aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Oct 3, 2005 22:54:12 GMT -5
"Arguments Creationsts Should NOT Use" Answers in GenesisROTFLMAO! They're essentially proving evolution right and debunking their own material. LOLOLOLOLOL! I especially liked this part: BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! New species HAVE been produced huh? They basically said Darwinian evolution is true. This "no new genetic information" crap is nothing but a lie. Transmutation means that there IS new genetic information. I can't believe it. I never thought I'd see the day creationists admit that they're wrong. Of course, they don't quite realize it, but I'm guessing it does register at some level because they have to put up that ridiculous "no new genetic information" smokescreen to convince themselves that they're not talking about evolution. I'm also guessing that this "within the 'kind'" idiocy is essentially micro/macro-evolution. I already showed why this is an idiotic idea in the first place. There are a lot more gems in that page. Read it and be amused. - Aric
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Oct 3, 2005 23:14:49 GMT -5
Yeah...micro but no macro? I've heard this before and it definitely raised my eyebrow, as it is a gross misunderstanding of....ugh...microevolution piles up, people? If it piles up enough in the right direction, eventually you end up with something completely new. Like, I dunno, a bird.
ALSO, it says that rapid speciation occurs, but no new genetic information is required. This is pretty much false. But is based on this fallacy:
Genetic structures don't really change in SIZE, but just...change. And very subtly. The fact that we share something like 98% of our genetic code with chimpanzees shows how a little bit of genetic difference can go a long way to differentiate.
What else is amusing here...OH! Somehow the article seems to say that Darwin did not believe in God, and seems to believe that, had Einstein believed in a Christian conception of God, that'd be some sort of great triumph for Creationists.
Well that's distortion of logic. That is in no way a tautology. The second question is artificial. It is unnecessary because it is answered by the first, and only possible because the first answer is incomplete. The fittest are those who survive/leave the most offspring. They survive because they are the best adapted to their environment. After receiving that answer, asking "Who survive/leave the most offspring?" is akin to my asking "What office does George W. Bush hold?" and, after receiving an answer, asking, "Who holds the seat of President of the United States?"
Finally! A creationist who understands what a theory is! And the unfortunate part about the very last part of this argument is that he takes the Bible so literally; taken figuratively, the Bible, and most religions, support particles-to-people.
What's that? Not literal?
Not really true. Fossilization is a very rare occurence, and so only those animals that were very well represented on the Earth's surface would ever be fossilized. Thus, we have no mutant intermediate form, but we do have animals that seem to represent a progression. Anyway, the process is so slow...
What the hell does that even mean? edit: It means exactly that. See, some people believe that God wrote the Gospel in the stars from the beginning of time, and that antediluvian peoples could read it, but it got corrupted and turned into astrology. While this is pretty dumb, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION...so keep it to your wierd selves.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Oct 4, 2005 0:40:38 GMT -5
Did someone's creationist patience just snap or what? ;D I'll read it when I have a bit more time, heehee.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 4, 2005 2:51:49 GMT -5
Wow, someone more confused about what they mean than I am...
waitaminute... what am I saying?
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Oct 5, 2005 17:07:28 GMT -5
Oh, I know someone is going to quote me on this but, I don't give a rip. anywho,
I don't see the point why you people like to argue over this stuff.
IT won't change anything. And I doubt your going to change these peoples mines here.
Or anyone on this board who believe in this kinda stuff.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Oct 5, 2005 22:32:40 GMT -5
Oh, I know someone is going to quote me on this but, I don't give a rip. anywho,
I don't see the point why you people like to argue over this stuff.
IT won't change anything. And I doubt your going to change these peoples mines here. I said this before, and I'll say it again. This isn't for people who have already made up their minds. It's for people looking in on the debate and wish to make an honest and informed decision. It's for their benefit that I make fun of creationism. Or anyone on this board who believe in this kinda stuff. I don't get what you're trying to say here. BTW Dwaggie, why do you post at the OMB under different names using different IP addresses? I've cross-referenced your screen name "Dwaggie" with various IP addresses and other screen names. One of your IP addresses correlate with the IP address of "Bumpanator." It also so happens that the substance of your post to which I am responding to now is extremely similar to that of Bumpanator's post that was made today. - Aric
|
|
RedFeather
Junior Scholar
*flap, flap, flap!*
Posts: 423
|
Post by RedFeather on Oct 6, 2005 14:26:49 GMT -5
Lol!!! People were into astrology LONG before Jesus, or the Christians, ever existed. So... how could astrology be a corruption from Christianity? More like, the other way around... that aspect of Christianity mentioned would be an obstruction of true astrology.
And no, Dwaggie, we aren't really arguing here, just making reference to things we find silly, or inconsistent. We are not trying to change anyone's minds here, either. My mind won't be changed, your mind won't be changed, and chances are, no one else's minds will be changed, either. But philosophical exploration and debate doesn't hurt, if it's done in the right way.
I don't see why you are so offended by us, when all you have to do is stay out of the conversation, if you do not like it. It is not aimed at you, but is aimed at people's inconsistencies, their wrong explanations of something. In that last sentence, I did not mean to say that your beliefs are wrong - merely that these people who are trying to make a stand for it, need to think about what they are saying, and to say something more educated to support themselves. So, it is not you, or your religion, that are at fault - just the people who can't see things for what they are, and are merely saying things based on what somebody else has told them.
I don't see why you're getting so mad, Dwaggie - I really don't.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Oct 10, 2005 13:47:56 GMT -5
Agree, any creationist who is going to feel offended when creationist arguments are being questioned by non creationists ought to just let the subject be... Really, I do like to keep the peace at the T of P and a bit and we can't have any pitchfork/chainsaw/railgun/atomicbomb fights. Besides Az absolutely disagrees with the evolutionary point of view as well. It is possible to stay alive as a creationist among evolutionists, really. Its even possible to be friends while you're of radically different opnion so stop being offended at the opinions of your local evolutionists. We don't mean bad and really, here at the T of P, no-one is out to flame/main/kill/injure/insult the creationists, don't worry. (If only for fear of the wrath of Azzy who is currently low on kindereggs, very dangerous.) Anyhow, some of us really like evolution as well as debate about it and will question arguments against evolution, just because its fun. Just like we will question anything else scientific or political when we feel like it. Its just in the nature of this baord to have endless debates and discussions and Evolution has always made for a nice topic, it probably always will. Face it, we're weird.
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Oct 10, 2005 23:06:43 GMT -5
That wasn't me that did that. Recently my computer was hacked and you know how Bumpanator uses IPs like sockpuppits. And My computer is on a shared account. Everything I type on this computer always get viewed by everyone else on the account. And I hate it. Sometimes I use the computers at the library too. It could be someone there Who was watching me and decided to play a joke on to get me into trouble.
It's not the first time this happened to me. I had this problem before with people stealing my ID and pretending to be me. This happened when I was on Vira's board. Well I caught that person and he got kicked out of the library because of it.
So don't say that it was me pretending to be this Bumpanator or anyone else because I would never do that sort of thing. And I noticed that some of the substance is similar. I saw some posts from other people that the same too, like when you and some other people were flaming. Are the the same person? No. See what I'm getting at here. Its just someone like Bumpanator taking an advantage on me and trying to get people on the OMB to think it was me. I've been trying to watch everyone to see if anyone is looking when I'm at the library because I'm not really aloud to chat on the library's computers and to them message boards is chatting. When I got off the computer the only thing someone can do is goto the history and see what I was doing and use that to pretend to be me. Maybe I think I should quit using the library's computers on the boards. And that way people can't get on an pretend to be me. So don't go accusing me of being somebody else. BTW if you to look at my IP it allways starts out with 67.140 I checked You don't see any of Bumpanator's post with this Ip prefix.
I'm not offended be anyone on this board or the OMB. And I not mad at anyone either. If I was mad or offended at someone, then I would say hey so and so I was offended by you. I respect each and every one of you. If I wanted to be nasty I would start saying things that are not suited for children and problem gotten kicked off too. But I never done that sort of thing sense I moved from the old neighborhood. I used to live in a very bad neighborhood and said lots of things I regretted that I wish I could take back. Then I found out why it wasn't my fault. It was the disability I have. BTW I still have that disability now and, my doc said I could have setbacks at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by utoraptor3000 on Oct 12, 2005 2:58:31 GMT -5
dwaggie
you have said on my board that you have a shared computer. i don't think it was you!
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Oct 14, 2005 13:37:55 GMT -5
I don't have a thing against Dwaggie either no matter what crap goes on at the OMB. There's always at least one moron running about trying to make a mess at the OMB and YES there have been many instances in which some moron or another would start posting offensive things under other people's names. Especially with shared computers a bad post with the same IP as that of a normal member of whom it is known that he uses a shared computer proves nothing whatsoever and therefore cannot be used against this member.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Oct 15, 2005 1:12:22 GMT -5
To be honest, I couldn't even differentiate between some of Dwaggie's and bumpanator's posts. They're so similar in many respects. Of course, bumpanator tends to be more brash and aggressive than Dwaggie.
- Aric
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 23, 2006 19:09:32 GMT -5
For the record aric and others, micro-evolution has been observed (although the examples you'll know, eg peppered moths, are actually faked) BUT I'm afraid the Creationists had the idea WAY before evolutionists . . . Just have a look at Genesis and see that Noah didn't take two of every SPECIES on the ark, just two of every KIND - ie two DOGS, two ELEPHANTS - all you need is two of each KIND and all the rest will spring up . . . what IS impossible and illogical is MACRO-evolution, ie evolution from one KIND to another - anyone can clearly see that a coyote, a wolf and a chihuahua all have a common ancestor . . . a DOG. Any resemblance between a tiger and a hippo? Um . . . they both have four legs . . . any evidence for any evolution from one kind to another . . . uh no, none at all . . . oh right then. So I guess evolutionism is just another faith, with the downside that evolution preaches death, whereas a faith eg Christianity preaches eternal life and joy - sorry but I'm glad I'm on this side!! )
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 24, 2006 0:30:19 GMT -5
Okay, lemme join in. *puppy eyes* Please? I'm a paleo major, and more then that, I have an emphasis on evolutionary biology. I'd love to answer any questions/doubts people have. Or, if you prefer, hit me with your best shot! One fallacy that infuriates me (something that's kinda hard to do) is the assuption that microevolution is any different from macroevolution. Listen up: Microevolution is macroevolution. I'll say that again, but the other way around. Macroevoltion is microevolution. How, you ask? (If you didn't, be nice and pretend you did.) Deep Time! Micro is, by defintion, what happens on an observable timescale, whereas macro is what happens, by definition, over lots of time. Wads of it. Longer than even my calculus class seems to last for, and that, boys and girls, is a lot of time. Millenia? Psh. Chump change. Millions? Now that's more like it! By the by, if you follow the mitochondrial DNA trail, you'll find wolves and chihuahuas took a seperate path from coyotes before wolves and chihuahuas diverged. So, the common ancestor was probably (at least looking at the fossils) a smallish coyote kind of thing. Coyotes, wolves and dogs have all had several million years to differentiate from the point where their ancestoral lines diverged. Creationists - here's one I haven't heard explained. How about mitochondrial DNA? It picks up mutations at a steady rate, and makes a nice clock for when the last common ancestor of two critters diverged. It also points pretty nicely towards Deep Time. I'd love to hear what you think! Going to the tiger/hippo thing. They both have four legs - yes, they are indeed tetrapods. They are also in the smaller category of synapsids, a group distinguished by details of the skull and teeth. Evidence for transformation from one to the other? No. Tigers are not the ancestors of hippos, and it's not the other way around, either. Tigers are mammals. So are hippos. They are also both placental mammals, who give live birth to well developed young and have a certain tooth structure. (Fossil teeth are great for mammals. Speaking as a woman who recently started looking at anything besides dinosaurs, they are beautiful! You can tell them apart based on only the teeth! *sniff* So beautiful.) Their last common ancestor occured when carnivores seperated off. The last common ancestor was neither a hippo nor a tiger. It looked and lived nothing like either. It was a creature adapted for a different habit and world then ours today. Evidence for one form to another... Well, I'm a punctated equilibrium type of biologist, myself, but if you want a nice transitional record, the dinosaur bird transition is the kind that sets me drooling. Over the last twenty years, it has moved from spotty to sublime. MMmmmm... Yummy.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 24, 2006 9:11:16 GMT -5
L . . . . O . . . . L . . . .
I quite like the dinosaur-bird thing too, and I'll tell you why - earlier this week I managed to PROVE beyond ANY doubt the EVOLUTION of the large hot chocolate mug, from an espresso mug - just line up anything that looks similar until you end up with the final product, all made at the same time and by a COMMON DESIGNER!
Anyone with half a brain cell can put things together that look the same and I'm afraid using that as a proof of evolution is just clutching at some pretty poor straws - think about the evolution from a knife, through spoon, to spork, to fork - again with a common designer, which I'm sure even you evolutionists out there have to concede to?!
Let me know what you think anyway - I'm open minded and if I've got it wrong I really don't want to be committing my life to a waste of time, which is also what I hope is true for you too!!
|
|