[ShepherdsDog]

poquas poquas:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Defensive enought that he neg-repped me, the deluded baby.

A piece of advice I received many years ago went something like "The true believers are the hardest to treat".

I thought you were a psychologist, not a medical professional.

[poquas]

After the last 11 pages, I was thinking about running for Satan!

[BartSimpson]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Wait a second, any history prof will confirm that the Bible (irrespective of edition) is 100% history? Really?

No, and where did that come from?

But any history prof. will certainly state that the Bible is a historical document in addition to being a religious text.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

After the last 11 pages, I was thinking about running for Satan!

I'd vote for you.

[Mustang1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Wait a second, any history prof will confirm that the Bible (irrespective of edition) is 100% history? Really?

No, and where did that come from?

But any history prof. will certainly state that the Bible is a historical document in addition to being a religious text.

As i said before, the Bible is a historical document with problematic historicity.

[poquas]

Historicity.

I had to look it up.

Good word. Definitely applies as it does not mean historical.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed Dayseed:

But what you believe DOES harm people when Creationists want to slip it into school curricula North America over and push out evolution.

By the way, it does lower your intelligence. If you were to look at all of the objective evidence of pregnancy, from release of the egg, sexual intercourse, fertilization, implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall, placental creation and fetal development followed by birth and say, "Well shit, that's just civil court evidence. See, I read this book that says a stork picks out babies in a cabbage patch and carries 'em to parents" you too would think that person a goddamn fool.

Creationism and any defence of it is no different.

Oh very good Dayseed, you've proven conception and pregnancy. You should write up a paper and publish your findings And you wanna insult my intelligence level? Your example is pathetic and smacks of desperation. Why? Because it's something that can be seen almost as it happens. It can be verified quite easily and they are things that have been observed countless times now. Can't do that with evolution now can ya?
And what I believe harms others?? I've said repeatedly that Creation does NOT belong in science class because it's not science. Sorry sport, but you are giving me WAY more power than I actually have. My beliefs are just that...MINE!
Please elucidate on how what I believe harms others. Unless you are basing that comment solely on what YOU believe you have ZERO basis for that statement.
Is it harming them because you believe it's a lie? But when schools teach that life formed from some chemicals in a primordeal soup, yer ok with that.
Even though the formation of life is STILL an axiom of science.
Lets look back at some scientific history shall we? Seems that many hundred years ago, the CONCENSUS was, the Earth is flat and at the centre of the universe. Of course now, we laugh at the whole idea. Why? Because scientists worked at disproving those theories. But it seems that evolutionsist don't have any interest whatsoever in trying to disprove themselves. Tell me Dayseed, how do you know that in another 500 years or so, scientists won't be laughing at the "silly" people that believed in evolution? I find your apparent belief in the infallibility of science and scientists to be deeply disturbing. You really aren't any different than the religious zealots you wish to be so different from.

[andyt]

Of course it's possible that in 500 years people will be laughing at a belief in evolution. Very unlikely tho.

Science is always engaged in proving itself wrong, including evolution. There just doesn't seem to be any evidence to the contrary. Big religion is behind trying to disprove evolution. They's got lots of money, why don't they create an endowment that tries to do just that, or tries to come up with ejective evidence of creationism? Good luck with that.

Your example with flat earth ideas is backwards. People used to believe in creationism, until Darwin had a better idea. For some reason tho, evolution seems to challenge their conception of reality, so they just can't accept it, have to hang on to that flat earth idea. If a billion Catholics can accept evolution, so could the Evangelicals.

[poquas]

andyt andyt:

People used to believe in creationism, until Darwin had a better idea.

Unfortunately there are still huge numbers that are behind creationism. The scary part is that they're often in positions of power now, especially in the States (of course we have our own set of loonies in the government here that can’t see beyond the 6000 year mark either). Even scarier these are the same people that want abortion doctors killed, and are the first to start a war because God is on their side.

I still remember Palin saying that her being picked as a running mate to McCain was God’s will.

I agree about the Catholic Church. For all their faults over the centuries are a faint hope that things might change.

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Oh very good Dayseed, you've proven conception and pregnancy. You should write up a paper and publish your findings And you wanna insult my intelligence level?

Yes. You got it. I don't care that you cherish, relish and revel an irretrievably stupid idea. The core is that it's stupid.

$1:

Your example is pathetic and smacks of desperation. Why? Because it's something that can be seen almost as it happens. It can be verified quite easily and they are things that have been observed countless times now. Can't do that with evolution now can ya?

Actually, I can. Lenski's experiments have demonstrated it. Simply because you didn't understand them, nor do you understand that the ability to move citrate across a bacterial membrane is the result of a two-stage mutation resulting in new information to the genome doesn't mean it isn't demonstrable. It certainly is and the evidence is overwhelming. Period.

Trust me, I'm not desperate. I guess based on your above comment I'll have to make it a point to tell you when I am. I would however, presume that if you're seeking desperation, you look no further than yourself, who has employed the argument by abandonment method since I first entered the thread.

$1:

And what I believe harms others?? I've said repeatedly that Creation does NOT belong in science class because it's not science. Sorry sport, but you are giving me WAY more power than I actually have. My beliefs are just that...MINE!
Please elucidate on how what I believe harms others. Unless you are basing that comment solely on what YOU believe you have ZERO basis for that statement.

Forcing Creationism into the classroom is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State and erodes a secular government's ability to resist religious influence on its laws and practices. In other words, Creationism today, the censorship of blasphemous television programs tomorrow and compulsary religious observance later. It's a slippery slope, so why let anything pick up speed?

And there is something insidious about Creationism itself. It's the antithesis of thought, exploration and discovery. Since Creationism postulates God as the ultimate designer, we may as well make an end of science period. How do blackholes form? Could be a collapsed star, but religion tells us that it's providence. Goddidit. What are the ultimate intracellular changes that give rise to cancerous cells? Could be DNA mutations or it could be that God wants to recall people to Heaven. Science crawls to a halt because each new discovery or elucidation further robs God of his dominion. Medical discoveries are forsaken, technological improvements and ultimately, man's spirit.

Religion as explanation for anything is a dead-end. It dulls the mind and promotes laziness, apathy and dangerous religious fervor for those who counteract it.

There.

$1:

Is it harming them because you believe it's a lie? But when schools teach that life formed from some chemicals in a primordeal soup, yer ok with that.

Yup. RNA has been shown to spontaneously arise from a chemical soup. It's a testable, verifiable and falsifiable account of the origin of life.

Oh, and it's happened too.

$1:

Even though the formation of life is STILL an axiom of science.

I don't think you know what axiom means. Your statement, as written, agrees with me. However, since you've been standoffish, I suspect you just didn't know how to use the word.

$1:

Lets look back at some scientific history shall we? Seems that many hundred years ago, the CONCENSUS was, the Earth is flat and at the centre of the universe.

Can you spot me the astronomers who derived a geocentric model of the universe based on mathematical calculations? I suspect you'll find that the Earth was considered the centre of the universe due to biblical reasons. That said, let's move onto your next part...

$1:

Of course now, we laugh at the whole idea. Why? Because scientists worked at disproving those theories. But it seems that evolutionsist don't have any interest whatsoever in trying to disprove themselves.

So, science disproves accepted religious myth and that's evidence that science is wrong about evolution? And you'd be wrong about disproving evolution. The paleontologist that finds a modern human skeleton in a Pre-Cambrian stratum is going to be completely renowned for time immemorial because he was able to disprove evolution in a single shovelful of dirt.

Also, you're not artful about how science experiments are conducted and the concept of the null hypothesis. Proper science experiments can't "prove" anything true, however, they can be proven false. Each experiment conducted in a university sets out its hypothesis and testable null-hypothesis (that is, the inverse of the hypothesis) and then falsifies the null-hypothesis or fails to falsify it. If the null-hypothesis fails to be falsified, the original hypothesis is then adapted to fit the new explanation. If the adaptation is so great that the old hypothesis cannot stand, it's discarded and a new one forged to explain all the evidence.

$1:

Tell me Dayseed, how do you know that in another 500 years or so, scientists won't be laughing at the "silly" people that believed in evolution?

For the same reasons we don't look at Galileo and laugh at him. For the same reasons we don't look at Fermat, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Koeppler, Tesla, Mendel or Pasteur. Good science is good science. We believe Aristotle or Galen were "silly" people because they only conducted thought experiments without testing for falsifiablilty in those same experiments.

$1:

I find your apparent belief in the infallibility of science and scientists to be deeply disturbing.

