[karajorma]

And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

The problem is that it's still a lot of crap. The analogy you give basically makes out that evolution (the tornado) is random. Evolution is not random. This has been explained time and time again on the thread and to claim that it is shows a staggering lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

Let me give you an analogy. If I was trying to argue that the 10 plagues of Egypt couldn't have happened and then say that this is because  Zeus quite clearly states in the bible that he was going to spare Egypt what would you say about my level of understanding about the bible?
 Yet we are talking about an argument that shows a similar level of ignorance of evolutionary theory because anyone who understands even the basics of evolution, understands that while mutation is basically random, natural selection is the opposite of random.

And here lies the fundemental (no pun intended ) problem in the creationism vs evolution debate. I've yet to see anyone appear on the creationist side of the argument who actually even understands the basics of evolutionary theory. We get long answers that basically appear to have been copied verbatim from some kind of "How to argue with evolutionists" playbook. And then because the person who wrote that playbook (while probably intelligent and a good writer) didn't understand evolution either then we end up with a blind leading the blind situation.

Do yourselves a favour. Read a good explaination of what evolution is from a scientific point of view and actually try to understand what evolution actually is before carrying on.

[Black Wolf]

You know what? **** this. I had the better part of a reply typed up and I've just deleted it. And I'm going to write another long reply explaining why.

If you're a creationist, you're an idiot. And that's not the worst part. Being an idiot is generally not the idiots fault. It's the bad luck of bad combination of genes and upbringing. But now, you're on the internet, and you have access to the single greatest compendium of human knowledge in the history of the world, and yet you still refuse to spend the time to do the simple research that'll show you the supporting evidence for evolution. So, that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:

If you're a creationist, you're a willful idiot.

There is a mountain of supporting evidence for evolution and no credible evidence for creationism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.

Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic creationist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local priest is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Protestant/American creationist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.

Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for creationism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off Answers in Genesis and the ICR against the fact6s (You don't havew to do your opwn primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me. Until then, I'm out.

Now, I'm not backing away from the issue because I'm worried, or my position is in doubt. I'm certainly not worried by jr2s list of wilful idiots (the post I deleted was the first ten or so from each list showing why none of them had any right to be even mentioned in a real evolutionary context). I'm backing away because arguing about it gives it a ligitimacy it doesn't deserve. I'll probably be back, in another thread in the future, roasting some poor fool who pretends to have an original thought, or just generally insulting anyone stupid enough to be a creationst in this day and age. But not this thread. Not until there's a reason for it.

[jr2]

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from...

Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.

I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.

I get the general attitude from people on one side of this thread that only morons would believe that we are anything but the product of a long 'let's shuffle the puzzle pieces together until they form a completed puzzle' type of origin.  There are some very intelligent people out there who have differing viewpoints.  It's fun to argue them.  But "their own twisted beliefs"?  And they're twisted because they're different from yours, right?  Aren't you being a little absolutist, there?

[jr2]

...If you're a creationist, you're an idiot ... that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:
If you're a creationist, you're a willful idiot.

There is a mountain of supporting evidence for evolution and no credible evidence for creationism ... or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.

Like you didn't get everything you learned from your evolutionist profs?  :hah:

Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic creationist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local priest is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Protestant/American creationist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.

Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for creationism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off Answers in Genesis and the ICR against the fact6s (You don't havew to do your opwn primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me. Until then, I'm out.

Now, I'm not backing away from the issue because I'm worried, or my position is in doubt. I'm certainly not worried by jr2s list of wilful idiots (the post I deleted was the first ten or so from each list showing why none of them had any right to be even mentioned in a real evolutionary context). I'm backing away because arguing about it gives it a ligitimacy it doesn't deserve. I'll probably be back, in another thread in the future, roasting some poor fool who pretends to have an original thought, or just generally insulting anyone stupid enough to be a creationst in this day and age. But not this thread. Not until there's a reason for it.

Hmm.  I posted that because I was wondering what the response would be.  Apparently, you're a convicted moron unless you believe in evolution.  Would that be evolution w/ help, evolution atheist-style, or what?
This is a fine example of the attitude I've been sensing on one side.  Now, I've been doing some research, and will do much more.  But, until then, it's (sometimes but not always) nice to see other's reactions to thoughts/ideas that one is considering, as well as their responses to your questioning of their responses.

[Kosh]

Quote from: ICR http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_sci_faq

*BS*

ICR = Institute for Creation Research

They are a very conservative group of people who want creationism taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to make that happen. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.

