derek-
"evolution", the definition you just gave for it ("change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations"), does not invalidate god or creation.
aa
Posts by dubla
-
56Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
derek-
since gedankens comment stemmed from yours to begin with, ill revisit your original statement:
If people's deeply-held religious beliefs were invalidated by gravity, that would be as big an issue as evolution
no ones deeply-held religious beliefs are invalidated by evolution.
aa
Edited by - dubla on 8 August 2002 11:20:3
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
derek-
Evolution is not about the origin of life. The origin of life from non-life is called abiogenesis. Evolution is "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations" and is proven to occur.
i realize that, i wasnt trying to imply that one equaled the other......but i think mentally they do equal one another for many people, and they talk about "evolution" when discussing their beliefs on the origin of life. read sleepys first post on this thread, and youll see why my comments about the origin of life are relevant. i doubt highly that sleepy was trying to say she/he wasnt sure about whether or not there was any "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations" taking place, but i could be wrong. in other words, the issue at hand in this thread is sleepys view of evolution vs. creation. gedanken was saying it wouldnt be an issue (evolution vs. creation) if no one had these "near and dear" beliefs, which i think is just wrong.
aa
Edited by - dubla on 8 August 2002 11:15:1
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
dubla
six-
Gedanken, I think Grunt is running on common sense and anger. Neither of which are worth a good god damn in a scientific discussion.
i see your point, entirely.....and youre right. on the flip side though, insulting someone at every turn and speaking in a condescending manner the entire time isnt exactly constructive in a scientific discussion either. you can be the god of scientific knowledge and still come off like a complete ass in a discussion, which of course just closes the ears youre trying to speak into.
grunt-
You almost made it without a personal insult, but not quite. Still, it is progress and this proves you are trainable. We will keep working on it until one day you will be able to make posts that even a normal person (as opposed to an evolutionary fundie who resorts to personal insults at the first sign of disagreement....
i see youve caught on to his m.o. >>> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=34023&site=3&page=1
its too bad, because some of these posters have great info to bring to the table, they just dont know how.
aa
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
gedanken-
I'm not confusing the issue - you are.
i never said you were confusing the issue, i said you presented your analogy in a very condescending way, in order to undermine sleepys comments. your complete intent was to make someone elses doubts look ridiculous, which just isnt a very constructive way to state your point to begin with, is it? i also said that your analogy was irrelevant, and i showed why......even sleepy said that his/her comments were not meant to focus on the theory behind evolution.
Somone can be legitimately unsure about the theory of gravity but only an idiot would deny that gravity exists.
again, this type of argument is really going to get you nowhere on a discussion board........you are implying then, that anyone can be legitimately unsure about the theory of evolution, but only an idiot would deny it exists. these types of comments may very well make you feel victorious, but they dont serve a constructive purpose in a public discussion/argument.
If evolution were not tied so closely to beliefs that people hold near and dear than this would not be an issue at all, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread.
thats completely false. i know people who believe in evolution and creation, and i know people who dont know what they think about god (in other words, they dont have religious beliefs that are near and dear to their heart), but they also know they simply dont buy into evolution. im sure your statement is true of some, but there would most certainly still be an issue, regardless of beliefs people "hold near and dear". the origin of life has not been proven, in any way shape or form....even your touted scientists still dont have a clue....it can only be guessed at. until someone figures it out (or its revealed), there will be an issue, period.
In what other field of learning do you find people who are barely able to write a complete sentence challenging the findings of years of careful research.
im really not concerned with the literacy level of everyone on this board, and how literate each individual is does not detract from that persons personal beliefs. i respect everyones individual beliefs, just as i respect yours. can you say the same?
Have you ever heard of a an evolutionist converting to Creationism?
yes i have, but i admit i only know of one case (of course ive never really known that many evolutionists to begin with personally). really though, that doesnt mean anything.......who cares if he believed in evolution first, then creation, and who cares if someone who was once a christian becomes athiest? its pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand....which is, in case youve forgotten already, your analogy. i realize you want to use this issue to springboard into a full blown creation/evolution discussion with me, or whoever else, but that was never my intent to begin with. so carry on if youd like.
i) Simon, how about starting a focus thread on evolution with the ground rules being that participants who resort to insults are ignored (self-enforced).
why the ground rule about resorting to insults....do you want to be ignored by everyone right off the bat?
Can the creationists here step up to the plate and not only explain why evolution didn't happen but put forth a compelling argument for Creation. Nothing I've seen on this board - or elsewhere - comes even close. The best Creationists can do is to complain that they are having their "intelligence" insulted. Well, it's frustrating trying to debate with people who not only don't have a clue but refuse to get one.
interesting challenge.....but im not sure why you directed it at me. again, to debate evolution vs. creation was never my intent when i continued on with this thread, my intent was simply to back up my statement about how ludicrous your analogy was, which i have.
(ii) Since the Creationists are so smart - why not branch out into other areas of scientific endeavor.
please let me know which creationist on this board claimed to be "so smart" as you put it. in fact, the only posters ive witnessed boasting about their intelligence level are the evolutionists. funny how that works, isnt it?
Creationists's denial of the evidence for evolution is no less ridiculous - actually more ridculous - than them all trying to do as I suggest.
yes, fall back on your failsafe "your beliefs are ridiculous" argument.......its a very constructive way to get your point across. have you ever read youknows posts? he uses the same tactic regularly, and you should see how many people truly appreciate it.
aa
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
Some evolutionists attack anything of a spiritual nature almost as much as fundies attack evolution/atheism. I could understand it as a kind of allergic reaction, i suppose.
I agree SaintSatan, I find that many people with the two opposing points of view show the kind of patronising condescending bigotry that makes objective debate near enough impossible.
amen.
aa
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
gedanken-
It is only ludicrous if you're ignorant of what a theory is. It seems that you are.
no, its ludicrous because of the way you presented it. comparing theories is one thing, but the way you presented your comparison was basically equal to saying, "sleepy, your doubts about evolution are completely ridiculous, and this analogy is going to show you why". you delivered the information in a way that attempted to completely undermine sleepys comments, when sleepy in fact was never even concentrating on the "theory" of evolution. now you are putting on this show about how you were merely comparing theories, when theory wasnt the topic of the thread to begin with. sleepy said:
I'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.
now, if youre going to make an analogy, make it relevant. i suppose convincing someone that gravity exists and convincing someone that we all got here from evolution are pretty much equal tasks, huh? no they arent, which is why its a ludicrous analogy, as i said the first time. perhaps youre ignorant of what relevance means?
relevance:
- Pertinence to the matter at hand.
the matter at hand, was that sleepy wasnt convinced about evolution, or creation.....i somehow doubt your analogy helped convince her/him otherwise.......but at least it was exaggerated enough to make someone elses doubts sound completely unwarranted, and that was your intent to begin with.
aa
(edited for error...twice)
Edited by - dubla on 7 August 2002 12:53:45
Edited by - dubla on 7 August 2002 12:55:13
Edited by - dubla on 7 August 2002 13:3:46
-
56
Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.
by sleepy in.
what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.
-
-
dubla
If the evolution of the species was as clear and straightforward as gravity there would simply be no issue here to discuss.
amen......what a ludicrous analogy.
aa
-
44
Favorite Alcoholic Bevvie?
by The_Bad_Seed inlets hear it.
beer, mixed drink, spirits.
my stats:.
-
-
dubla
plm-
I guess I'll say yes.slides down in chair
lol, sorry....wasnt trying to make you feel bad. i just didnt know if you realized that the word "alcoholic" can be used as a noun and an adjective (to describe anything alcohol related, such as drinks), or if you were just joking. its an understandable misunderstanding....please accept my apologies if i made your comment sound bad.
aa
-
176
APOSTATE DUBS----STONE COLD KILLERS?
by You Know inas part of the sign of his presence, jesus said: "furthermore, brother will deliver brother over to death, and a father a child, and children will rise up against their parents and have them put to death.
until recently it was difficult to imagine how such a scenario might play itself out in fulfillment of christ's prophecy.
but, with the ongoing apostasy now accelerating, and the world's financial system rapidly crumbling, and rumors of war a part of daily life, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the stage is being set for jesus' words to become a horrifying reality.
-
-
dubla
yk-
well, i see in your last post, with nothing left to say, you resorted back to old reliable: mindless insults.......delusional, silly, goofball, and on it goes. if only these constant insults raised you to the stature you imagine they do, lol.
So far you haven't refuted anything.
refute: To prove to be false or erroneous
false: Intentionally deceptive
yes yk, many times over have i proved you to be intentionally deceptive (not to mention flat out wrong, but well stick to intentionally deceptive for now). heres a timeline for you from your wager thread (your quotes in red), proving your intentions to decieve (i already posted a longer version of this once, which you wisely ignored)......
Sep24th, 2001:
several of us have already pointed out that you specifically predicted the "financial system" to be in a state of war, not the u.s.
You have got to be kidding me. That's hilarious. You are really desperate to discredit me aren't you? Why don't you explain how the financial system can be in a state of war. Now that should really be worth a laugh.
here it is plain for all to see, that you specifically denied predicting the financial system would be in a state of war, even going so far as to say that explaining how the financial system could be in a state of war "should really be worth a laugh". i called you on this later, and in your normal deceitful tactics, you flat out denied it. here you go......
Nov 1st, 2001:
you now claim you did not mean the financial system, but you really meant the united states
You have a way of twisting things around, which most apostates seem to excel at. Nevertheless, I didn't say that I didn't mean the financial system as you claim.
oh, you didnt say that? yes you did you liar....its right there for you, sep 24th, black and white, dead to rights. explain your way out of that one....or better yet, ignore it again.
just for more proof, heres another thread where i nailed you in a lie, which you again wisely ingored, and to this day have no answer for (look at the red print in my last long post) >>> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=29888&page=8&site=3
again, undeniable proof of your intentional deception, and these are just two small examples, which youve happened to ignore...............i still havent figured out if you really do imagine that i havent refuted anything, or if it would simply be too damaging to your reputation to admit as much on a public forum. my email box is open, if youd rather apologize in private.
What do you mean that he was "shouting at the top of his lungs"?
well, i assume when he puts his words in italics, and ends with an exclamation, that hes indicating either extreme excitement, or a raising of his voice....thus the "shouting". i suppose "shouting at the top of his lungs" might be a slight overexaggeration, but i used it only because youve used the same exaggerations many times with posters that put !s into their posts. im sure we both exaggerated for the same reason.
No. Some things are public knowledge and other things are yet to be revealed. What's so mysterious about that?
i caught you in another lie, and you sidestepped it once again. you specifically stated that the government book cooking is public knowledge, then turned around and said it wasnt public knowledge. there nothing mysterious about your deception, save maybe the fact that you think no one will call you on it.
For the same reason that I am not screaming about it now, you goofball. LOL
since you insist on poking fun, rather than answering the question, ill phrase it better for you........why has there been ZERO mention of governement book cooking in regards the benchmark revision, until now? why did you not make this claim long ago, considering the benchmark revision has been around for over a decade, and has ALWAYS been public knowledge? you see, its public....hardly fakery. again, the reason youre calling it "book cooking" now, is simply because that phrase is en vogue, so you can slap it on just about anything and catch a few ears.....no matter how ridiculous of a claim it is. i think the fact is, you didnt even know about the benchmark revision until lately, and when you saw that article on it, you immediately thought, "wow, new hidden secrets about the governments accounting practices", and ran with it.......unbeknownst to you, its been common knowledge for a decade, and i called you on it.....so sorry to ruin your little theory.
aa