FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-02-2003, 04:02 PM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Quezon City, Philippines
Posts: 1,994
Default

I can't wait for that enemigo. I want something so visually stunning that any creationist that comes along would be swayed to shift to evolution even before reading a single article. Besides, most anti-creationist website are highly informative but poorly designed© (Oolon would probably blame it on the unIntelligent Designer).
Secular Pinoy is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 07:40 PM   #72
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Hiroshima
Scientists who are eager to establish evolution have been exposing organisms such as fruit flies to radiation for decades. This is supposed to produce evolutionary change. Well, Hiroshima should have been an evolutionary PARADISE creating all sorts of new life and favorable mutations! Sadly, it mainly caused death and deformity. Better luck will not be had next time.
Ahhhhhrrrgggg!!!!!..... Hulk smash!... ahhhhhrrrggg!!!
Elvithriel is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 08:29 AM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Romania
Posts: 4,975
Default

Famous Painters
What is it about the great artists that makes their work so recognizeable? Is it because they always paint the same thing? Or, is it because no matter what they paint, you can see the character and style of the painter reflected in the finished work? Take Vincent Van Gogh, for example. Instantly recognizeable. Why? The evolutionist would say "well, naturally, his paintings evolved from a singular original painting". Now we know this is ridiculous, right? So why do they get away with using similiarities found in creatures, such as 5 fingers, 2 eyes, etc., as proof that everything evolved? Couldn't it also be argued that a creator might use repeated themes and colors on various creatures as he wills it? Some painters prefer oils on canvas. Others prefer pastels. So, when you see a zebra, a butterfly and a fish that all possess the same black and white stripes, remember; it is not proof of 'common descent'. It just might be proof of a common designer.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

i happen to not be an creationist, and still like art and study it...and man, i would never say his paintings evolved from one painting.

liek i said
:banghead:
Fossil Trees in Antarctica
This may not seem like a problem at first. Until of course, you learn that trees do not grow in Antarctica. Six months of the year there is no daylight in Antarctica. How then, did these forests arise in the first place? Perhaps the climate was different at a previous stage in history? Evolution doesn't have an answer for this. The Bible does.

this guy doesn't seem to know much about the movement of continents the changes in climat and pretty much anything.


Right and Wrong
Why do we have right and wrong? How do people instinctively know that it is "good" to say, give a gift, and "bad" to hit someone for no reason? Even children understand these things. The Bible has an answer for this. Evolution does not.

ummm, and at what point does this have anythign to do with evolution?


The Law of Biogenesis
Life comes only from life. This is the law. There is a reason why science has 'laws'. It is a law because life coming from non-life has never been observed. So why would the very science upon which so much of the various other sciences currently rest, be allowed to break a fundemental law of science? Evolutionists must surely hate the Law of Biogenesis

this guy ddin't hear about abiogenesis either.


Mt. St. Helens
I was in Oregon when Mt. St. Helens was coming to a boil. I heard radio reports of the building lava dome, watched for weeks as the steam came out the top, and watched in amazement as the huge top portion of the mountain was blown miles into the air. There was ash all over the place, like grey snow.
What I did not know at the time, was that Mt. St. Helens would become a monument against evolution. In hours, weeks and months, stratified layers of sediment were layed down, which later turned to stone. 'Fossil Forests' were created, mudflows carved miniature Grand Canyons, and the entire area was completely transformed by the event. A vivid example of rapid processes performing in short periods, what evolutionary geology says take hundreds of millions of years. This is a remarkable refutation of the commonly accepted view of geology. Click here for a more in depth look. Here is another great link: The Seven Wonders of Mount St. Helens


and at what point does lava cooling down turn into sediment layers.



but this one is the best


Dragon Legends
In Europe and Asia in the middle ages, dragon legends and depictions were common. As well as written accounts which tell of going to caves where "a dragon lives" and slaying it. It is important to note that the term "Dinosaur" was not invented until the 19th century. Why so many dragon tales? Might these have been the last of the dinosaurs? Consider the Chinese Zodiac. It has 12 creatures. All of them known to us as common animals. Pig, Dog, Ox, etc., etc. Why is there also a Dragon? Perhaps it was just another known creature at the time the Zodiac was created.

Ancient Textiles
Blankets found in tombs from ancient Peru depict beasts which are not unlike dinosaurs. Other art includes jaguars and other animals.




yes people, and the pottery from ancient greece, depicts zeus and the three headed dog of the inferno, cyclops and athena the goddess, ummm......but forget that, that doesn't count .... ups.....
orpheus last chant is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 04:33 PM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Coast. Australia.
Posts: 5,455
Default

Some inadvertantly good advice, here:

Quote:
when you see a zebra, a butterfly and a fish that all possess the same black and white stripes, remember; it is not proof of 'common descent'.
Alright, you phylogeneticists, keep that in mind, will you? I don't want to see anyone inferring a common 'striped ancestor' for zebras and zebrafish, okay? Good.
Doubting Didymus is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 02:18 AM   #75
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hayward, CA, USA
Posts: 1,675
Default

Quote:
3. Noah and The Ark
[...]
This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?
Strange features and fossils explained?
And ancient peoples didn't recall their flood legends as being "local" because the "local" area was the whole world to them. Argh! This person needs a dose of Claw Hammer Aversion Therapy.

I am ashamed to be an artist...
Jackalope is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 02:55 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by orpheus last chant
Right and Wrong
Why do we have right and wrong? How do people instinctively know that it is "good" to say, give a gift, and "bad" to hit someone for no reason? Even children understand these things. The Bible has an answer for this. Evolution does not.
Actually, children need to be taught these things. Children hit things all the time for no reason (perhaps most often their younger, weaker siblings), they break things, they call each other names, lie, eat things they find in their noses... Does the Bible have an answer for this? Oh I forgot, the "fall" explains all bad and God explains all good (even though this "good" guy needlessly set humanity up for its inevitable fall--sadistic bastard rigged the system and somehow is powerless to fix it). :banghead:

Evolution does have an answer: such behavior is beneficial for humans. At their simplest instinctual level, notions of "right" and "wrong" are simply a code of behavior that allow us to reside within societies--to pool our efforts collectively--thereby extracting prosperity greater than the sum of the independent parts. Such "instinctual" behavior could easily be understood as the product of evolution (just like one could easily understand how, say, mother lionesses could theoretically evolve to avoid eating their own offspring). I know, I know...I'm preaching to the choir...but the stupid...I just need to do something about the stupid.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 12:29 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by KC
Well, I've read it. And its a piece of crap.

KC
Indeed. I found (and put in my Amazon.com review) a big old out of context quote used as a "take home message" in the section on the "crisis" in molecular phylogenetics.

I had posted it on ARN and PLA presented a steadfast defense of this dishonesty - insisting that it did not deter from his message...

Whatrever...

Now, I had also mentioned that I had not read the "whole book".
PLA jumped on me for that.

Of course, I had read the part I found the out of context quote in, as well as the "notes" on it and the bibilography pertaining to it.

I concluded that since I found such dishonesty/incompetence in that one little section, that I had no reason to believe that the rest of the book was this stellar piece of scholarship that it was and is being touted as.

So, Russ - is that bad?
pangloss is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 01:47 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Halfway out the door...
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Some inadvertantly good advice, here:


Alright, you phylogeneticists, keep that in mind, will you? I don't want to see anyone inferring a common 'striped ancestor' for zebras and zebrafish, okay? Good.
um, then you're saying there isn't any "Stripey Kind"?


Daisy is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 10:35 PM   #79
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,082
Default

Quote:
Darwin, and many more of his followers have used evolutionary theory to justify mistreatment of the supposed "lower" races. This is appauling and unforgiveable.
It is unforgivable! Don't people know that the Bible gives clear instructions for which races should be exterminated, and which should be enslaved? Oh, that's right. We hate the Koran as well, because it's very old so it must be true. Er, did I get that one right? I hope Zeus understands, anyway. It's so hard to keep track of which old things are true and which old things are unfortunate mistakes.

Actually to be honest, I just hate people who can't even use a dictionary when they're making strawmen. It's not as if anything on that page is new, but couldn't it at least be presented nicely? Is that really so much to ask for?

Ok, having gotten to the end of the list, I've decided there's one thing I hate even more: people who can't count claiming to be able to explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything.

Quote:
It was really creative, although his points are a little sloppy, and really don't represent what creationists really believe
And they broke my new irony meter. It's getting to the point where it's just not worth replacing.
orac is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:27 AM   #80
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Posts: 6
Default

Okay, this might be a bit off-topic, but I wonder if Eric knows that his "Anger" image has been used by this "designer".

I'm going to drop Eric an email and find out.
dpkm is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:08 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.