Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 5,115)

Showing posts 102,281 - 102,300 of106,286
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107800
Dec 30, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I said both sides lie. And both sides do. I id not claim that for this forum. I claim in general. Both sides have lied and made shyt up. We all know it.
Big whoop. Your side outnumbers us 10,000 to 1 in that regard.(shrug)

By the way, which of US, on HERE have lied about evolution?

I'll give you a hint - not us.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107802
Dec 30, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to tell me that anti-evolution people are almost exclusively Christian extremists. The best form of scientific method would be to hear his theories and then dismiss them logically. Just because the Creationists have a bad track record doesn't mean that they can't get lucky!
This forum isn't about scientific credibility. It's about the credibility of science, as seen by the outside observer. If you don't show the discipline of the scientist, you won't make a good case.
I don't think Replaytime is a religious extremist. I think he is a person who wants to cling to religious belief and is of the view that accepting the science would negate his religious views.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107803
Dec 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I said both sides lie. And both sides do. I id not claim that for this forum. I claim in general. Both sides have lied and made shyt up. We all know it.
Hey Replay, instead of continuing to fight this losing battle after making a claim you cannot support, why not try backing up a bit.

Accepting evolution does not have to mean abandoning God. Not that I believe in God, but some very smart people do. Highlights, by a publisher of 20+ Young Earth Creation geology papers who eventually realised YEC - that HE wrote many papers supporting, was a pack of lies:

" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."

-Glen R Morton
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm

You might find his whole article very interesting.

Morton made the transition from paid up paper writing Creation Geologist to realising that Creation geology was a pack of lies, gradually. He now accepts an old earth, the BBT, and evolution...but he is still a Christian too. Its not either / or, no matter what extremists at both ends of the spectrum say. But the evidence for the scientific position is overwhelming, and cannot be ignored but must be reconciled at least, as Morton has done.

Fundies, of course, hate his guts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107804
Dec 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Replaytime is a religious extremist. I think he is a person who wants to cling to religious belief and is of the view that accepting the science would negate his religious views.
That's *his* problem.(shrug)
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107805
Dec 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Replaytime is a religious extremist. I think he is a person who wants to cling to religious belief and is of the view that accepting the science would negate his religious views.
I don't think Replaytime has given me enough information to reach a conclusion.

See, I suspect that many of the people who visit this forum take the side of religion to pose questions that would cause people to open their eyes to many things. It all depends on how much their insights depend on a literal interpretation of holy books. Now, I don't see any secret messages coming from Replaytime either so I'm keeping out.

From a spiritual point of view though, Evolution takes a nasty aristocratic spin if you aren't watching closely. I don't need my Neanderthal ancestors being condemned by misanthropic money grubbers...And yes, I'm of Irish ancestry with some Basque genetics in the family tree so I probably share some of those Neanderthal traits. Heck! Anytime a person implies prestige through family genes, I take offense! It's uncivil!

My core response when someone is obsessed with "victory" of the Evolution issue is to find out what's behind it. Usually, it's some creature of bad habits that the stuffy, church-going crowd gossips about. Well, if that IS the case, why should I fight your battles? I have better things to do then to kill their God so you.can make them feel bad.

Perspective! Don't leave home without it!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107806
Dec 31, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And by that, the people of Borneo would have been known as the English, but not, who is now the liar?
According to Chuckie logic, they speak Borneo in Borneo and natives spoke Americ in America - except that there are no such languages. The answer to the question is:
Charles Idemi.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107807
Dec 31, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Ouch! What button should I press today to wind you up on one of your rants?
Buddy, have you been ranting lately? Not again.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107808
Dec 31, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Chuckie logic, they speak Borneo in Borneo and natives spoke Americ in America - except that there are no such languages. The answer to the question is:
Charles Idemi.
Reading from your premise, there is no logic in your statement. The people of England are known as the English singularly, no one can take that not even you.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107809
Dec 31, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Chuckie logic, they speak Borneo in Borneo and natives spoke Americ in America - except that there are no such languages. The answer to the question is:
Charles Idemi.
The truth and history taught me that, all the nations today that takes English as first or native language, does so because of England. Some good examples are USA and Canada.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107810
Dec 31, 2013
 
So by that premise, English belongs to England.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107811
Jan 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
So by that premise, English belongs to England.
The immense point that all the advocates of Evolution keep annoying you with is that nobody is interested in arguments "by that premise". They've debated too many Creationists who use stupid tricks to hijack a debate and you're an example of one of them. We're all content to let you go round and round and round and round in your little bubble and be an example of pathetic, Creationist rationalization for the others who show up here.

