Is evolution stupid?

[corvus_corax]

The theory of evolution is a silly mythology.

Unless you're going to back that up with some actual discussion, you might as well just post "Bleargh!" for all the usefulness it has.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What is the purpose of making such statements in the first place?

Maybe he's an atheist in disguise trying to make creationists look silly?

 

[Beastt]

I see no reason to defend the obvious.

Perhaps for the benefit of the 98% (or so) of scientists who find evolution to be very sound, acceptible and confirmed science, you could give us something of your reasons for believing it to be otherwise.

Just making an unsubstantiated statement and then refusing to back it up is about as convincing as sitting in the corner on a stool and drooling on yourself. So... mind backing it up?

 

[KenH]

You're not going to get anywhere without offering something of substance.

www.discovery.org

 

[KenH]

Unless you're going to back that up with some actual discussion

www.discovery.org

 

[KenH]

So... mind backing it up?

www.discovery.org

 

[KenH]

Maybe he's an atheist in disguise trying to make creationists look silly?

That's a good 'un.

 

[Beastt]

www.discovery.org

That's a fairly large site. Do you have anything specific you'd like to present or do you not understand the concepts they're presenting?

In looking over their "Top Questions" section, so far it's apparent that they are unfamiliar with the proper use of the term "theory" and don't seem to understand what evolution is an isn't. This is shown in their statement; "It depends on what one means by the word "evolution."

"Evolution" isn't some generic term, loosly applied to variation of species. It's a very specific scientific term. Since the site is claiming to be a scientific depository of information and research, is it too much to expect that they would know what evolution is?

 

[KenH]

or do you not understand the concepts they're presenting?

A rather condescending fella, aren't ya?

 

[Beastt]

A rather condescending fella, aren't ya?

You don't seem to want to present anything you can explain for yourself to back your rather bold statement. I'm just exploring the possible reasons for that and offering them to you, that you might pick one if it fits. When someone boldly shouts unsubstantiated comments, then refuses to say anything to back them, sometimes it's most effective to coax them to the forefront. If you have something to say, say it. Then back it up.

 

[Asimov]

A rather condescending fella, aren't ya?

Creationism is a silly mythology:

talkorigins.org


WOO!!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Creationism is a silly mythology:

talkorigins.org


WOO!!

YOU R TEH WINNAR!!!!!111ONE!!!

 

[KenH]

The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution.

Have a good life.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution.

Have a good life.

And what has God told you that He didn't tell the Theistic Evolutionists?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bull
You're lying and you know it
As I stated earlier-
"Again I would appreciate a definition of tems
I noticed that you replaced "stupid" with "dumb"
Do you mean someone who cant speak (Dumb)?
DEFINE YOUR TERMS
Thank you
I expect you to do so from now on."

Quit lying.
Quit obfuscating your meanings.
Be honest and forthright.
Answer and address my statements, as I have done yours.

Im not aiming to shut down the conversation, Im aiming to get you to define your terms.

I notice that you keep avoiding that particular issue.

How deceptive of you.
Is that your Christ in action?

Is that the stance of ID and Creationism? Lying, obfuscation, and twisting of words?

I knew there was something familiar about Johnny's argument! Most theists read C.S. Lewis, but apparantly John's been reading Lewis Carroll

Through the Looking-Glass

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

See? It pays to read the classics!

 

[Dal M.]

The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution.

Have a good life.

Or, rather, you believe your interpretation of the Bible instead of science.

That is, of course, perfectly fine; scientists doesn't need your belief in order to do their jobs.

 

[corvus_corax]

"The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution."
Have a good self deceptive life

And what has God told you that He didn't tell the Theistic Evolutionists?

In other words, he is at risk of breaking Rule #1 on these forums and calling certain people "non-christian" (yes you did KenH)Shall I quote? "The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution"
Hence, believers in evolutionary theory (including theistic christian evolutionists) cant be "true christians" in KenH's POV.
Welcome to banning KenH.

I can just hope that the Admins and Mods are merciful on your rule breaking of the forums.

 

[Beastt]

The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution."
Have a good self deceptive life

In other words, he is at risk of breaking Rule #1 on these forums and calling certain people "non-christian" (yes you did KenH)Shall I quote? "The bottom line is that I believe God, not you believers in the theory of evolution"
Hence, believers in evolutionary theory (including theistic christian evolutionists) cant be "true christians" in KenH's POV.
Welcome to banning KenH.

I can just hope that the Admins and Mods are merciful on your rule breaking of the forums.

That's kind of silly, don't you think? Certainly there are rules and most of them seem to have a purpose but do you really take him seriously enough to bother being offended?

Militant censorship never did anything to keep a people free or informed. I might suggest that there isn't a lot of distance between deleting posts for their content and burning books for their controversy. For what it's worth, I think he should say whatever he feels but he should also be prepared to back up his statements with something of fact and evidence rather than following in traditional Biblical style and just making a series of unexplained and unsubstantiated statements.

 

[corvus_corax]

That's kind of silly, don't you think? Certainly there are rules and most of them seem to have a purpose but do you really take him seriously enough to bother being offended?
Militant censorship never did anything to keep a people free or informed. I might suggest that there isn't a lot of distance between deleting posts for their content and burning books for their controversy. For what it's worth, I think he should say whatever he feels but he should also be prepared to back up his statements with something of fact and evidence rather than following in traditional Biblical style and just making a series of unexplained and unsubstantiated statements.

But when one subscribes to a forum and clicks on "I Agree" one should adhere to the rules of the forum
I have been tempted, time and again, to tell people that they arent "real Christians". On another forum, I probably would
However, I dont do so here, due to the rules of the forum. And yes, I have (and probably will) call people on this rules violation.

Violating this rule, which amounts to "no true christian" is hubris.

Besides, "no true christian" is rather like "no true scotsman".

However, I do agree with you in that he should "be prepared to back up his statements with something of fact and evidence rather than following in traditional Biblical style and just making a series of unexplained and unsubstantiated statements."

 

[Beastt]

But when one subscribes to a forum and clicks on "I Agree" one should adhere to the rules of the forum
I have been tempted, time and again, to tell people that they arent "real Christians". On another forum, I probably would
However, I dont do so here, due to the rules of the forum. And yes, I have (and probably will) call people on this rules violation.

Violating this rule, which amounts to "no true christian" is hubris.

Besides, "no true christian" is rather like "no true scotsman".

However, I do agree with you in that he should "be prepared to back up his statements with something of fact and evidence rather than following in traditional Biblical style and just making a series of unexplained and unsubstantiated statements."

I suppose we simply have a difference of opinion. Certainly when one agrees to a condition, it amounts to something of a promise and every reasonable effort should be made to fulfull the responsibility accepted when making a promise. I simply don't feel that I have been harmed in any way by anything typed by another, whether they accuse me of being less than a Christian or less than an atheist. And in this particular case, I'm of the mind that he does more to offer validity to those beliefs I adhere to than to those of his own.

I tend to believe that I should seek to be more responsible for my own actions than for the actions of others. If I choose to violate a promise I have made, then I have damaged my own integrity and caused no harm to anyone other than myself. In attempting to take responsibility for the actions of others, I become guilty of censorship which, to my belief is little more than one's expression of the fear of the truth potentially contained within the statements of another. Perhaps this is why Hitler was such a proponent of strictly enforced censorship. One need go no farther than the rules section to see this fear in action.

Anyway... back to the topic...

Perhaps in spouting so irresponsibly, the belief that evolution is "silly mythology", evolution is presented with yet another opportunity to validate itself. As we should know, evolution provides that those individuals most readily able to adapt to change possess a survival advantage and as we can clearly see in the posts provided here, some are quick to adapt to new knowledge while others will cling feverishly to tradition and superstition rather than even try to understand new knowledge when it is presented. In so doing, they mark themselves for extinction. If we are correct, we have but to wait.