|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2006 : 18:40:16 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
quote:
I haven't even read through everything there. He came here to talk to people about evolution and you tell him to go read a website? That's quite rude
It is rude to refer somebody to a well written comprehensive source of information on evolution? huh? Well, if hat is rude, them I guess I'm just a rude sob.
quote:
And therefore, no one can have an objection to evolution regarding SLOT without being labeled a Creationist. Right...
In your experience have you ever encountered anyone who objected to evolution, based on SLOT, who wasn't a creationist, or getting the info from a creationist source? In my experience it is a 100% creationist argument. I'd bet my last beer that you have not encountered anyone non-creationist who objected to evolution based on SLOT either.
marfknox said:
quote:
To Dude: Some of us hold back our insults for the sake of communicating. Some of us also don't see every new person we encounter as a flat stereotype. I have met lots of intelligent people who tend to think there is something to some Creationist arguments. It isn't because they are fundamentalist Christians. It is because Creationism has heavily integrated itself into the mainstream culture. Fighting back involves explaining why those ideas are wrong, not just insulting people and telling them to not read Creationist literature. I say read it – and then learn about why it is wrong.
Insults? What insults? Please quote me insulting Robb...
And, again, how the hell is it rude to refer somebody to a well written and comprehensive source of information?
The only rude thing here is the two of you busting my chops for providing reference links for Robb.
And Robb isn't a "new" poster on these forums. He has been seen here on and off for a good while now. He has, evin in this thread, proclaimed his creationist beliefs.
Robb said:
quote:
Can I give you some advice Dude? I think if you cut down on the attitude a little you would be an effective teacher. You obviosly have alot of knowledge on the subject, so why not educate people instead of making condensending remarks. If you don't want to educate me then just do not reply to my posts.
Attitude? Don't let a blunt, sometimes sarcastic, writing style confuse you into thinking I have an "attitude" about anything.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about evolution.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 19:17:01 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Insults? What insults? Please quote me insulting Robb...
Sarcasm can be insulting. Re-read your first two posts and pretend they were written to you by a stranger - they have a condescending tone.
And, again, how the hell is it rude to refer somebody to a well written and comprehensive source of information?
Your recommendations were broad and vague to the point of being useless. For instance, you said read something by Dawkins; but Dawkins writes books that are often not for a beginner understanding of evolutionary theory, and many of Dawkins texts step over the bounds of pure science into atheistic philosophy. If an open minded Christian gets his info on evolution from Dawkins - thinking it is mainstream evolutionary theory - he is likely to agree with fundamentalists who claim that evolution is atheistic philosophy, not pure science. I'm not knocking Dawkins, but anybody can tell that his books are about more than just pure science.
The only rude thing here is the two of you busting my chops for providing reference links for Robb.
Three people in this discussion have criticized you for being rude. You may not mean to be rude, but you are most certainly coming off that way. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/16/2006 19:18:30 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 21:33:49 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Your recommendations were broad and vague to the point of being useless. For instance, you said read something by Dawkins; but Dawkins writes books that are often not for a beginner understanding of evolutionary theory, and many of Dawkins texts step over the bounds of pure science into atheistic philosophy. If an open minded Christian gets his info on evolution from Dawkins - thinking it is mainstream evolutionary theory - he is likely to agree with fundamentalists who claim that evolution is atheistic philosophy, not pure science. I'm not knocking Dawkins, but anybody can tell that his books are about more than just pure science.
1. A reference to an evolutionary biology textbook, and the best online evolution reference, is "vague to the point of being useless"? You have a decidedly odd notion of what is useless.
2. Dawkins most popular book, which is the one referenced in the specific lists of books on evolution I referred to, is an easily read book. Don't get pissy with me just because you didn't bother to open the link and actually look at what I was talking about before you decided to jump my shit.
3. I referred Robb to any book by Dawkins, Mayr, or Gould on the specific list of books I linked to, not "any book by Dawkins" as you are accusing me of. At this point it looks as if you are just looking for any old excuse to bitch at me.
Seriously, I am still laughing at you calling the Futuyma evolutionary biology text and the Talk Origins archive "vague to the point of being useless". That is freakin hilarious.
So how about it Ricky. Have you ever seen the "SLOT prevents evolution" argument from anyone besides a creationist?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 21:38:13 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Sarcasm can be insulting. Re-read your first two posts and pretend they were written to you by a stranger - they have a condescending tone.
Most creationist "criticism" of evolution is worthy of nothing but condescension.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 07:13:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
To clarify, I do beleive in God and creation as it happened in the Bible.
Are you open to the possibility of changing your mind on that?
Probably not, especially that God created everything. Although I am open to different interpretations of the Bible. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 07:21:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
I am not sold that the earth is 6000 years old
I am curious. How old do you think it is? The 6000 year old date is supposedly calculate based on the bible, so I was wondering what age you would ascribe and how you came about it, and why the 6000 year old number is not valid. "I don't know how old it is." is also a valid response :-)
I have not made up my mind on this. The bible does not explicitly say how old the earth is. I am in the middle of doing the math for myself, but I am sure it indicated a young earth. However scientific measurements are not in line with this, I do have concerns with the errors in dating techniques, but I have a hard time believing that the errors are big enough to be off tens of thousands of years. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 07:34:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
However scientific measurements are not in line with this, I do have concerns with the errors in dating techniques, but I have a hard time believing that the errors are big enough to be off tens of thousands of years.
Just remember, Robb, that there are thousands of isotopic measurements which all confirm that the Earth is billions of years old, and millions of measurements confirming an age of more than 10,000 years, but the vocal proponents of creationism focus on a few dozen (or maybe a few hundred) oddball measurements, many of which were inappropriate (for example, using carbon-14 dating to find the age of something millions of years old) or ignore known exceptions (for example, the famous 27,000-year-old living snail). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 16:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I am not sold that the earth is 6000 years old however, or many other claims of creationists like Dr. Kent Hovind.
To start with, Kent Hovind is no more a doctor than I am. He's a loonie that makes such preposterous claims and lies that even "legitimate" creationist organizations like Answers In Genesis (and probably also Institute for Creational Research) are embarrassed to have Kent Hovind speaking on their behalf. Unless my memory is slipping, Talk Origins have a special section devoted to Hovind.
Edited to clarify: Kent Hovind's title comes from a diploma-mill, and his doctoral thesis is not properly registered. Kent Hovind himself is very reluctant to give people access to it, but there is an online analysis made by someone who actually managed to get a hold of a copy. The thesis barely holds up to High School standard. If you want to know why Kent Hovind should be disregarded read this link. It's long and it is somewhat tedious, but when your reading is done, you will have some new insights as to why everyone here at SFN is laughing every time someone refer to Kent Hovind as Doctor.
(I call myself Dr. Mabuse here, but that's not because I want people to think I'm a doctor. It's because the fictional character Mabuse was one...)
quote:
I assure you that I am not trying to learn about evolution to condemn it.
As long as you get the facts straight, and really understand the points of the theory, we don't have to worry about that.
quote:
I also would like to educate the people at my church about evolution and how it works. Most people there believe that evolutionsts think that a chimp evolved into people. I think that if a christian does not think that evolution happened, they should at least know what the theory says.
Commendable thinking, the above. There are few things I detest more than willful ignorance. They say that ignorance is bliss, but ignorance will also be the downfall of our civilization.
quote:
I may not agree that we came from single cell organisms millions of years ago. But I would like to know about how evolutionists think it happened. I figure if I read books and websites and come here for things I don't understand that I read, I can get a good education on the subject. Thanks for the help.
Absolutely, we'd love to help you understand how it works. Someone may post condescending, or sarcastic remarks... If they are not contructive you should ignore those. Answering a flame-bait will make his day and any exchange of flames will only distract you.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/17/2006 17:18:55 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 17:44:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
To clarify, I do beleive in God and creation as it happened in the Bible.
Are you open to the possibility of changing your mind on that?
Probably not, especially that God created everything. Although I am open to different interpretations of the Bible.
No, I wasn't meaning giving up the idea of god as the creator. Just the idea that god created "as it happened in the Bible." Most Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. (This fact is often surprising to American Protestants, who for some reason have been led to believe you can't be a Christian unless you accept a literal Genesis.)
Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no different than plate tectonics or the weather. If a Christian believes god created everything, then it is natural to see evolution as merely the tool god used to form his creation. Many Christians argue that this demonstrates a much more patient, awesome, and creative god than the one described by a literal reading of the bible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/17/2006 17:46:37 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 22:13:34 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
quote:
No, I wasn't meaning giving up the idea of god as the creator. Just the idea that god created "as it happened in the Bible." Most Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. (This fact is often surprising to American Protestants, who for some reason have been led to believe you can't be a Christian unless you accept a literal Genesis.)
Yeah. Evolution certainly doesn't preclude any gods. It directly contradicts a literal reading of the biblical creation account however. It is at this point that people must decide what to believe, the overwhelming evidence that supports evolutionary theory or an old religious text. The facts are clear and evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories modern science has ever produced. It is irrational to maintain a belief that the biblical account of creation is literally true.
The other thing that the theory of evolution does not address is the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the field of study looking into this topic. It is a much younger field of inquiry, one where there are several hypotheses and not much in the way of solid evidence. It is very hard to look back so far into the molecular history of earth.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 07:51:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The other thing that the theory of evolution does not address is the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the field of study looking into this topic.
I find this division uncomfortable.
It¨s almost like ID but with "Abiogenesis did it!" instead of "God the Designer did it!"
Abiogenesis and what happened before the point when what we define as life evolved from non-life is certainly connected to evolutionary biology. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 08:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Starman said:
quote:
I find this division uncomfortable.
It¨s almost like ID but with "Abiogenesis did it!" instead of "God the Designer did it!"
Abiogenesis and what happened before the point when what we define as life evolved from non-life is certainly connected to evolutionary biology.
There is a gap in our knowledge at the origin of life. I think the two things (evolution and abiogenesis) are different enough to warrant a division.
But,I totally agree that the origin of life and evolution are very closely related fields of inquiry.
It would not suprise me to see that some of the concepts of ToE end up in use in a good theory of abiogenesis. The processes that effect evolution will probably have some impact on how unliving molecules turned into living organisms.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 10:27:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Abiogenesis and what happened before the point when what we define as life evolved from non-life is certainly connected to evolutionary biology.
The two aren't connected at all, actually. However life got here---abiogenesis, special creation, panspermia, alien test tubes--evolution only describes what happened to life after it did. No possibility changes the fact that life, whatever its origin, evolved.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/18/2006 10:28:34 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 10:53:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The two aren't connected at all, actually. However life got here---abiogenesis, special creation, panspermia, alien test tubes--evolution only describes what happened to life after it did. No possibility changes the fact that life, whatever its origin, evolved.
Not connected? Maybe in creationism.
You have to be sure how you define life and which past replicators you declare as living.
If non-living replicators ultimately spawned living ones I would guess that the distinction between where abiogenesis ended and biological evolution started is a matter of definition.
But of course most of the TOE is indifferent to how life began. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 12:17:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
But of course most of the TOE is indifferent to how life began.
Which is what I meant. The fact of evolution exists independent of life's origins. It isn't wrong to say it's a question evolution doesn't directly address (enough negatives in that sentence for ya?), and it is almost always a red herring creationists like to throw out.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