Move on or keep on circling! It's all good!

“Time to Make the Donuts”

Since: Jan 07

Friedrichshafen, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107812
Jan 1, 2014
 
So the common standard of proof ain't enough,



Standards of Evidence needed to Change your Mind on the issue are ,...??








9779

“Time to Make the Donuts”

Since: Jan 07

Friedrichshafen, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107813
Jan 1, 2014
 
BTW

Happy new Year, Last year Evolved from The Day it was Created into This year, Hope i get more than a couple more with Mom in them,...


“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107814
Jan 1, 2014
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, the latter. But the term "Evolutionist" suggests a philosophy or ideology that is based on Evolution science.
From WordWeb: evolutionist: a person who believes in organic evolution.
I'm not sure what term that scientists use to describe themselves, but I'm sure it has SOME Greek or Latin in it to make is sound special! Either way, I'm interested in the facts. The conclusions are not absolute.
Evolutionary biologist is a commonly used description or title.

One can maintain their personal ideologies and beliefs while accepting the facts of evolution. Much the same way that one can accept the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around without destroying ones primary beliefs.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107815
Jan 1, 2014
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Replay, instead of continuing to fight this losing battle after making a claim you cannot support, why not try backing up a bit.
Accepting evolution does not have to mean abandoning God. Not that I believe in God, but some very smart people do. Highlights, by a publisher of 20+ Young Earth Creation geology papers who eventually realised YEC - that HE wrote many papers supporting, was a pack of lies:
" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."
-Glen R Morton
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm
You might find his whole article very interesting.
Morton made the transition from paid up paper writing Creation Geologist to realising that Creation geology was a pack of lies, gradually. He now accepts an old earth, the BBT, and evolution...but he is still a Christian too. Its not either / or, no matter what extremists at both ends of the spectrum say. But the evidence for the scientific position is overwhelming, and cannot be ignored but must be reconciled at least, as Morton has done.
Fundies, of course, hate his guts.
Chimney, very interesting. I am unfamiliar with Morton. Thanks for posting this. I can understand why the fundies would be up in arms over this. The premise of your post fits with comments I just made to another poster.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107817
Jan 2, 2014
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolutionary biologist is a commonly used description or title.
One can maintain their personal ideologies and beliefs while accepting the facts of evolution. Much the same way that one can accept the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around without destroying ones primary beliefs.
I tend to agree, but some religious leaders think it's important to raise the FUD level against Evolution. That's why I stick to a strictly diplomatic approach to the subject and will challenge any attempt to "apply" Evolution science to anything other than to help others.

That gets a bit fuzzy on some topics but when it comes down to defending Native Americans and chasing pedophiles off of the reservation, I'll choose the Native Americans and to hell with the pedophiles, even if they happen to be Congressmen or something....and don't think that this debate can't go ridiculous like that!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107818
Jan 2, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The truth and history taught me that, all the nations today that takes English as first or native language, does so because of England. Some good examples are USA and Canada.
It is your logic that a language "belongs to" the peoples of the land where it originated. While I understand your premise, it does not hold that the modern peoples of those land hold any rights of ownership. Your logic fails. Again.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107819
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

http://www.the-scientist.com/...

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107820
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/16649/ title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin- /
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Dobzhansky's quote doesn't say that science can't be done without knowing, understanding or even need the theory of evolution. It simply states that evolution brings sense to the many facets of biology that we have discovered. It is the basis of modern biology, because it explains what is discovered, and can be used to guide further inquiry and discovery. It is not some essential parameter without which experiments cannot be conducted and research pursued.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107821
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/16649/ title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin- /
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Of course the fact that antibiotics are constantly updated BECAUSE diseases adapt due to evolution is evidence that someone somewhere is most certainly taking evolution into account. What we're basically hearing here is another ton of "macro/micro" bs, but even if evolution were irrelevant to medicine altogether, it's still demonstrated in plenty of other fields, such as fossil-finding, cladistics and comparative anatomy. Something you would know if you really were doing research into biology.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 102,281 - 102,300 of106,286
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••