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 11  

post #401 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.

I think for each it is more of a path of logic based on "how things seem".


As has been pointed out, I've not heard any logical evidence for ID. I'm aware of lots of logical thinking behind evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
[BI believe just exectly "how things seem" depends on your world outlook.

...It is no different with origins.

It is based on how you see the universe:

Do you believe it is designed by an entity that created creation.

or

Do you believe it is random chance.

Pick your belief.

Fellows [/B]

At least your honest enough to say that your view on the matter has to with belief rather than logic.

I think the thing that gets us scientists is when people try to use bad science to disprove what most of us think is good science. That is what led to the SA article and this thread.
post #402 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I have given you many examples and page after page you just keep going on with claiming that there is no proof.

And I have said I will read those. Surprisingly in the past 12-15 hours I have had other priorities.

But are you saying there is PROOF of evolution?
post #403 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Evolution happens, huh?

Eskimos still have no fur. That seems an obvious step in their "evolution", yet even after thousands of years they still appear just like you and me - no protective fur.

Inter-speces variety is not evolution. A calico and a tabby still produce feline offspring. If you were going to "see" evolution, I would think you would see it in the canine family, I have seen dogs that will screw anything. Yet we have dogs and more dogs. My fathers hair was dark brown and my mother's blonde yet I came out with Auburn, yet I was still human with human hair.

Actually monkeys are where we should see the most evidence, according to the evolutionary theory, yet no evidence of it there either.

You really neeed to look up the word evolution in a biology text (if you can find one where they still use the word). Your undersanding of evolution would not let you pass a Biology 101 course.
post #404 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And I have said I will read those. Surprisingly in the past 12-15 hours I have had other priorities.

But are you saying there is PROOF of evolution?

Chris, there is so much proof around you that I have trouble fidning were to begin.
post #405 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You said it. A model.. Not a fact. You believe the model evolution provides is true. The key word "believe" You believe the model is accurate. I don't

There is no evidence that your model is an accurate explination of origins of life on the planet.

There is morphological evidence - the examination of fossils and existing lifeforms. There is genetic evidence verifying evolutionary trees. They are time consistent with our dating techniques. You simply choose not to believe what they say.

Quote:
You are believing in a belief not a fact. So am I

I can admit it

You are hell bent on calling a theory a fact as you can't seem to be honest.

My belief is based on facts, a model based on facts. It's as if you don't believe in the existence facts or measurements or observations. Are morphological observations beliefs? Are genetic studies beliefs? Are radiometric, geological and genetic dating techniques beliefs?

As of today, is it a belief or a fact that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have not been found in Iraq? What does that say if one says the weapons were there? If no weapons were found, it means they were not there or were moved. But guess what, there is no evidence of it being moved. So we're left with the fact, not the belief, that the weapons weren't there to begin with - a conclusion of every weapons search group in Iraq.

And so it is with evolution. It's a model based on a preponderance of facts, on multiple levels, consistent on multiple scales. My belief in it is based on facts. Genetics and inherentance are demonstrably true. Morphological and genetics studies of animals in the various geographies of the world are consistent with evolution. The theory is supported by a preponderance of facts.
post #406 of 430
I have a theory

My theory is that every thread dedicated to creationism will lead to nowhere.
I mean, same arguments, and circular discussion as always

Prove me wrong, and I'll be happy, fail and this thread will be doomed (it was supposed to be an april joke afterall)
post #407 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
... right behind Chris - I'm with you.

dont let dmz see that!
post #408 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And I have said I will read those. Surprisingly in the past 12-15 hours I have had other priorities.

But are you saying there is PROOF of evolution?

Now would it be a good thing to read through, examine, analyse and research the information provided before making further comment, and then perhaps we could have a proper debate about the evidence, rather than watching you make a fool of yourself.

Strange that you've had plenty of time to continue arguing about things provided for you that you refuse to read before making further comment. Evidence - that you have no intention of reading the evidence and having a serious debate.

yes, and you might like to look up proof, because it doesn't mean 100% absolute truth, just like 'theory' doesn't mean 'guess' in scientific context. So yes, there is proof of evolution.
post #409 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have a theory

My theory is that every thread dedicated to creationism will lead to nowhere.
I mean, same arguments, and circular discussion as always

Prove me wrong, and I'll be happy, fail and this thread will be doomed (it was supposed to be an april joke afterall)

It's really just two Faith-based belief systems, except that the creationists will be honest and point back to God -- but the evolutionists will not be honest and point back to Hegel.

There is a Hegelian belief by evolutionists, that 'all I believe is real' and 'if I don't believe it doesn't exist'. This allows the evolutionist to smooth over the fact that chaos [mutations] are his black box for the creative source -- while at the same time insisting that is impossible for God to have had a hand in any of this.

I think this needs to be a philosophical discussion -- but then it would only last about 10 minutes.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #410 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
For those impatient to see evolutionary changes in action in realtime... (bold mine)

From LiveScience.com's list of "Top10 Vestigal Limbs"

Quote:
Interestingly, it has been noted by paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer in his text The Vertebrate Body (1949) that the major importance of the appendix would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession,

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #411 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
There is genetic evidence verifying evolutionary trees.

You mean showing the possibility of evolutionary trees.
post #412 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Now would it be a good thing to read through, examine, analyse and research the information provided before making further comment, and then perhaps we could have a proper debate about the evidence, rather than watching you make a fool of yourself.

Strange that you've had plenty of time to continue arguing about things provided for you that you refuse to read before making further comment. Evidence - that you have no intention of reading the evidence and having a serious debate.

yes, and you might like to look up proof, because it doesn't mean 100% absolute truth, just like 'theory' doesn't mean 'guess' in scientific context. So yes, there is proof of evolution.

I am trying to debate about the assumptions that are being made from what evidence does exist. I will be reading the materials...they are bookmarked and queued up.

Posting here does not take the time that thoroughly reading those documents will take. It will be done. I can also be sure that you (or Carson or giant or rageous) won't be reading the book I've suggested anytime soon either. So...cat..kettle...black...give it up.
post #413 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders


The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.

--Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #414 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I can also be sure that you (or Carson or giant or rageous) won't be reading the book I've suggested anytime soon either. So...cat..kettle...black...give it up.

Actually, I plan on buying it from Amazon as soon as I have the chance to do so
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 #415 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am trying to debate about the assumptions that are being made from what evidence does exist. I will be reading the materials...they are bookmarked and queued up.

Posting here does not take the time that thoroughly reading those documents will take. It will be done. I can also be sure that you (or Carson or giant or rageous) won't be reading the book I've suggested anytime soon either. So...cat..kettle...black...give it up.

Most likely because reading books requires us to part with money that I don't waste. Perhaps before you start making silly assertions, you'd realise that if I posted links to books for you to read, you wouldn't buy them either.

Isn't that a correct assumption Fellowship?.
post #416 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Actually, I plan on buying it from Amazon as soon as I have the chance to do so

I stand corrected. And I am interested in your serious, thoughtful and specific comments and criticisms of the book. Accept my apology for my incorrect assumption.

post #417 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Most likely because reading books requires us to part with money that I don't waste. Perhaps before you start making silly assertions, you'd realise that if I posted links to books for you to read, you wouldn't buy them either.

There are, of course, public libraries and even used book stores...but then you knew that.

post #418 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I stand corrected. And I am interested in your serious, thoughtful and specific comments and criticisms of the book. Accept my apology for my incorrect assumption.


You're wasting more precious time

And we are interested in your serious, thoughtful and specific comments and criticisms of the evidence. No apology needed for my correct assumption that this won't happen.
post #419 of 430
An interesting statement from the abstract of a Nature magazine/journal article:

"Called the 'mystery of mysteries' by Darwin, speciation is still a little-understood area of evolution."
post #420 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
You're wasting more precious time

I don't operate according to your schedule. Sorry.
post #421 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And you just made yourself look the same, and, perhaps...by association...those that share your views.

If the God you trust with your life and afterlife is that cool, and created the univers plus, he also has created Darwin and his brain. In affect he created evolution.

Or maybe this god of yours is a little handicapped and needs help from some bio beeings with nothing but sex on their minds.
post #422 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There are, of course, public libraries and even used book stores...but then you knew that.


trouble is, you're asking the questions and were providing the evidence.

trouble is, we've all given you far more of our time than you deserve

trouble is, you cant provide one valid piece of evidence that Creationism is what actually happend to make anyone want to invest their time in checking out crackpot theories.

trouble is, until you start giving people due respect of all our invested time in this thread and critique the evidence you've yet to read, there is no reason to suspect you are genuinely asking any kind of question at all.

trouble is, you're wasting all this time worthlessly arguing that could be put to better use, if you are remotely genuine in your requests.
post #423 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't operate according to your schedule. Sorry.

every time you write a sentance, you could have read a paragraph of the evidence, so what is more important? Endlessly arguing, or researching the evidence you asked for?
post #424 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
trouble is, you cant provide one valid piece of evidence that Creationism is what actually happend to make anyone want to invest their time in checking out crackpot theories.

That's not what the book is about. Try it.
post #425 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That's not what the book is about. Try it.

I know that, and I might read it if you go away for a few days, and read the evidence you have been given and come back and have a mature converstation. Until you show an ounce of decency and respect, you have no business asking people for more of their time, when you are intentionally wasting the time they have already invested in you.
post #426 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
when you are intentionally wasting the time they have already invested in you.

I'm not forcing you to be here...so you are the one wasting your time if you see it that way.
post #427 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I can also be sure that you (or Carson or giant or rageous) won't be reading the book I've suggested anytime soon either.

What you consistently fail to grasp is that you are sitting in a sea of evidence pointing toward evolution ('tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles,' as SciAm notes), and yet you have brought nothing to the table.

Secondly, if someone came on AO and claimed that DNA doesn't exists, a) I'm not suddenly compelled to go research DNA and b) if he doesn't have a background in medicine, then why should anyone listen to his skeptism?

You bring no expertise to the table and have done nothing but troll this thread.
post #428 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You mean showing the possibility of evolutionary trees.

We all recognize the hubris of declaring absolutism in these matters. I know what you mean. But this imbroglio isn't about possibilities really. It's about believing and believing in what the measurements, observations, studies, ie facts, say.

Genetics came after evolutionary theory came about. A long time after it in fact. You'd think that if the evolutionary model was wrong, genetic studies would bare it out, but to the contrary, it enhanced the model and made it more accurate, both in time and cladistic relations. That's a long way from possibility. To deny the truth of it is to deny our forensic, logic capabilities, ie, the data.

Possibilities are for when there is a lack of evidence. This isn't the case. There is a preponderance of evidence. That you and others choose to ignore this evidence or deny the validity of this evidence speaks more about what you want to believe than what the evidence is telling you to believe.
post #429 of 430
Can we lock this thread,
post #430 of 430
My theory is correct : this thread is also a failure.

Locked
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