Debate still rages over Darwin

yay amers back with his copy paste arguments and twisted double speak and herrings of the red variety he claim to be the work of evilutionists

same challenge to you then

accurate scientific deffinition of macro evolution please and reason based on that ACCURATE (no answers in genesis[literally] deffinitions which are wrong) deffintion why micro exists and macro doesnt

and great argument on the we have a word for inviibale so it must be real

we have a word for multipul gods does that mean christianity is wrong and theres plenty of them?

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Thus at the end of the day, when all is said and done, all that matters is the very unromantic here and now.

mmm still governed by time are you ,,. I often wonder why we meter our gamestate in such a way. It's like living life on dialup in a gameworld of lan players with a zero ping using artificial lag when all is said and done.


yeah not too romantic but what ever floats your boat

Originally posted by Hellish-D
The debate doesn't rage on. Evidence for evolution is there, and creationists go "no it's not, neener neener neener

"

It's not a debate, it's complaining by the ignoramuses of the world.

Isn't that ironic! I see the evidence left by the creator everywhere I look and evolutionists say I don't neener nener neeener !

Sometimes I think they really DON'T see it and are dead serious.

Originally posted by atoms.2008

I

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

From the folks that do the work....
tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...
www.pbs.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.asa3.org...
pandasthumb.org...
scienceblogs.com...
www.answersincreation.org...
rtis.com...

Evidence of macroevolution:
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by lordtyp0

(chopped out my reply from above for DB conservation)

"Ideas and limits like this are simply poppycock and self imposed."
The above is rather a nonsensical statement. Interesting anthropomorphism on ideas. Very Plato.

Either way, points for using the word 'poppycock' while blatantly trying to romanticize and redefine what science is.

--

"Show me where the one horned equine is and I will show you how to prove it. This is easy to do once you know how providing of course this isn't a trick and there really isn't the intangible horned beast housed in your garage and you are only saying that in some kind of sardonic analogy for why one cannot prove the alpha and omega. I see that ploy used here often and i simply don't get it why such an obvious logical fallacy ad ignoratium is used so much moreover why it is not exploited for the device that it is."

The whole idea of my statement was how selective people are with what preposterous notions we have. A Christian thinks Shiva is preposterous etc. Yet all religions have the exact same proofs going for them. Warm fuzzy feelings and old books that cant be proven with anything but-warm fuzzy feelings. Was a statement on cherry picking the lame. Unicorns = dumb. Talking snakes seducing a rib woman? Plausible. etc. etc.


"You wouldn't be using it in that way would you ?"
I prefer to be move obtuse than that.


"If no one had a concept for things that are invisible, we wouldn't have a word to describe such common phenomena."

Riiiiight.
So, just because we have a name for something, means its valid and real? Thats a super dangerous admission. In this case, in a dark room when I cannot see it is all 'invisible' ie: not visible. This does not mean the unicorn is having its way with my roast beef sandwich.


"Love? You believe it exists?

Ambition? exists?"

These are descriptions of states. Therefor no. They do not exist as absolute form. They describe the state of-presumably-a living intelligent creature able to describe what they are experiencing.

But I counter this with self-imposed definitions. Can you describe "love" without saying "Love"?
---


when was the last time you spied the skys above you for many hours with infra red and saw the many varied craft doging in and out of this dimension?

"Dimension"? "craft"?
Are you talking pop-sci dimension? You talking mathmatical representation to balance an equation? You talking the crappy movie company? By crafts U am thinking you aren't meaning macrome and or scrapbooking?

Or was that just a sentence of emotive appeal buzzwords?

This thread is about science and evolution-whether or not its valid to argue against something that is integral in many sciences.

I do not need to be aware of the electrons shooting through my laptop right now to understand pressing keys in a certain order will yield certain results-if they do not: There is a problem. I know this because this is how it was designed. If you say my laptop runs and gremlins and I say gerbils.. doesn't change anything. It does not change the fact my laptop is running and allowing me to type on this website right this minute.

Perception, faith, belief... Such words in this context blind us. Everyone wants to believe grandma and fido are in better places. Not having proof does not invalidate the idea that they COULD be. Asking for proof is not a fight against an idea either. It is asking for a shared data stream.

It simply means we have to be adults and go about what we know-if you swallow anti-freeze-you're probably gonna die no matter how many snakes you dance with while screaming gibberish.


Everything has its place-ultimately. ID Isn't science. It has nothing to do with whether one person is an atheist and one person is faithful. Nothing at all. Evolution doesn't even hit at an origin of life. That isnt what the theory is about.

The analogy is this: soy 'meat' is not meat. You can make it look as close to meat as you like. It did not come from an animal.
But if you sell it as such-you are a fraud. Its veggie patte.

Call things what they are already. We need more disambiguation around this forum I think.
(edit, formatting and typos)


[edit on 7-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Thus at the end of the day, when all is said and done, all that matters is the very unromantic here and now.

mmm still governed by time are you ,,. I often wonder why we meter our gamestate in such a way. It's like living life on dialup in a gameworld of lan players with a zero ping using artificial lag when all is said and done.


yeah not too romantic but what ever floats your boat

Those are some really bizarre analogies and metaphors for what constitutes science I must say. And, I dare say its all gibberish.

reply to post by Pauligirl

AND
reply to post by Leto


The sources in your posts show separate distinct species. Nothing In Between

To use some of lordtyp0's words:
"Macro-evolution" is not science. Science requires the statements to be tested. If the statement cannot be tested-it cannot conform to the criteria of science. It does not deserve to be taught as scientific anything. It is just an idea someone had.

So, again I Say:

I'm afraid Darwin was wrong...

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

----------------------------

Yet observation of Micro-evolution Within an ORGANISM (ie: bacteria) is used to try to prove him right.

Before you paraphrase the typ0 take a gander at this.


(edit)
Just to add.

Whether macro is true or not, has nbo relevance. You see, science can adapt. As things are proven wrong or right, theorums are modified. Science WANTS to be proven wrong as this is what leads to breakthroughs and the million dollar approach.

You seem to have the idea that if on part is wrong, it all is. Thats a religious thought form. Most have that cept maybe bhuddism. (if it isnt taken literally the world means 'nothing' or similar in many cases).

I repeat. If a hypothesis does not make it to theory status. So what? it's ratified and tested again.


reply to post by atoms.2008




[edit on 7-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by atoms.2008
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

AND
reply to post by Leto

 

All appear fully formed and complete.

Of course they appear fully formed and complete. Anything less would have never survived. It's a gradual shift generally over long periods of time. As Hunt states in her FAQ "What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. "

In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates — but that description is a bit misleading. First, Tiktaalik is more accurately described as a transitional form than a missing link. Transitional forms help show the evolutionary steps leading from one lineage to another by displaying characteristics of both the ancestral and the new lineage. These character suites help us understand the order in which the traits of the new lineage evolved and what functions they served as they evolved. Tiktaalik, for example, had fins with thin ray bones, scales, and gills like most fish. However, it also had the sturdy wrist bones, neck, shoulders, and thick ribs of a four-legged vertebrate. Tiktaalik was specialized for life in shallow water, propping itself up on the bottom and snapping up prey. The adaptations it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones for vertebrates to climb onto dry land — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

The rest of the article explains it better than I can.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
The above is rather a nonsensical statement. Interesting anthropomorphism on ideas. Very Plato.

umm ,,, ok.

Do you usually find nonsense "interesting?"

Just wondering if I may missing out on something

Either way, points for using the word 'poppycock' while blatantly trying to romanticize and redefine what science is.

mmm Poppycock again then!

,mmmm I see my ats points have not changed = (

Blatantly? Why would their be any other way?