I'm glad you qualified that with "apparent". I am willing to accept new evidence as it comes. However, I'll bet you $20 right now nobody ever finds a homo sapien in a pre-Cambrian stratum. Shit, make it $50.

$1:

You really aren't any different than the religious zealots you wish to be so different from.

Now why would you say something so asinine? Religious zealots operate on faith. Faith is nothing more than a crass collision between arrogance and stupidity. Faith is saying "I have the answers and I will look no further". Science is based on fact, logic and the ability to correct mistakes. It is humble. It says "This is what is explainable so far. I don't have all the answers and I will keep looking."

So fuck off with your religious zealot comparisons. You're wrong again.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Big religion is behind trying to disprove evolution. They's got lots of money, why don't they create an endowment that tries to do just that, or tries to come up with ejective evidence of creationism? Good luck with that.

And that right there is the problem. Evolutionists aren't really being all that objective when they won't even question it. Science is SUPPOSED to be objective, but when one's objectivity is clouded by something that pays your way, how objective can one be? Why is it when other secular scientists are able to show that the current evolutionary theory is wrong, or could be wrong, it don't make news, but when some asswipe says, "We are directly decended from orangutans" it makes the headlines. Seems to me that there are a few groups not interested in seeing evolutionary theory busted. Then I see comments being made about how THOSE scientists that think it's all wrong aren't biologists. Like biology is the ONLY science involved in the study of evolution Oh but when a non biologist claims evidence of evolution, all of sudden, their field of science doesn't matter.
And this is why I keep saying that evolutionary theory has reached the level of religious dogma. Don't question it, don't doubt it, and if you do, yer an idiot.
I've posted DR.Yockey's links and ideas in here several times. I'm willing to bet the majority of evolutionists haven't even bothered checking him out because he might say something that dispelles their belief, even though he's NOT a Christian. Not much different than those religious types that wanna hide their heads in the sand too.
I'm not afraid to read stuff that challenges my faith and belief. Too bad so many here seem to be.
One last thing about Dayseed and Dr. Lenski. Dr. Lenski's experiments are pretty cool I'll give you that. But Dr. Lenski still deals with outdated information. He claims at the beginning of his report that proof of evolution can be seen in any museum and/or paleantological records. Funny thing is, even evolutionary scientists have totally debunked the fossil record as proof of evolution. And it's been debunked for over 50 years now.
Oh and one other thing Dayseed, know what they STILL call wolves and Dobermans? DOGS, CANINES, whatever. It's still a dog. Tell ya what, when those Dobies become something other than a dog, you just let me know.
And of course, considering the LONG term relationship between man and dog, there is just NO way that man's interference, or influence if you will, had NO affect on the wolves, man's original best friend. Seems to be the myriad of dog breeds would have more to do with direct human influence ie; engineering, rather than any evolutionary forces.

"Whoops" right back at ya.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

Big religion is behind trying to disprove evolution. They's got lots of money, why don't they create an endowment that tries to do just that, or tries to come up with ejective evidence of creationism? Good luck with that.

And that right there is the problem. Evolutionists aren't really being all that objective when they won't even question it. Science is SUPPOSED to be objective, but when one's objectivity is clouded by something that pays your way, how objective can one be? Why is it when other secular scientists are able to show that the current evolutionary theory is wrong, or could be wrong, it don't make news, but when some asswipe says, "We are directly decended from orangutans" it makes the headlines. Seems to me that there are a few groups not interested in seeing evolutionary theory busted. Then I see comments being made about how THOSE scientists that think it's all wrong aren't biologists. Like biology is the ONLY science involved in the study of evolution Oh but when a non biologist claims evidence of evolution, all of sudden, their field of science doesn't matter.
And this is why I keep saying that evolutionary theory has reached the level of religious dogma. Don't question it, don't doubt it, and if you do, yer an idiot.
I've posted DR.Yockey's links and ideas in here several times. I'm willing to bet the majority of evolutionists haven't even bothered checking him out because he might say something that dispelles their belief, even though he's NOT a Christian. Not much different than those religious types that wanna hide their heads in the sand too.
I'm not afraid to read stuff that challenges my faith and belief. Too bad so many here seem to be.
One last thing about Dayseed and Dr. Lenski. Dr. Lenski's experiments are pretty cool I'll give you that. But Dr. Lenski still deals with outdated information. He claims at the beginning of his report that proof of evolution can be seen in any museum and/or paleantological records. Funny thing is, even evolutionary scientists have totally debunked the fossil record as proof of evolution. And it's been debunked for over 50 years now.
Oh and one other thing Dayseed, know what they STILL call wolves and Dobermans? DOGS, CANINES, whatever. It's still a dog. Tell ya what, when those Dobies become something other than a dog, you just let me know.
And of course, considering the LONG term relationship between man and dog, there is just NO way that man's interference, or influence if you will, had NO affect on the wolves, man's original best friend. Seems to be the myriad of dog breeds would have more to do with direct human influence ie; engineering, rather than any evolutionary forces.

"Whoops" right back at ya.

Ah, yes, the conspiracy theory. Evolutionists are suppressing evidence. Evolution is treated just like any other theory in science. It happens to be the bedrock that makes sense of biology as more than just stamp collecting, but if there's evidence that points to a different theory, science will follow it. Unfortunately that doesn't satisfy you, but I guess nothing will.

[fifeboy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Lets look back at some scientific history shall we? Seems that many hundred years ago, the CONCENSUS was, the Earth is flat and at the centre of the universe. Of course now, we laugh at the whole idea. Why? Because scientists worked at disproving those theories.

Actually, unless I'm wrong, and I am sure someone will put me straight on it, I seem to remember the work of the scientists who disproved the earth centric universe as being the beginning
of science. Before that it was really just religious thoughts being passed off as knowledge. When we became able to actually measure things (telescopes and math theory to deal with the observations) science was born.

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And that right there is the problem. Evolutionists aren't really being all that objective when they won't even question it. Science is SUPPOSED to be objective, but when one's objectivity is clouded by something that pays your way, how objective can one be? Why is it when other secular scientists are able to show that the current evolutionary theory is wrong, or could be wrong, it don't make news, but when some asswipe says, "We are directly decended from orangutans" it makes the headlines. Seems to me that there are a few groups not interested in seeing evolutionary theory busted.

Got to make this quick, but if you believe that Big Evolution is behind Creationisms woes, you've got bigger problems.

$1:

Then I see comments being made about how THOSE scientists that think it's all wrong aren't biologists. Like biology is the ONLY science involved in the study of evolution Oh but when a non biologist claims evidence of evolution, all of sudden, their field of science doesn't matter.

Spontaneous appearance of RNA in a laboratory isn't evolution. So chemists usually don't comment on the subject.

$1:

And this is why I keep saying that evolutionary theory has reached the level of religious dogma. Don't question it, don't doubt it, and if you do, yer an idiot.

No, don't make asinine observations. If you do that, you're an idiot.

$1:

I've posted DR.Yockey's links and ideas in here several times. I'm willing to bet the majority of evolutionists haven't even bothered checking him out because he might say something that dispelles their belief, even though he's NOT a Christian. Not much different than those religious types that wanna hide their heads in the sand too.

Don't post links. Take his theories and reproduce them here in your own words and show how they disprove some tenet of evolution if you're so cocksure.

$1:

One last thing about Dayseed and Dr. Lenski. Dr. Lenski's experiments are pretty cool I'll give you that. But Dr. Lenski still deals with outdated information. He claims at the beginning of his report that proof of evolution can be seen in any museum and/or paleantological records. Funny thing is, even evolutionary scientists have totally debunked the fossil record as proof of evolution. And it's been debunked for over 50 years now.

No, the fossil record has not been debunked. I'd like to see your evidence for claiming something so outrageously stupid.

$1:

Oh and one other thing Dayseed, know what they STILL call wolves and Dobermans? DOGS, CANINES, whatever. It's still a dog. Tell ya what, when those Dobies become something other than a dog, you just let me know.
And of course, considering the LONG term relationship between man and dog, there is just NO way that man's interference, or influence if you will, had NO affect on the wolves, man's original best friend. Seems to be the myriad of dog breeds would have more to do with direct human influence ie; engineering, rather than any evolutionary forces.

Fuck dude, I'll explain the difference to you between evolution and natural selection another time. I'm busy right now. But there is a difference and now I don't think you have the slightest bit of education on the subject if you didn't know that.

$1:

"Whoops" right back at ya.

That irony makes me smile.