Stephen T-B

...and Morpho gets a standing ovation.

nogods4me

Morpho:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I was going to put up 7 unworthies, but I rested on the seventh day.

Duvenoy

Well done, Morpho! (Dovenoy applauds wildly).

"CT: Covered above. Evidence against evolution is evidence for creation."

No, no, my man. Evidence against Evolution is evidence in favor of exactly nothing. .

Do you have any idea of how many creation myths have been brought forth upon an unsuspecting world by Homo sap? I don't either, but there've been a LOT of them. Indeed, Christianity has no copywrite on the Creation. Every religion, befief, and cult, from the Hopi to L. Ron Hubdard, has had one. I see little to chose from.

Please document the evidence against the Theory of Evolution. Please do NOT come up with any of Kent Hovind's, "Croc from a rock," codswallop. We both know better.

Now, as I am re-habing a baby blue jay, my first songbird this year, I must go and cram some food down it's noisey, little throat (for about the tenth time today. Shoulda fed it to the puff adder before my grandkids saw it).

luck,

doov

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

Creation's Terrier

&lt;Enters rather sheepishly... &gt;

Okay..., but, um, all this disproving one not proving the other... Isn't it the basis of the whole Popperian view of science that you cannot prove things, only disprove them...? Surely the holes in evolution by definition disprove it?!

CT

Oolon Colluphid

Morpho:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Superb, old chap! I wonder if the bugger'll have the nerve to come back...?

Oolon

Ah, I see he has... right...

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

But the difference is, being open to testing. There are any number of ways that evolution could have been refuted: mammalian fossils in precambrian rocks; remote islands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans having the same flora and fauna; genes actually blending (as Darwin thought); the earth really being only 10,000 years old, and so on.

'Could have been refuted but hasn't been', strengthens the theory. What you creationists have got is 'has been refuted, and no positive evidence for it either'. That is, no theory at all, only an Ugly Sister attempt to squash a myth into the glass slipper of reality. Give up your fairy tale, it gets you nowhere.

Sure, maybe. Name one.

TTFN, Oolon

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Duvenoy

"Okay..., but, um, all this disproving one not proving the other... Isn't it the basis of the whole Popperian view of science that you cannot prove things, only disprove them...? Surely the holes in evolution by definition disprove it?!"
-------------------------------

Hmm. Evidence only 'disproves' something in that supports something else. Ultimatly the first will wither and die due to lack of the support the second has. Here, we must exclude faith. Faith can offer support no matter how otherwise unsupported the claim(s) might be, even flying in the face of reason (Are you reading this Ken and Kent?).

'Holes' in evolution? There are no holes; there are only unanswered questions. Most will eventually be put to rest. I say, 'most' because we will never know it all. Our species will come to it's wretched end, still researching it. Possibly down on the sub-atomic level, and ain't that a wild-child thought?!

Creationism, the instantainious, 6000 year kind, on the other hand, does no research beyond trying to fit the discoveries of others into the narrow confines of the various dogma(s) of it's sect(s). That which can't be made to fit is either ridiculed on imaginary grounds, or ignored. I find this extremely dishonist.

CT, me old sock, Creationism is NOT science. It is story-telling to impress children.

Now, I will cut the IDers and Old Earthers a little slack. They at least accept much of the research at face value. But here I must ask: "How can you state that God kicked things off 4.5 billion years ago, then lallygagged around for yet another billion before creating life? Do you have any idea how long a thousand, million years is? And exactly when did the Garden of Eden flourish in the time line? And what of the Flood.......never mind. I'm currently flooded out, here and elsewhere. Yeesh!

This is the point where I might ask, politly, for a little evidence of any of the supernatural claims put forth by Creationists. But I did that a little while ago and the answer frightened me.



doov

tronvillain

Creation's Terrier:
A Bayesian view of science is far realistic, since while it is true that you can't use induction to proove things, you can use it to raise the probability of things.

Droxyn

Soory all, I didn't mean to pop in and then bail. I just left to go camping a couple of days and now this thread is 4 pages long. I guess I'll try to dive right in. (Thanks to CT for taking over the minority viewpoint!)

Sorry bout that, it wasn't intended as a dodge it was intended as an answer to what was actually asked. (Why DONT you give evidence.) That is my honest response. I assume that is what you want to know. Give me time please

Not at all what I intend to say. I would never ask anyone to just belive and chuck your brain out the window. I don't believe I've chucked mine.
I SO wish I had the time to try. As I hope you would realize, that would not be a brief answer. I want to try to respond to everyone.
So then if we have an explanation for something that is probably wrong, but there is no better explanation available, are we expected to just believe the bad explanation? I know that isn't what you really mean and I know that you don't think evo. is a bad explantion, but I don't think it is a good explanation. Even if I didnt buy the creation garbage, I would NOT believe evolution just because there is no other viable alternative yet discovered.

OK, thats the response for Mageth...sorry if you don't like it much, its the best I can do at this instant. I shall endeavor to do better in the future.

Droxyn

Ask Hez, he thinks there are also.