Evolution is a Fact

[VirOptimus]

And why are you evolutionists so very angry? Why can you not just allow people to differ from you? Why must you always end with name calling?

I'm not angry, but its very tiresome when the other person doesnt understand that which is debated and furthermore, isnt interested in learning either.

 

[laconicstudent]

And why are you evolutionists so very angry? Why can you not just allow people to differ from you? Why must you always end with name calling?

Because we have people who aren't educated in our field coming along and trying to tell us how the underlying theories of our entire profession is a nasty lie, only they (the laypeople) are the only one's who can magically understand how it is so. They then proceed to butcher logic, evolutionary theory, ignore the evidence, and resort to red herring and straw men.

How could people not become angry at such baseless attacks from a position of utter ignorance is the better question.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh, and the reason my cosmological question affects biological evolution is that the idea you all found everything on is that life began somehow magically out of nothing, or mabye a big bang, or we're not really sure how. If you don't know where life came from in the first place, how is there life? The idea you proport is that the life came from something organic, which evolved into life, which then evolved into more life and so on. How does that start out of nothing?

That is abiogenesis, a different theory. You can feel free to start a separate thread if you wish. But that is off topic.

God, that's how. You may not believe in Him, but He believes in you. There is no other reasonable explanation for how the universe began besides God, or some call it intelligent design, though that's because they're afraid of being jumped on by the science crowd. But you do not believe because you choose not to (I've heard that accusation flying the other way, so I guess it's a viable argument, eh).

Appeal to personal belief. That is a very nice alter call. But it isn't scientific. Please try again.

 

[laconicstudent]

Hahahahaha, and your point is? Are we not talking about evolution? The bones you show is still human, I can go and jump in the grave yard and I am sure I will find a few human bones!

Then maybe you should try being a little more specific in your demands next time, instead of leaving it vague and open like that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not seeing the proof here of anything. Skulls that look human, but could be the human skull of a deformed person do not prove anything. where is the rest of the evidence, the details sir?

They could be skulls manufactured in Henson's muppet shop -- but they weren't.

If I provide the details you ask for, where's the snowball's chance in hades you'll actually read it?

You're pictures prove absolutely nothing, without hard information and clear evidence of exactly how this lifeform changed from one thing to another, these are still just pictures.

Actually, they're photographs of things that exist in the real world.

If there is such hard proof, then there should be museums, or labs where one can go and see the hard proof, all layed out in a logical order. None of the proofs should be man-made. The processes and changes of the being should be quite evident and each one thoroughly explained so that the students you're trying so hard to convince can clearly see what is going on.

You were just shown photographs of exactly what you're asking for.

Instead, what happens, you take young students, or older students, set them in front of educated professors with intelligent sounding language and tell them that what you believe is true is actually true. They believe you because you have many sets of letters after your name to prove that you know what you are talking about.

Ah -- so it's all a conspiracy, is it?

Can't you see that none of this proves anything? It's simply so many men and women talking about what they think is true, and you call anyone who dares disagrees with you an uneducated moron, but you still cannot answer the foundational questions.

Not to those who have no interest in listening.

I came here an "uneducated moron" at first, but I was willing to listen. Now I know a thing or two.

As another fellow asked, where are the not so old bones?

Again, you were just shown exactly what you're asking for.

Remember, I'm an uneducated moron so I need you to show me the simple things here.

If that's how you want to see yourself, then there's little hope of you being anything more.

If you want to be an uneducated moron, there are certainly plenty of people in the world -- outside the Creationism/Evolution "debate" -- who will happily treat you as one. No need to go looking for more.

Right, because scientific method is the only possible way to have any knowledge. You know absolutely everything you know because you learned it from the scientific method, is that right?

No, it's not right -- how do you know what you know?

Once again, using offensive language. If this is an honest discussion, then why is it so necessary to couch every comment in this type of language?

Most likely frustration -- those on this board mistook you for someone with an honest interest in learning.

Do you truly believe that people are complete idiots who do not agree with you about the THEORY of evolution? I guess must have Darwin's contemporaries must have been morons too. They couldn't possibly have been thinking people with a different conclusion to the evidence at hand.

And what do you think they did when they saw that Darwin's theory explained the evidence better than their own?

Everyone starts out ignorant -- whether or not to remain that way is a choice.

What do you choose?

 

[Wedjat]

I don't believe I have ever seen a thread filled with so many tired old arguments. At least AV keeps us on our toes changing definitions of words every once an a while, but really Ursie, come up with something that hasn't been refuted umteen trillion times in the past. A good start would be arguing something that you didn't read off of a creationist propaganda site.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, and the reason my cosmological question affects biological evolution is that the idea you all found everything on is that life began somehow magically out of nothing, or mabye a big bang, or we're not really sure how.

Um -- nope, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

If you don't know where life came from in the first place, how is there life?

Do I need to know what city my car was built in to know how to drive it?

Do I need to know the complete history of the English language in order to know how to speak?

Do I need to memorize the sum total of American history in order to be eligible to vote?

The idea you proport is that the life came from something organic, which evolved into life, which then evolved into more life and so on. How does that start out of nothing?

Irrelevent to evolution.

God, that's how.

Who?

You may not believe in Him, but He believes in you. There is no other reasonable explanation for how the universe began besides God, or some call it intelligent design, though that's because they're afraid of being jumped on by the science crowd.

Funny -- plenty of very reasonable people have come up with plenty of reasonable explanations.

But you do not believe because you choose not to (I've heard that accusation flying the other way, so I guess it's a viable argument, eh).

As viable as "I know you are, but what am I?"

Got anything original?

 

[laconicstudent]

If I provide the details you ask for, where's the snowball's chance in hades you'll actually read it?

Considering only something like 17% of the general public can read and understand scientific research literature, I seriously doubt Creationists compose any part of that segment. So I'm going to guess "none"

 

[Nathan Poe]

Considering only something like 17% of the general public can read and understand scientific research literature, I seriously doubt Creationists compose any part of that segment. So I'm going to guess "none"

I'd settle for a willingness to try -- but then again, I'm used to disappointment.

 

[TheReasoner]

And why are you evolutionists so very angry? Why can you not just allow people to differ from you? Why must you always end with name calling?

Oh, now this is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?
I have met few creationists who are not extremely rude to people who are not creationists. As was already said, it's also quite annoying to have people make very very arrogant remarks about topics they do not know anything about.

As an arbitrary example let's consider the classical argument I keep hearing creationists spout where they refer to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence that evolution cannot have ocurred as evolution represents a reduction in entropy and therefore is impossible as entropy must always increase.
This example is but one of many instances where creationists arrogantly make claims that are easily refuted with high-school level physics, or even child-like analysis of reality. It is true that entropy in a system as a whole must go up and cannot decrease. But the earth is not a closed system. And given the increase in entropy in the solar system as a whole it is easy to see how a local reduction is possible. Of course the creationist argument also fails to account for growth of lifeforms, the construction of artificial structures, the communication between living organisms and the creation of crystals. All of which require a local decrease in entropy.

I could go on with many more examples (like the arguments concerning 'conservation of angular momentum') or a more in-depth explanation of this, but I hope you get the point.

Besides, as you said if you go far enough back we get to a point where divine intervention seems possible or even likely (see the anthropic principle for example). Of course this is not always accepted in the scientific community. In part precisely because of the uneducated arguments you and your fellow creationists spout in perpetual attacks upon science.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't believe I have ever seen a thread filled with so many tired old arguments. At least AV keeps us on our toes changing definitions of words every once an a while, but really Ursie, come up with something that hasn't been refuted umteen trillion times in the past. A good start would be arguing something that you didn't read off of a creationist propaganda site.

Q....F.....T.... and reps.

 

[Wedjat]

And why are you evolutionists so very angry? Why can you not just allow people to differ from you? Why must you always end with name calling?

Just to clear something. Ignorant is not an insult, it simply means you don't know. I am ignorant as to what you had for breakfast this morning. I am ignorant I'm sure as to how you do your job, and you are ignorant of some aspects of evolution. No one is insulting you, they are just pointing out that many of the questions you ask come from ignorance of the theory, again, not stupidity, just lacking knowledge.
And of course, if we come off harshly, it is probably because we get tired of addressing these exact same points so often, and likewise I apologize if my first post came off as condescending. Lets start over, what questions (that is things you do not know that you would like answers to regarding the theory, I will not answer if you are unwilling to learn) would you like addressed?

 

[Ursie]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot. If no one disagreed with you, you'd be an awefully bored lot.

 

[Nathan Poe]

 

[Hawk007]

Look, no offense, but I'm not going to pander to willful ignorance. The fossils exist, they have been dated as existing sequentially, and they display change in form. We know mutations lead to novel phenotypes, therefore it was Evolution.




And.... They are. Are you joking? I saw Lucy, Australiopithecus in person a year ago.




Oh Lord have mercy.... are you seriously going down the wild-eyed conspiracy path. Please stop now, while you at least sound vaguely sane.




They are.



Um, we believe them because we can actually understand the material and evidences presented, unlike you. You are being incredibly rude. Before you take on your martyred air, please remember that you are the one accusing us of being liars and gullible.



I just did. You simply did not have the requisite level of elementary education to comprehend it, which I think is unfortunate and evidence that our public schools need an overhaul



Why bother? If evolution is true for one species, it is true for all species.



I'm going to be honest, if you believe that you are flat out ignorant. We know a great deal.



That is science. Unlike religion, it makes no claim to mystical infallibility and perfection. This is a common mistake Creationists make in assuming that a laboratory is like a church.



I already did. I really don't know how I can dumb it down any further, to be honest.




Not absolutely everything. Only religion makes claims like that. Stop putting words in my mouth. Its annoying, and against forum rules.




Because your claim that transitional fossils don't exist is absurd.



Just ignorant.



Hardly. There you go, goading and flaming again.



A conclusion that was falsified decades ago.

I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."

-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot. If no one disagreed with you, you'd be an awefully bored lot.

So, what would you consider to be the difference between what you've been doing and trolling?

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot. If no one disagreed with you, you'd be an awefully bored lot.

Your attempts to portray yourself as some sort of martyr are becoming tiresome. They offer absolutely no validity to your arguments, so you may as well stop.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."

-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”

That's easy -- it ain't literal.

 

[MoonLancer]

Not seeing the proof here of anything. Skulls that look human, but could be the human skull of a deformed person do not prove anything. where is the rest of the evidence, the details sir?

You said you wanted photos. I provided it. Are you now moving the goal post? What do you consider to be evidence? I have seen this before where no amount of evidence is sufficent for creationists. What ends up happening is they are not educated enough or too ignorant enough to recognize or understand the evidence when its presented. Im not just talking about my post mind you

 

[Wedjat]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot. If no one disagreed with you, you'd be an awefully bored lot.

Yes, but we become even more bored when someone disagrees with us in exactly the same way as everyone else without moving a finger to learn about the others position.
It's an old show that we've all seen a hundred times. I would much rather you argued against evolution using an understanding of evolution as a base, then you could ask truly difficult questions.