It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No prob, I was just having fun schooling Stranerous in our debate (at least I'd like to think I was) when you came along and totally decemated him/her. I'm young yet and have much to learn so I though me Vs. strangerous was a fair fight. You coming in is like hunting rabbits with nuclear weapons.


Sorry... if Strangerous shows back up... I can lay off.




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Surely only the foolish, the gullible or those with bible-addled brains would deny that the basic principles of Evolution are correct.

really, only someone who has a major beef with religion would make such a harsh and uninformed judgment. ToE has its holes as well. Maybe you would like to explain to me how life came into being. I would love to hear it.


On the one hand we have well over a hundred years of scientific study on a global basis that supports Evolution.

again, how did it start? How does something that is not alive become alive?


How life was originally formed from its chemical precursor has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution. The ToE only describes how life has changed during its march through history, not how it came to be. I know it seems like a small deal, but it's actually a major distinction and it's one that IDers, YECers and OECers need to realize before they step into a debate on the subject. For all the ranting about how much one side doesn't know the other's argument, it's a road that runs both ways and, in my opinion, isn't patrolled heavily enough.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

How life was originally formed from its chemical precursor has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution. The ToE only describes how life has changed during its march through history, not how it came to be.
the conversation had changed due to Strangerous coming in and attacking ID, in a vary disrespectful way. So I asked him/her some questions.

I know it seems like a small deal, but it's actually a major distinction and it's one that IDers, YECers and OECers need to realize before they step into a debate on the subject.
I know that thank you. I have been watching this discussion develop, I only really stepped in to ask Strangerous questions because they had kind of cheesed me off how they came in and degraded a intellagent conversation.

For all the ranting about how much one side doesn't know the other's argument, it's a road that runs both ways and, in my opinion, isn't patrolled heavily enough.
I fully agree with you. I would not have broached abiogenesis had Strangerous not come in and said what he/she said.
peace
Mr Mx



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
this was such a nice thread before it was jacked by strangerous

so can we stop talking about his comments and focus on the article i presented in the initial post



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
For 'intelligent' people you all seem to be very lacking in the spelling department!

Perhaps your English skills reflect your intellectual capacities?

I'll just leave you lightweights to your little fairy story debate then!

You all seem happy telling yourselves it's all true. FWIW ID is clearly rubbish and until some evidence is provided to back up this creator nonsense that's what I and the vast majority of educated people will continue to believe.

The mutual self-delusion of the foolish IMO (read Marx).

S. Out



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
For 'intelligent' people you all seem to be very lacking in the spelling department!

Perhaps your English skills reflect your intellectual capacities?

I'll just leave you lightweights to your little fairy story debate then!

You all seem happy telling yourselves it's all true. FWIW ID is clearly rubbish and until some evidence is provided to back up this creator nonsense that's what I and the vast majority of educated people will continue to believe.

The mutual self-delusion of the foolish IMO (read Marx).

S. Out


Nice way to bow out...

That's great... nice rebuttal... spelling mistakes


Perhaps your turning tail and running reflects YOUR intellectual capacity... or at least knowledge of origins biology.

We'll still be here... if you ever grow a spine.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
For 'intelligent' people you all seem to be very lacking in the spelling department!

I've noted one or two by you as well


Perhaps your English skills reflect your intellectual capacities?

mmm... personal attacks, the last bastion of the weak minded


I'll just leave you lightweights to your little fairy story debate then!

dude, you were getting owned.


You all seem happy telling yourselves it's all true. FWIW ID is clearly rubbish and until some evidence is provided to back up this creator nonsense that's what I and the vast majority of educated people will continue to believe.

a creator is neither proveable nor dis proveable


The mutual self-delusion of the foolish IMO (read Marx).

This is not worthy of a rebuttal




[edit on 10-6-2006 by Mr Mxyztplk]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I personally don't understand IDism ... Irriducibly Complex, Specified Complexity etc .. The SC is a new one for me, I don't dwell on idiocy issues much. They come up with this argument recently or something? They finally given up on getting B-ed slapped with their IC claims? What give's? The SC link was somewhat an interesting read, but the analogies ... wtf man, are people really that stupid? Do they really think using idiocy analogies on the stupid will "prove" IDism? Or did they just come up with SC as a joke?

Sorry if I'm not knowledgable in this subject, but I would really like to know if that site you linked to is just a joke site or if it's something people actually think is true.

Atleast provide some links that are abit more serious about Specified Complexity.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
I personally don't understand IDism ... Irriducibly Complex, Specified Complexity etc .. The SC is a new one for me, I don't dwell on idiocy issues much. They come up with this argument recently or something? They finally given up on getting B-ed slapped with their IC claims? What give's? The SC link was somewhat an interesting read, but the analogies ... wtf man, are people really that stupid? Do they really think using idiocy analogies on the stupid will "prove" IDism? Or did they just come up with SC as a joke?

Sorry if I'm not knowledgable in this subject, but I would really like to know if that site you linked to is just a joke site or if it's something people actually think is true.

Atleast provide some links that are abit more serious about Specified Complexity.


Yes, and produkt returns, espousing the same usual batch of nothing...

What's your deal Produkt, do you have a moderator who's your bud? Is that how you've managed to slip under the radar? Just curious.

Produkts arguments have never amounted to much just a lot of mudslinging, and calling things stupid.

Whether or not evolution is true... produkt certainly hasn't evolved.


So, produkt do you care to back up exactly WHY this is stupid, or were you just going to call names, sling mud, and fully drag the thread down to the bottom of the barrel.

Dragging threads to lowests depths seems to be your talent... so I guess we shouldn't expect much else.

For awhile Produkt was SINGLEHANDEDLY keeping the O & C forum at ATS in the dregs. I imagine he can do it again... he is talented like that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell, quoting obscure sources to justify a made-up theory created to make a fairy-story book fit the known facts.

Not a question of 'spine' or my intellectual capacity just that you guys aren't interested in debate, but are convinced by a theory that just doesn't stand up to examination.

ID has been destroyed numerous times by scientists and academics and is generally recognised as complete BS

It's only viewed as valid in parts of the USofA (strangely the same place they refuse to allow true debate about global warming [of which there is masses of evidence] they support & promote a theory of some mythical creator for which there is no empirical evidence at all.

You're all convinced that this crazy load of nonsense has more validity than a theory supported by 95%+ of the World's scientists; therefore there's no point in discussing it with you.


FWIW I agreed with the original post but the stuff that followed was just pure toss



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Ah ok, after a search on the 'dreaded' wikipedia, finally found out that Specified Complexity is definatly a new IDist concept created by the beloved Dembski.

Here's the link to the article, more specificly the criticism's. en.wikipedia.org...


Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[21]


Can't argue there really. Would be interesting to see an attempt though.

This looks like a decent critique against Specified Complexity. Quick Question though ... Is Dembski really serious or does he just pretend to be so ridiculously stupid? He does realize that just because he says so doesn't make it so?

Ooops, linkage .. sry www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov...

[edit on 10-6-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell, quoting obscure sources to justify a made-up theory created to make a fairy-story book fit the known facts.

What obscure source have I quoted?


Not a question of 'spine' or my intellectual capacity just that you guys aren't interested in debate, but are convinced by a theory that just doesn't stand up to examination.

Then please disprove God.


ID has been destroyed numerous times by scientists and academics and is generally recognised as complete BS

Really? Then show me some links for that. BTW it's “recognized” just so you know for the future, don't want anyone disregarding your argument due to spelling errors.


It's only viewed as valid in parts of the USofA (strangely the same place they refuse to allow true debate about global warming [of which there is masses of evidence] they support & promote a theory of some mythical creator for which there is no empirical evidence at all.

This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. I think that you think that I think (try saying that five times fast) the world was created in seven days. I don't think that.


You're all convinced that this crazy load of nonsense has more validity than a theory supported by 95%+ of the World's scientists; therefore there's no point in discussing it with you.

Yes they believe in evolution, but now I want you to prove that 95% of that 95% don't believe in god.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the laughs, Prot0n.
You always crack me up with your posts.

I thought the link did touch on some misconceptions or what have you concerning evolution. But, I can kind of see where some call it a straw man; it's somewhat similar to the hit piece by Popular Mechanics on 9/11. But, I guess a top 10 list is kind of subjective, anyway.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   


Then please disprove God.


Start a thread, pick a god. Any god. Why pick something so easy anyways? Let's work on harder issues, like fostering tolerance, world peace, aboloshing world hunger. Do we really need more example's of ignorance and people's need's to 'belong to something greater'? Last thing we need is Dembski and Behe starting a 'holy' war over IDism lol. People can only be B-ed slapped so many time's with their own arguments before they eventually snap and lose it.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n



Then please disprove God.


Start a thread, pick a god. Any god.


Dude, was a challenge to Strangerous. I'm not going to try and disprove what I believe in.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I understand it was a challenge to him. If he doesn't wish to pursue it, I'd be interested. Which diety to you bow down to anyways? I'm assuming it's the christian diety?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Sorry. Not going to be that easy, I'm agnostic. I think that there is a God but we are not able to know anything about him/her/it. God would exist out side the universe , and anything outside the universe is unknowable. Anyone who says that they know anything about God is most likely trying to sell you something.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell, quoting obscure sources to justify a made-up theory created to make a fairy-story book fit the known facts.

What obscure source have I quoted?


Not a question of 'spine' or my intellectual capacity just that you guys aren't interested in debate, but are convinced by a theory that just doesn't stand up to examination.

Then please disprove God.


ID has been destroyed numerous times by scientists and academics and is generally recognised as complete BS

Really? Then show me some links for that. BTW it's “recognized” just so you know for the future, don't want anyone disregarding your argument due to spelling errors.


It's only viewed as valid in parts of the USofA (strangely the same place they refuse to allow true debate about global warming [of which there is masses of evidence] they support & promote a theory of some mythical creator for which there is no empirical evidence at all.

This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. I think that you think that I think (try saying that five times fast) the world was created in seven days. I don't think that.


You're all convinced that this crazy load of nonsense has more validity than a theory supported by 95%+ of the World's scientists; therefore there's no point in discussing it with you.

Yes they believe in evolution, but now I want you to prove that 95% of that 95% don't believe in god.


No mate you prove our version of God exists and I'll look at the evidence (Easter Bunny and Father Christmas too while you're at it).

It's 'Recognise' in England, you know where English comes from! I wouldn't presume to pick up on your crazy colonial spelling of our language,that would be rude and frankly 'unchristian'.

Why do Americans always forget that the rest of the World is a different country, with different ways of doing things - we spell differently, write dates differently - it's really not that difficult a theory to grasp.

However it's decImate and intellIgent al over the World rather than the random vowel use we've seen earlier.

Can't be bothered to look back but obscure sources and authors have been quoted in this post - many of whom don't appear to be scientists with, you know, degrees and stuff in the subject they pupport to experts on!

Whether it was you or not I don't know (BTW never said it was)

'I think that you think that I think' ... Que? this is spurious, circular, nit-picking.

ID was invented in the US, no-one else takes it all seriously, no-one else is so gullible / bible-addled.

I said 95%+ of the World's scientists believe evolution over this ID nonsense, how many believe in God is irrelevant - many people can square a scientific knowledge of how life works with a theoretical belief in 'God' (whatever floats your boat).

It's only fundamentalists who can't achieve this balance - hence its popularity in the US - where I believe it's illegal to teach evolution as a valid theory in certain parts.

That, to me, demonstrates a crucial flaw in intellectual capacity and shows that the power of fundamenalist christian lobbies has been allowed to go much, much too far.

Only in America...



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

No mate you prove our version of God exists and I'll look at the evidence (Easter Bunny and Father Christmas too while you're at it).

Yet again I say that God is neither provable nor disprovable.


It's 'Recognise' in England, you know where English comes from! I wouldn't presume to pick up on your crazy colonial spelling of our language,that would be rude and frankly 'unchristian'.

ummm. So animals can evolve but language can't? BTW I not Christian.


Why do Americans always forget that the rest of the World is a different country, with different ways of doing things - we spell differently, write dates differently - it's really not that difficult a theory to grasp.

Dude you were the one who brought up the spelling issue not me.


Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell,

Or do you deny saying this?




'I think that you think that I think' ... Que? this is spurious, circular, nit-picking.

No it isn't, and you still think I am Christian.


ID was invented in the US, no-one else takes it all seriously, no-one else is so gullible / bible-addled.

So your saying that no one else anywhere on the planet believe in both science and religion?

[quote] many people can square a scientific knowledge of how life works with a theoretical belief in 'God'
Dude that would be ID


It's only fundamentalists who can't achieve this balance - hence its popularity in the US - where I believe it's illegal to teach evolution as a valid theory in certain parts.

hmmm I seem to have been able to do it. And yes you are right, the US is the only country with fundamentalists LOL

Okay man you came in here and went on a rant, you have attacked me personally and have disregarded or not even read my counter points. I am vary close to walking away from this correspondence if you do not stop the insults. I would like to continue this but you must chill out, Okay?
Peace
Mr Mx



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
people don't "believe" in science

they support a theory based on the amount of reseach that supports its claims

nobody "believes" in evolution, they may accept it as the most logical theory for speciation, but they don't belief isn't the issue



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join