The whole idea of my statement was how selective people are with what preposterous notions we have. A Christian thinks Shiva is preposterous etc. Yet all religions have the exact same proofs going for them. Warm fuzzy feelings and old books that can’t be proven with anything but-warm fuzzy feelings. Was a statement on cherry picking the lame. Unicorns = dumb. Talking snakes seducing a rib woman? Plausible. Etc. etc.

In spite of your limited knowledge of those long time ago "old text" ( as if speculation on what we could imagine we would see as oh say an amphibian that comes out of the water on to land and becomes a lizard not just a long time ago but millions and millions of years ago. The 29 proofs of macroevolution have been long debunked on many threads here and again most are speculation based on the mis used terminology for predictions when they are more like playing armchair quarterback.

So this warm fuzzy feeling. This is curious, albeit it true, if I had even gained THAT much of a sensation reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, I would probably never would have had it relegated to its final resting place as a coffee table coaster or occasional table leg leveler.

My reading the old texts was only an interesting love letter. A very LONG love letter but reading it in as educated context as I could, the books central idea is very easy to grasp and when taking the steps for accessing the highest level of warm fuzzies, one may experience an epiphany of what can only be quantified by experiencing it yourself.

Much like the illustration, you caught me attempting to use on you with the word love and why that request will go under the same line of thinking.

Love is a state and then to many Scientists it is nothing more than phenylethlamine.

So, just because we have a name for something, means its valid and real? That’s a super dangerous admission.

Mmm not sure, what you are implying I said. The same can be said for the word evolution too but that was why I was asking because many times we have not seen things that are in fact real. Like Gravity for instance, it is invisible and a time long ago, we were taught how to prove its existence. I was merely asking if this was just some silly sophistry I have seen said by many Atheist's here who seem to assume they have a better grasp of science as not to allow me to redefine it ( as this seems to anger them when anyone trys to free it from its fixed opinions and religious like dogmas. )

"Dimension"? "craft"?
Are you talking pop-sci dimension? You talking mathematical representation to balance an equation? You talking the crappy movie company? By crafts U am thinking you aren't meaning macrome and or scrapbooking?

mmm perhaps I am using the wrong approach or language.

Spanish? German? help any?

These are descriptions of states. Therefor no. They do not exist as absolute form. They describe the state of-presumably-a living intelligent creature able to describe what they are experiencing.

But I counter this with self-imposed definitions. Can you describe "love" without saying "Love"?

Well there you have it then. it isn't the physical form I am housed in that defines me, it is my collective experiences that I have a knowingness and a frame of reference. If I were to splice mine on to yours, and you felt and seen and remembered all the experiences I have ever accumulated, I think you would have a much better appreciation for states as something more than a memeplex virus called religion. In fact, I know you would be acting a lot like Dr McCoy does when Spock put his essence in his own.

To exalt the physical carrier we use to enable us, I have always been curious why such topics arouse such toxic defenses as if the automobile is so much more worthy of study then those spiritual essences or souls perhaps that drive them.

This thread is about science and evolution-whether or not it is valid to argue against something that is integral in many sciences.

what right does anyone have to tell anyone what is integral in science or not? Science is a process, if they think it leads in only one genre or has no frontiers outside what we think we already know is true, who are we to invalidate that. Once you have had been enlightened to the extent that you can have confidence in death and know unequivocally it is nothing more than to discard what embodies your library of thoughts lessons and ideas, you can begin to understand what faith means.

I have faith in what I have gained experiential confidence in.

It seems however a more compelling reason why anyone would not want to argue against evolution is the utter complete waste of time and energy it requires on theory that may seem justify your need to be right when so many subscribing to this theory fear that need is in jeopardy.

Even while it like Darwin original theory from 1857 would not even be recognized by, chuck himself today.

If it is that important you have belief in this umm science, I know how important that is for whatever the reason, when we stand outside together at high noon, the sun is going to shine on BOTH of us.

Now THAT says more to me about the real difference between you and me than my assaulting your stable datum with what you would only deem as my ignorance of same.

You see, I do have what I can again say I have confidence in, and that is the knowing that what I am telling you, you may think is even more ignorance, makes no difference.

I have confidence in the fact you will know what I know and agree as sure as I am sitting here sharing a seat with my rear end.

That does not make me right and invariably it makes me, in the eyes of many, somewhat of a lesser being. I can have faith in my having gained so much confidence in what I know already and you will someday that it is no longer about what I know over you no more than it was to those who knew before me. In the end, we all know and at that time, time does not matter so we all know it now. Regardless of what our "state"

Finally, I would say that last request asking I describe love without saying love.

" "

There.











[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi



Holy wall of text batman

(edit.. I saw the next line and had to correct, but I didnt even know what I was saying there...)
Ill skip down a pit to touch on the main ntoes that jumped out. Notions of you will.

Please read that line as: I will skip down a bit to touch on the main notes that jumped out at me, at least comment on the notions presented. (think thats what I meant)

1: The part that is the dangerous admission: you stated that because we had a word and definition for something it made it somehow valid.

3: The idea that Science is somehow related to freedom os speech makes me giggle You see, science is very rigid, and requires vetting in everything. "Belief" is not relevant in science. It is all about the proof as applied through a set of guidelines the "method".

Whether I want to believe in something just doesn't matter. Also, Science does not make value judgements. Just quantifications.

IE: Science doesn't care if God exists because there is no evidence. As Hume put it: God is a waste of time since it is all "I think" instead of a valid 'I know statement'.

And if your response is 'I know'. Then I invite you onto the center stage as about 6 billion people would like to talk to you. While mulling that, please remember this 'faith is the absence of certainty. Not the absence of doubt.'

Best stated in the following tongue-in-cheek statements:

"Your god is standing in front of you, patting your head. Have faith in him!".

"Is the taco bell open at this hour? We can only have faith!"

--

This is all a digression though really.

The point I was making REALLY was a definition of science and why ID is NOT in fact science. It isn't even a theory (Theory doesn't mean an 'idea' it means something cooberated with evidence).

There isn't a debate on this with scientists. The debate is between the people who object to it not on content or merit, but on pride. The type who put on the Scopes Monkey Trial, and tried to legislate the value of Pi, or decided english was the default language of texas 'because English is good enough for Jesus in the bible, it's good enough for texans'.

Ma Ferguson

Again though, Evolution has never mentioned the spark of life concept. It just talks about how life adapts and changes, eventually to change it's own definition.



[edit on 7-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by atoms.2008

The sources in your posts show separate distinct species. Nothing In Between

great you realy dont have a basic undertanding of evolution then from this statement

what would you call as not a seperate distinct species or subspecies? bet you cant think of one can you, thats becasue you dont understand what meant by science when it uses the words your misusing

take a simple house mouse intorduced to the farahoe isles 150 years back, no other mice present and this pecies of mouse was a distinct and seperate species, but it also transitional

how you ask? well thi lone species of mouse had a whole island to inhabit all the different mini ecologies to cover so it began to spred across the island and as they breed with variance the better variances got to stick around and that lone species of mouse began to diverge each focusing on perticular nieche habitats and now 150 years later there are multipul species of mouse most cant cros breed some have more or less chromoones each adapted for thier own way of life and each thier very own distinct species just like the one that was first introduced

and what doe that show us? that the first mouse species introduced was a transitional species that developed into many distinct species

so not only was that first lil mouse transitional it also kicked off a chain of macro evolution as well leading to the development of everal distinct seperate species of mouse

To use some of lordtyp0's words:
"Macro-evolution" is not science. Science requires the statements to be tested. If the statement cannot be tested-it cannot conform to the criteria of science. It does not deserve to be taught as scientific anything. It is just an idea someone had.

science can also be observed as well as tested, and hey guess what its done both macro(the real deffiition not the one ken ham and co made up) ha been tested and proven, its been observed and proven,

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

again deffine YOUR version of macro evolution it seems very different from sciences

and what you think it mean by one species into another, are we talking mice into other species of mice as evolution predicts? or are we talking dogs into cats which has nothing to do with evolution and more to do with creationist making stuff up again ?

Yet observation of Micro-evolution Within an ORGANISM (ie: bacteria) is used to try to prove him right.

well no we have bacteria and mice, shall i go fiind out all the peer reviewed stuff for plants mosquitoes drosfilia etc etc ?

what your essentially saying is

becasue no instances of a home run being seen in soccer then baseball dose not exist,

you dont know what your looking for so unable to see it simply becasue youve never not learned anything about evolution fro a real and honest ource i suggest .edu source, do it now

great debate here.....

After watching Expelled a few weeks ago I was struck with the reality that Darwin's ideas are over 150 years.......has not science progressed since then to prove or disprove any of his theories?? If not, why???

Originally posted by prjct
great debate here.....

After watching Expelled a few weeks ago I was struck with the reality that Darwin's ideas are over 150 years.......has not science progressed since then to prove or disprove any of his theories?? If not, why???

Science not progressed?? The Abrahamic faiths are thousands of years old, for crying out loud, and have remained a cesspool of nonsense this whole time. Science is raging forward in leaps and bounds, aggressively discovering more and more about the universe - what have you been doing while everyone else was sitting on their computers using wireless broadband to stream German fetish porn and praising the virtue of man's own capabilities? Praying to God for porn to magically appear?

What you are asking is very very hard to do.

Some theories are unproveable. You can't prove that the big bang is a cyclical series of events that unfold every ten trillion years because you won't be around long enough, and you'd need to be outside the universe to observe it and record it. However, all evidence might point to this being the case. Even though you can't ever finalise the proof by observation, you can be 100% certain that this is the case because there is no other way all this evidence would be, er, evident otherwise.

Evolution is the same issue. It takes a long period of time for it to occur in most circumstances. However, certain facts like a snake's vestigial rear legs strongly indicate that it is taking place.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth

Science not progressed?? The Abrahamic faiths are thousands of years old, for crying out loud, and have remained a cesspool of nonsense this whole time. Science is raging forward in leaps and bounds, aggressively discovering more and more about the universe - what have you been doing while everyone else was sitting on their computers using wireless broadband to stream German fetish porn and praising the virtue of man's own capabilities? Praying to God for porn to magically appear?

wow..........i'll just suppose that you missed my point.....you intellectual genius you........

Originally posted by prjct
great debate here.....

After watching Expelled a few weeks ago I was struck with the reality that Darwin's ideas are over 150 years.......has not science progressed since then to prove or disprove any of his theories?? If not, why???

its progressed far beyond what Darwin imagined or hinted at, it been proven beyond the shadow of a dought to anyone who bothers to actually look into it

Darwin spent the whole of chapter 6 comming up with ways his idea could be disproven where he lacked evidence or full understanding on points, so far not even one of those points which could disprove evolution in an instant has gone further then his writtings in disproving it(you would think with all the evolution naysayers at least 1 of them would try), but more importantly all the knowledge he was lacking for those parts we have now found and validated the idea a hundred times over and moved it further and further along

watching expelled was a bad idea sorry,

it a pile of trash the expelled wernt really expelled and the few that were, were expelled for valid reasons and nothing to do with thier religeous beliefs or interest in ID. like the guy who didnt get his doctorate, but it then turns out he failed his tests to qualify so didnt earn it, or the journal editor expelled for printing an article who it turned out had already handed in his notice on his unpaid position and was expelled not for printing a pro ID piece but for hijaking the editorial process and getting it published all on his own not in agreement with 1 of the other 2 editors and as the magazine policy required and so embarrasing his bosses

the Evolution it talk of isnt what Darwin said it was or what modern science says it is, what they are talking about is some made up brainless strawman they can attack with riddicule becasue they dont know enough about what it really is to attempt it

it also tries to paint the theory of evolution and Darwin a responsible for numerous genocides including the holocaust and eugenics, but then fails to mention hitler was a catholic creationist as easily determined by reading 'mein kampf' and he had all copies of Darwins books and any books relating to evolution banned and burned. as they were ungodly

Darwin was extremley against social darwinism and eugenics, not only that but his work on descent of man was an effort to show how people of ALL colours were the same species we are all humans not different kinds(yes the religeous kinds of the bible and creationists). so slavery was fine becasue they were a kind of animal that was like man but not the kind that god made out of dust and called adam and eve as the justification for slavery went. But Darwin like his grandfather was very anti-slavery and if black white and everyone else was shown to be the same kind of man then they would need to go find another reason to justify racism and slavery then on biblical grounds

all in all it no wonder Ben Stein is classed as a comedian, this drossumentary is a joke

science has progressed far beyond what Darwin thought possible evolution has been tested retested, observed classified and poked and proded, while the details and specifics are till bieng worked on (its a whole lot more complex then originally thought) its been proven and vastly advanced since 150 years ago

[edit on 8/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by prjct

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth

Science not progressed?? The Abrahamic faiths are thousands of years old, for crying out loud, and have remained a cesspool of nonsense this whole time. Science is raging forward in leaps and bounds, aggressively discovering more and more about the universe - what have you been doing while everyone else was sitting on their computers using wireless broadband to stream German fetish porn and praising the virtue of man's own capabilities? Praying to God for porn to magically appear?

wow..........i'll just suppose that you missed my point.....you intellectual genius you........

Yes, sadly it is usually this the same point and the same reason I didn't respond to lords post. You know what is so strange, is that it must be true what some say. That if they would just consider the possibility that they ain't all that much more intelligent than us, if at all. That all these links they keep sending us are the same damn ones I have read every word of before and can, if I felt they were not already dissed be answered by so many other links I don't even bother with anymore.

That we have BEEN where they are, they just haven't been where WE are and that isn't the difference between what is rational, reasonable, or who is more intelligent. Hell evolutions theory changes more than I change my underwear and that is every day.

The difference is that truth is relative to the seeker but what is right and what is wrong is like the sin or errors talked about in the 2000 years since that book talked about it, NOTHING has changed.

Oh yeah technology and Science is always coming out with new products for the consumer but when you think about it. We haven't changed an IOTA. We may be taller we may live longer or we may live less as long but stealing is still wrong screwing around on your wife is still wrong etc.

The difference is this.

When you think their is a fossil that explains a bit of the mystery about us, or may answer some of the mystery of where we came, their is only one way to get to see it, one way to get the opportunity to know for sure.

The fossil doesn't care but Science does, so if they want to know, THEY have to do what it takes to get that information.

They not the Science, not the fossil, but THE individual, has to DIG for it.

it is the same with that information I know that they say can't be proven. How sorry I feel for those that refuse to follow the simple instructions given by the ancients that if any who want such proof, come as a child and ask, will receive more proof than they could have ever imagined.

How ironic that they would think that too is only a figment of our imagination while they say our faith is blind. They use the Scientific method as an excuse to force anything that may otherwise prove them wrong calling it an "illusion" that something was divine or "designed".

I read Dawkins giving a statment to that effect saying "we "MUST" always remember, these are "illusions" and are not real" Most of that kind of evidence gets discarded then and he calls God a delusion.

Pathetic isn't it.

They should BE so blind as they say we are but you are correct and they not only miss the point, but it would seem, their need to be right comes before their desire to be righteous, so they not only miss the point, they miss it on purpose.


While they criticize us for the blood spilled because of religion I guess I could blame Science and technology for the advancements in our chemical weapons our laser scopes our nuclear devices that technology has made so convenient to end the lives of so many so efficiently. He even mocks you using some ignorant porn analogy. Cute, huh.

I guess the reason I don't is because I know they know not what they do, nor do they know how ignorant they are

in what they say they

think they know






[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by prjct
great debate here.....

After watching Expelled a few weeks ago I was struck with the reality that Darwin's ideas are over 150 years.......has not science progressed since then to prove or disprove any of his theories?? If not, why???

hehe that too was explained in the same movie. If you allowed a zero tolerance for the ridicule we have seen given to anyone challenging them you would see more interest in science. It would seem the only ones allowed are avowed atheists these days and consequently, why their are so many now. They would have us think this is a virtue of their Atheistic ideology. I think it has more to do with the defense of their worldly ways but to each his own. I quit arguing once I see them using the "given enough time" excuse and the "vestigal" canard so effectively debunked so many times I am sick of repeating it much less hearing the ridicule that always goes along with it.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Your confusion makes me giggle.
I didn't make any references to fossils aside from posting a link in reply to someone else. My stance is that ID isn't science. I would LOVE for there to be some proof of the divine. But alas: There is none aside from "I prayed for this toy to be at the store.. and it was! GOD IS REAL!" type evidence.

This is how god (or goddess, whatever shape form or style) becomes personal preference, and how freedom of speech comes into it. Everyones opinion holds equal weight in that venue. From a crusty old man wearing a crazy hat in rome, to a crusty old man wearing a crazy sign in times square. They all have the same 'evidence': Faith.

Nobody 'knows'. Everyone just thinks and hopes.

Science on the other hand, is all about the knowing and the proving. If you stray from the proof. Poppycock you then have.


The following paragraph really lept out at me, and I would like to comment on it.


"The difference is that truth is relative to the seeker but what is right and what is wrong is like the sin or errors talked about in the 2000 years since that book talked about it, NOTHING has changed."

Hrm, you're right, not much has changed since the dark ages. People still burn others at the stake for 'witchcraft'. Or murder each other because one book says the same thing in a slightly different way. Where, in each faction there are hundreds of rules-but nobody bothers to look at those because they are inconvenient (read how many 'abominations' there are in the old testament)-just stick to the political expedient ones and all is good. Yeah, your 'moral way' certainly hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. I mean, the bible still allows for slavery and murder under certain conditions. 'right' and 'wrong' are STILL as ironclad as the bible says,,, right?

Thankfully the 'ethical way' is starting to challenge it on every corner, because unlike your morality. There rest of the world is moving on and doing things because it's right. Not because they're afraid of burning in hell.

Hopefully soon we can be free of boogey-men and actually start looking at the world as responsible people instead of children doing whatever we want expecting our invisible friends to make it all right and well...

I hope there is a god. I hope that god (goddess whoe-ever) decides to grow the F up and come down and stop the genocides, honor murders, crazy cult people raping children because it's 'holy' and all the other 'pure' things religions claim should be done...
Unfortunately religion is commonly hijacked by the worst possible strain of human flotsom. Until some higher being comes down and stomps on the bible belt, or maybe takes up issue about all the hypocrisy. The good people who are there and are overshadowed will simply stay in the place they have found-with the fanatics boot stomping their faces.

I hope there is no God/creator/FSM.. If there is that means all this has no meaning. Life was more or less a product of boredom. A being who is 'perfect' cannot change or do anything without becoming non-perfect. I hope there is no god because it would mean all life is reduced to hatred and pain.

If life were in fact random chance. It would make everything magical in its right. A testament if you will to the majesty of life fighting its ways up from the abyss. Our ancestors fought, bled, lived, loved and died with the sole intent of ensuring we sit here and argue banal points over the internet. That is far more stunning than a magic man who does things because they are magical.

I choose science. It is solid. It is real. It holds purity of data. It is the door to the universe and microcosms that were fiction a mere century ago. It gives results and progresses to give better and better results. I chose to get up and work instead of sitting and hoping. Things have'nt changed in the last 2000 years?

Want to rethink that statement?