The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[holy king]

We know life exists today yet the cause is the question. I'm just one of those who haven't seen the evidence that "natural selection" is this cause. Natural selection would still be be a factor if all of life is slowly dying/ degrading with time.

this is so beyond everything i'm really thinking about starting to laugh...
you beat me, it doesnt get any more senseless...

 

[Perfection]

We know life exists today yet the cause is the question. I'm just one of those who haven't seen the evidence that "natural selection" as the cause. Natural selection would still be be a factor if all of life is slowly dying/ degrading with time.

Would a microrganism gaining a new function through random mutation and natural selection be sufficient evidence?

 

[Che Guava]

Like a politician (free health care!?! yeah right!) evolutionist try to talk around the fact that what they are describing would take a miracle.

So far natural selection doesn't seem to have any more power than artificial selection. It's sound a lot like "free health care for everybody" kind of deals.

This is a statement of faith since Father Time doesn't seem to be too friendly toward living things. In fact Father Time seem to eventually destroy everything. I guess if we give those politicians enough time they could gave "free health care for everybody" also.

Smidlee, when you picture hell, is it filled with dinosaurs on free healthcare?

 

[holy king]

with sanity

 

[brainpan]

Proving evolution is akin to proving the Earth is flat?! What the hell?

I meant round, as you well know.

Really though, theistic creationism can be pretty much harmonious with a scientific understanding of the universe, which is what I'm trying to champion here.

Actually, it can't. So now you seek to reinvent yourself as a champion of the scientific validity of theistic creationism?!

Not really, I brag about joke posts mostly.

No really. It's right in your sigline. It includes an invitation to watch you KO creationism. All I have seen is you framing a debate you can't possibly lose. Cowardly to say the least.

Keep believin' it boy, and it might just come true!

Actually, on your behavior the point is proven. You did all the things an owned fundie is typically known for. Including trying to disrupt with spam, oversized text, and "shouting down." Pretty much the whole nine yards.

 

[brainpan]

You admit that creationism isn't and can never be a valid scientific theory.

Debate over.

Exactly my point! There is no debate to be had on this in the first place. Perfection set out to prove the already proven, to win a debate that can't be lost.

And who cares if I, or any of us, admit it or not? The scientific community should be consulted on this, and it has already provided us with the answer: Creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

Edit: Creationism could become a valid scientific theory, but some amazing evidence would have to surface first. I suppose if some magical creature showed up in our solar system and started zapping planets in and out of existence willy nilly, it might make us reconsider a few things.

 

[Babbler]

Exactly my point! There is no debate to be had on this in the first place. Perfection set out to prove the already proven, to win a debate that can't be lost.

And who cares if I, or any of us, admit it or not? The scientific community should be consulted on this, and it has already provided us with the answer. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

... but large portions of the globe haven't got the memo.

 

[Phlegmak]

I meant round, as you well know.
Actually, it can't. So now you seek to reinvent yourself as a champion of the scientific validity of theistic creationism?!
No really. It's right in your sigline. It includes an invitation to watch you KO creationism. All I have seen is you framing a debate you can't possibly lose. Cowardly to say the least.
Actually, on your behavior the point is proven. You did all the things an owned fundie is typically known for. Including trying to disrupt with spam, oversized text, and "shouting down." Pretty much the whole nine yards.

It's like you're the incarnation of Internet arguments.

 

[Perfection]

I meant round, as you well know.

Well if it's so easy to prove evolution true, do it (but not in my thread)!

Actually, it can't. So now you seek to reinvent yourself as a champion of the scientific validity of theistic creationism?!

I was refering scientific understanding (which I am a champion of).

No really. It's right in your sigline. It includes an invitation to watch you KO creationism.

So? That doesn't mean I think it's a great scientific debate

All I have seen is you framing a debate you can't possibly lose. Cowardly to say the least.

HELLO! THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC DEBATE BETWEEN EQUAL SIDES. IT'S MEANT TO EDUCATE. SO STOP ACTING LIKE IT IS MEANT TO BE ONE.

Actually, on your behavior the point is proven. You did all the things an owned fundie is typically known for. Including trying to disrupt with spam, oversized text, and "shouting down." Pretty much the whole nine yards.

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

Exactly my point! There is no debate to be had on this in the first place. Perfection set out to prove the already proven, to win a debate that can't be lost.

It's not proven to the creationists, which is who I'm addressing

And who cares if I, or any of us, admit it or not?

I do! I think people shouldn't reject science

The scientific community should be consulted on this, and it has already provided us with the answer: Creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

Some people don't consult the scientific community, and that's who I'm addressing!

 

[Souron]

We know life exists today yet the cause is the question. I'm just one of those who haven't seen the evidence that "natural selection" is the cause. Natural selection would still be be a factor if all of life is slowly dying/ degrading with time.

How does this sentence relate to the previous two?

 

[Smidlee]

I do! I think people shouldn't reject science

Which is why I rejected evolution creation as science. As one person which I agree with wrote :

"...electrical engineering textbooks used in the 1960’s are obsolete today, but nothing in them is wrong. Ohm’s law is still true. Everything they say about vacuum tube amplifiers is still true. The old electronics textbooks aren’t obsolete because they are wrong. They are obsolete because they don’t contain new information about transistors and integrated circuits. As science advances, new truth is added, but old truth is still true.

This isn’t the case with biology textbooks. The things old biology textbooks say about human evolution aren’t true any more. That means those things weren’t true when the old textbooks were written. Similarly, the things in current biology textbooks will someday be contradicted by future biology textbooks. That’s because the theory of evolution is philosophic, not scientific."

 

[Souron]

Which is why I rejected evolution creation as science. As one person which I agree with wrote :

Are biology books different now rather than 20s ago? I was not under that impression. Except maybe in Kansas . . .

And can you back up the claim "theory of evolution is philosophic, not scientific." I think anyone who understands the theory would disagree with that. As perfection said in the first post of this thread: Evolution is a valid scientific claim.

 

[Perfection]

"...electrical engineering textbooks used in the 1960’s are obsolete today, but nothing in them is wrong. Ohm’s law is still true. Everything they say about vacuum tube amplifiers is still true. The old electronics textbooks aren’t obsolete because they are wrong. They are obsolete because they don’t contain new information about transistors and integrated circuits. As science advances, new truth is added, but old truth is still true.

This isn’t the case with biology textbooks. The things old biology textbooks say about human evolution aren’t true any more. That means those things weren’t true when the old textbooks were written. Similarly, the things in current biology textbooks will someday be contradicted by future biology textbooks. That’s because the theory of evolution is philosophic, not scientific."

Scientific theory often does contradict previous theory. If you look at a chemistry book from 1960 you'll see noble gasses refered to as inert gasses and you'll be told that they do not react, but in fact many do. Human evolution because of the small data set (our ancestors lived in small numbers for a geologically short period in regions where fosssilization was rare) and thus is tentative and subject to change (and the researchers there know this), this doesn't mean that theory of evolution itself is shakey or unscientific any more then those noble gas reactions made the underlying theory behind chemical bonds shakey or unscientific.

 

[Smidlee]

My wife was telling me the other day about a conversation she had with a friend about evolution. She made the mistake of thinking that evolution teaches man evolved from modern day apes. I pointed out her mistake and told her that evolution theory is much worst than that; for evolutionist doesn't believe man came from modern day apes but believe man and modern day apes evolve form a mythological creature in which no one has ever seen. Man using his imagination to figure what this mythological creature would look like ( often very ape like) than slap some bones together and claim this is our ancestor and call this science, kind of like looking for Big Foot.
I told her about the report lately about finding a modern day ape older than once believed which push this date of this mythological creature way back, for you can't have a modern day ape along side of this mythological creature since this would make them a "monkey's uncle" and not a "monkey's mother".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Man using his imagination to figure what this mythological creature would look like ( often very ape like) than slap some bones together and claim this is our ancestor and call this science, kind of like looking for Big Foot.

This is where you go wrong in the sequence of events.

 

[trader/warrior]

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=jqwus47y32

 

[brainpan]

Well if it's so easy to prove evolution true, do it (but not in my thread)!

Just when I thought It couldn't get more stupid...

You know, I wouldn't want to burden you with supporting your own argument. Obviously, it is up to me to do that for you!

I was refering scientific understanding (which I am a champion of).

Nonsense. You don't even know what the term means. Theistic evolution is not compatible with science.

So? That doesn't mean I think it's a great scientific debate

Fair enough, then. On this point we can agree, just so long as you don't hold yourself up as an authority on the subject.

IT'S MEANT TO EDUCATE.

I seriously doubt that. Otherwise you wouldnt brag about "KO'ing" creationism in your sigline. Christ, even the title of this thread is big on unwarranted bragging. You aren't KO'ing anything. Any kid can google this stuff up and either cut-and-paste it, or put it into their own words and submit it here.

It's not proven to the creationists, which is who I'm addressing

Have you convinced a lot of them yet? Do you expect to?

I do! I think people shouldn't reject science

The not too subtle point was that a genuine authority on the subject should be consulted.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

We have seen the skeleton of the creatures from which we descend, and they are not just randomly slapped together bones, but actual skeletons. And why would you expect to have found anything other than a skeleton, given that it is extinct? I mean, I have never seen George Washington either.

I am officially calling strawman here.

 

[holy king]

unfortunately i got the impression he is well serious...

 

[brennan]

evolutionist doesn't believe man came from modern day apes but believe man and modern day apes evolve form a mythological creature in which no one has ever seen.

Yeah, that's so silly. Obviously we should be able to see our distant ancestors.

Have you ever seen your Great, Great, Great, Great grandfather? I'm guessing not, in which case you are a fool to believe your family goes back more than 6 generations. See the flaw in your reasoning?

Exactly my point! There is no debate to be had on this in the first place. Perfection set out to prove the already proven, to win a debate that can't be lost.

...but it was a debate that we were having on a regular basis, hence Perf's KO threads, which seem to have put a stop to them. Which makes them a success really.

Natural selection would still be be a factor if all of life is slowly dying/ degrading with time.

How does this sentence relate to the previous two?

Smidlee uses a familiar strawman in which evolution is seen as a process of degeneration, typically described as a 'loss of information'. Which is pure bollocks.

Spoiler :

But i'm sure you know that.