can you have, as p.209 states the origin of life from the radiation of the Sun,and earlier in the same book describes the HARMFUL effects from the radiation from the same Sun?
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 12:19:33 [Permalink]
|
No matter how many times you try to make a connection, there is no connection between the origin of life and evolution. I would have to see more of that textbook to know what it's saying but sunlight can be beneficial and harmful as well.
Have you heard about all the penicilin resistant forms of bacteria out there by any chance? Ever wonder how they came to be? Still think we haven't observed evolution? No matter what you think, these evolved bacteria might still kill you one day.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 14:42:22 [Permalink]
|
Ahah! A chance to embarrass myself. I am more familiar with the science involved here than the average layman, but not nearly so familiar as the regulars on this board.
Nonetheless, I'm a pisser about offering opinions so here's one.
First, a reiteration of something I said earlier: I agree with Tokyo. He's beat me to every objection I had and asked questions I wanted to. I agree with Slater, @tomic, PhD, et al, too, but Tokyo says things like I think 'em.
Okey dokey.
To Flesh and Darwin:
I'll say to you what I said to someone on the Bad Astronomy board: the fact that I don't have an in-depth education on this subject doesn't mean I'm unqualified to have a valid opinion. Maybe it will help you hone your arguments to hear what impact they have on a non-scientist:
1. You mix topics. You do it with such frequency, and even in the light of reasoned objection, that I must assume you do it intentionally. This speaks VERY poorly for the credibility of your argument. Examples:
a. Mixing abiogenesis and evolution. Even I know they're totally different.
b. Mixing evolution and natural selection. Even I know they're different.
c. You throw in the sun's radiation issue as if it were relevant. And even if it were, is it so hard to believe that something which in too large a dose is harmful can in the proper amount be beneficial?
2. You use strawmen. This has been explained enough.
3. What's the point about the long bios of the two scientists? I'm not much into bowing before resume's. Hell, most of us here have even questioned Slater at some point and he's got pretty impressive credentials himself.
4. You claim that you have presented arguments but you have not. You have made claims. Argue, dammit. You'll find that in fact the people here will enjoy it when you actually argue and debate.
I'll hop in again at some point, but perhaps you'll reconsider your tactics if you realize that they are quite off-putting to anyone not already aligned with your position. And, no, it's not your claims that are off-putting, it's your tactics.
Stick around, though. Could be fun.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:13:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
c. You throw in the sun's radiation issue as if it were relevant. And even if it were, is it so hard to believe that something which in too large a dose is harmful can in the proper amount be beneficial?
Exactly my thought. In fact darwin, have you ever heard of a "J" Curve. Basically, it charts the effects of certain stimuli, such as Radiation, which while deleterious at the low and high exposure rates, confer a benefit at a Mid-Range Exposure.
In a similar sense, if you were to drink a BEAKERFUL, of Nitroglycerin, or even shake it in front of your face, it would, most likely, Kill you. However, if you ever go to Doctor with a Heart Flutter, just wait and see, what they Prescribe.
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:18:03 [Permalink]
|
[rant]
Folks, I agree that this is a fun thread, although some of the creationists' "arguments" have been so weak as to be pathetically easy targets... so easy, in fact, that some of the responses have seemed to me to be unnecessarily harsh. But I do understand how frustrating it gets when one's opponent is persistently, piggishly obtuse.
What I think we should realize is that the OP did not come to this board with an open mind, in any sense of the word. He came here to witness, and will remain here only so long as he thinks there's any hope to bring us heathen to the Lord.
darwin algos, these comments do not apply to you (at least with quite the same force). You, at least, have been around awhile. I hope you stay, if only to keep Slater's fangs sharp.
But flesh, I think you should either demonstrate that you're willing to learn something and participate in an actual dialog, or move along to more fertile ground. Like a homeless shelter, for example. Those folks really need you, and they're hungry enough to at least pretend to be interested in what you have to say.
[/rant]
Whew, I feel better now. 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:31:18 [Permalink]
|
I agree that it's all silly Donnie but there is a chance that someone who has not made up there mind will see how hollow the argument against evolution is. Perhaps it is ironic that these defenders of creation may be making up minds in favor of evolution because the contrary view is so intellectually impoverished.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