[Mefustae]

Regarding that FAQ you posted earlier from the ICR or whatever the f*** it was, it's a complete load. I couldn't read that with a straight face, as it's just so mind-numbingly stupid I ended up somewhat dumber for having read it. The fact that you actually put credence in that load of faeces seriously worries me, and shakes my faith in humanity.

I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.

Those aren't scientists. Just because they say they're scientists doesn't make it so. Plus, most actual scientists that have voiced their support for creationism have been rejected by pretty much the entire scientific community, and can only gain traction in creationist groups where said groups don't care that the scientist in question has been exiled from the greater community. Hell, even if they are a trained, accepted scientific authority, they're usually not even in a field where they are qualified to comment on the validity of evolution. It's as simple as that, if you're not in a field directly related to evolution, namely biology, you shouldn't be commenting on it. The fact that the ICR FAQ says otherwise, which is completely contrary to all logic, is further testament to how utterly stupid that particular source is.

I get the general attitude from people on one side of this thread that only morons would believe that we are anything but the product of a long 'let's shuffle the puzzle pieces together until they form a completed puzzle' type of origin.  There are some very intelligent people out there who have differing viewpoints.  It's fun to argue them.  But "their own twisted beliefs"?  And they're twisted because they're different from yours, right?  Aren't you being a little absolutist, there?

No, no no no. You misunderstand the general atmosphere of the thread. To be frank, people don't believe a given individual is a moron for not believing Evolution, people believe a given individual is a moron when they completely disregard the scientific process, all present evidence, and logic altogether to instead put their faith in magic. Take a look at the situation from our perspective; what would you say to someone who was absolutely convinced that there was no such thing as Air because we can't see it, and we are instead living off the divine force of mighty Odin.

You are not, I repeat, not a moron if you don't "believe" in evolution. You are are moron if you believe in such a baseless piece of theological s**t as Creationism. Let's just review that, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, but if you honestly think Creationism is right and every single other possibility is dead wrong, then you are, in every sense of the word, a f**king moron. And just regarding you're dashing rebuttle to BW's somewhat frank statement, you've got to remember that he got his information from credited, trained professors, while people like you get your information from uncredited/miscredited/bias sources. There's a difference.

One last thing, by 'twisted beliefs', I simply refer to the beliefs some people hold that have been twisted from what is generally accepted. Most Christians are content with evolution because they've accepted what's right in front of their face. Even the bloody Pope has voiced his support for Evolution. 'Twisted beliefs' refers to those individuals who will rather believe their own view on the world, a somewhat twisted view to say the least, than what the greater belief actually is. My little speil you've taken issue over is regarding those who simply defy not only logic, but many of their peers in the demented belief that they've found a problem with Evolution that nobody has yet noticed.

Oh, and BW: ...Word.

[karajorma]

Hmm.  I posted that because I was wondering what the response would be.  Apparently, you're a convicted moron unless you believe in evolution.  Would that be evolution w/ help, evolution atheist-style, or what?
This is a fine example of the attitude I've been sensing on one side.  Now, I've been doing some research, and will do much more.  But, until then, it's (sometimes but not always) nice to see other's reactions to thoughts/ideas that one is considering, as well as their responses to your questioning of their responses.

The point BW is making is that whether you believe in God or not is 100% your choice. If you want to believe that God set up the universe so that humans couldn't not evolve then fine. He's God. He has a complete understanding of chaos theory and could easily set up the universe so that everything was predestined and humanity couldn't not evolve.

What makes you willfully ignorant is if you refuse to learn what evolution is and yet still claim it's wrong despite mountains of evidence in favour of it and only the specious arguments and outright lies that creationists dredge up against it.

Furthermore the fact that it is the same crap each time that is brought up is what makes you ignorant. This is now the 24th page of this thread yet people are still bringing up arguments that were discredited on the second or third page.

[jr2]

Furthermore the fact that it is the same crap each time that is brought up is what makes you ignorant. This is now the 24th page of this thread yet people are still bringing up arguments that were discredited on the second or third page.

Be patient.  220+ pages takes awhile to digest, even if you've printed it out, and most people don't even bother to read more than a few pages.  (At least, it seems that way.)

[WMCoolmon]

Re: jr2

It's an attitude born of the willful acceptance of ignorance, and the attempt to impose that ignorance on others. One group of people has spent over a hundred years researching the theory of evolution, refining it, discovering and correcting flaws, repeatedly demonstrating it, basing medical techniques and practices on it that have undoubtedly saved lives.

As a result, a number of people have decided to view this as an attack on their beliefs, and attempt to cover it up, or outright unfairly discredit it, based solely on one book whose purpose has nothing to do with science, and the interpretation of which has been repeatedly proven incorrect or inadequate in various ways.

You have not even had the respect to come up with a decent argument to refute the vast amount of work that's gone into the theory. Instead, you spout unrelated bull**** about a hurricane and a junkyard. If that isn't completely disrespectful to the people who have spent years understanding this stuff and condensing it into a readable form for those of us who haven't, I don't know what is.

EDIT: My apologies, apparently it was "m" who was the one who came up with the junkyard thing.

[jr2]

Re: jr2

It's an attitude born of the willful acceptance of ignorance, and the attempt to impose that ignorance on others. One group of people has spent over a hundred years researching the theory of evolution, refining it, discovering and correcting flaws, repeatedly demonstrating it, basing medical techniques and practices on it that have undoubtedly saved lives.

As a result, a number of people have decided to view this as an attack on their beliefs, and attempt to cover it up, or outright unfairly discredit it, based solely on one book whose purpose has nothing to do with science, and the interpretation of which has been repeatedly proven incorrect or inadequate in various ways.

You have not even had the respect to come up with a decent argument to refute the vast amount of work that's gone into the theory. Instead, you spout unrelated bull**** about a hurricane and a junkyard. If that isn't completely disrespectful to the people who have spent years understanding this stuff and condensing it into a readable form for those of us who haven't, I don't know what is.

Excuse me; You're saying I have!!!
You guys can't even understand the little fact that I was simply clarifiying for m what he said, as it appeared that some people didn't get it that he was just trying to clarify an issue he had w/ the current 747 analogy and its rebuttal.  But maybe you folks have trouble reading or something. 

Come on here.  I have my own ideas, which I'm not quite ready to put forth in their fullness yet.  (It will be a long while b4 you see it, I'm sure.)  In the meantime, I like to have a little back and forth on various ideas I'm tossing around.  And, if I think I see that someone's post has been misunderstood, I try to clarify.  @WMCoolmon, I do not believe I even once mentioned the tornado in a junkyard analogy of my own: I was just clarifying m's post.  As for a decent argument, I believe I've got one, but it's going to wait until I check it over quite a bit first, so that you guys will have to chew on it awhile before responding.  heh, heh

Good grief folks.  I would expect more detachment from people that base their beliefs one what they say is the one and only true "science".  After all, I'm sure natural selection will take care of all those nasty Creationists for you, right?

Anyways, I do have a bunch of stuff to look over in my copious spare time. <-- HA!

[karajorma]

Actually if you check back you'll notice that I was stating that even your refinement of m's argument was still bull****. I never said that you believed it.

But seriously though jr2 posting of stuff from the ICR instantly make you look like a creationist. You've got access to the entire internet so why on Earth you're fishing in the gutter for information is beyond me. If you were having a discussion about race would you feel comfortable posting information from a white supremacist site without clearly stating that these weren't your beliefs?
 In a scientific argument posting from ICR is about as inflamatory because for all their posturing these people know **** all about evolution.

[aldo_14]

Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently).  I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously.  And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

Ah, but that's equally false because it assumes a singular creation act (rather than the step-by-step selection process) and that there is only one possible end result that works.  It also assumes there is a 'desired' end result, i.e. something prederministic like a target, whereas the 'output' of evolution is merely determined by the process.  Anything which says 1 event causes X is a false analogy for evolution, basically.  It's y steps, selected by z factor, lead to the development of x.

Essentially, it's a deeply, deeply flawed non-arguement, and I regret mentioning it now, because my whole point in doing so was to note that the 'chance' factor only has a meaning determined by human assumption that there is some end-target to be met.

EDIT; as kara said, the ICR is gutter trash, an unscientific propaganda mouthpiece (literally; it was founded as a "Christ-Focused Creation Ministry") that spouts nonsense disguised as science, to defend an indefensible position (that the earth is 5,000 or so years old).  In short, exactly the sort of thing that pisses of people with a scientific / logical / rational mindset.

[Kosh]

Wasn't ICR on that episode of Penn&Teller about this? jr2 should really watch it.

[Edward Bradshaw]

 


OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?!  We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?


 

Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently).  I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously.  And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

Jr2. You seem as confused as m is. See the part I bolded in you reply, now tell me what youve really changed here? You realy have changed nothing at all.

I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it.  It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say.  .

I did understand it, for some reason you really really think its a big difference. The change in the meaning is so small its laughable.

I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.

I know, but that doesnt mean its science. I know lots of scientists that have religious beliefs, but they know thats what they are.

[Bobboau]

wow this argument has colapesed...

as much as I may agree with the sentement calling someone a moron or an idiot is an ad hominem, and it matches with there stawman arguments far too well for my comfort.

[Bobboau]

and a tornado in a junk yard has about as much incomon with evolution as a car does with a forest fire.

[aldo_14]

and a tornado in a junk yard has about as much incomon with evolution as a car does with a forest fire.

It's my fault for bringing it up, I guess.  I was just trying to illustrate the stupidity of going 'this has xxx chance of happening'.

[m]

Look everyone! I can make as convincing an argument as BW!

If you're an evolutionist, you're an idiot. And that's not the worst part. Being an idiot is generally not the idiots fault. It's the bad luck of bad combination of genes and upbringing. But now, you're on the internet, and you have access to the single greatest compendium of human knowledge in the history of the world, and yet you still refuse to spend the time to do the simple research that'll show you the supporting evidence for creation. So, that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:

If you're an evolutionist, you're a willful idiot.

There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.

Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic evolutionist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local professor is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Darwinist/Evolutionist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.

Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for evolutionism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off talkorigins.org and the Discovery Channel against the facts (You don't have to do your own primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me.

See? I win!!!

You're using circular reasoning:
"Creationists are wrong because the real scientists disagree with them and the ones that agree don't count!"

I can do the same thing:
Evolutionists are wrong because the real scientists disagree with them and the ones that agree don't count!

My guess is that Black Wolf's deleted response probably consisted at least partly of the following:

"Creationist scientists don't count because they went to Creationist universities!"
m: Evolutionist scientists don't count because they went to Evolutionist universities!

"Creationist Scientists argue outside of their respective fields!"
--Unless I'm mistaken, Carl Sagan argued outside of physics, astronomy and astrophysics?

"Creationists lie and distort Evolution!"
m: Evolutionists lie and distort Creation!

Arguments from others include

mefustae:

Those aren't scientists. Just because they say they're scientists doesn't make it so. Plus, most actual scientists that have voiced their support for creationism have been rejected by pretty much the entire scientific community, and can only gain traction in creationist groups where said groups don't care that the scientist in question has been exiled from the greater community.

m: Excuse me, but Damadian invented the MRI while the "community" told him it couldn't be done!
(I know, it doesn't have to do with biology.)

Kosh:

(ICR is) a very conservative group of people who want creationism taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to make that happen. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.

I can do that too!
talkorigins.org is a very liberal group of people who want to keep creationism from being taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to keep that from happening. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.

Oh, and Mr. Fury?

   I AM NOT JR2!!!  

(For everyone else's information, that was in response to an amusing PM.)

BTW I and jr2 do correspond with each other frequently, however.

Gotta go...   Curses, I wanted to say more.

'til then,
m

[Bobboau]

like I said that was stupid of him, can we get back to the point now?

or, better yet, m how old do you think the earth is and why do you think that?

or jr2 or someone else on that side sence m seems to only be able to post on every fifth day.

[aldo_14]

I can do that too!
talkorigins.org is a very liberal group of people who want to keep creationism from being taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to keep that from happening. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.

m

Your whole point is destroyed by the simple fact that TalkOrigins uses and cites peer-reviewed research.  Whereas the likes of the ICR do not use any form of qualified, peer review process to ensure accuracy and, in actuality, work in opposition to the scientific method (trying to draw evidence to support a pre-conclusion).  I've lost count the number of times I've seen a creationist 'source' deliberately misquote and selectively edit other scientists work to draw a false and diametric result to the actual one.

This is, you see, why creationism is willfull idiocy.  It rejects the basic principles of investigation, in favour of twisting and shoehorning abstraction into a preconceived concluion (and one which creationists can't even agree upon!), and - even worse - makes fallacious attacks upon legitimate, verified and peer-reviewed research.  In short, it's an attempt to destroy the most convincing, comprehensive evidence rather than face it.

m: Excuse me, but Damadian invented the MRI while the "community" told him it couldn't be done!
(I know, it doesn't have to do with biology.)

More than one person invented the MRI.  For example, Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield were awarded the Nobel Prize for their MRI work.  Damadians' work, for example, did not include a method for generating images, and his later work also built upon Lauterbur and Mansfields work.  So you're mischaracterising what happened as some challenge of a widespread orthodoxy; no one man can claim exclusive credit for MRI or Magnetic Resonance.

Moreso, and critically, Damadian was and is not trained in evolutionary biology.  He's no more qualified to make sweeping (non)scientific statements about, say, geology or biology (he's a young earth creationist, something we can conclusively prove wrong, for example) than I am.