A complete inability to articulate what the arguments against their own beliefs are. You see it on here all the time, some fundy starts spouting off about evolution even though they don't understand anything about evolution.
Posts by Caedes
-
-
-
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
Jhine,
I will read the books you suggest after you have read the books Cofty suggests in the whale evolution thread. After all I have had an entire childhood learning creationism and then educated myself on science and evolution. I need no further evidence that creationists are long on talk and completely empty handed when it come to evidence. You however, are wilfully ignorant of the mountains of evidence for evolution. Once you can explain to me in your own words what scientists use as the evidence for evolution then you are in a position to argue why you think it's wrong.
I noticed of course that you fail to take me up on the challenge to give me some examples of the religious side to this debate.
(edited to correct a spelling mistake)
-
69
Evidence Regarding the Evolution of Cetaceans - Whales etc
by cofty inthis excellent little video sumamrises some of the evidence for the evolutionary history of cetaceans.. if focuses on comparative anatomy, embryology, fossils and dna.. .... .
.
-
-
Caedes
Evolution says: you keep getting better and better. Except now it's transhumanism which basically says humans can become like gods. Very similar.
Evolution says nothing of the sort, if you wish to have an opinion on this subject it's best to find out what the other side is actually talking about otherwise you just make yourself look like an uneducated twit.
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
Science and religion do not have to be enemies just because people like Dawkins say so .(my favourite drum to bang , check things for yourself ) . Christian scientists do not leave their brains at the exit of the lab or research faciltiy . All I am saying is that there are two intelligent , well thought out sides to this , not just one
Science and religion are not enemies because Richard Dawkins says so. The reason that science and religion are in conflict is because religion chooses to put itself at odds with established scientific fact. Religion chooses to push it's agenda into schools (by pushing to teach creationism) for example.
There is no such thing as a christian scientist, there may be scientists who are christians. Christianity has nothing to add to science, there are no christian ideas being published in scientific journals. There is not an intelligent well thought out christian side to this debate at all, there isn't a single credible scientific journal publishing anything on the religious side at all. By all means tells us where this intelligent well thought out religious side to the debate is and I will happily show you why their argument is wrong (with examples!)
This is a debate that the religious side lost many years ago, unfortunately not everyone has got the news yet.
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
What do you think this place is Oub, Pendants Corner ?
Or is that a mutepoint ?
I see what you did there. LOL (moot)
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
should those be imitation and flattery?
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
Viviane, apologies, your post wasn't up when I started writing my post!
Still, great minds think alike and fools seldom differ!
-
32
I Was Asked To Perform A Marriage Ceremony But Don't Know I'm Qualified
by minimus inmy girlfriend's daughter and her fiancee asked me to marry them last night.
they live in connecticut and will be married in new york.
i felt honored that i was asked but i don't think i can do it because i am not a clergyman or minister and my u derstanding is that only clergy or judges and lawyers and justice of the peace can perform a wedding ceremony and marry a couple.. does anyone have any information on this subject?
-
-
Caedes
My advice is to limit yourself to the traditional questions. We all know what happens otherwise.
-
37
Top Scientist descent from Creationism
by Coded Logic inhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
-
-
Caedes
The pedant in me has to say the word is dissent not descent. Amongst scientists of course the most commonly held view is that creationism doesn't even count as a hypothesis. You should perhaps add that they dissent with the popular idea of creationism to make it clear they disagree with popular opinion rather than amongst themselves.
-
149
Evolution and spirits
by Chris Tann inas of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
-
-
Caedes
You are obviously offended by my posts. I apologise I didn't realise I would cause offense.
No apologies neccesary, I was not offended. I have a sturdy pair of big boy pants and am not afraid to use them. I am merely pointing out what I think are flaws in your logic and pointing out that claiming you were being intellectually bullied when you had already insulted a portion of your readers was hypocritical.
It's clear that you have misunderstood me and hopefully we can reach some kind of agreement. Concrete thinkers do not have the ability to have flexibility of thought. If you are a flexible thinker then you are not a concrete thinker. Having flexibility of thought doesn't mean you have the ability to think in abstract terms. Being flexible is different from being an abstract thinker.
Personally I think that human beings are a lot fuzzier than that, people are capable of compartmentalizing their lives and their thinking to an astonishing degree. I don't think it does anyone any favours to try and lump people into neat little boxes, it's the same as trying to herd cats. I think we all have the ability to think creatively, abstractly, regimented and scientifically if we choose to.
You used the phrase " pointing out that your 'concrete' thinker" I am sorry if you thought my post was aimed at you as being a concrete black and white thinker. From all of the posts that I have read from you I see no evidence that you are.
No, I was making the point that I am of a similar scientific viewpoint as Cofty, I want to see empirical evidence. I completely dismiss any and all belief in the supernatural. Your point was aimed at those you believe are 'concrete' thinkers, not at me personally, however by any fair appraisal I am in the same camp as Cofty. The fact that you weren't specifically talking about me doesn't mean that your post wouldn't apply to me and a large group of people on this site.
Apologies again for offending you
My apologies for giving you the impression I was offended!