Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by LouisBooth "But you said when it is questioned it fails... but where? "
Macro.
"I already know that you're biased against evolution, "
Actually I started out being pro when I studied it, but it failed, so I think its false now based on my study of it.
Again, you're off topic refering to creation. Just pretty much whining again when people question evolution, but thus is the evolutionist response for the majority.
How does macro fail?
Also, I don't think I quite understand the last sentence of your last paragraph. What are you referring to with "majority"?
No evidence of it. Its all theory, and a bad one at that.
as to your last question, the majority of evolutionists will throw a tantrum and say in response to you showing holes in the theory, well creationism is wrong too. Its like when a child wins a race or is proven wrong and he retaliates by degrating the other person to make himself feel better...kinda sad. I have met a few evolutionists that don't do this but they are few and far inbetween, that is why I said majority.
Originally posted by LouisBooth "How does macro fail? "
No evidence of it. Its all theory, and a bad one at that.
as to your last question, the majority of evolutionists will throw a tantrum and say in response to you showing holes in the theory, well creationism is wrong too. Its like when a child wins a race or is proven wrong and he retaliates by degrating the other person to make himself feel better...kinda sad. I have met a few evolutionists that don't do this but they are few and far inbetween, that is why I said majority.
Actually, this is not quite correct. There is ample evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.
Of course it's all a theory... so are gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. I don't understand your pejorative use of "theory." And is it "bad?" Well, I suppose that is a judgement, but for most scientists, evolution works.
As to offering an alternative, no, I have seen no tantrums at all. Just a question asking what you think is right. And why? Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion.
I think I will just come up with an e-mail, save it, and repost it every time LouisBooth repeats his standard nonsense.
- Speciation has been observed.
- Mutations that create a favorable protein have been observed.
- There are plenty of transitional fossils around.
- Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth.
- In short, virtually every claim made by creationists on this messageboard has already been disproven.
Have a look at www.talkorigins.org, and use the Search function to start examining the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
I have no expectation that this will penetrate the pig-headed ignorance of certain members of this messageboard, but anyone with the desire to know rather than to assume is welcome to get started.
"In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.
"
*sigh* untrue statement. Your opinion and assumption, not fact.
"Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion."
again, it is a tantrum, we are talking about evolution, not creationism..read the thread title alrigthy?
"- Speciation has been observed.
- Mutations that create a favorable protein have been observed.
- There are plenty of transitional fossils around.
- Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth. "
*sigh* 1. no it hasn't, no there aren't transitional fossils around, they are fossils that you GUESS to be a tranistional speicies, and lastly I made on comment on carbon dating other then it is a flawed process according to what I have read, that's all (ie can lead to flawed results).
"Have a look at www.talkorigins.org, and use the Search function to start examining the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
"
*sigh* as I said before I have examined several articles on there that are very lenghty. Most if not all say something about if they are wrong intellgent design is right and they assume many many things along the way when drawing their conclusions. That's the problem.
"I have no expectation that this will penetrate the pig-headed ignorance of certain members of this messageboard, but anyone with the desire to know rather than to assume is welcome to get started. "
Hey, my thoughts exactly when I post on evolution... Like I said, most evolutionists are more dogmatic then any people of any religion I have ever seen.
Originally posted by LouisBooth
e: In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.
LB: *sigh* untrue statement. Your opinion and assumption, not fact.
Well, I guess you would know.
e: Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion.
LB: again, it is a tantrum, we are talking about evolution, not creationism..read the thread title alrigthy?
Nope, just a question. If you cant' answer it that's okay. Well understand.
LB: *sigh* 1. no it hasn't, no there aren't transitional fossils around, they are fossils that you GUESS to be a tranistional speicies, and lastly I made on comment on carbon dating other then it is a flawed process according to what I have read, that's all (ie can lead to flawed results).
Hmm, you know, I bet a doctor could help that wheezing problem. You have made a lot of assertions. Can you support them?
*sigh* as I said before I have examined several articles on there that are very lenghty. Most if not all say something about if they are wrong intellgent design is right and they assume many many things along the way when drawing their conclusions. That's the problem.
That's okay. It's fine to admit that you don't understand.
As I said before, nothing is going to get thru to those who deal with evidence by denying its existence.
"I don't believe in evolution because there is no evidence."
"Here's our evidence."
"That's not evidence."
"But it is the reason for our theory."
"Aha! You admit it is just a theory!"
"Yes - a well-supported theory with lots of evidence."
"You haven't shown me any evidence."
"What about these transitional fossils?"
"Those aren't transitional."
"What about potassium-argon dating that proves an old earth?"
"That isn't valid."
"Why do you claim that it isn't valid?"
"It isn't."
"But why do you claim that?"
"You haven't shown me any evidence."
"What about all the observed instances of speciation?"
"Those aren't speciation. Speciation is a change in kind, and that isn't it."
"What do you mean by 'a change in kind'?"
"It isn't MY job to get you your evidence - what about the holes in your theory?"
"What about DNA mapping, that shows species with a more recent common ancestor being more closely related than those without?"
"That doesn't prove anything."
And so on, and on, and on.
All it takes to be a creationist of a certain type is the ability to ignore what is directly in front of you, and to repeat discredited arguments with a straight face. Sooner or later, reasonable people get tired of correcting mistatements, pointing out logical fallacies, and arguing with people who wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them. They then move on, and the creationists can go back to square one with
"I don't believe in evolution because there is no evidence."
What I don't understand is the allegeded relationship between 'firebrand, politicized 'evolutionists' and 'telling me what to think.'
There are no fiery arguments regarding evolution at universities. It does not happen and more than we debate the angels on the head of a pin.
There are fiery debates when theists try to corrupt scientific curriculums by saying that all views need to be shared, heard, stroked, and coddled.
Well, of course. Science is science. High school science should prepare you for college science; not for an obscure breed of anglophone anti-Darwinist christianity. Does that mean you can't be a student and believe in creationism? No. It just means we aren't going to turn science class into theology class. Believe whatever you will, but teaching ID is just a guise for theism, it is not science, it offers no research opportunities, thus no lab opportunities, and it isn't going to prepare them to become biologists, doctors, or paleontologists.
(ie can lead to flawed results).
Like I said, most evolutionists are more dogmatic then any people of any religion I have ever seen. 
As I said before, nothing is going to get thru to those who deal with evidence by denying its existence.
Linear Mode
