Heathen:
Piltdown Man was a fraud, but at least science demands repeatability to weed out such errors. Religion does not.
Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus
by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current
-
-
rem
I get so tired of evolutionists that think they can explain everything away using little or no evidence or even manufacturing fake evidence to support their beliefs . It's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me . You really do sound like religionists .
Dude, it's obviously mumbo jumbo to you because you have proven time and again that you are not capable or willing to do the research. Your knoweldge of science is below the sixth grade level, but you have the audacity to claim that evolutionists try to "explain everything away using little or no evidence or even manufacturing fake evidence...".
Sheesh... can you imagine how exasperating that is to someone who actually knows what they are talking about? What do you do for a trade? Would you like me telling you how to do your job even though I probably don't have the slightest idea of how to do it?
Do you even know how long ago Piltdown man was? Do you have any idea who exposed it as a fraud? Do you know why it was manufactured? (hint: not to prove evolution over creationism - the reason was more for scientific notoriety and nationalism). Do you realize that some creationists manufacture evidence to back their claims? (Paluxy dinosaur tracks)
Please read some books. It is true the more you know the more you know how little you know. Right now you think you know more than you do.
rem
-
heathen
Rem--- I never said I was an authority on the subject and as far as I know you are not either. If you want to be a decendant of a monkey than so be it . I don't care . I have read some stuff and watched alot of discovery tv in my time ,an animals ability to adapt is not evidence of evolution . You have offered no evidence to the argument therefore I cannot acknowledge your comments as anything but slander and an attempt to take a pious attitude by pulling some cheezy remarks out of your ass .
-
Mr. Kim
Well, the high and mighty Scientists feel threatened?COOL!
-
Abaddon
Heathen:
What about the alleged missing link that man supposedly evolved from ape?
'Missing link'? Your very phrasing indicates you're basing your knowledge on on creationist apologism - a bit like basing your knowledge of Amway on what Amway say.
There is nothing there to prove it as indesputable fact.
Which makes the difference between it and theory of god what exactly?
They believe that dinosaurs had mass extinction but again claim they evolved into birds .
Strawman argument; 'mass' is different from 'total', you present the above as though a mass extinction of dinosaurs would prevent the ancestors of dinsaurs being birds; it does not.
They always make huge jumps after looking at fossil evidence that does not show these changes in molecular structure that account for new species of animals.
Strawman argument; one doesn't look for changes in molecular structure in a fossil, you imply that evolutionist try to, and also that only changes in molecular stucture can satisfactorily prove speciation. Both claims are false.
I suppose next you are going to tell me that the common ancestor is once again the world reknowned piltdown man.
You know perfectly well this was a fraud; have you seen the Shroud of Turin recently, or did your double standard get in the way of seeing it or any other of numerous instances of religious fraud? As both science and religion suffer from fraud, essentially you are just showing how flawed religion is when your argument is the opposite! Oh, and it's probable that Teilhardin (sp?), a Roman Catholic priest, was involved with the Piltdown fraud; lovely!
I get so tired of evolutionists that think they can explain everything away using little or no evidence or even manufacturing fake evidence to support their beliefs . It's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me . You really do sound like religionists.
So far you've succeded in using fallacious arguments twice (strawmen arguments are also effectively lies), have shown you're speaking about evolution from a postion of profound ignorance of the subjuct, and have proven that honesty in religious and scientific circles is comparable. You are now just making it worse with continued fallacious arguments. Pathetic.
I never said I was an authority on the subject and as far as I know you are not either.
If you're not an authority on the subject, how can you be sure you know what you're talking about? I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't think that rem or other poster here is either. But I know that I and others have actually studied the subject.
This hasn't stopped professors who suppoort Creationism/ID running away from discussions when they are unable to refute evidence supplied by people such as myself and rem. Look at Jerry Bergman's posting history!
If you want to be a decendant of a monkey than so be it.
AH, you seem to be of the opinion that what you want determines reality; WRONG. You obviously WANT there to be a creator; now, that's your opinion, one which you're welcome to. You don't have the facts to support your opinon though, do you? Just fallacious arguments against something you know NOTHING about.
God, utter ignorance makes such a great platform to attack something from! We tremble before your ill-informed opinion!
I don't care.
Which is why you do this...?
I have read some stuff and watched alot of discovery tv in my time ,an animals ability adapt is not evidence of evolution .
Another strawman argument. You don't even know what evolution is; it's certainly nothing to do with an animal's ability to adapt. But of course, you've read 'some stuff' and seen some Discovery programmes, so are obviously well-informed...
You have offered no evidence to the argument therefore I cannot acknowledge your comments as anything but slander and an attempt to take a pious attitude by pulling some cheezy remarks out of your ass.
Oh, and you're a hypocrite too, as you have offered 1/ no evidence to your argument, 2/ have made slanders (a strawman argument is essentially slander or libel), and 3/ as for your piousness, well, it's only exceeded by your ignorance about evolution.
Mr. Kim:
Well, the high and mighty Scientists feel threatened?
By this level of discourse? Hahahaha. Come back with anything that provides proof that man was the product of special creation; you're good at flouncing round making disparaging comments, have a go at a discussion.
Heathen and Mr. Kim's behaviour makes it obvious the behaviour that triggered this thread is by no means unique...
-
Mr. Kim
Abaddon,
I will not waste my time with explaining anything which you should already know before entering the equation. If you REALLY read what I said, you will notice that my comment is directed at the elite Scientific community--not you or anyone else. Since I am one of the ones which I poke fun at; what does it have to do with you? We can debate anything as long as each person keeps the BS flowing. The facts are another matter which elude many!
Mr. KIM
-
Abaddon
Mr. Kim:
I will not waste my time with explaining anything which you should already know before entering the equation. If you REALLY read what I said, you will notice that my comment is directed at the elite Scientific community--not you or anyone else. Since I am one of the ones which I poke fun at; what does it have to do with you? We can debate anything as long as each person keeps the BS flowing. The facts are another matter which elude many!
So what ARE you saying, Mr. Kim of the 'elite Scientific community'? Perhaps I saw sarcasm where there was none?
As you are so keen to cut down on BS, perhaps you'll let us know what you think; what are your opinions with regard to the evolution of intelligence in H. sapiens? Do you see any problems with this event and general accepted evolutionary theory?
Do the facts elude you too, and what do you mean by facts?
-
rem
Heathen,
Rem--- I never said I was an authority on the subject and as far as I know you are not either.
You don't have to be an authority on a subject to hold an intelligent converstation about it. You do, however, have to at least be familliar with the basics. Sorry, but watching a few Discovery channel specials does not cut it. Like I said before, your understanding is below the sixth grade level. Please enlighten yourself.
Perhaps you will better take the advice from the bible:
Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.Proverbs 15:7
The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of fools.Proverbs 17:28
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.rem
-
Panda
Every bit of scientific information is "THEORY". We have the theory of relativity , which we use to create nuclear reactions and send rockets into space. Why is this still called a theory? Because science allows for paradigm shifts. That doesn't mean the shift shows the former to be incorrect, rather the shift is when additional information is added, thus we first had Newton's law, Einstein built on that for relativity, and scientists (physicists) today abound with new speculations such as, it may be possible that the universe at one time had speeds faster than the speed of light. So each theory allows for the shift, not negating but building on the previous analyses. Another example is the PTE, which contains many "empty" or unnamed spaces. We know by atomic weights of elements that these exist, but science has not found them yet. Eventually inorganic chemistry will fill in the PTE. Also think of the genome project. In 1953 the "discovery" of DNA didn't mean that there was no DNA before, only that scientists hadn't seen it. It takes time and instruments to understand the natural world. So the theory of life begins with knowledge of punctuated multi-generational changes within a species, continues to DNA and eventually the paradigm shift to what makes things alive. It's not a stretch anymore, we understand how and why theories must allow for change. This is science.
-
Mr. Kim
Abaddon,
I know you will not understand the following but please give it an honest effort!
You really don't want me to get started in giving out the "solid food." The time will come when the word is given.
Rem said it best in his post:
Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.Proverbs 15:7
The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of fools.Proverbs 17:28
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.______________________________________________________________
When your book is finished let me know and I will buy one.
Mr. KIM