| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Problem is that when you do that you also argue that God exists without showing any concrete evidence of it. That kind of puts the whole argument of creative design on a slippery slope. |
Science is about what there is evidence for. Teach that in schools. Faith is for the other questions that no amount of evidence is ever going to prove. Teach that in church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| A fish changing into a cat? That's what evolutionists claim... |
Yes indeed. Do you have evidence this is impossible? Because there is loads of evidence for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Has it ever been observed that a moth changes into...ohhhhh...a dog? A fish changing into a cat? That's what evolutionists claim... |
No they don't. Stop lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Has it ever been observed that a moth changes into...ohhhhh...a dog? A fish changing into a cat? That's what evolutionists claim... |
No they don't. Stop lying. |
I'll grant him, charitably, that his second claim is roughly correct. No evolutionist claims a moth turns into a dog. But the dogs and all other land mammals did come from some kind of "fish", far enough back. Although, creationists seem to want to imply this means evolutionists claim a fish at one point gave birth to a dog. Which is a strawman. I'm sure wannago isn't making that strawman. He's simply making the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. "I don't believe over thousands and thousands of years some species turn into other species via small changes."
Creationists claim there are no "intermediate forms". By which they mean the crockoduck or some such clap. But there are intermediate forms all around us. For one, your father is an intermediate form between you and your grandfather. But on a species level, there are many species that can still interbreed (say a horse and a donkey, or various species of lizard).
Anyway wannago has presented nothing in this debate other than repetition of the personal incredulity fallacy and gross ignorance of the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| A fish changing into a cat? That's what evolutionists claim... |
Yes indeed. Do you have evidence this is impossible? Because there is loads of evidence for it. |
Really? Oh, do tell! Show me some observed "evidence" that this IS possible. BTW, one can't prove a negative but, since you are making a positive claim, prove away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway wannago has presented nothing in this debate other than repetition of the personal incredulity fallacy and gross ignorance of the topic. |
Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses, even over "billions and billions" of years. I'm just posing the questions and saying that the "evidence" doesn't convince me. That's OK, I understand when someone questions your religion that you minimize them by saying they are ignorant. In the absence of true proof, that's the way to go. Great job! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway wannago has presented nothing in this debate other than repetition of the personal incredulity fallacy and gross ignorance of the topic. |
Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses, even over "billions and billions" of years. I'm just posing the questions and saying that the "evidence" doesn't convince me. That's OK, I understand when someone questions your religion that you minimize them by saying they are ignorant. In the absence of true proof, that's the way to go. Great job! |
So what do you believe in. Whats more whacky, evolution which has been observed or creationism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses |
Yes you are. Stop lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway wannago has presented nothing in this debate other than repetition of the personal incredulity fallacy and gross ignorance of the topic. |
Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses, even over "billions and billions" of years. I'm just posing the questions and saying that the "evidence" doesn't convince me. That's OK, I understand when someone questions your religion that you minimize them by saying they are ignorant. In the absence of true proof, that's the way to go. Great job! |
So what do you believe in. Whats more whacky, evolution which has been observed or creationism? |
It has been observed? Where? I want to see where a fish turns into a horse! Prove it and I'm there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses |
Yes you are. Stop lying. |
Shhhhhh...your false evolution religion is safe, buddy. It's OK. You don't have to say I'm lying to protect your own unproven faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway wannago has presented nothing in this debate other than repetition of the personal incredulity fallacy and gross ignorance of the topic. |
Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses, even over "billions and billions" of years. I'm just posing the questions and saying that the "evidence" doesn't convince me. That's OK, I understand when someone questions your religion that you minimize them by saying they are ignorant. In the absence of true proof, that's the way to go. Great job! |
So what do you believe in. Whats more whacky, evolution which has been observed or creationism? |
It has been observed? Where? I want to see where a fish turns into a horse! Prove it and I'm there! |
And it has been observed that God does anything? Im here too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| A fish changing into a cat? That's what evolutionists claim... |
Yes indeed. Do you have evidence this is impossible? Because there is loads of evidence for it. |
Really? Oh, do tell! Show me some observed "evidence" that this IS possible. BTW, one can't prove a negative but, since you are making a positive claim, prove away. |
Another logical fallacy. There are many negative proofs possible. "All bats give birth to live young." You can prove me wrong by showing me one bat that lays eggs. Indeed science proves claims wrong all the time. "Shark cartilage cures cancer." They run large, well designed studies and find it doesn't cure cancer or extend survival rates. Conclusion: the claim is wrong. Sure there is no absolute. I mean, maybe, but science does not work in absolutes. It goes with the best evidence. Again, you simply betray a gross ignorance of what science is about and how it arrives at its conclusions. And you believe you're qualified to pass judgment on a complex theory? Uh huh.
The observed evidence is:
a) the fossil record (fossils match prediction, this is strong evidence)
b) the molecular evidence (the only theory on the table that explains common mutations in things like endogenous retroviruses in our genetic codes is evolution)
Evolution is a solid scientific theory because it is backed by multiple lines of evidence. It makes predictions. And it can be falsified by the evidence (for example find advanced fossils in a much older geological layer).
What do you consider compelling evidence for evolution? Because the above IS compelling evidence to the vast, vast majority of scientists. Sure you can't observe speciation on the order of fish becoming dogs. Although speciation can be demonstrated in the lab. Large areas of science do not, however, involve labs. One cannot haul a star into the lab and test nucleosynthesis. Oh golly, that must be a religion too!
Now why do you believe the observed evidence does not support the theory of evolution? What is your evidence, aside from personal incredulity (logical fallacy), that evolution has it wrong?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:13 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Look, I'm not the one making the whacky claims about fish turning into horses |
Yes you are. Stop lying. |
Shhhhhh...your false evolution religion is safe, buddy. |
1- It's not a religion, silly dogmatic boy. It's a theory I accept due to the evidence we currently have. Should evidence come along to disprove it, then I'll stop accepting it.
2- Are you going to stop lying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Shhhhhh...your false evolution religion is safe, buddy. It's OK. You don't have to say I'm lying to protect your own unproven faith. |
Religion appeals to a god. Science does not. Science views knowledge as tentative. Religion does not. There are some elements to all religions that are not subject to revision. Christians will not change their belief Jesus rose from the dead, for example. No evidence would convince a Christian it did not happen, while there is sufficient evidence to convince a scientist that the periodic table is incorrect. Those are two key differences between religion and science.
And you've not actually bothered to defend that assumption. You just keep repeating your premise. Your logical skills are weak.
How is science a religion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wannago,
Im still waiting for evidence that God created all the species. That Noah guy must have been brilliant to know all about the millions of species on earth, even ones we dont know anything about. Then he must have been a brilliant engineer to create state of the art ark and equipment to house all those species. The logistics must have been a nightmare, you know with all the collecting he must have done on all the continents of the world. And God only gave him like a couple of weeks to get it all done!
Now, whats silly, you idiots who believe in this crap or us?
And screw it, take biology out of it. Astronomers have basically nailed the age of the universe down cold. Its over 15billion years old, give or take a half a billion. Totally discrediting Genesis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
