Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 10 of 20

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are ignorant when it comes to any sort of evidence.

Yes, for such a "resounding open mind" things do seem to bounce off of it quite resoundingly. It's almost fun to throw things at it, just to hear them bounce off.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:41 PM

Mostly I wanted to compliment AnthonyT for is good thread and thoughtful (and glaringly compassionate) comment about teaching more--not less--in school

And Kudos to MRID for his excellent everview of evolution.

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

The thing is that ID doesn't really DO anything besides validate a religious belief system. It doesn't really help explain life processes any better. So it's about protecting people's feelings, and that is for sure NOT science.

Truth be told, its the realm of COSMOLOGY--not biology--that really should be where God or a Designer is most aptly placed. Even Cosmologists will say they have now idea what "banged" the Big Bang. They have a few ideas but they are, like God, unprovable.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:24 PM

theres nothing scientific about speculation, especially when its imposed as truth. thats what evolution is.

interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

whats ironic is there are a million things science doesnt know about our origins, but the junk theories that fill in the blanks are taken as gospel fact among you all... and then you claim this speculation, frankly philosophy, is hard science. its all just a little hypocritical to me.. if science is about what is proven and observable, then that leaves almost all of our origins in the 'theoretical' catagory.. not something you can flaunt as "proof"

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:32 PM

dbl post

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

Evolution was never meant to explain the origin of LIFE but rather the Origin Of Species. Neither Darwin nor anyone with a firm grasp of evolution claim that evolution explains how life originated, there are many plausible theories around such as proteins forming into self replicating groups or RNA strands mutating into self-replicating formats, but no one knows for sure.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:42 PM

anti "I know nothing about science yet I feel justified telling people what is and what is not scientific" mason:
The bible is metaphorical you arse, get over it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:52 PM

just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis, evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being. Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, so therefore he wouldn't have bothered to brush up on the topic.

The lack of ability to answer a question that is outside the scope of the arguement does not invalidate the arguement.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

No, you're not pointing out the double standard. You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there. Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it. All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE