Evolution is a Lie

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

sandwiches said:
Yea yea, anyway, what's the verse in the Bible that instructs Christians to live in trailers?

I wasn't quoting the Bible, was I; I was parodying some of you guys, wasn't I?

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

By the way, sandwiches, my medication needs refilling.

Is it okay with you if I call in another refill; or should I swear allegiance to Darwin first and promise to walk in the ways of the scientific method?

(Please answer this.)

Skaloop · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
By the way, sandwiches, my medication needs refilling.

Is it okay with you if I call in another refill; or should I swear allegiance to Darwin first and promise to walk in the ways of the scientific method?

(Please answer this.)

My response, not sandwiches, would be this:

Definitely call in your refill; medication is prescribed for a reason, and it's important that you stick to the instructions.

Now, you don't have to swear allegiance to Darwin or anything (nobody does or, as far as I know, has), but you certainly should acknowledge that the development of some new and effective drugs is based in part on evolutionary theory. That you do not accept that said theory is accurate or factual isn't really relevant to this specific matter. Disbelieve it all you want. But it is used in the development of new drugs. And since those drugs are generally effective (if you mention Thalidomide here, I may explode) evolutionary theory may not be totally useless, even if it is wrong.

DrkSdBls · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I wasn't quoting the Bible, was I; I was parodying some of you guys, wasn't I?

Keep Practicing, AV. Your skills are getting dull.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

Skaloop said:
Definitely call in your refill; medication is prescribed for a reason, and it's important that you stick to the instructions.

Now, you don't have to swear allegiance to Darwin or anything (nobody does or, as far as I know, has), but you certainly should acknowledge that the development of some new and effective drugs is based in part on evolutionary theory.

Which should I do first? and what if I refuse to do the latter? or refuse to acknowledge macroevolution?

Can I call in my refill without being a hypocrite about it?

Tinker Grey · Mar 16, 2011

You should take your medicine even it means you are a hypocrite. The longer you live the more hope there is you will understand.

Just because some of us may think you are a hypocrite doesn't mean we want you to suffer. It's not binary.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
You should take your medicine even it means you are a hypocrite. The longer you live the more hope there is you will understand.

Just because some of us may think you are a hypocrite doesn't mean we want you to suffer. It's not binary.

So is that a YES or NO?

Can I call in my refill without being a hypocrite about it?

The question shouldn't be that hard, folks. Here's your chance to make an outright plug for hypocrisy, and you're suddenly getting cold feet.

I have a feeling that, as soon as I drop it, you guys will go back to hinting we should live in caves and avoid medicine and so on and so froth.

Skaloop · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Which should I do first? and what if I refuse to do the latter? or refuse to acknowledge macroevolution?

That's fine. Refuse to do whatever you want. But it's sort of intellectually dishonest to deny the role evolution (however wrong it may be to you) plays in the development of new drugs.

Can I call in my refill without being a hypocrite about it?

Yes. In my opinion, anyway (I know some other people may disagree). You don't have to believe in the theory of evolution, but would you acknowledge that it is used in medical developments? To even the smallest degree, even if it is wrong, that thousands of people employ it in their work? To do so doesn't mean accepting evolution, and to do so does not make you a hypocrite.

I think when the whole "If you don't believe in evolution, why use new drugs?" sort of argument is generally made to make anti-evolutionists think about evolution, and that if it consistently leads to advances in medicine, to consider that there may be some grain of truth to it. I doubt anyone is actually suggesting that people forgo their medication.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

Skaloop said:
You don't have to believe in the theory of evolution, but would you acknowledge that it is used in medical developments?

Yes -- (at least I'll take your word for it, anyway).

Skaloop · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Yes -- (at least I'll take your word for it, anyway).

Well, thank you for that. But you can find out that info quite easily on your own, so, as Levar Burton would say, don't take my word for it...

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

Skaloop said:
Well, thank you for that. But you can find out that info quite easily on your own...

I'll pass, thanks.

Like I said, your word is good enough for me.

sandwiches · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I wasn't quoting the Bible, was I; I was parodying some of you guys, wasn't I?

Personally, I don't want you to kill witches, or even follow the Bible, at all, except maybe in the "do unto others" bit. I do want you to apply your reasoning logically and consistently, is all. If your conclusions seem to contradict, then one of them must be wrong or your premise is wrong.

sandwiches · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
By the way, sandwiches, my medication needs refilling.

Is it okay with you if I call in another refill; or should I swear allegiance to Darwin first and promise to walk in the ways of the scientific method?

(Please answer this.)

Do refill your medication, of course! However do be aware that this medication was made possible thanks in part to the same evolutionary science that you say is wrong. So, it's not about swearing allegiance to anyone but merely realizing the hypocrisy in condemning something while taking advantage of its benefits. It'd be like me saying we shouldn't kill animals, while I eat a burger.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2011

sandwiches said:
However do be aware that this medication was made possible thanks in part to the same evolutionary science that you say is wrong.

Which is what? and please be as specific as that burger you mentioned.

Microevolutionary science? macroevolutionary science? or both?

You guys use the word 'evolution' nowadays without the prefix, then you wonder how someone can claim he believes in evolution in one thread, while condemning it in another.

You may not draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution; but I'm from the old school, and I do.

So what may look to you like hypocrisy -- isn't.

But Heaven forbid you guys should see the whole picture; and, most of all, understand it.

sandwiches · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Which is what? and please be as specific as that burger you mentioned.

Microevolutionary science? macroevolutionary science? or both?

You guys use the word 'evolution' nowadays without the prefix, then you wonder how someone can claim he believes in evolution in one thread, while condemning it in another.

You may not draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution; but I'm from the old school, and I do.

So what may look to you like hypocrisy -- isn't.

But Heaven forbid you guys should see the whole picture; and, most of all, understand it.

It's all the same. Same mechanisms different scales. I understand that you believe that you accept "microevolution" not "macroevolution." Whether there was enough time or not, whether it actually happened or not, is irrelevant in this case. What matters and the point that I know I will not get across to you is the fact that this medicine was made with the assumption and knowledge that the ENTIRE theory of evolution and its predictions are correct, and lo and behold, the ideas and practical implementations of the theory hold true and produce measurable results, such as your medicine, as it the theory were correct.

Now, I'm afraid I'll shoot myself in the foot here and make you not respond to the first paragraph but while typing my response, I started wondering if you're telling us you agree that evolution, the explanation of it, is sound and plausible, but that it never actually happened as it never had the chance because there wasn't enough time for it to have happened. I hope I wasn't too confusing there because I typed this hastily as I'm a bit busy.

Now, if this is what you're saying, then we can move on past whether evolutionary theory is correct, because it seems you accept that it could've happened but it simply didn't. So, the next step, in my mind would be to remind you that, again, the methods that we've used to arrive at computers, medicine, the beginnings of space travel, etc, are the same as those used to measure how long the earth has been revolving around the sun.

If I'm wrong in my last two paragraphs, and you still do not even believe it's POSSIBLE for evolution, as explained in biology, to have happened, then same as above applies. Same science, same mechanisms, etc.

Skaloop · Mar 16, 2011

AV1611VET said:
You may not draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution; but I'm from the old school, and I do.

Sorry, but the micro- and macro- prefixes are totally new school.

dad · Mar 17, 2011

sandwiches said:
Why should it?

It has no choice...and no proof of anything either way.

dad · Mar 17, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
Your own knowledge is far more limited, and you've never let it hinder you.

I don't need knowledge to know when a claim is lacking knowledge.

dad · Mar 17, 2011

Delphiki said:
I bet if there was a clear definition of what a "kind" is, the term might have a chance. We've asked you before and you gave a very internally inconsistent and unclear answer. Until then, it's not going to be a taxological term.

Until then, we have Kingdom Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, etc.

You have...yes. Enjoy. I have this...you fail to deal with the lion and man and wolf kinds.

Delphiki · Mar 17, 2011

dad said:
You have...yes. Enjoy. I have this...you fail to deal with the lion and man and wolf kinds.

lolwut?

Evolution is a Lie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Wanderer

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency