[NGTM-1R]

If he actually does try and prove himself correct, I'd like to handle it myself. I've already taken apart that argument once recently.

[aldo_14]

If he actually does try and prove himself correct, I'd like to handle it myself. I've already taken apart that argument once recently.

But I want some fun!

[NGTM-1R]

Too bad.

[Flipside]

Considering how full the news has been recently with question regarding the Human Mutation of Bird Flu, I'm surprised anyone question evolution.  Theres a micro-evolutionary stage that makes the news about once a month. I've even known scientists who make the psuedo mistake of treating evolution as though it led to humans, which it didn't we just happened to be produced by it. I think that's the hardest part of evolution to come to terms with, because it's the most ego-deflating.

[watsisname]

Ok, I'm getting sick of the way this is going...

Pro-Evolution persons:  I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments.  And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable.  Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.

Pro-Creation persons:  Please understand why some of us get so infuriated when someone comes out saying "evolution is wrong, etc etc".  If you want to get into a serious discussion about creation vs. evolution, then you are more than welcome to do so.  But don't just sit there going "you're wrong, so there!"  It's like a childs' argument.

Go ahead and flame me to death if you must.  I just had to try to get this "debate" going on a good direction again.

[Edward Bradshaw]

watsisname, we had been debating some arguments of m but he seems unwilling to actually discuss them anymore, not that he was doing a good job of that previously. How many times must one disprove the tornado in a junkyard analogy?

[watsisname]

Fair enough.  It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs.  I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.

Ah well, carry on then.

[Solatar]

I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".

[aldo_14]

I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".

Um.

Well, there's the bible.

And

er....

the

um

thing

Tornado in a Junkyard!

*runs*

Fair enough.  It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs.  I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.

Ah well, carry on then.

Ach, come on.  It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.

[karajorma]

Pro-Evolution persons:  I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments.  And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable.  Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.

Believe me. We've done that about a million times before. We're dealing here with people unwilling to even understand the basic premise of what evolution is before attempting to debunk it. Do you really think we're going to have any luck trying to explain something harder to grasp like what the scientific method actually is?

BW put it rather untactfully but he makes a good point. Young Earth creationists are so unwilling to accept that their point of view might be wrong that they don't even attempt to understand the other side. Worse than that they often don't even understand their side of the argument either. I've had several discussions here on HLP where I actually challenged the people arguing that ID was correct to explain what ID actually was. Not one person managed it. It's pretty pathetic that I actually understand ID better than the people who say that it should be taught in schools.

So what can you do against someone unwilling to understand either side of the argument? Surely pointing out the flaws in their own side is better than trying to point out where they are wrong about evolution. These people are working from a playbook of supposed flaws in evolution. No matter how many times you explain why you're right they'll simply pop up with a new (well recycled actually) argument which is supposed to prove you wrong.
  You only need to look at m's attitude to see that in action. He claims people have shot themselves in the foot when he posts. His argument is then demolished with good science but he then goes on to make the same claim about some other easily disprovable point. 

The only sensible thing to do then is to demolish their side of the argument. I'm simply asking them to actually state their side of the argument first. M has claimed that there is scientific evidence for creation. I'm asking him to state it.

[Bobboau]

Ever wondered why childrens' race is typically the same as their parents? Or why they even look like their parents? Why they may be able to contract conditions from the parents, eg poor eyesight or deafness? (quote from WMCoolmon)

You mean... harmful mutations stay?!! *gasp!*

Hate to say this again, but... footshot.  As a matter of fact, I had been going to bring that up my own, but you decided to make it easier for me.

And dogs being mixed results in... dogs.

ARRAaaaa! are you TRYING to be dence?
ok.. traits are passed from one generation to the next, any trait that survives will be represented in the next generation, if eyesight is of little importance to the animal then a mutation that leads to poor eyesight won't have much of an effect on any individual and the mutation will persist, if it provides some sort of advantage, like animals that are totaly subteranian, the speciese might eventualy loose the ability to see altogether, you might be thinking "what is the advanyage in looseing sight", if they don't need eyes but they are paying for them in terms of them forming and the metebolic maintainence, then that is waistful, and animals with less developed eyes will have more energy to do other things, like dig tunnels or feel or smell for food.

when a mutation is not benifical at all it won't instantainiusly disapear unless it is extreemly disadvantagus, in birds for instance most birds are extreemly dependent on there eyesight, a mutation that leads to poorer eyesight would not likely survive very long. in humans we live in a society, with a division of labor, if you have poor eyesight you are not likely to join the hunting party, you will more likely become a tool maker or something that doesn't requier keen eyesight, and sence humans are naturaly compasonate to other humans (of there own group) mutations that in most speicese would be lethal tend to linger around a lot longer, exept for mutations that lead to exesive brain damage and they only die out due to sexual selection.

And BTW... of COURSE

Humorous thought: According to you guys, Noah would have had no trouble with having all the animals on the Ark... just bring a couple amoebae and watch 'em evolve! 
well actualy he'd only need one sence they reproduce asexualy, unfortunately, he would need to wait around a few _billion_ years, and then he would have totaly diferen't animals

Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
change that to virus->virus or bacteria->bacteria and you might have a point, a point that suports our argument.

and the bible doesnt count as evidence.  any wannabe con man coulda written it.  at least science journals are peer-edited.

Then how come it predicts specific events (e.g. the destruction of Tyre; Alexander the Great's empire's 4-way divide, etc.) even though it was written hundreds of years before the events took place?
no it doesn't
What are the chances of THAT happening? 
prety good, it's easy to find conections like that after the fact when you are trying to justify them
Before you say "That was written after the fact!" look up the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation.  It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.   
like people who want to see evidence for something before they accept it, like rational people
The bit about Damadian not being the only person who invented the MRI?

He invented the MRI.  (He has the patent.)The first MRI images were of his assistant (Damadian himself was too... um... large).  Others copied his work.  Guess why he was passed over for the Nobel Prize.

(In case you can't figure it out, it was because he's a young earth creationist.)
I don't know the controversy, but I can tell you that being a wiz at physics and math, or even anatomy will have no effect on your ability to understand biology, by your reasoning if you need open heart surgery you should go to your local meat cutter because both have tones of experience cutting mammals open, or go to a lawer to do it because he has a Phd

BTW I h8 using public libraries that only allow you on for ¹/₂ an hour...
you know there are free internet providers, jono,webzero,ect... if you have a computer at home you can get one of these, or you can find a diferent library.
Be back later...
m

[Edward Bradshaw]

Bobboau needs to learn to use quote tags

[Edward Bradshaw]

Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.

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]

what? I did...

[Edward Bradshaw]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?

[Bobboau]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...

[Edward Bradshaw]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see! 

[Ghostavo]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see! 
Can I join the fun too?

[Edward Bradshaw]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see! 
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau!

[Flipside]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see! 
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau!
The writing is too damn small!!