Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

Why don't you show us some evidence for evolution that could not be interpreted to support creationism.

that would be a moot point, as you know, bc creationism doesn't require even a shred of evidence in the first place, it being an issue of faith, not evidence.

 

[blackumbrella]

Ok so you bail. I went out and hired killvol and becca, it is like yard work, I had it done. I am lazy. Shall I link a couple of links to your evidence. The monkey chain. Wow that was compelling.

as COB said, it's not enough to nitpick away at evolution's argument,

IT HAS BEEN DONE in this thread. GO read it.

i'll assume this is just a moment of weakness, bake, bc i don't believe you to be the type of person to balk on your duty to spread the good word. though of course, my impresion of you as someone who wouldn't balk on his duty to god is only based on the evidence i've gathered so far, the posts of yours i've read, and if you wound up burning in hades--some people call it hell, i call it hades--for your transgressions, being a good scientist, i'd have to revise my hypothesis.

 

[KillVols]

So far I havn't seen anything scientific about Creationism on this thread. Its all been faith. :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

"here's a better idea, i'll go into a biology dept meeting and ask 'who here thinks evolution is an assumption?'"

That's a great idea!

Only crazy people believe in God and creation... no one in the scientific community believe. How could they? That's for the non-scientific-church going-morons... right? We can just ask COB, he's in a part of the scientific community.

It's like saying CNN is fair and balanced... Let's go to the journalism dpt. and see who believes President Bush... What response would you get? ...doesn't matter he is still a truthful and great prez.

 

[92tide]

wow, it only took ten pages for the librul media boogey man to rear his ugly head. lets spend the next 10 tearing down this man o' straw :biggrin:

 

[bamabake]

i'll assume this is just a moment of weakness, bake, bc i don't believe you to be the type of person to balk on your duty to spread the good word. though of course, my impresion of you as someone who wouldn't balk on his duty to god is only based on the evidence i've gathered so far, the posts of yours i've read, and if you wound up burning in hades--some people call it hell, i call it hades--for your transgressions, being a good scientist, i'd have to revise my hypothesis.

Christ is my strenghth where I am weak. Dont worry however. I wont darken the doors of hell although the path there is wide indeed.

 

[CrimsonNan]

i'll assume this is just a moment of weakness, bake, bc i don't believe you to be the type of person to balk on your duty to spread the good word. though of course, my impresion of you as someone who wouldn't balk on his duty to god is only based on the evidence i've gathered so far, the posts of yours i've read, and if you wound up burning in hades--some people call it hell, i call it hades--for your transgressions, being a good scientist, i'd have to revise my hypothesis.

Hades: 1 (a) Greek Mythology The home of the dead, below the earth.
(b) The ruler of the lower world; Pluto.

2 The home or state of the dead, sometimes construed as purgatory.

Hell: In Christian and other religions, a place where wicked person are punished after death; the abode of devils and damned spirirts.

There is a difference.

 

[blackumbrella]

Hades: 1 (a) Greek Mythology The home of the dead, below the earth.
(b) The ruler of the lower world; Pluto.

2 The home or state of the dead, sometimes construed as purgatory.

Hell: In Christian and other religions, a place where wicked person are punished after death; the abode of devils and damned spirirts.

There is a difference.

it was a billy bob quote from slingblade. but thanks for the clarification

 

[BeccaBama]

that would be a moot point, as you know, bc creationism doesn't require even a shred of evidence in the first place, it being an issue of faith, not evidence.

The point is that Creationism CAN be supported with scientific evidence. It doesn’t have to be, because God told us in his Word how it was done but in order to debunk the idea that evolution is the only thing that any reasonable person could accept as to how all of the various species came to be, it is helpful to show that the same evidence used to explain evolution could just as easily be explained by Creationism. Let’s not forget that Darwin had faith that evolution was true before he had any evidence for it.

 

[COBamaFan]

KillVols:

I have no problem with zingers. Go for it. And, yes, I am in the science community.

It’s cute that you tried to turn my argument around on me. Unfortunately, you’re assertion doesn’t hold any water. I challenged creationists to provide one single piece of scientific evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. This is the lowest level of proof possible and you seem incapable of reaching even this level of proof. Oh, you tried with the ‘new’ information rant, but that was shown to be incorrect. So, I ask again: where is the proof?

BeccaBama:

Your excerpts showed nothing. Starting research with a well-known, widely accepted scientific theory is not starting with an assumption.

No, wrong again, BeccaBama. evolution is the BEST explanation of SPECIATION based on the facts we have from scientific observations. It is not simply one interpretation, as you have claimed, but the BEST (thus far). Scientists are objectively evaluating the facts, something you have admitted to being incapable of doing.

The thing about evidence is that it requires OBJECTIVE interpretation.

The thing about creationism, BeccaBama, is that it is like saying ‘God did it.’ All scientific observations could be interpreted as: ‘well, God must have done it.’ For example, I want you to provide evidence that God isn’t moving the sun along its trajectory in the sky. Or, to put it another way: Do you believe that God is moving the sun or do you accept that the theory of gravitational attraction accurately explains the motion of the sun in the sky everyday? You see my point, BeccaBama? Your views are inconsistent. It is not a valid scientific theory to say ‘God did it.’ Thus, you must provide scientific evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. No such evidence exists (just like no evidence exists that contradicts the theory of gravitational attraction and supports the notion that God is moving the sun).

Your silence on the issues I’ve raised in every single one of my posts is deafening.

Bamabake:

You crack me. You’re like BeccaBama and KillVols personal cheerleader. Hey, blackumbrella: we need to get one of those. You know, someone to quote and re-post all of our posts with little sound bites like ‘owned’ at the end or ‘you’re getting roughed up’. I love this guy! He’s my favorite part of posting on tidefans. Keep up the good work Bamabake …

 

[bamabake]

KillVols:

I have no problem with zingers. Go for it. And, yes, I am in the science community.

It’s cute that you tried to turn my argument around on me. Unfortunately, you’re assertion doesn’t hold any water. I challenged creationists to provide one single piece of scientific evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. This is the lowest level of proof possible and you seem incapable of reaching even this level of proof. Oh, you tried with the ‘new’ information rant, but that was shown to be incorrect. So, I ask again: where is the proof?

BeccaBama:

Your excerpts showed nothing. Starting research with a well-known, widely accepted scientific theory is not starting with an assumption.

No, wrong again, BeccaBama. evolution is the BEST explanation of SPECIATION based on the facts we have from scientific observations. It is not simply one interpretation, as you have claimed, but the BEST (thus far). Scientists are objectively evaluating the facts, something you have admitted to being incapable of doing.

The thing about evidence is that it requires OBJECTIVE interpretation.

The thing about creationism, BeccaBama, is that it is like saying ‘God did it.’ All scientific observations could be interpreted as: ‘well, God must have done it.’ For example, I want you to provide evidence that God isn’t moving the sun along its trajectory in the sky. Or, to put it another way: Do you believe that God is moving the sun or do you accept that the theory of gravitational attraction accurately explains the motion of the sun in the sky everyday? You see my point, BeccaBama? Your views are inconsistent. It is not a valid scientific theory to say ‘God did it.’ Thus, you must provide scientific evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. No such evidence exists (just like no evidence exists that contradicts the theory of gravitational attraction and supports the notion that God is moving the sun).

Your silence on the issues I’ve raised in every single one of my posts is deafening.

Bamabake:

You crack me. You’re like BeccaBama and KillVols personal cheerleader. Hey, blackumbrella: we need to get one of those. You know, someone to quote and re-post all of our posts with little sound bites like ‘owned’ at the end or ‘you’re getting roughed up’. I love this guy! He’s my favorite part of posting on tidefans. Keep up the good work Bamabake …

Becca hasnt been silent, nor has her earlier posts been proven wrong. Furthermore you still havent provided any reason to embrace evolution other than you are a scientist and your subjective assessments about objectivity being applied in this thread.
As for your last insult.. I dont want anyone to think I didnt do the least I could do. Your weak , factless response to Becca (again) proves you were owned BTW. So I spiced it up, it makes the forum more fun. We could just hop on, get insulted by your smug arrogance and just be happy with that I suppose.

try and have a good day anyway

 

[blackumbrella]

The point is that Creationism CAN be supported with scientific evidence. It doesn’t have to be, because God told us in his Word how it was done

that's hilarious. what creation myth CAN'T be supported by some evidence? that's the reason our ancestors came up with them in the first place, to explain or account for things around us--why all these animals and plants are here, why we're here, why we die, what does it mean, what is it for, etc. etc. as accurate explanations, as descriptive theories, they're all hopelessly atavistic. but--and this is ny's point--as moral instruction, many, including some versions of christianity, are still very helpful.

and COB's point about goodness of explanation is well taken. sure SOME of the evidence can be taken to support christian or any other creation myth, but evolution is the best explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account. just look at that gallup poll i posted a few pages ago--almost no scientists, people who know most about the cumulative body of evidence, support strict creationism.

 

[KillVols]

COB Quote
"It’s cute that you tried to turn my argument around on me. Unfortunately, you’re assertion doesn't’t hold any water. I challenged creationists to provide one single piece of scientific evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. This is the lowest level of proof possible and you seem incapable of reaching even this level of proof. Oh, you tried with the ‘new’ information rant, but that was shown to be incorrect. So, I ask again: where is the proof?"


The lowest level? My reply was meant to show the absurdity your post... Which I think it did.. As far as the "proof" you are seeking that is the point of the thread, due to the mountain of evidence we must take specific points and debate them fully, something you are not willing to do. No one can change your heart and open your mind to offer any alternative to your religion... evolution. Except maybe the good Lord himself... Believe me he has cracked harder nuts than you.


COB Quote
"No, wrong again, BeccaBama. evolution is the BEST explanation of SPECIATION based on the facts we have from scientific observations. It is not simply one interpretation, as you have claimed, but the BEST (thus far). Scientists are objectively evaluating the facts, something you have admitted to being incapable of doing."

This is horribly wrong... you keep repeating it over and over, but until you admit these scientist start out with assumptions, which means it is not necessarily objective, everything else you say shows your ignorance of science in general. The fact that you can't get past it shows you are not being intellectually honest. There have been many examples from the scientific community and quotes leading evolutionist themselves say freely that they could never let the divine get a foot in the door even if all the data point to creation.... they would still deny it. Sounds objective to me.

COB
"The thing about evidence is that it requires OBJECTIVE interpretation."

More silliness and shows a lack of understanding.

COB
"Your silence on the issues I’ve raised in every single one of my posts is deafening."

Silence? Again anyone reading this thread can see very clearly that Becca is anything but silent on any issue raised.. Do you actually read the posts? What grade are you going to be in next year? BTW- Being in a high school biology class does not make you a member of the scientific community. Your post show a real level of ignorance about science and the whole subject in general. You might want to study a little harder.

By the way I think Bamabake has made some good points... Seems he bothers you for some reason... You might try name calling, could make you feel better and is just one tiny step below your normal comments. not a far jump.

 

[KillVols]

that's hilarious. what creation myth CAN'T be supported by some evidence? that's the reason our ancestors came up with them in the first place, to explain or account for things around us--why all these animals and plants are here, why we're here, why we die, what does it mean, what is it for, etc. etc. as accurate explanations, as descriptive theories, they're all hopelessly atavistic. but--and this is ny's point--as moral instruction, many, including some versions of christianity, are still very helpful.

and COB's point about goodness of explanation is well taken. sure SOME of the evidence can be taken to support christian or any other creation myth, but evolution is the best explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account. just look at that gallup poll i posted a few pages ago--almost no scientists, people who know most about the cumulative body of evidence, support strict creationism.

Started this thread talking about the conflict with genetics and evolution.
So many ignored or silly responses to points made to count.

you said,
"evolution is the best explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account."

You should of used the word "was" instead of "is"... we have discovered many things since then like DNA, complexity of the single cell, genetic code... and 10,000 other things that show this is an outdated theory held on to with an iron grip by the people that don't believe in God and the people that have been indoctrinated into believing they can have evolution and creation together.

 

[CrimsonNan]

KillVols:

It seems to me that COBamaFan is bothered more by BeccaBama that bamabake, since he doesn't miss a chance of calling her silly. I guess he can't stand the thought of a woman being smarter than he is, which she obviously is. He constantly brings up a biology class or book, and insinuates that's where she's getting her information, to insult her. I admire her restraint!

 

[KillVols]

KillVols:

It seems to me that COBamaFan is bothered more by BeccaBama that bamabake, since he doesn't miss a chance of calling her silly. I guess he can't stand the thought of a woman being smarter than he is, which she obviously is. He constantly brings up a biology class or book, and insinuates that's where she's getting her information, to insult her. I admire her restraint!

Good point

 

[blackumbrella]

KillVols:

It seems to me that COBamaFan is bothered more by BeccaBama that bamabake, since he doesn't miss a chance of calling her silly. I guess he can't stand the thought of a woman being smarter than he is, which she obviously is. He constantly brings up a biology class or book, and insinuates that's where she's getting her information, to insult her. I admire her restraint!

actually, nan, as we've seen, she's getting alot of it from creationist websites

 

[bamabake]

actually, nan, as we've seen, she's getting alot of it from creationist websites

So what is your point. She is otherwise a dolt? She addressed the website thing (as if it needed it) already and you would know that if you had read the thread . You get your info from pop culture (and outdated) science. Ask her how many books she has read on the subject why dont you.

So actually your point her is pathetically meaningless. Nan may be onto something about a woman being too smart. She sure has offered comments to you that you STILL havent attemped to address directly. This post proves the sheer impotence. I mean for you to imply that because some of the the reaonable arguments she has made ( many that you havent gone back to read) may have include information from one sourse that uses the C word is not credible is beyond a stretch. Sounds to me she has actually a tremendous amount of research on the topic. In fact read her opening post. She says she was excited to see this topic being discussed .... She apparently had a prior interest. I am sure your wit and CBFs charm have made it less than the stimulating experience it could be.

 

[blackumbrella]

Started this thread talking about the conflict with genetics and evolution.
So many ignored or silly responses to points made to count.

you said,
"evolution is the best explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account."

You should of used the word "was" instead of "is"... we have discovered many things since then like DNA, complexity of the single cell, genetic code... and 10,000 other things that show this is an outdated theory held on to with an iron grip by the people that don't believe in God and the people that have been indoctrinated into believing they can have evolution and creation together.

that's an interesting post. first of all, science is a cumulative system, and if 10,000 things showed the theory to be outdated, it would certainly be supplanted by a newer one. secondly, your characterization of scientists and apparentky anyone who believes in evolution as indoctrinated zombies too stupid to come to their own conclusions leads me to question your sanity. look at the gallup poll again, at the evolution acceptance/ education correlation. do you account for those statistics by equating education with indoctrination?! hell, let's just shut down all the schools and use the money to start a few more wars.

 

[blackumbrella]

So what is your point. She is otherwise a dolt? She addressed the website thing (as if it needed it) already and you would know that if you had read the thread . You get your info from pop culture (and outdated) science. Ask her how many books she has read on the subject why dont you.

So actually your point her is pathetically meaningless. Nan may be onto something about a woman being too smart. She sure has offered comments to you that you STILL havent attemped to address directly. This post proves the sheer impotence. I mean for you to imply that because some of the the reaonable arguments she has made ( many that you havent gone back to read) may have include information from one sourse that uses the C word is not credible is beyond a stretch. Sounds to me she has actually a tremendous amount of research on the topic. In fact read her opening post. She says she was excited to see this topic being discussed .... She apparently had a prior interest. I am sure your wit and CBFs charm have made it less than the stimulating experience it could be.

lol. you get crazier as the day goes on. is it happy hour already in waco? i didn't call her a dolt, and wouldn't. if you haven't gathered as much by now, i could care less about someone's credentials, seeking instead to address the points they make. and if gender bias is such a concern, how do you know COB is male, or that i am male, or that beccabama is female? don't pull any muscles grasping for straws. as i said, i read the whole thread. if you or anyone else would like me to address any point in particular, link me to it, and i'll happily kick the horse COB has already killed. and when i'm through, i'll link you to my unanswered questions so that you duck them some more.

 

[bamabake]

that's an interesting post. first of all, science is a cumulative system, and if 10,000 things showed the theory to be outdated, it would certainly be supplanted by a newer one. secondly, your characterization of scientists and apparentky anyone who believes in evolution as indoctrinated zombies too stupid to come to their own conclusions leads me to question your sanity. look at the gallup poll again, at the evolution acceptance/ education correlation. do you account for those statistics by equating education with indoctrination?! hell, let's just shut down all the schools and use the money to start a few more wars.

that's an interesting post. first of all, science is a cumulative system, and if 10,000 things showed the theory to be outdated, it would certainly be supplanted by a newer one.


It is being supplanted it will take time. Much of what we now know is new, relativly speaking. Perhaps Becca can send you a list of reference material that is more relavent to todays science on the topic. That or you can become pen pals with CBF. You can be his padwan learner. Besides as has already been pointed out numerous times already, there will be those that will never change no matter what data they are shown due to their naturalstic precondition or worldview. This thread proves it. If God himself came down and showed you how outdated most of evolution is personally you would finish your life trying to explain your "apparent hallucination" "scientifically".