Posted on 02/21/2005 4:03:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry
First, there are nearly 250 pro-science people on the evolution ping list. All but the first dozen or so (regulars from around 4 years ago) have specifically requested to be on the list. Most don't actively participate, but they sure do lurk.
Second, the purpose of these threads is to counter the dems' propaganda that all conservatives are ignorant flat-earthers. That's what it's all about. If the dems can ever frame the debate so it's them against the Dark Ages, we're going to lose. Those who don't know what I'm talking about are part of the problem.
Sure, I learn a lot too, and I agree with your views pretty much, but the eternal pissing match has got to get old to you guys too, doesn't it?
Give me your VERY BEST piece of evidence that it "is bunk", and I'll show you why you're mistaken or are laboring under a large misconception about what evolutionary biology *actually* involves. Go for it.
And if you really want to go for the brass ring, take "Dr. Pepper's" challenge (note -- no one has won yet, you could be the first):
THE ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME
-----------------------
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution
scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith
that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do
with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the
basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us
something to rock conventional science.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play.
You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with
statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days
you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the
subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game.
Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
I'm self (un)employed so i can't give away cadillacs or trips to
Hawaii. But if you can get 10 points your name will go on a public
list of succesful challengers of evolution, a list that is currently
empty. And i will send a $10 donation to the organization of your
choice.
SCORING
Type of Statement Points
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years. 3
Example of total genetic discontinuity between two species
considered closely related by conventional science. 2
Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to 2
be contemporaneous.
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species. 1
Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1
Any quote from secondary sources. -1
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity. -2
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2
Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2
Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement. -3
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..."
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science. -4
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it
was a lie. -5
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5
GOOD LUCK
A theory by definition is a model or framework for organizing the factual evidence. A hypothesis is a provisional idea that remains unverified. You seem to have the two confused.
Evolution is a theory (i.e., a set of axioms, principles, models, and definitions extrapolated from the evidence).
Creation is a hypothesis (i.e., wild-ass guess).
So, the insults begin hey?
Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.
talkorigins
I enjoy smiting down ignorance wherever it rears its ugly head. =)
I'm sure you 've seen the polls which indicate that most americans don't buy into the evolutionary version of planetary history anyway. They also don't buy into the strict literal version of the Biblical creation account. So where's this big voting bloc?
Nobody is ever going to PROVE anything. This whole thing is stupid.
It's not? Science is definatly in the "FACT" business and like I've stated already you must only conclude that evolution is another "Belief" system no different from any religion.
A theory is a belief system based on FACTS, but by itself is NOT a fact.
Yet another item to be added to the List-O-Links.
Well, to paraphrase an old classic: "If the creationists will stop telling lies about evolutionists, we'll stop telling the truth about the creationists."
If there wasn't so much misinformation to correct, I'd be quite happy discussing something else. But I can't sit by and let people tell waves of falsehoods when I *know* they're falsehoods and other people might swallow them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste on anti-scientific propaganda.
PH, ya think we might have a Flat Earther here?
You are correct. Scientists don't really deal in "proof", except in the mathematical sense.
Your confusion is caused by the colloquial vs. the scientific definition of terms. The whole debate between evolution and creationists has been framed by the creationists misunderstanding of science and the Bible.
Evolution does not contain anything about origin of life. It is origin of SPECIEs. The literalist Bible interpretation the creationists insist is the only authoritative one is pure nonsense. The combination of a nonsensical take on God (which insults God's intelligence) and the strawman of origin of life, makes the creationist position on the debate completely fraudulent.
It is sad that so few people in this country understand biology that the creationist scam artists have been able to make millions of dollars from silly theology.
The polls indicate the more Americans buy into evolution than into young-earth creationism. The vast majority of evolutionists attribute evolution to a god or gods, which is what has you confused.
What does that mean? Does that mean that the converse ("science," I guess, according to you) is based on "disbelief"? Why believe something that you don't "believe"? Facts are opposite of belief? You don't "believe" "facts"?
Do you believe in something you can't see?
For example, do you believe in logic, or in the scientific method? Show me those things and perhaps I'll believe them too....
Seems to me that your efforts would be more useful if you concentrated on the 'science' of second hand smoke, global warming, epidemiology used for political purposes (AIDS, open borders), and generally areas where policy is being made with regard to science. The evolution debate means NOTHING when it comes to politics, besides some minor wording changes in textbooks.
Well, I dunno. I'm just a high-school educated dummy and that was long ago, but it seems to me it's kind of silly to talk about 'evolution' as opposed to 'creation' without being more specific.
I don't think anyone including creationists disagrees that there are certain evolutionary forces at work. What I think they do dispute is that life was created from non-life, and that very different species evolved from other species - for example humans evolved from primates. Now mayhe I am wrong, but it looks like people that call themselves 'evolutionists' clearly do believe that.
It seems to me the argument in this article is something like this: There is strong evidence that dogs evolved from wolves which also proves that humans evolved from primates which evolved from something else which all started from ameoba or whatever. I don't find it very convincing.
Personally, until I see life created in a lab from non-life by electomagnetic forces acting on a chemical 'soup' I'm gonna continue to believe in a creator and live my life according. Perhaps even if life _is_ created in a lab, which after all would not specifically disprove the existence of God even if it did happen.
You're right. The pattern is always the same. Starts with an article, then within a few posts the Creationists are ridiculed (who often leave after being attacked so much), and then the anti-Creationists pat each other on the back for a bit, laughing at the foolish Creationists....
Fun for a bit, but never a productive conversation because of all the ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments from the anti-Creationists....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.