The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[The Last Conformist]

My textbooks disagrees ... guess time for ye olde data hunt.

Addendum:

I spoke too son. Checking my source reveals that Gamov predicted its existence only.

Ah, I'll trust my textbook then. Thanks for checking.

 

[Perfection]

For the record, BTW, devolution is going backwards up the tree. Where is the regression from complexified(man for example) to simple(australiopithecus, or some common ancestor of both if aussie's not one of them)? Why doesn't the simpler version ever get chosen by the blind watchmaker?

There are actualy some examples where certain organisms do take the "simple life" some really good examples are shown in the fungi kingdom:
Molds: Many fungi that adopt the mold style of living eschew all stages and structures of sexual reproduction, a clear simplification.

Yeasts: Going unicellular from mulitcellular is quite a big loss in complexity.

As for simpler being selected, might I remind you that the vast majority of organisms on this planet are bacteria, that's pretty simplistic isn't it?

 

[carlosMM]

OK, FL2, I gave you a lot of what amounts to inter-'kind' evolution, 'macroevolution' in your twisted definition.

Acknowledge macroevolution exists or prove otherwise.


I will not back down until you either throw the towel in or show me I am wrong.

 

[Perfection]

CarlosMM, quit being so awesome at this, I want some fun too!

 

[carlosMM]

CarlosMM, quit being so awesome at this, I want some fun too!

hehe, I want my professorship one day after all

 

[ybbor]

as this the place perfection will let me post...

another thread, another time, this is about why, not how. no threadjacking

Two things:
1. Where'd you say that

 

[Perfection]

Ummm, that's not the same as showing me where, that's showing me the quote.

 

[ybbor]

fine, second page of the old thread, about a 1/2 of the way down post #30

 

[Inter4]

I will not back down until you either throw the towel in or show me I am wrong.

Even if he does..I don't think you would ever say that you're wrong and he's right.

 

[Perfection]

Okay, so now that you've gotten that out of your system Ybbor that you think Carlos went a bit off the threads topic are you going to post some evidence for creationism?

 

[ybbor]

ughh, well actually yeah, i might. mean little trick there "finish your debate here." 5 min later : "join us..." just not tonight, but maybe soon, but i really don;t want to get into an argument that will not chnage anyone's mind (although if everyone on the planent read this maybe, but everyone has already amde up thier minds at CFC, as the creationists would say "you have already made up your mind, when will you look at the fatcs?" , and as the evolutionits would say "you have already made up your mind, when will you look at the fatcs?"

 

[Perfection]

We've posted the evidence why we've made up our minds, creationists haven't.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

CarlosMM, quit being so awesome at this, I want some fun too!

I admit his position is pretty stable...when all you do is attack attack attack, and do absolutely nothing to prove your own point of view, instead relegating yourself to mindless cheerleeding of your fellow evolutionists, it's pretty hard to lose.

 

[Perfection]

I admit his position is pretty stable...when all you do is attack attack attack, and do absolutely nothing to prove your own point of view, instead relegating yourself to mindless cheerleeding of your fellow evolutionists, it's pretty hard to lose.

Ummm.

The very first post in this thread has evidence and a large number of subsequent ones do to. In fact all but a few posts are used soley for the purpose of providing evidence toward my viewpoint or correcting misconceptions of it.

As for cheering Carlos it's because his arguements are very well put. Carlos has made some very excellent posts.

Also, may I remind you that the only evidence what you've so far shown to descredit evolution is the fact that "stuff exists" which is consistent with both creationism and evolution and is thus not valid evidence.

So let's not resort to Ad Hominems here and start posting valid arguements.

 

[carlosMM]

Even if he does..I don't think you would ever say that you're wrong and he's right.

oh what a nice Christian below-the-belt kick at my character. I so love them religious zealots who can't even follow the simplest of the commandments that Jesus from Nazaret asked his friends to follow.

 

[Smidlee]

2. ... creationists to combat the notion that evolution has no evidence and that creationism is scientific.


Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim

Well let go back to the first post:
I can't speak for all those who believe in creation but I don't know any who claims evolution has no evidence. In fact even creationists has to admit in some areas evolutionists has the stronger case. Yet I read some hard-core evolutionist ( even in christian forums) claiming that creationists has no evidence.

Your claim reveal how much one-sided science has become. it's the science community itself that decides what is science and what isn't science . This sounds a lot like what happen to the church in the dark ages. The Catholics (those in power) felt that only priest should read and interpret scriptures and not for the common man to use. This make church teaching one-sided since the priests had a monopoly on church doctrine.
Even those in science today are starting to see this may push those with different view point away from science.( Here in USA , the interest in science is on a decline). Michael Behe (still an evolutionist) wrote "Darwin's Black Box" in 1996 which he on purpose broke the rule by point to cases in biology that points to intelligent design and is very hard to be explained by natural selection. To many He was a welcome to science since it questioned some of the atheist dogma being mixed in science. While Michael Behe doesn't help the creationists case ,he does show how much science has become too much one-sided. If Michael Behe was accused of being unscienific ( even some has tried to claim he was a creationists at first) for bring in intelligent design into biology( even though as Michael point out " intelligent design" has been a part of science in the SETI program) then creationist would be heretics for pointing to God as the Creator.

True, creation is not a valid science since those in the science community are the one who makes the rules what is science and what isn't. Of course this doesn't make creationists wrong or doesn't have strong cases againest some of the science dogma. At least creationists do challenge and question a lot taught in the name of science instead of accepting evolution as truth and never questioning it.

 

[carlosMM]

Smidlee, nice try, you are simply claiming that science shifts its own defeinition to not include whatever they do not like.

but it is a hilariously stupid claim.

what is science?

the process of gaining information according to a few basic rules. Amongst them testability, reproducability, parsimony.

this hasn't changed in a few centuries.

Creationism is not scientific on any of these rules. It also has never been. What you are doing is essentially saying.

'well, the sky may be blue to you because you define blue as the spectral wavelengths of about 420µm, but I think you should have a second side arguing this, and it is unfair you make the rules, so I say the sky is NOT blue.'

 

[carlosMM]

At least creationists do challenge and question a lot taught in the name of science instead of accepting evolution as truth and never questioning it.

now I am starting to be a tiny bit annoyed. It was only baout a thousand times that scientists have explained on this very forum to you that the ONE thing we do for a living is ALWAYS questioning our theories. That's how science works, for crying out loud.

OTOH, treligious teaching is full of dogma and 'it's in the bible, so it's true'. Sounds like the thing that doesn't get questioned.

As long as you do not get that into your head you will never be able to get a grasp of what is scientific and what not. And nobody will take your position seriously.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee, nice try, you are simply claiming that science shifts its own defeinition to not include whatever they do not like.

but it is a hilariously stupid claim.

'

but it's true . As I said it been pointed out the double standred in science.