[aldo_14]

Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org

this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org

(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org

I thought you were actually reading what we replied earlier?

[Charismatic]

Why did i not link to anything specific? Well, they address many issues, and instead of just pointing out one, i gave you the main link so you can search around and see the different topics they address.
Atleast they put forth the effort to link to something? I thought this would be more thoughtfull then to give you 10 links for each site, pointing out the different topics. Tried to be helpfull.

Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org

this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org

(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org

Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.

Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.

@Bobboau: If they are the 3 most discredited sites, what are the 3 most credited sites? If you know whats discredited, you must know what is credited then. What a coincidence that the very 3 links i post are the 'most' discredited. L o l.

[Kazan]

because you can't? and you know you'll loose any debate in the argument that you attempt to engage in - so instead you make a fallicious argumentum ad verencundiam since those websites you are linking are not valid expert sources in anything other than expert creation of bull****

[Edward Bradshaw]

Finially got round to answering this one.

He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They  spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!

  --- many quotes from the Discovery Institute ---

[quotes from the Discovery Institute snipped)

What was all that for? Im well aware of what DI's website says. Just what did you think your quoting spree display proved?

 

You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?

abiogenesis=The creation of the first life. evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation.  How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself?  Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires.  And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!

Im afraid Im not as clued up on developments in abiogenesis. Its a theory that still has a long way to go. Point is, your question above is irrelevant. Whats so hard for you guys to understand? It doesnt matter how it started, Evolution assumes it already did.  Evolution theory does not depend on abiogenesis in the same way as germ theory doesnt depend on abiogenesis, similarly the theory of gravity also doesnt depend on The Big Bang.

I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.

Erm, so they believe that God is, but that He is totaly inconsequential, because He had nothing to do with our being here? 

I wont presume to speak for them. Why dont you ask them yourself? Theres plenty around. Heres a small selection to get you started/thinking:

ACG: Affilication of Christian Geologists:
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/index.stm

Ex-YEC and ICR member geologist Glenn Morton:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm

Clergy Letter Project:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

Ken Miller page:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
...and his book Finding Darwins God:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060930497/ref=ed_oe_p/104-4442131-6426337?n=283155

Dr Rev Bob Bakker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

Theres lots at Christianforums.com in the 'origins theology'' and  ''debate'' sections, if you want to talk to them there. The "origins theology" section is Christian only. The theistic evolutionists wont mind discussing with you what they believe, if you do it nicely.

Or that he did have something to do with our being here, but there's no proof of that, and we should just take His word for it, because He said so, and God doesn't lie,

This assumes god wrote the Bible literally and there is no human error contained within its pages. I guess I should point out that not only was the Bible written by men, it was also compiled by men. There are many books we do not have that are spoken about in the Bible and the Apocrypha.

Poor maths doesn't prove anything.

Neither does poor spelling x2.

Firstly, Im going to be the bigger man here and just say thats how we shorten the word "Mathematics" in England.  Maths is spelt correctly. As for missing an apostrophe, well, sometimes I just dont think it matters too much on forums so occasionally I dont bother correcting it. As for anything else, I do check my posts but sometimes I do miss things which is why you'll find some errors like this especially if they are as gigantic as these tend to get.

Secondly, if you werent trying to be such a smart ass you might have realised that I wasnt trying to prove anything to you with spelling. You were however trying to prove something to us with maths.

Big deal, Americans arent so smart.

Funny how they've got all the tech, though.

America wont be one of the main players in the science game for long if Creationists succeed in trying to redefine what science is. Not all citizens of America invent things, and just because you invent something doesnt mean you are a scientist btw.

Point is most professional scientists, especially those working in relevant fields, reject Creationism and support Evolution as science. And if you poll those in higher education many more people accept evolution than if you just polled the general public. The general public, generally, is pretty ignorent.

http://www.fugly.com/videos/5807/interview_about_world_affairs.html

Funny.  In a canned sort of way.  You do know that those clips were canned, right?

Im sure they did pick all the dumb responces, but I see these kinds of people on a daily basis. I dont know where you live, but it must be quite nice if these people dont exist.

And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.

Career advise: Don't ever run for public office, unless you lie about the people you want to vote for you.

It would be pretty hard for me to pretend to support Creationism for sure.

What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)

Is said force intelligent?

The Tao is not an object, being or a thing. The Tao is left undefined as it is said to be undefinable. It is intelligent only in a sence, and not in the relevant sence you're implying.

"Nature acts without intent,
so cannot be described
as acting with benevolence,
nor malevolence to any thing.

In this respect, the Tao is just the same,
though in reality it should be said
that nature follows the rule of Tao..."
-- Tao Te Ching

I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it.  (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds?  You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)

....

Birds are modified dinosaurs?  How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing?  Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.

Your first misconception you make is making the mistake of thinking everything that makes up the birds wings must have evolved specifically for that purpose as it is used in birds today.

Your second misconception you make is making the mistake of thinking that evolution makes creatures evolve useless and needless bodyparts until something else comes along to make it usefull. We can see you think that when you talk about us only finding fossils with "fully functioning" body parts. This is actually what we would expect to find. Evolution doesnt mean evolving useless appendages like many Creationists make out, and if thats how they present Evolution to you be sure they are either lying or ignorent.

Your third misconception you make is the mistake of thinking that we would expect to find all possible stages for an organism in the fossil record. While we do have many stages, entire stages for some lineages, fossilization is still a rare event. So Creationists making out that we should expect to absolutely-every-single stage for every creature is a misrepresentation of fossilisation. I should also say that when I say "stage", this is a rather inaccurate word to use as evolution is gradual. Jumping is not what Evolution does like some Creationists would pretend it is.

Your forth misconception you make is that we have found no intermediate fossils.  You probably know about Archaeopteryx, but we have found lots of feathered dinosaurs. We have found birds with teeth, birds without beaks, birds with half-feathers half-scales, we see the origins of protofeathers and hollow bones and we see vestigial structures like the clawed "fingers" in ratites. If Creationists want to dismiss some fossils as just "a weird bird" as AIG does with Archaeopteryx it never defines what a bird is or what a dinosaur is (neither do they define "kind" at all). It never attempts to explain why all birds are still archosaurs, and why there is not a single characteristic shared by all members of either group collectively that is not also shared by the other. Creationists never explain these things or why we find nails and hooves on the flippers of manatees or why snakes should grow legs, feet and toes which are reabsorbed back into the body during embryonic development.

Evolution theory is very specific about what we should and shouldnt find. Creationism on the other hand is never specific about anything. It uses terms like "kinds" and "information", yet these are never defined in any objective way yet they are used (and abused) as if they were.  If various kinds of animals were specially created apart from everything else we would expect to find some indication of that. You might expect to find a snake constructed of prokyotic cells, or a vertibrate with six limbs instead of four but in reality all life appears to have evolved from commen ancesters. All organisms fit neatly into a nested hirearchy without exception following the specific criteria that Evolution theory proposes. This creator could create however it likes but it apparently never chooses to violate this system and the only reason Creationists give for any of this is that that is how the designer decided to to it.

No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best.  That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources. 

And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.

You dont evolve just because you are predator, many organisms arent predators at all. After you said Evolution "only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best", that was correct and you should have stopped talking

I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.

Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination.  Ok, I must have missed it.  Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?

Covergent evolution doesnt mean evolving to a common destination, its when similar structures evolve in different lineages for similar purposes.

Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance
Scientific Intolerance
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them.  Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated.  The e-mail still works, though.

Ok, I read them. Its the same old misinformation and ignorence that you display throughout your posts. If you were going to give me a Creationist source even I know of better examples.

EDIT: Darn 50,000 char limit.  Oh, well, I guess I'll just pull an Ed. 

I didnt even realise there was a charcter limit in HLP.

Ed

[aldo_14]

@Bobboau: If they are the 3 most discredited sites, what are the 3 most credited sites? If you know whats discredited, you must know what is credited then. What a coincidence that the very 3 links i post are the 'most' discredited. L o l.

Because they're the most popular, best funded propagandist sites.  They are well known to be funded by fundamentalist Christian groups and to release 'statements' (or somesuch) which are scientifically flawed in numerous ways, which are realised for the sole purpose of evangelising.

NB: regarding credited; the issue is that there is not one single 'credited' site, really, because evolutionary biology is a huge field with many disparate individuals working in it.  A 'credited' site would be something like Nature, or other academic periodicals; unlike creationism, there is no paid evangelising for evolution.  What you need to bear in mind is, science does not have sites devoted to preaching a single answer; the 3 organizations you linked have the sole purpose of publicising creationism, regardless of contradictory evidence.  There is no evolutionary equivalent because science does not presuppose an answer (it's the antithesis of rational investigation) but just presents the best evidenced theory.  Even if you look at TalkOrigins (which it's worth noting references peer-reviewed scientific investigation), it's purpose is actually debunking the wilfull misinformation (deliberate unscientific fallacies presented in a misleading way) spread by the likes of these propagandistic groups.

[Mefustae]

Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org

this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org

(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org

Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.

Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.

I meant that you posted blatantly propagandist sites in an effort to 'educate' us. I'm not entirely sure whether you're incapable or just plain unwilling to realise it, but those sites are incredibly bias, astoundingly full of misinformation, and not worth the space they take up on the Internet, essentially what Adlo said.

Now, by 'you can tell us', it was my hope that you would put your pride aside and come clean that you don't really read what you post, you just post any old thing not really thinking about it. The fact that you consciously posted three bias, propagandist sites in an effort to show your point of view, and that you think you made a point by doing so... well, it makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race.

[Charismatic]

Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org

this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org

(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org

Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.

Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.

I meant that you posted blatantly propagandist sites in an effort to 'educate' us. I'm not entirely sure whether you're incapable or just plain unwilling to realise it, but those sites are incredibly bias, astoundingly full of misinformation, and not worth the space they take up on the Internet, essentially what Adlo said.

Now, by 'you can tell us', it was my hope that you would put your pride aside and come clean that you don't really read what you post, you just post any old thing not really thinking about it. The fact that you consciously posted three bias, propagandist sites in an effort to show your point of view, and that you think you made a point by doing so... well, it makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race.

Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?

First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?

[Kamikaze]

i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?

PhDs don't mean a whole lot here. The current president of the ICR is John D Morris, who is trained to be an engineer. Note that he's not a biologist. Duane Gish, a former vice-president of the ICR (he appeared on the show "Bull****!" in an episode on Creationism), has pretty much been uninvolved in scientific research while promoting his creationist bull****. Which makes sense; why would you want your perfectly absurd creationism to be debunked thoroughly through peer-review and all the rigor required for publication as a piece of science?

Also note that the ICR was founded as a division of the San Diego Christian College, which had its accreditation revoked by the WASC. If you look in the Wiki article you'll see that part of the reasoning for the revocation was due to "lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity". Which basically means it's a puppet organization for the church. I sense some conflict of interest here.

[Mefustae]

Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?

I cannot abide useless people.

First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?

Kamikaze already pointed out the biggest flaws in your reasoning quite well, but i'll just put it here more succinctly to aid in your understanding.

Answer me this, would you allow someone with a PhD in Astrophysics who goes to the Aquarium once a month to give a University-level Lecture on Marine Biology?

You tout a PhD-holding individual as completely credible, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone who holds a PhD Agriculture isn't really going to know **** about Subatomic Theory? Jr2 was making the same silly mistake when he took issue with 'peer-reviewed' material, in that all the education in the world doesn't really mean much if it is not in the same field as the topic we are discussing.

[aldo_14]

Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?

First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?

Feeling lazy; ICR criticisms;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit.html

Ultimately, just pick any point and look up http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

All these links have sources.  Also, if you dig around for a list of ICR staff, very few have independently peer-reviewed research published.  Not to mention those with 'degrees' from phony institutions, or working well outside their field.  I have a BSc(Hons) in Computer Science, that doesn't mean I'd be competent to teach english literature or history at degree level.

[Colonol Dekker]

Yes it does, 

























OK, maybe it doesn't 

[Kosh]

Charamatic, if you can go try and download the Penn&Teller episode on this stuff. Bob posted it somewhere in this thread.

[Mefustae]

He did? When? I've stuck with this thread most of the time, and I don't recall any P&T.

[Kosh]

I don't remember. I am pretty sure he did though.......

[Edward Bradshaw]

First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm

Geologist Glenn Morton used to be a member of ICR, and wrote many articles for their publications. But in his work as a geologist he just couldnt reconcile what ICR was telling him to believe with what he saw in the field. Ie. the Earth just couldn be young and there was no world wide flood. Check out his site, he is now an outspoken supporter of Evolution and Christianity.

But why are institutions like AIG and ICR so unscientific? For me the main reason why is that they, like most Creationist groups, have to sign sworn statements that they will never let any evidence change their minds. Thats not how you do science, and no matter what degrees you have, cant be defended.

[karajorma]

Yep. One of the fundemental points of science is that nothing is cherished to the point that it can't be struck from the books if the evidence is against it. The creationists like to paint a picture of scientists refusing to believe in any evidence that goes against evolution but the simple fact is that there is no evidence that goes against evolution. If there was then the scientists would listen to it.

[Charismatic]

Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.

Thursday il have time to look around and check out those links you all gave.
I will also check out the P&T episode.

Thursday i also am intending to get my manager from work, teh link to this site so he can check out this topic, as he Is knoloageable about things, and world affiars (IE: The crap with Israle and stuff), and porbably knows more then me on this subject.

Charis

[aldo_14]

Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.

Thursday il have time to look around and check out those links you all gave.
I will also check out the P&T episode.

Thursday i also am intending to get my manager from work, teh link to this site so he can check out this topic, as he Is knoloageable about things, and world affiars (IE: The crap with Israle and stuff), and porbably knows more then me on this subject.

Charis

Well, post evidence that hasn't been discredited....

EDIT; wait a second, if he gave you those links, does this mean we'll have to go through the same round of corrections as the last 30+ pages?

[Kazan]

Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.

substantiate that claim, post your "Evidence"!


of course that would require you to first understand the CONCEPT of evidence

[Turambar]

fun how someone can 'know more' about being wrong.  but then i'm not here to argue.  mostly making fun of the religious people is good enough