Mod note: This is a split thread from the Denial of evolution IV thread. The posts originally began in response to post #287.
Last edited:
views on evolution
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
will you people stop with the "creationist" shit already.
makes me god damn gag.
according to those that have posted in this thread anybody or anything that contradicts evolution is "creationist" in nature or is retarded or on drugs.
litrtle do you realize that science is big business at its worst.
and it's time someone puts a stop to it.
makes me god damn gag.
according to those that have posted in this thread anybody or anything that contradicts evolution is "creationist" in nature or is retarded or on drugs.
litrtle do you realize that science is big business at its worst.
and it's time someone puts a stop to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fight back against The Man! Just say no to science!
it isn't science dude, it's the money, the honor and prestige of certain institutions, the egos of the elite.
...
I suppose I resemble that remark, having just used the term above.
do you prefer another word than Creationist? it's common speech.
Actually, the thread opened with insightful thoughts from Darwin, and a challenge by Rich to get creationists to address the fossil record.
I am posting my opinions to further agitate the Creationists into dialog on this point. It is often ignored in religion vs science debates and we have an expert to sort out what the evidence says.
So what say you Leopold? was there a catastrophic flood that decimated all living creatures? was there a catastrophic event in which all creatures appeared simultaneously at the day of their creation?
do you feel like it's a fair question? to me, it's one of the basic ones.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Well only going to say about evolution, it seems to be the only part of science for now that's more about the prestige and egos of the elite and one doesn't have to be a Creationist to see that.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Actually I was talking about how it's more about the ego of some scientists and I don't care to discuss the soundness of the theory right now.
@Big Chiller --
But the soundness of the theory is what's paramount, right? Of course, if you're looking to impugn the scientists involved in research rather than targeting weaknesses in their research(in other words, you just want to ad hominem them to death) then this would make sense. If you're actually interested in the truth(you know, being on topic and everything) then this makes absolutely no sense.
But the soundness of the theory is what's paramount, right? Of course, if you're looking to impugn the scientists involved in research rather than targeting weaknesses in their research(in other words, you just want to ad hominem them to death) then this would make sense. If you're actually interested in the truth(you know, being on topic and everything) then this makes absolutely no sense.
I thought evolution was about evolution and little more than evolution.
Not sure whose egos got in the way of your discoveries.. Darwin? He certainly wasn't eager to publish?
Maybe it would help to separate between Big Science (like Du Pont Corporation, any others) vs Science (a discipline, owned by no one).
We are not talking about a corporation, just a discipline. And of course, evidence.
it wasn't directed at any particular poster.
how about "those with dissenting evidence"?
a perfect opening for a strawman discussion ay?
and what happens to the evidence "creationists" present?
it's immediately labeled as "crank", flawed, an outright lie.
if it can't be labeled as such then the messenger is personally attacked.
have any insights to the cambrian explosion?
fair questions?
yes, i have a very fair question.
what piece of evidence toppled a scientific law in favor of an unproved hypothesis?
bring it.
what did you dislike about Darwin's remark?
I don't know, what happened to it?
I haven't seen it.
I use the term lie to refer to the policy of teaching a thing known to be false
yes - a remarkable thing happened - the ability to reproduce sexually
the end of the era of atmosphere building
multicellular organization
adaptation of the photosynthesizer to a photoreceptor
etc
explain.
exactly.
science as a discipline is indeed sound.
it's those with an agenda to push, money to lose, or prestige to bruise, THAT'S the problem.
well see, that's just it.
there has been NO demonstration that evolution ever happened. none.
i didn't say anything about darwins remark.
i was commenting on the remark about creationists.
it was labeled as crank, in this very thread.
a whole shitload of new organisms appeared, seemingly out of nowhere e.g. without any predecessors.
the scientific law of biogenesis was replaced with the hypothesis of evolution.
evolution HAS NOT been demonstrated to be true regardless of what you might think otherwise.
do you think that is strange, if so, why? the advent of sexual reproduction was a huge evolutionary advance, allowing species to diverge rapidly from a common ancestor.
You are referring to Pasteur's law that life springs from a progenitor. Of course, evolution does not address abiogenesis in Darwin's time at least.
Not sure what you mean by evolution not being demonstrated. I think gradualism has evolved, but the main tenet, selection, seems to be sound. I can think of lots of examples. When you say "not demonstrated" you may be wanting to see with our own eyes a process that unfolds over millions of years.
But as to the core question, does the fossil record speak to the myths of creationism? what do you think? it certainly demonstrates a general graduation of clades that show increasing complexity and inheritance of characteristics of fossils from the lower layers. Don't you agree?
???
uh, yes, i do.
evolution states organisms evolved from former organisms.
the cambrian explosion smashes that from the get go.
how nice.
we now have a hypothesis that proceeds quickly when we need it to, and VVVEEEERRRRYYYY slowly when we need it to.
and sometimes hardly at all.
and you can't see the absurdity of that?
lots of explanations, no demonstrations of those explanations.
i do too.
there is no doubt in my mind that adaptation is a reality.
actually i was hoping for some lab results.
it seems to me that if evolution was true then a concentrated and focused effort would prove it.
so far such efforts have been fruitless.
no. i seriously question the concept of some glorified god creating everything.
it's about as absurd as evolution.
@leopold --
Have you ever heard of dogs? That's evolution.
What, that they're delusional? Well they are.
Well if homeopathy has more supporting evidence than creationism(which it does, but just barely and not nearly enough to outweigh all of the conflicting evidence) and it's labeled "crank medicine", then why shouldn't creationism be called something like "crank biology"?
Crank is crank whether you like it or not.
There we go, I corrected your sentence for you. Of course, corrected it reads quite differently because a lack of a fossilized predecessor doesn't mean that the predecessor didn't exist. You creationists seem to forget that fossilization is an incredibly rare process, we're lucky to have any fossils at all.
What the hell are you talking about?
You see, reality would beg to differ with you. Not only do we have species that have appeared in our lifetimes(there's even a species of bacteria that feeds exclusively on nylon, was there any nylon in the Garden of Eden?), but we have mountains of genetic evidence which only the theory of evolution can explain.
To put it simply, you're wrong and to continue to ignore the evidence means that you're delusional.
Have you ever heard of dogs? That's evolution.
What, that they're delusional? Well they are.
Well if homeopathy has more supporting evidence than creationism(which it does, but just barely and not nearly enough to outweigh all of the conflicting evidence) and it's labeled "crank medicine", then why shouldn't creationism be called something like "crank biology"?
Crank is crank whether you like it or not.
There we go, I corrected your sentence for you. Of course, corrected it reads quite differently because a lack of a fossilized predecessor doesn't mean that the predecessor didn't exist. You creationists seem to forget that fossilization is an incredibly rare process, we're lucky to have any fossils at all.
What the hell are you talking about?
You see, reality would beg to differ with you. Not only do we have species that have appeared in our lifetimes(there's even a species of bacteria that feeds exclusively on nylon, was there any nylon in the Garden of Eden?), but we have mountains of genetic evidence which only the theory of evolution can explain.
To put it simply, you're wrong and to continue to ignore the evidence means that you're delusional.
fuck off.
so....on the topic of this post, as it opened, there was a worn-out argument, tossed into the primordial soup, hook, line and sinker: something must be wrong with the theory, because insects metamorphize.
Then you got an immediate response, not from a bastard poster, but from ha teacher showing you how to look up the experts who can give you the current findings in this.
So, what was bastardized? the OP, it was born that way.
If you want to think at another level of metamorphosis, imagine the phenomenal changes in a human embryo in which there are features of the ancestral chain presenting themselves as an unfolding of the human form.
The fact that you had a tail in utero should be humbling to you.
In order to argue against evolution, you need evidence which you will never find since the mountains of evidence already collected have grown beyond disrepute.
- Status