Creation/Evolution in the News

Various ^ | 8/9/2002 | JennyP

[gore3000]

I think it's about time the Creationists stop ignoring all the empirical evidence that has been collected over the years and realize there is something to this science thing.

Evolutionists keep repeating the above garbage endlessly, yet when I ask them for an example of a single Nobel Prize winning advance which is favorable to evolution they grow silent. When I say that all scientific advances in the last 150 years have tended to disprove evolution, they cannot find anything to refute it. When I state that Darwin has been disproven by science numerous times, they cannot refute it either.

Seems to me that it is evolutionists which are out of step with science, not the other way around.

[jennyp]

"So tell me about myself. Am I a Communist because I must be if I don't believe in a Grand Supernatural Authority Figure, or am I an atheist because my prior committment to the International Socialist Revolutionary Struggle demands it?"

Magic 8-ball says "What? Need more info." Are you a Communist because you don't believe in a Grand Supernatural Authority Figure? No. But unless you prove otherwise, you are a materialist-determinist. If you need a definition of this, please ask.

Since all you know about me is that I'm atheist, I assume you believe that that necessarily implies materialism, which in turn necessarily implies determinism. Which somehow necessarily implies Communism.

What is your definition of "materialism"? Is it the same as "naturalism"?

[gore3000]

By the way, how many Incas died in ritual sacrifice on Pagan altars? I think I read somewhere that Christians put an end to that practice.

What the Christian bashers forget to tell is that Cortez with just some 300 men could have never conquered Mexico without the help of Indians who were sick and tired of the murders and oppressions of the Aztecs. Pizarro, with a rag tag army of some 200 men could have never conquered the Inca empire either if it had not been that the people were sick and tired and drugged out from the mistreatment of their rulers.

[TailspinJim]

Re your number 16 queery about the MIT Prof., you may be refering to Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder, author of "Genesis and The Big Bang" (around 1990) and "The Science of God", (around 1998) and in 2002 published "The Hidden Face of God". Last I heard he was Prof. at a Jerusalem University. He gave me a better understanding of God's universe we have the awesome honor of residing in for this short time.

Jim

[gore3000]

Far more from disease, no doubt. But milions of natives died in the mines, and on the plantations of the grandees.

People don't die from hard work, they die from disease. That so many died from disease is proof that the work is not what killed them. Even in parts of the Western Hemisphere where no white man had set foot, the deaths were horrendous.

[Aric2000]

When I say that all scientific advances in the last 150 years have tended to disprove evolution, they cannot find anything to refute it. When I state that Darwin has been disproven by science numerous times, they cannot refute it either.

Seems to me that it is evolutionists which are out of step with science, not the other way around.

You have actually said this?

No wonder no one takes you seriously, you have your head so far up your nether regions, the facts can't get to you.

You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it came up and bit you on your glutious maximus, if it could get around your head that is.

[gore3000]

You know nothing, period. In fact, you're an idiot.

Another Patrick Henry 'refutation'. This one wins you a prize:

[gore3000]

When I encounter an idiot, I say it like it is.

You must talk a lot in front of the mirror!

[gore3000]

You have actually said this?

Yup many times and all I have gotten is insults like yours. Since it supposedly is so ridiculous, why don't you refute it instead of insulting? Or are you too busy too deal with facts, but not too busy to hurl unsubstantiated insults?

Here it is again, let's see if you can refute it:

when I ask them for an example of a single Nobel Prize winning advance which is favorable to evolution they grow silent. When I say that all scientific advances in the last 150 years have tended to disprove evolution, they cannot find anything to refute it. When I state that Darwin has been disproven by science numerous times, they cannot refute it either.

BTW - your failure to attempt to refute the above is proof of my statements!

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!!! That's all that that statement is worth, I am laughing at your facts, because they are absolutely ridiculous. AS USUAL!!!

[Aric2000]

OK, so if belief in god makes you such a moral and upright and above all democratic person, because an athiest is a communist in your book, that must make you a big believer in democracy, right?

Because in a majority rules universe the religion with the most believer must be the RIGHT one, right?

Therefore you must be a hindu.

Same logic, different conclusion.

[Green Knight]

Anyone else catch this?

the board could return to a 5-5 moderate-conservative split

You can positively CHOKE on the bias, here. So it's just moderates and conservatives, huh? No liberals? Right.

[Aric2000]

Atheism: the Big Lie of the 20th Century.

Then Christianity must have been the lie for the 1st through the 19th. More people died in those times from Christianity and it tenets then just about anything else, but to be fair, we ought to throw Islam in there as well. Wouldn't want you thinking that I am unfair or anything. So call it 60/40, it's still quite a few.

And like you said above, you're a Christian, so you OWN it.

[HumanaeVitae]

Heh. Ok, let's tussle. Please, tell me why murdering small children is morally wrong.

By the way, for me this is like moving a pawn in the opening gambit. Go ahead, answer.

[gore3000]

That's all that that statement is worth,

Three ad-hominems in a row! Wow, you are doing great! So you cannot refute my statement that science keeps disproving evolution with every new discovery. Thanks for verifying the truth of my statement.

[HumanaeVitae]

Ok. Fair enough. Lay out your case, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and thus ethics. I'm interested.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your statement has been coercively refuted by the Hartwell, Hunt, and Nurse Nobel Prize. You seem to have forgotten already.

[berkeleybeej]

You mention logical implications. Here is my logic:
-Offspring tend to resemble parents, tend to have similar features. I think we can agree on that.
-When an animal has a feature that allows it to live a healthier life, it is able to live longer and produce more offspring. We should all be able to agree with this.
-Therefore when an animal has a desirable trait it will pass that trait on to more offspring than another animal without that trait would.
-Those offspring would then pass that trait on to their offspring and so forth and the entire population would eventually gain that trait.

This is evolution. How do you refute these logical assertions?

(This post is from berkeleybeej's son. I apologize for not having my own screen name)

[jennyp]

Ok. Fair enough. Lay out your case, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and thus ethics. I'm interested.

Lay out my case for why I'm not a Communist? Naaah, how about we start with you answering my question: What do you mean by "materialism", and is it the same as what's normally called "naturalism"?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.