'100s of esteemed biologists' lied about evolution

Conservative said:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/100s-of-esteemed-biologists-lied-about-evolution/
Click to expand...

Absolutely incredible!
If someone had told me that, not only did some Americans honestly believe this, but that someone had actually started a magazine (?), blog or whatever to seriously question evolution I would not have believed them.
Now, they say you are Legion Troll, I dont know and I dont care, what I do know is that someone who spends his time searching out twaddle such as this is seriously mentally challenged. If you want to use it to get a rise out of paople OK, but to actually sit at your computer and a)know that this stuff exists and b) bother to download and post it makes you a pretty sorry case whether you actually believe it or not.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Only the Phelps family and those who worship snakes can be sadder than you.

I guess the fact that I have responded makes me a sad case too. I just hope it is a temporary condition.
 
bravo said:
Two pinheads that ignore the topic of the post ?

Don't believe it.....don't it matter that it was based on a lie from the start....

Does it make any difference ?
Click to expand...
Yea, except it's not true. Rivers is a religious extremist and in this case he's just out right lying.
 
No doubt. I love "Talk Origins". It's a wonderful web site. A lot of people with out a biology background go there to read up on the evolution/creationism debate and come away with a sound understanding of evolutionary theory which then turns them on to learning more about the science.

What's really interesting about the Creationism side of the debate is that they have not come up with a new argument opposing evolution in a long time. I started studying biology in college in 1980 and started debating creationist at that time. I have not heard a new argument opposing evolution since then.
 
Conservative said:
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence of human habitation in North America (and South America for that matter) going back 12,000 years.
 
Conservative said:
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm
Click to expand...

Where does the Bible say the world was created in 4000 BC? Nowhere. Only if you interpret the first couple chapters of Genesis literally could you reach that conclusion. If you interpret it literally, then you must also accept that day and night exited before the sun was created. Hell, it even says vegetation was created before the sun. How does that make sense?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What's really interesting about the Creationism side of the debate is that they have not come up with a new argument opposing evolution in a long time. I started studying biology in college in 1980 and started debating creationist at that time. I have not heard a new argument opposing evolution since then.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe a creationist needs to give an argument to oppose evolution? These are two entirely different principles dealing with entirely different aspects. Evolution, as great as it is, simply can't explain ORIGIN. Creationism doesn't nullify the possibility of evolution. They can both be true, just as they can both be false, one is not dependent on the other for validity.

The process of evolution is not put into question with the theory of creation, in fact, many creationists firmly believe that evolution is a tool of the Creator. Theorizing that species evolved through the years, doesn't even touch on how life began. It tells us possibly how life emerged afterward, but the question of origin remains.

I've presented the basis of my creation theory many times here, (and it's not 1980.) You've never refuted it, or really even attempted to, because it's a pretty sound theory in my opinion. I've yet to meet anyone who can offer a suitable explanation. Here it is once more:

The study of animal behavior. We have observed millions and millions of various life forms found on the planet, and we have made many fascinating discoveries, but for this observation, we need only focus on a simple commonality. In all cases, with all species of life, no inherent behavior exists without purpose or reason. If a species behaves in a certain way, it is for a valid reason, always. Therefore, it is scientifically illogical and unlikely, that a species would ever exhibit a behavior inherently, for no reason.

We know, from the diggings of ancient civilizations, that as far back as we can observe the behaviors of the human species, there has been a strong connection with spiritual belief. We know from history, tyrants and rulers have jealously tried to stamp out man's spirituality, time and time again, only to fail over and over. So we can conclude, whether you believe in spirituality or not, the behavior is intrinsically tied to our species. It's an inherent trait we have as humans, the need to worship.

Now... According to Charles Darwin, such behaviors exist in a species because they are beneficial to the advancement of the species. As time passes, the species discards behavioral attributes which are not needed, survival of the fittest. If spiritual belief were not needed by the species, it would have been abandoned thousands and thousands of years ago. It is here we can reasonably conclude, whether you believe in God or not, that the human species needs and requires spirituality.

While this doesn't "prove" creation, it certainly supports the concept, and it certainly refutes any argument that spirituality is merely man's way of coping with the unknown. If that were the case, the behavior would have been discarded long ago.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you believe a creationist needs to give an argument to oppose evolution? These are two entirely different principles dealing with entirely different aspects. Evolution, as great as it is, simply can't explain ORIGIN. Creationism doesn't nullify the possibility of evolution. They can both be true, just as they can both be false, one is not dependent on the other for validity.

The process of evolution is not put into question with the theory of creation, in fact, many creationists firmly believe that evolution is a tool of the Creator. Theorizing that species evolved through the years, doesn't even touch on how life began. It tells us possibly how life emerged afterward, but the question of origin remains.

I've presented the basis of my creation theory many times here, (and it's not 1980.) You've never refuted it, or really even attempted to, because it's a pretty sound theory in my opinion. I've yet to meet anyone who can offer a suitable explanation. Here it is once more:

The study of animal behavior. We have observed millions and millions of various life forms found on the planet, and we have made many fascinating discoveries, but for this observation, we need only focus on a simple commonality. In all cases, with all species of life, no inherent behavior exists without purpose or reason. If a species behaves in a certain way, it is for a valid reason, always. Therefore, it is scientifically illogical and unlikely, that a species would ever exhibit a behavior inherently, for no reason.

We know, from the diggings of ancient civilizations, that as far back as we can observe the behaviors of the human species, there has been a strong connection with spiritual belief. We know from history, tyrants and rulers have jealously tried to stamp out man's spirituality, time and time again, only to fail over and over. So we can conclude, whether you believe in spirituality or not, the behavior is intrinsically tied to our species. It's an inherent trait we have as humans, the need to worship.

Now... According to Charles Darwin, such behaviors exist in a species because they are beneficial to the advancement of the species. As time passes, the species discards behavioral attributes which are not needed, survival of the fittest. If spiritual belief were not needed by the species, it would have been abandoned thousands and thousands of years ago. It is here we can reasonably conclude, whether you believe in God or not, that the human species needs and requires spirituality.

While this doesn't "prove" creation, it certainly supports the concept, and it certainly refutes any argument that spirituality is merely man's way of coping with the unknown. If that were the case, the behavior would have been discarded long ago.
Click to expand...
False premise Dixie. I don't believe Creationist need to provide a new argument opposing evolution nor did I state that. I said I had not heard a new argument since 1980.
 
Evolution, as great as it is, simply can't explain ORIGIN.
Click to expand...

Actually, it can explain origin. Biologists have already demonstrated that self-replicating RNA molecules will evolve under the right conditions. It's not total proof, but it adds to the already overwhelming evidence. Of course, nothing will ever be good enough for the Creationist crowd.
 
Why do you believe a creationist needs to give an argument to oppose evolution? These are two entirely different principles dealing with entirely different aspects. Evolution, as great as it is, simply can't explain ORIGIN. Creationism doesn't nullify the possibility of evolution. They can both be true, just as they can both be false, one is not dependent on the other for validity.
Click to expand...
But it is one hell of a retreat for the god of the gaps, isn't it Dixie? God used to be used to explain practically everything. Remember when Boreas was used to explain pregnancy? Or Zeus was used to explain storms. Or when Jehovah was attributed with having hand-made the Earth? Now all 'god' is used for is as some ambigious and impotent first cause. What a back track. Almost looks like 'god' has been a tool of man's, used to explain that that we don't understand, doesn't it?
The study of animal behavior. We have observed millions and millions of various life forms found on the planet, and we have made many fascinating discoveries, but for this observation, we need only focus on a simple commonality. In all cases, with all species of life, no inherent behavior exists without purpose or reason. If a species behaves in a certain way, it is for a valid reason, always. Therefore, it is scientifically illogical and unlikely, that a species would ever exhibit a behavior inherently, for no reason.
Click to expand...
You are right, Dixie. Those traits are for a reason. And that reason is propogation of the species. In other words, you are describing evolutionary traits. Traits the species has that have helped it survive natural selection.
We know, from the diggings of ancient civilizations, that as far back as we can observe the behaviors of the human species, there has been a strong connection with spiritual belief. We know from history, tyrants and rulers have jealously tried to stamp out man's spirituality, time and time again, only to fail over and over. So we can conclude, whether you believe in spirituality or not, the behavior is intrinsically tied to our species. It's an inherent trait we have as humans, the need to worship.
Click to expand...
So to what purpose could humanity's perceived 'belief in spirituality' have for man? Well, as we saw earlier man has used 'spirituality' as a way of understanding the world about it. We are back to Boreas, Zeus and Jehovah. Homo Sapiens are unique amongst species in that the size and complexity of its brain has given it the capacity to contemplate and try to understand. 'God' was early man's attempts to understand the world about it. As man's understanding has improved the notion of 'god' has declined. It will soon hold no purpose at all.

While this doesn't "prove" creation, it certainly supports the concept, and it certainly refutes any argument that spirituality is merely man's way of coping with the unknown. If that were the case, the behavior would have been discarded long ago.
Click to expand...
Really? We still have our coccyx. Why would you think something that is no longer used go from a gene-pool so quickly? What you are ignoring is the fact that under natural selection, it is not just those traits that improve the chance of reproduction, but all traits that don't harm chances of reproduction.
And you are right, it is a very weak argument for the existence of deities. Using Occram's razor, it has a far better explanation than as an indicator of the supernatural. It has a natural explanation.
 
Dixie's "inherent need to worship" argument is an oldie and insanely flawed - it's one of the worst I've seen, actually. And this is from someone who believes in god...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top