or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 9  

post #321 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I see, so your evidence supporting intelligent design would be the architectural style of Frank Lloyd Wright. Well then I'll go ahead and take that and say that if you look at Wright's body of work, at no point did he spontaneously create wood for paneling, sand for glass, or lead for stained glass windows.

You've missed the point...but I'll play along anyway...

But, if he were God...he could.
post #322 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You've missed the point...but I'll play along anyway...

But, if he were God...he could.

How do you know this? How do you know he is not God and that he was incapable of doing it? What evidence suggests God could, and in fact did, create these things?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #323 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Or so you assume.

Or so you've made clear.

Seriously, attacking evolution the way you are is like a 9 year old girl from some village in Zambia saying no one in the python software foundation knows anything about functions.
post #324 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
In addition, and according to you, it is not reasonable to assume what might be possible or what may be likely.

That is not correct. What is not reasonable is to assume the assumptions or "what might be possible" are in fact true...which is what most people that believe in evolution are doing.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Please produce evidence that shows God actually creating this DNA that is consistant amongst many varying species and the process by wich He went about doing so.

Well there are two clever responses that immediately lept to mind here:

1. Well, gee...I ask you for evidence and you basically refused to present any...so I won't ot don't need to either.

2. Let's use the typical evolutionist argument of...well it is obvious that evolution is right because...well everything evolved...so it is obvious that God created the DNA...because it exists...and it bears the marks of order (not chaos)...coherence...etc.
post #325 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Or so you've made clear.

Seriously, attacking evolution the way you are is like a 9 year old girl from some village in Zambia saying no one in the python software foundation knows anything about functions.

Let me see if I have this right...want to make sure I understand the analogy...

1. Everyone that posts here in defense/support of the evolution idea is a scientific expert on the subject.

2. I am not.

Do I have the right?
post #326 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
1. Well, gee...I ask you for evidence and you basically refused to present any...so I won't ot don't need to either.

2. Let's use the typical evolutionist argument of...well it is obvious that evolution is right because...well everything evolved...so it is obvious that God created the DNA...because it exists...and it bears the marks of order (not chaos)...coherence...etc.

Actually neither of those two responses are particularly clever.

The fact that I have provided peripheral evidence supporting evolution that you have chosen to discount because I have not UPSed you two penguins that won't mate does not mean I haven't made an attempt.

Evolution is an ongoing and observable process, as you agree at least as far as microevolution is concerned. Nobody can show any evidence of a creation event in which someone called God was present to witness or involved in manufacturing.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #327 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh dear. This is true.

Oh dear. This is true too.



And Chris 'A Molecule of Water Is Made From One Atom of Crisco, One Atom of Lard, Two Atoms of Potato Juice and Some Labrador Fur' Cullia so nearly had me convinced that the last two centuries of research into the natural sciences were a total, worthless mistake apart from the bits about medicine and the internal combustion engine.

I'm going to bed. Damn you, Scientific American.

Since nobody else called you on it I will.

This was something a real ass would say. Hassan it is not fun to watch you be an ass.

I mean really this is just sad.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #328 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
want to make sure I understand the analogy...

You don't. If you are going to try to call into question the work of thousands of people who have spent their lives working on a problem from thousands of angles, you damn well better be an expert yourself. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of uninformed rambling.

That's the problem with how most creationists/young earthers argue: they come to the table with nothing yet think they are qualified to form opinions on science they don't understand. At least benzene had some background in the subject, misguided as it obviously was.
post #329 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK


Now, Because I really want to have the last laugh, I will link to the most pathetic example of Biological Isolation, thus speciation, thus Macroevolution I can find.

Check back later


What is it with this kind of post?

You are being a dip too.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #330 of 430
Thread Starter 
Come on, fellowship. I have religious beliefs (which means I honestly believe them to be true), but I understand that they have nothing to do with science. What I don't understand is why creationists/young earthers haven't figured out why other people don't take them seriously. For example, one minute dinosaurs are explained as a 'test from God,' the next there's a museum with a saddle on a triceratops. How are we supposed to take that seriously?
post #331 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Come on, fellowship. I have religious beliefs (which means I honestly believe them to be true), but I understand that they have nothing to do with science. What I don't understand is why creationists/young earthers haven't figured out why other people don't take them seriously. For example, one minute dinosaurs are explained as a 'test from God,' the next there's a museum with a saddle on a triceratops. How are we supposed to take that seriously?

I don't care what others believe in so far as origins. I am not shoving my view on anyone. What I find to be sad is to insult an individual who believes something different than the masses.

One reason I have an Apple computer is that I think differently than the average lazy slob.

One reason I drive a Diesel car that gets 42 mpg which is in the minority in this country is for the same reasons. It is not because I am a lazy fat slob.

I do not respect those who treat perfectly kind and thoughtful people with contempt and rudeness just because they think different than the masses no matter what the subject matter is.

It reminds me of hick Texans out in east texas that pour out French wine because the French were against the war in Iraq.

I think some of the evolutionists here are true bigoted haters of someone who has a different view.

JUST LIKE THE REDNECKS IN EAST TEXAS.

I am not in the mood for "come on Fellows" this evening. This country has gotten fat and lazy enough as it is. I personally respect independent and thoughtful kind individuals who think through things. I expect you guys to have a minimum level of some kind of respect or why not just admit you are really 12 year olds..

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #332 of 430
If you're in no mood for "oh, come on's" perhaps injecting yourself into a violatile debate, such as one involving science and theology, is not the best course of action?

I'm not discounting the points you're making, just saying...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #333 of 430
We should stop being lazy and let God decide instead.

...
post #334 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
What I find to be sad is to insult an individual who believes something different than the masses.

It's not about whether it's different from/similar to the status quo, it's that what they are arguing is uninformed, often contradictory and at times just plain ridiculous. People that one moment claim that dinosaurs are a 'test from God' and the next put a saddle on a triceratops shouldn't be surprised when people point out that their beliefs are unscientific.

I think the reason that people are getting so upset with creationism is that it's being pushed as science that everyone needs to learn. People would be just as upset if 'ufologists' started getting traction and there was talk of teaching 'ufology' next to physics. Same thing with wiccan magick. Same thing with Raelian beliefs. None of these things should be placed in the same realm as science.
post #335 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that I have provided peripheral evidence supporting evolution that you have chosen to discount because I have not UPSed you two penguins that won't mate does not mean I haven't made an attempt.

Except that you directly responded to a specific request/question about evidence and didn't produce any.

This is the basis on which I am challenging evolution...because everyone that I speak to that supports pretty much does the same thing..."oh there's mountains of evidence"..."oh its obvious, you just can't see because your blinded by your religious dogma" when neither of these is true.

I am asking valid logical questions...and challenging the assumptions and assertions on a logical basis. I'd be happy to review the evidence (and in fact will be looking over the scant few examples I have been given).

I DO agree that PARTS of what the theory of evolution suggest have ample evidence to support them. But the big kahuna...the mother of them all...that new species have come into existence through this process doesn't. And this is the hook that so many evolutionists are hanging their hat on.

You asked earlier about evidence of God creating DNA...well show us the evidence...the evidence...not the guesses and suppositions...and theories...of how DNA just magically came about through strictly naturalistic means. There is none.
post #336 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You don't. If you are going to try to call into question the work of thousands of people who have spent their lives working on a problem from thousands of angles, you damn well better be an expert yourself. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of uninformed rambling.

I have been asking honest, fairly strighforward, specific and logic-based questions. Where is the evidence (from the mountain of it) the shows that new species have, in fact, come into existence through strictly naturalistic means. I have actually agreed with several of the core ideas of evolution...but what I am unwilling to do is to make the major logical leap...the assumption without facts or real evidence that all of the other ideas naturally lead to the conclusion that so many evolutionists assume it does.

What I mean by this is that there is a body of evidence, yes. Some piece of evidence like:

A exists.
B exists.

A and B have many characteristics in common (physical form, structure, appearance and DNA).

This is all well and fine.

But the next leap is not an indisputable conclusion:

A and B either evolved from from one another or from a common ancestor.
post #337 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Except that you directly responded to a specific request/question about evidence and didn't produce any.

Chris, I did an "I'm getting lucky" google search (query in the address bar) and was able to get a long article talking about the penguins and albatros that runs down a bunch of reasons why folks think this and that about it. There is a ton of research in these areas. GO TO A LIBRARY. If you are going to question something, at least learn about it a little bit first. Don't ask people to do your 3rd grade science homework for you.
post #338 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's not about whether it's different from/similar to the status quo, it's that what they are arguing is uninformed, often contradictory and at times just plain ridiculous. People that one moment claim that dinosaurs are a 'test from God' and the next put a saddle on a triceratops shouldn't be surprised when people point out that their beliefs are unscientific.

No one in this thread has suggested these things.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I think the reason that people are getting so upset with creationism is that it's being pushed as science that everyone needs to learn. People would be just as upset if 'ufologists' started getting traction and there was talk of teaching 'ufology' next to physics. Same thing with wiccan magick. Same thing with Raelian beliefs. None of these things should be placed in the same realm as science.

I'm not pushing creationism, but I am challenging evolution. The assumption that I must have an alternative theory of my own in order to challenge an existing one is ridiculous and actually un-scientific. It is perfectly valid to challenge...poke...prod and existing idea...testing it, its assumptions and underpinnings. The theory can possibly be invalidated (at least in part)...with a vaccuum of understanding until someone proposes somethign different. But the "something different" is not required to be in place first. The problem with the evolutionists is that evolution is not to be challenged. It is not to be questioned.

I really think you ought to read the book I linked to earlier in this thread. I think you would find it an interesting read. As an open-minded seeker of knowledge, information and understanding, I assume you would seek to read things that challenge your current conceptions, assumptions and beliefs.
post #339 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Chris, I did an "I'm getting lucky" google search (query in the address bar) and was able to get a long article talking about the penguins and albatros that runs down a bunch of reasons why folks think this and that about it. There is a ton of research in these areas. GO TO A LIBRARY. If you are going to question something, at least learn about it a little bit first. Don't ask people to do your 3rd grade science homework for you.

But evidently it was too much trouble to link here.

And stop with the cheap slaps.
post #340 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am challenging evolution

In the same way a 9 yo village girl challenges the PSF's knowledge of functions. If you need someone on a computing forum to give you information on evolution, you are very, very far from being in a position to challenge it.
post #341 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But evidently it was too much trouble to link here.

www.google.com
scholar.google.com
[library url here]

It's as if you are asking for links to info showing that the pope died. If you can't find information on evolution, then there are bigger issues to deal with.
post #342 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
In the same way a 9 yo village girl challenges the PSF's knowledge of functions. If you need someone on a computing forum to give you information on evolution, you are very, very far from being in a position to challenge it.

I see you are continuing to make this about me...not about the debate...the facts...the evidence. A common argumentative diversionary tactic. That's fine with me. Hurts me none.
post #343 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
www.google.com
scholar.google.com
[library url here]

It's as if you are asking for links to info showing that the pope died. If you can't find information on evolution, then there are bigger issues to deal with.

Cute. I know where Google is. I was asking for the specific citations to back up your answer of "Yes" wack back when. You've refused. I assume this is because you know of none and that your answer of "Yes" was nothing more than a "silly wild assed guess."
post #344 of 430
I believe it was me that replied with nothing more than a "yes" at one point.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #345 of 430
Thread Starter 
"When I didn't research the theory or data behind it I couldn't find anything to support it, therefore it's all wrong"

You win, Chris. How can I possibly argue with that?
post #346 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I believe it was me that replied with nothing more than a "yes" at one point.

My apologies to giant then.
post #347 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
"When I didn't research the theory or data behind it I couldn't find anything to support it, therefore it's all wrong"

You win, Chris. How can I possibly argue with that?

That isn't it at all. I am challenging the confident assertions that folks are making...yet they have nothing to support their arguments. This isn't about ME...though fee free to continue thinking it is.
post #348 of 430
Giant, your turn - tell Chris you're sorry for calling him uneducated and incapable of thought surpassing the third grade level...

Go on,..
post #349 of 430
Thread Starter 
I have code to write. You guys are correct. Evolution is a big myth with no data to support it, and there is no information readily available online.
post #350 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That isn't it at all. I am challenging the confident assertions that folks are making...yet they have nothing to support their arguments. This isn't about ME...though fee free to continue thinking it is.

You aren't asking for evidence; you are looking for proof. I have implied that there is evidence supporting evolution, you agreed in part on the microevolution front. I have freely admitted the supporting evidence for macroevolution to be much spottier and difficult to validate. Yet you still insist on proof.

I think you will find the vast majority of those currently studying and researching evolution will not claim that definitive proof yet exists of macroevolution. There is evidence to support the idea, but it as of yet not cemented.

Anything else?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #351 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I have code to write. You guys are correct. Evolution is a big myth with no data to support it, and there is no information readily available online.

If only that's what we said.

When all else fails, just make a snide remark and run away. This is where debate has come to. But, alas...it is AO afterall.

I'm out too.
post #352 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's not about whether it's different from/similar to the status quo, it's that what they are arguing is uninformed, often contradictory and at times just plain ridiculous. People that one moment claim that dinosaurs are a 'test from God' and the next put a saddle on a triceratops shouldn't be surprised when people point out that their beliefs are unscientific.

I think the reason that people are getting so upset with creationism is that it's being pushed as science that everyone needs to learn. People would be just as upset if 'ufologists' started getting traction and there was talk of teaching 'ufology' next to physics. Same thing with wiccan magick. Same thing with Raelian beliefs. None of these things should be placed in the same realm as science.

I find nothing wrong with bashing Creation if that is your thing. I just think to bash those who question evolution is really a sad day for those who can't allow for others to question.

personal attacks and describing what a water molecule in condescending terms is pure BS. Will nobody back me up with this?

I doubt it.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #353 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is where debate has come to.

Unlike your great debate method: "I don't believe that the universe is billions of years old, but I'm not willing to look anything up on the subject."

There is no debate here. Just an empty argument because you've come to the table with nothing. Enjoy yourself...
post #354 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I have code to write. You guys are correct. Evolution is a big myth with no data to support it, and there is no information readily available online.

Right and you forgot "If you don't know then you're a big dummy" and the obligatory "You guys aren't in my club anymore, so there" or the equal "I know I am so what are you?"
post #355 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You aren't asking for evidence; you are looking for proof.

Actually, no I was asking for evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I have freely admitted the supporting evidence for macroevolution to be much spottier and difficult to validate.

Fair enough, this you have. The supporting evidence for macroevolution is much spottier and difficult to validate. Right. We're in 100% agreement.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I think you will find the vast majority of those currently studying and researching evolution will not claim that definitive proof yet exists of macroevolution.

This may be true about people studying it, but there is a vast body out there spouting off as if it is indisputable fact and anyone who doesn't agree is an igornant moron.


Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
There is evidence to support the idea, but it as of yet not cemented.

Agreed. There is evidence to support the idea, but it as of yet not cemented. And as you said above, the supporting evidence for macroevolution is much spottier and difficult to validate. We're in 100% agreement.

Whew...that only took like 9 pages of posts.
post #356 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Will nobody back me up with this?

I'm with you.
post #357 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Unlike your great debate method: "I don't believe that the universe is billions of years old, but I'm not willing to look anything up on the subject."

Now you're pulling stuff out of left field that I never even said...again with the assumptions.

Oh well. I suspect a Mod is going to come in an shut this down tonight. I'm too tired to continue and the dogs need walking.
post #358 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I just think to bash those who question evolution is really a sad day for those who can't allow for others to question.

Questioning is good, but it's uninformed and ignorant unless you are willing to work to learn what you are questioning. Chris hasn't even put his toe in the water.
post #359 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Will nobody back me up with this?

... right behind Chris - I'm with you.
post #360 of 430
Thread Starter 
giant: look it up

Chris: I don't wanna!

giant: look it up

Chris: I don't wanna!

naples: OMG!!1!

giant: look it up

Chris: I don't wanna!


What was the topic of this thread again and when are you actually going to do something to bring it out of this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism