• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Evolution isn't science"

What I don't understand is why the bible believers chose to believe something on the basis of no evidence, but then insist that there should be scientific evidence to support their leap of faith.
 
flume said:
What I don't understand is why the bible believers chose to believe something on the basis of no evidence, but then insist that there should be scientific evidence to support their leap of faith.
Click to expand...


That is the truly funny part. If the things described in the Bible really were miracles, why should they need science to prove them? If God produced a miracle, it should be impossible for science to measure or define it and the religious shouldn't be trying to find scientific reasons the Red Sea parted or how Lazarus was brought back to life. If it's science, it isn't a miracle!
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7947864133148073999&q=A+WAR+ON+SCIENCE

Watch it! Dawkins uninterrupted:
This video is cool, since it starts out with the creationist arguments. All of them, in detail, and then at the end they disprove them, one by one. That is why they lost the dover case.

Explained earlier in this topic is why Dembski's view was wrong, since he ignored proper variables, but they explore it a bit in the video, although not to the degree they needed to.

This topic explores why myths continue. It is because ID and creationist proponents mislead the public on science and evolution. They lie about it being antireligious, they are biased in their own usupportable "theories", and they create strawmen galore.

Actual science is fascinating. I only wish more religious people would actually open their minds to what it is actually about.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, you've kept me up 'til 2AM with that :)

One of the biggest questions it raised with me is how can it be so easy to become a professor while seemingly lacking serious ability in your chosen field. Dembski* in particular came across as having not even thought about his proposals properly.

OK having done a quick check, I'm not surprised how easy it is.



*the spell checker tried to change it to Dumbs.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7947864133148073999&q=A+WAR+ON+SCIENCE

Watch it! Dawkins uninterrupted:
This video is cool, since it starts out with the creationist arguments. All of them, in detail, and then at the end they disprove them, one by one. That is why they lost the dover case.
Click to expand...

Awesome. I've just watched the whole thing. Good thing I'm taping Battlestar Galactica!

Y'know, it was interesting to see the whole Dover episode from an outsider's perspective. They addressed some of the specific ID arguments without going into much detail, but that's okay. They looked at the basic philosophy of creationists (that their god is essentially a God of the Gaps), their sleazy underhanded PR manipulations, and general bullheadedness.

Actual science is fascinating. I only wish more religious people would actually open their minds to what it is actually about.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Creationists just clutch their Bibles like security blankets, so afraid of the big bad confusing world that doesn't revolve around humankind, let alone their brand of Xianity.

Yay for Father Coyne for recognizing that. He was the only openly religious person who didn't have his head stuck up his a$$ or buried in the sand.
 
jesus_freak said:
Can you explain please?
Click to expand...

Sadly, this was the last post by JF. He does not quite understand that mountains were and are being built out of collisions of plates out of sedimentary soils that once upon a time were ocean bottoms.

I don't know if he will be back... but he certainly missing out on lots of interesting Earth history.
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Sadly, this was the last post by JF. He does not quite understand that mountains were and are being built out of collisions of plates out of sedimentary soils that once upon a time were ocean bottoms.

I don't know if he will be back... but he certainly missing out on lots of interesting Earth history.
Click to expand...

Our tax dollars at work.
This dynamic Earth a publication for the layman from the U.S. Geological Survey.

(maybe we have a lurker or two who will read it. I gave up on JF)
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Sadly, this was the last post by JF. He does not quite understand that mountains were and are being built out of collisions of plates out of sedimentary soils that once upon a time were ocean bottoms.

I don't know if he will be back... but he certainly missing out on lots of interesting Earth history.
Click to expand...

Can't say as I expect him to be back, but as this was the first I've seen a YEC come in and try to fan the flames, I found it very educational. It seemed like he believed he had a firm understanding of how to refute evolution using canned arguments. After a very short time of pointing out his errors/misunderstandings/misquotes, he was far enough outside his comfort zone that he resorted to link spamming. From publications that were often easily shown to be incorrect no less.

I know it's all old hat to you guys, but it was new to me.
 
Wavicle said:
Can't say as I expect him to be back, but as this was the first I've seen a YEC come in and try to fan the flames, I found it very educational. It seemed like he believed he had a firm understanding of how to refute evolution using canned arguments. After a very short time of pointing out his errors/misunderstandings/misquotes, he was far enough outside his comfort zone that he resorted to link spamming. From publications that were often easily shown to be incorrect no less.

I know it's all old hat to you guys, but it was new to me.
Click to expand...

Did you overlook the appeals to preaching or just ignore them? That's pretty much the standard M.O. for Creationists that are have watched a Hovind tape, had a guest speaker at church or just read the "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter." Blast with PRATTs, when the PRATTs are debunked, go to quote mining, then start preaching usually with the Bible Hammer and references to Judgement all wrapped up in package of rhetoric and bombast rather than any actual evidence.

If we're lucky they'll give up and run off. If they're nuts, as a lot of Creationists appear to be, they just keep coming back with more PRATTs, more quote mines, more preaching, and worse, keep repeating things they have been shown are incorrect.

You should come over to Christian Forums with me and check out some of the crazier characters over there. At least the ignorant ones will try and learn something. The instranisgents do little more than piss people off.
 
What the heck kind of discussion technique is that? I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I for Christ? Annoying in the name of the Lord? Winning arguments by nanny-nanny-boo-boo?
 
jesus_freak said:
Is it an evolutionary miracle that that give or take a few percentage points humans reproduce at a 50% male to female ratio. How does evolution know to do something like this? Let me guess over a long period of time it figured it out for its self?
Click to expand...
Did you ever stop to think it might have to do with simple probability? There are 2 x chromosomes from the mother and an xy combo of chromosomes from the father and the children inherit one form each. That gives you half xx and half xy approximately.

And besides that, half of each gender isn't necessary. Many species do just fine with different ratios and not every individual needs to reproduce for species survival. Your rationale is baseless.

How does evolution know? Evolution is a process, not an entity with a brain. The process works quite well and the results are exactly as predicted by our knowledge of the process. In fact, we find the theory of evolution is testable. The results are consistent with the theory. And beyond that, we can manipulate the process and obtain the predicted results.

What you are essentially saying is that because you have not learned the details of the theory of evolution, the theory isn't correct.
 
Well there I go again, replying to what I thought was the last page of posts only to find I was on page 11 of 18.

[Gilda voice]Nevermind.[/Gilda voice]

No, wait, it was the last page but when I followed back to the previous JF post someone else replied to, it was on page 11. Oh good, at least I'm not completely daft.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
Is it an evolutionary miracle that that give or take a few percentage points humans reproduce at a 50% male to female ratio. How does evolution know to do something like this? Let me guess over a long period of time it figured it out for its self?
Click to expand...

Well, it's expected. There are two possibilities, so you expect them to even out, more or less.

That explains my feathers, I was wondering what that was all about.
Click to expand...

Are you making an ass of yourself on purpose ? Are you flaunting your ignorance for a good reason ?

Taller than when a few hundred years ago? I'll give you that...A few thousand years ago? you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Based on what ?

Again are we living longer than humans did a few hundred years ago?...I'm sure...but are we living longer than we were before disease or before the ozone was depleted or before man ate only vegatation...
Click to expand...

"Before" disease ?

Please stop using a single, debunked and self-contradicting source for your "knowledge".

Evolve into animals that require both sexes to reproduce...begging the question had did the first human reproduce...oh oh wait I know by the time we evolved into humans we were already male and female
Click to expand...

Obviously. You could benefit from reading elementary school textbooks on such matters.
 
skeptigirl said:
And besides that, half of each gender isn't necessary. Many species do just fine with different ratios and not every individual needs to reproduce for species survival. Your rationale is baseless.
Click to expand...


True. I've heard (from Dawkins?) that among elephant seals, only 5% of the males are allowed to mate because the most dominant males have jealously guarded "harems". The other 95% contribute nothing to the gene pool.

Apparently, it works for the elephant seals, as only the best 5% of male genes get passed down.
 
jesus_freak said:
Is it an evolutionary miracle that that give or take a few percentage points humans reproduce at a 50% male to female ratio. How does evolution know to do something like this? Let me guess over a long period of time it figured it out for its self?
Click to expand...

Dawkins described very eloquently how sexes most likely evolved. In his description there are two niches for reproductive cells; one in which the cell is large and carries needed nutrients, but is immobile and in small numbers, and another in which the cell is mobile and numerous but cannot survive for long on its own. It is natural, then, that one group of cells within a species will gravitate towards one niche, and the other will gravitate to the opposite extreme. The individual organisms that produce these cells then evolve to best take advantage of the way that their reproductive cells work.

The only mystery in human sexuality is that, contrary to most other animals, humans treat the males, not the females, as if they were "commodities" to be won. That is why females are the pretty ones among humans (to attract males), while males are prettier in much of the rest of the animal kingdom (to attract females).
 
jesus_freak said:
Wow even before they existed?
Click to expand...

Since bacteria are likely to be some of the first lifeforms on Earth, I think it's safe to say that diseases ALWAYS existed.

And send is only begotten Son to die for out sins for that we may inherit everlasting life.
Click to expand...

How does that work, exactly ? He didn't really die, die he ? And there's still sin, isn't there ?

I can only gice give you credit for 1 out of 4.OHHH 25% thats not passing!
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering what you're hoping to achieve with that attitude.

NOOOOOOO, and I thought they were honest people working for an honest pay.
Click to expand...

Honest people can't screw up ? That's a new one.

There are far more scientists that accept evolution than do not.
Click to expand...

You would love to believe that wouldn't you...
Click to expand...

I can't believe you can be this dense. Obviously, if this weren't true, evolution wouldn't be widely accepted. The two are mutually-dependent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom