Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - New discovery confounds evolutionists

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

New discovery confounds evolutionists
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

runthegauntlet

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:52 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Many Christians (perhaps the majority, other than the fundamentalists) believe that God created Earth and all the life on Earth, and that evolution was the process whereby God created life on Earth.

I don't see what the big debate is. God (if He exists) created evolution.

Is everyone happy now?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Many Christians (perhaps the majority, other than the fundamentalists) believe that God created Earth and all the life on Earth, and that evolution was the process whereby God created life on Earth.

I don't see what the big debate is. God (if He exists) created evolution.

Is everyone happy now?

No, unfortunately, that is insufficient for people on the anti-evolution side of the debate. Anyone who actually understands evolution understands that ultimately, it's merely a theory about how life diversifies, not how life began. It is compatible with the idea of a divinity creating the world and the life on it.

Christians, unfortunately, have a very specific idea of how the world was created which flies in the face of not just evolutionary theory, but pretty much everything we believe we know about the timeline of the planet. As such, they attempt to argue against evolution, because they feel evolution is not compatible with their religion. This is why you have people like Junior, Julius, Olive, and so forth attacking evolution on these forums.

Evolution is such obvious fact that it would probably never come up here except in passing if not for the fact that certain religious zealots insist on calling it lies. And, unfortunately, they aren't happy with the idea you've put forward.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:09 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Of course it's different. With anthropogenic global warmings, there's immense benefit involved in potentially lying,

No such incentives really exist with evolution.

You're kidding aren't you? Thousands of evolutionists and palaentologists sit atop a pyramid scheme whereby their head honchos control the flow of propoganda- who passes peer review, who gets generous grants and funding and who is instructed to say what in their theses to get a certain passing grade. Its micro-managed- no christians are allowed to publish anything and anything not approved by the cult is deemed to have no credibility.

Quote:

Their willingness to adapt their theory to new data is exactly why it's so credible.

Monstrous balderdash. When climatologists admit an error, their theory is thrown out the window and viewed as "irreparably damaged". When Evos make a gaffe, its viewed as "refining their theory to be more accurate". How cute.

Quote:

It's religion which asserts something that flies in the face of all availible data, yet refuses to revise its theory.

Why would we revise scripture for your latest evo babble whose every published paper has consistently been proven wrong and had to be thrown out with astonishing regularity?. Particularly when every faux pas just reaffirms the reliability of the biblical record.

Bacasper wrote:

I don't see what the big debate is. God (if He exists) created evolution.

This is a great point, because you're very close. God created original creatures-(more complex than todays)- with the inherent vast DNA range which would enable them to diversify to a limited degree from those original forms. Hence the original super-elephant has over thousands of years of localised geographically isolated inbreeding resulted in a variety of forms- African, Asian elephants and presumably the former mammoths.
They are all descendants of the first elephant-type.
But have they changed into bats or octopii? of course not. Its a case of limited change on the basis of complex to simple. Todays jumbo is half the beast its ancestor was. it has degenerated to some extent, lost and damaged parts of its original genetic range.

runthegauntlet

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:24 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Ooooh, oooh! I know!

Here, I'll post it again since you completely ignored it last time. I'd like these parts of the bible to be revised since they're patently false and are so mind-numbingly stupid to begin with that it barely merits mentioning. And mind you, this is what I typed up in about 60 seconds. Do we even need to bother with an indepth analysis?

Quote:

Some entity in the sky created the universe in 6 days, a man from some dust, and a woman from that man's rib. Then man and woman met a TALKING serpent who got them to eat some fruit, thus ushering in original sin and setting the stage for Jebus later on down the road. And then they had a few kids. Then, the kids all slept together, along with the parents, to populate the Earth. Then 'god' realized he'd messed up, killed everybody except for one man and his family and two of every animal that just happen to be within walking distance of his little boat. *global flood* (HA). Then said man repopulates the Earth in the same incestuous fashion. Let's not forget the guy living in the whale for three days, the sun not moving for half a day or whatever, cities being destroyed by brimstone, burning bushes, dividing seas, etc., etc.

Then, a few years down the road, said 'god' impregnates a 'virgin' woman...with himself.... so that he can be killed (god sure is killed easily), 'save' the world and usher in a new kingdom. A new kingdom complete with lots of horsemen, a dragon that knocks down the stars (like, 1/3, right? The cosmos! Ah!) and lakes of fire, etc., etc.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:52 am Post subject:

runthegauntlet wrote:

Here, I'll post it again since you completely ignored it last time. I'd like these parts of the bible to be revised since they're patently false and are so mind-numbingly stupid to begin with that it barely merits mentioning.

This thread is a criticism of evolution, a scientific theory.
Its not a thread about religion.
I suggest you stop trying to steer it that way or this thread will be locked and we won't be able to discuss evolution ...yet again. Rolling Eyes

*By what feat of mind-over-matter do you enable yourself to accept molecules changed into whales over time? Or that fish got up and walked out the lake because the water was drying up. then gave birth to four-legged mammals? What part of your brain do you manually switch off before swallowing such preposterous poppycock?

runthegauntlet

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:04 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

runthegauntlet wrote:

Seeing as you set this entire thread up so you could post your wannabe 'trump' card of people running away from the 'creator', you'd be wise to heed your own misdirected advice.

You're apparently operating under yet another creationist fallacy. Where has anyone, EVER, stated that a fish just got up and walked out of the lake one day or gave birth to four-legged mammals?

I don't think you can understand the gravity of processes that took MILLIONS of years.

Again, the 'poppycock'. Please, address the being creating the universe in six days thing. The dirt thing? The flood thing? The god impregnating a virgin with HIMSELF thing?

The irony is absolutely biblical.
Very Happy

runthegauntlet

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:06 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

I've yet to see a discussion of evolution. I've yet to see a valid criticism of evolution.

So far all I've seen is you throw out the hilariously stupid dino/man idea and some crap about evolution revising it's dating systems, which, according to you, completely debunks evolution. Rolling Eyes

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:06 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

runthegauntlet wrote:

This thread is a criticism of evolution, a scientific theory.
Its not a thread about religion.

And yet, you brought up religion yourself:

Junior wrote:

With evolution, nothing is enough...not only because its subjective make-believe, but because human instinct refuses to consider God.

If you have a stronger hypothesis than evolution which is not religious in nature, feel free to put it forward. Until then, science is just making do with the strongest availible theory which best matches the evidence. But you don't, because the entire basis of your attack on evolution is religious in nature, which is why you brought it up.

runthegauntlet

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:09 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Junior wrote:

runthegauntlet wrote:

This thread is a criticism of evolution, a scientific theory.
Its not a thread about religion.

And yet, you brought up religion yourself:

Junior wrote:

With evolution, nothing is enough...not only because its subjective make-believe, but because human instinct refuses to consider God.

And this gem:

Junior wrote:

Its really quite insane the lengths people go to to run from the creator.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:11 am Post subject:

runthegauntlet wrote:

You're apparently operating under yet another creationist fallacy. Where has anyone, EVER, stated that a fish just got up and walked out of the lake one day or gave birth to four-legged mammals?

Like most Biblical Creationists, Junior pretty clearly just doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution. He's just reciting logically invalid talking points off of Christian propaganda websites, which were written by people who do understand the Theory of Evolution, but recognize it's in their best interests to misrepresent it so as to deceive the masses and preserve pro-Christian public opinion.

In short, he's been fooled. Alternatively, he could be a troll; his posts on the Somali Pirate threads certainly support such a conclusion.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:24 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Fox wrote:

Of course it's different. With anthropogenic global warmings, there's immense benefit involved in potentially lying,

No such incentives really exist with evolution.

You're kidding aren't you? Thousands of evolutionists and palaentologists sit atop a pyramid scheme whereby their head honchos control the flow of propoganda-

With every word you write trying to invalidate the scientific process, you're just pissing all over your own arguments in favor of anthropogenic global warming. Are you too stupid to realize how thoroughly you're contradicting yourself right now, or are you just a hypocrite?

That said, all that exists for global warming, plus the potential for control over billions of dollars due to various political proposals that could be implemented due to global warming. There's just plain more at stake from an economic point of view, and thus the incentive to deceive is much higher.

Junior wrote:

Quote:

Their willingness to adapt their theory to new data is exactly why it's so credible.

I don't give a damn about your petty arguments with the conservatives on this forum about climate change. My participation in that discussion was limited to admitting uncertainty combined with a defense of the science in question against claims that it was irreparably damaged. Are you too stupid to keep people's general intellectual positions straight, or are you strawmanning me? Because right now your argument pretty much amounts to, "Some other people not partaking in this discussion attacked climate change in a certain way, so I'll hypocritically attack evolution in the same way even though I defended climate change against the attacks in question." This kind of rubbish is why it's so hard to take religious nuts seriously. You contradict yourselves constantly.

Junior wrote:

Why would we revise scripture ...

I agree, why revise scripture at all? It's an inane faerie tale that people are brainwashed into believing from a young age. It's so utterly irrelevent to actual science that it hardly merits consideration, and it only comes up when one of you Bible clowns starts babbling about it.

Junior wrote:

And yet, no data exists which defends this theory. It's purely hand crafted in a decidedly non-scientific matter from Bible nuts who value faerie tales over reality. People who believe a magical invisible man who has always existed one day willed everything that is into existence, but find the idea of species diversifying completely implausible.

You know why the scientific community doesn't take your type seriously? Because you've got nothing to add. Imagine if a I read the Silmarillion, decided it was obviously true, and then started trying to formulate a world view on it that was not only entirely lacking in data to support it, but actually contradicted availible scientific data. That would be ridiculous, but it's essentially exactly what you're doing here.

Almost everything you say perfectly mirrors Julius' positions, only spoken with more retardation. I don't know if you're his kid brother, him trolling on an alt, or just someone who by some coincidence ended up equally brainwashed in the same pitiable way, but either way it's all been covered on this forum before. There's really no reason to partake in the dance again; Julius got destroyed, and you'd end up the same way.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:56 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Junior wrote:

And yet, no data exists which defends this theory.

Every bit of genetic data supports this.
That mammoths, african and Asian elephants share a common ancestor. Asian and African can still produce hybrid offspring, scientists toying with the idea of resurrecting the mammoth.. plan to first produce a mixed ele-moth.
You yourself agree that speciation ocurrs via natural selection-a selecting out of choice DNA. Over time then with each new refined selection, masses of obsolete data is lost and selected out.
hence the original ancestor must have had a far superior and larger DNA range to choose from. This is a progression from complex to simpler.Species have changed slightly by losing what was not needed.

A benevolent creator would have endowed his creatures with the ability to adapt to a world whose environment he knew would change.
But we're talking change within genetic limits. Not an amoeba morphing miraculously into a water buffalo by some magical procurement of entirely new and novel genetic material by a theorised process that has never been demonstrated or observed.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:49 am Post subject:

Junior, your back ass-wards ways of thinking on nearly every modern issue confounds evolution.

NovaKart

Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:08 am Post subject:

Even the Pope said that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Christianity doesn't have such a good tract record with accepting science. Look at what happened to Galileo. And his theory turned out to be true. How do creationists explain cavemen? Were Adam and Eve cavepeople and humans evolved from them? Even if evolution is wrong it doesn't make the Bible true. In Bill Maher's movie Religulous he goes to the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, a real embaressment to my home state. It has exhibits showing humans and mokeys living together. It even shows a tricerotops with a saddle on it. Now if humans and dinosaurs lived out the time would they really hang out together? Wouldn't the dinosaurs kill the humans? And how could the humans have domesticated them? It's hilarious. Even the Ancient Greeks didn't take all of their myths literally, at least the educated ones didn't.

djsmnc

Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:37 am Post subject:

NovaKart wrote:

Even the Pope said that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Christianity doesn't have such a good tract record with accepting science. Look at what happened to Galileo. And his theory turned out to be true.

How do creationists explain cavemen? Were Adam and Eve cavepeople and humans evolved from them? Even if evolution is wrong it doesn't make the Bible true.

In Bill Maher's movie Religulous he goes to the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, a real embaressment to my home state. It has exhibits showing humans and mokeys living together. It even shows a tricerotops with a saddle on it. Now if humans and dinosaurs lived out the time would they really hang out together? Wouldn't the dinosaurs kill the humans? And how could the humans have domesticated them? It's hilarious.

Even the Ancient Greeks didn't take all of their myths literally, at least the educated ones didn't.

I think Augustine said it best in the 4th century:

Quote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe