creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

It doesn't really matter does it riley? I mean the odds that YOU could possibly see past your memorized sound bytes and anticpiated answeres to creationist questions are what? 1 in ten billion? so pre rehearsed is this trash I'm seeing I swear I'm reading in stereo between you and David

YOU MUST include abiogenesis or lamarkism if you want me to believe anything at all as I said in my first post and Ill say it again. Charles Darwins first book was titled "Origin" of species was it not? Not where we left off on species or the "in beteween the start and the last ones " it is compulsory to the existence of the entire theory to know what it was the first ancestor the primordal soup and that as I recall was a complete and utter flop. Davids link is nothing but an explanation of things already debunked YEARS ago and is why (ill say it again) Dawkins can not prove it and neither can either of YOU! It is why sharks are still sharks alligators are still alligators, why 50 million year old fossils of cock roaches are still look like cock roaches must I go on?!

How much more embarrassement must I have to see you endure!

HA HA HA HA HA Nothing changes NOTHING! HA HA HA HA HA

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

---

If you'd care to learn, the book was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The "origin" he's talking about isn't where life came from, but how each species came into being. That logically allows examination of life starting from, but not including, the beginning. You see, science is great like that - you can work on a small part of it, and because the scientific method doesn't have an axe to grind, you can be fairly certian all pieces of the puzzle fit together. Now imagine a group of Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, all working on different parts of the religious alternative, and see if they all gel together. Good luck.

You clearly have NO idea about evolution, or abiogenesis, and now you've recently demonstrated: statistics (as you are seemingly able to pluck numbers out of thin air and believe them (rather like your choice of deity)). But I digress.

You are not going to learn anything here. We, on the other side of this "debate", are learning - we're learning just how ignorant and stubborn "believers" can be when they've been indoctrinated, and when so much stability and happiness in their lives depends on their irrational belief in a very specific cloud-surfing geriatric do-gooder.

So, my advice to you, as one person to another, is to bow out gracefully, as you're not going to win this one. You lost when you started to debate. Sorry. I still love you as a person, though. This isn't personal.

The biggest problem that Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents have with the argument is that they really don't have anything designated as the person/thing doing the creating/designing. Unfortunately, that generally leads them by default to some kind of supernatural explanation, using some kind of entity, very loosely and very poorly defined as "God." That's the biggest flaw of their argument.

But, actually and perhaps a little ironically, that whole "God" concept may not be key to the argument at all. Because the "intelligence" behind creation and evolution could just as easily be you or me or a functional matrix of us all.

The trick is that time is most likely not as linear as we understand it, and because consciousness is a quantum-level activity, it is also not limited by what we perceive as the ordinary flow of time. The linearity of time is a hidden assumption in the argument, and there's nothing to indicate that assumption is valid, other than our own limited perception. Not a good way to frame an argument.

So combine the notion of non-linear time with the simple fact that our conscious intelligences, our minds, directly manipulate matter/energy all the time, and you have the potential for creation of reality from virtuality, as well as manipulation of biological process on a molecular scale, that doesn't have anything to do with "God," but merely the act of thinking, imagining, and living.

But, unfortunately, most of the proponents of Intelligent Design are rooting for there to be some kind of supernatural, externalized "God" in the mix, and don't particularly like the idea that we (all conscious, living things) are that very instrument of design they would like to prove up. That would be a big disappointment, huh?

Too bad, I guess. There are some basic sticking questions -- such as how life can form from a batch of non-living chemicals, and what caused that big tear in virtual spacetime that let the Universe in -- that can be addressed with the idea of trans-temporal or reverse-temporal conscious manipulation. If they would just let go of that clunky, undefinable notion of God.

Look for the middle ground of the debate. That's my suggestion. The notion of Intelligent Design is not all bad, but it doesn't necessarily automatically lead to the conclusion that the religious want, or the non-religious reject.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Nohup]

I agree with this 100% I don't know if you were alive back then but I remember when this was the same problem evolutionists were wrestling with and if you were you'd noticed they had changed their position umpteen times now saying evolution doesn't speak to a begining of man.

I'm wondering if Dave was alive 6 months ago back when i see he has only recently began using thier latest language ploy merging macro and micro evolution to mean the same things. This was something I was emailed about by a member here actually warning me of this in a prediction that this would be their next order of tactical compliance. Looking back on it I have to say the person was correct. I have seen other members pick this apart one named Jphish who does an excellent job explaining this but since I know this IS a tactic per-se that tells me they have no intention of seeing past their own two seprate definitions they were defending in two different ways not 6 months ago.

ID is doing a similar change in their science as one whose only area of study will be to keep evolution just where it is, in the laughing stock of sciences. They are only concerned now with debunking evolution and getting recognised as that kind of science that specializes in skeptisim about a science that for too long has gotten away with too many hoax's too much bullcrap and uses linguistic programming so much and so often it is noticed. The fact is evolution is NOT a science, it is a theory, it is NOT a fact it is pipe dream and I don't know how many times I have to say this but I am not a "fundie" I am not religious I don't go to church or any of that sort of thing. I totally believe in evolution I just can't deal with what atheists are doing to it making it something it is NOT or at least has no concrete evidence of. I studied Biology in College getting straight A's it was not that hard to understand and ignorant is NOT what I am just because Dave can't answer the same question Dawkins couldn't in the post both he and riley passed over in favor of insulting me.

Typical of both of them but it still doesn't offer anything in the way of proof os s single smidgen of a reason for me to buy that trash Dave passes off as fact when it is a LIE and he is a liar

To assume we have ever changed species has never been seen and every attempt to synthesize such a change has failed miserably from millers experiments to the recent ones done with e-coli bacteria where the only thing that happened is a change in diet. That is a far cry from changing species much less phyla or another kind of bacteria. I know of no such transitional form that hasn't been disproven either. So many fakes so many hastily made conclusions only to be debunked 6 months later. I mean it is absolutely a joke an ongoing gut buster of a pathetic joke and I think it's long past its novelty and we can all go home now.

Evolution,, the show is over


[edit on 14-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

Prove the existence of Brain power on an evolutionary standard. The brain is organized, its structured its so complex that we can't even harness its tech with the most sophisticated piece of technology we have now days. The cerebellum is the most sophisticated computer in the world, there is nothing that can even come close to our intelligence. So, tell me how does evolution create such sophistication according to the way evolution works? how does it decide what do to next? how does it know to structure and organize in complex patterns? How come it looks like as if someone designed the human body more than our bodies just "happened" to happen. there's more to this how do people know things they don't know? or how does an "idea" form?


www.brainsource.com...



snippet from the website:

Four pounds and several thousand miles of interconnected nerve cells (about 100 billion) control every movement, thought, sensation, and emotion that comprise the human experience. Within the brain and spinal cord there are ten thousand distinct varieties of neurons, trillions of supportive cells, a few more trillion synaptic connections, a hundred known chemical regulating agents, miles of minuscule blood vessels, axons ranging from a few microns to well over a foot and a half in length, and untold mysteries of how—almost flawlessly—all these components work together. This is the amazing brain.

Exploring the brain's anatomy, functional architecture, and neurofunctional systems provides the foundation for appreciating the neurobehavioral basis of ordinary daily functioning, creative processes, expression of talents, adjusting to brain injury, and psychopathology.





Keeper

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

---

No, the biggest problem with Creationism/ID is there is no logical reason to assume a creator had anything to do with how we ended up with the life forms we have today. If someone who understands evolution (ie not you) looks at the evidence, they don't feel the need to say "but where is the creator?", as they will understand just how it works. Of course, if you don't understand it, you'll ask that question. Just as a kid will ask his parents where the sun goes at night, if they don't understand that the earth is round. Just because you feel the need to ask the question doesn't validate your presumptions about the answer.

It's not science's fault you can't understand evolution. It's the fault of your educators. Clearly you've not been taught how to think for yourself. Any rational, sane individual can look at the evidence, and completely understand what's happening. It takes a warped and twisted perspective on the world to not be able to follow very simple logic, and very simple logic is all that's needed to understand evolution.

Again, you have my deepest sympathies.

If you know so much more than I david, then debate me. I don't think you have any clue to how much you don't know about darwinian evolution much less know how much more I will shove down your little mind you have never thought of as it is too recent for you to have googled like the rest of what you know, which by the way isn't much.

Just the typical Atheist handbook on dealing with creationists but not the REAL kind of stuff you get with a Great education and the brains to match.

Anytime you or or your freaky friends want to have an ATS debate on ANY part of Biology David, you just let me know Dave. Ill be more than happy to humiliate you with Science

[edit on 16-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

What's the point of debating with someone who simply can not follow a logical argument? You are incapable of understanding evolution. There. I said it. Something must have happened to you as a child, in your education, that has stopped you from being able to follow basic logic. The evidence is there. An 8-year-old can understand evolution. It's one of the most simple theories science has offered us - that's why it's so beautiful. It doesn't rely on increasingly-more-ridiculous assertions (creator, etc.) to make sense - it makes sense just fine on its own.

Debating with you would be like debating a brick wall. Pointless. It's no skin of my nose - I can learn all day long if I want to. You seem to be stuck in the bottom of a pit of ignorance - the worst thing is, you seem quite happy.

No Dave it wasn't called that. it was titled "Origin of Species PERIOD!

the rest of that already debunked drivel has already been debunked to the point Dawkins finally admits it.

Scientific Method? ha ha ha what is that Dave? Can you tell me? I know every peer reviewer has wondered that too and always ask what was the scientific method each review used. Most don't even ask anymore but one thing is always the same and that is that no two scientific methods are the same but they all CLAIM the same silly idea that logic is completely devoid of any bias and THAT is totally illogical

Dave must you always resort to this draconian idiotic ad-hom attacks suggesting their is something wrong with my mental abilities and faculties? I mean it's such a canned atheist response and really doesn't help your credibility,, I mean it makes people that do that kind of thing look like a jerk. You don't want to be a jerk do ya dave?

If you can't debate, then fine I understand why, so just say no thanks or simply no without all the sillyness

[edit on 16-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

I understand why too. No debate exists.

The evolution VS creationism debate only exists in the minds of the ignorant.

You can't argue with someone that refuses to except information that you believe in. I believe in science. If you believe in something else that is just fine, but you can't use magic or the bible or anything else that isn't science to debate science.

Who said anything about the Bible? Or creationism for that matter. I am a believer in evolution I just do not believe evolution can explain how we came from a common ancestor.