Mageth

Not so quick. There have been a few cases of "deconversions" here at SecWeb - and I assume that at least some of them have been at least partially due to our arguments against creationism and other topics. And IIRC, a few months back we actually had some poster arguing the creation side actually admit that we'd made him think about his position - I can't remember who off the top of my head.

There's also the lurkers, which someone else mentioned. I was one of them at one time - I was lurking the boards for 9 months before I registered. During that time, I was going through my "deconversion." Many of the things I read here helped me through that time.

And since then, I avidly read, sometimes participate in, and learn a lot from the threads here in E/C.

tronvillain

Starboy:
At the very least, some of them have stopped using the pathetic arguements, and a few may have become old earth creationists. Even if it has no effect on the poster, there are other people to consider.

xBobTheAlienx

I read the article from talkorigins. quite ineteresting that you all believe yourselves. it was the first link

5.1.1.1 Genetic mutation. The new "species" did not have anything to procreate with. That might be a bit of a problem for evoultion, as procreation is needed to carry on a species.

5.1.1.2 Hybrid. Look, i crossed a carrot with a tomatoe! Its evolution! Evolution occurs naturally, if you believe it, and someone breeding 2 plants together isnt natural.

5.1.1.3 another case of hybridization.

Aint lookin so good for ya man.

5.2.1 They produce less than the other plants? I thought it was survival of the fittest?

5.2.2 Pasterniani PRODUCED them. I doubt there was someone producingall of our evolution

5.2.3 Microevolutoin. The plant didnt change to a new plant. It stayed aYellow Mokey Flower

You believe all of this nonsense?

5.3.1 I dont know what they are saying here. THey mated flies with a lab culture? plaese explain this one to me.

5.3.2 Again, microevolution. Perhaps the gene for more chaetea is dominant? that would explain why more of the flies had them. (again i dont know if this is what this is supposed to mean, they use some huge words ion these things)

5.3.3 Produced? Treatments? oh yeah that would happen naturally. Yet it is still microevolution (and with behaviors. how pathetic)

How long must it go on...

5.4.1 what does this have to do with evolution?

5.4.2 microevolution, yet again

5.5.1 they moved because the trees were to crowded. they learned that the tree they moved to was there home. they then microevolved (did i just make new word) for that tree

5.5.2 since when is moving to different host evolving?

5.6 so what the bugs were bigger. wait, that must mean that shaq is step ahead of the rest of us in evolution. also, the gene for bigger is most likely dominant. and thats only half of the bugs that were bigger, which is what they had when they started. hey i just relized how dumb that is.

5.7 no comprende

5.8 so the one witrh the parasite is different. u call that evolution?

5.9.1 if hes saying what i think hers saying, the chollera was merely brought back to the first stage

THAT WAS THE BEST U GOT? You honestly cant believe that those were cases of macroevlution, can you! so sad, so very sad. And Mrdarwin, i wont believeevolution till i see a generation of humans with a 3rd eye or a generation of birds with 3 legs or somehting like that.

Starboy

Hi xBobTheAlienx,

Let’s say for the sake of argument that those examples of macroevolution presented to you were not sufficient to prove that evolution is “TRUE”. Please explain to me how you could predict those results using creation as a theory. Would your argument be “Because God made it so?” Please answer this if you would, I would really like to know what you think about this.

Starboy

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

John Galt, Jr.

MrDarwin,

You make is sound as though there must be something in today's world that points to, for example, the occurrence in the past of speciation by natural selection, rather than to some other account. But, like other aspects of the history of the world, there simply may not be anything. If we had photographs of Nero's ass we might be able to tell if and how many warts were present. But we don't so we can't-- such is the limitation that historical remoteness puts on us.

This is being discussed in a more focused way in the thread entitled 'Special Creation vs Evolution: The emprical evidence'

In the hope of generating some more discussion on this issue I have posted therein the following link to an essay by Alvin Plantinga entitled <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html" target="_blank">When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible.</a>

Plantinga's argumentation is clearer and more informed than most of what one usually finds. The directly relevant section of the essay is II, B, "The Likelihood of Evolution"

John Galt, Jr.

WWSD

Wow xbob, your straight forward reasoning, concise, coherent counter arguments, and tactful language, coupled with your graceful writing style, have won me over. Its now painfully obvious to me that evolution is a garbage theory produced by lunatic atheist scientists who are afraid to admit that creation is reality because that don't want to give up thier sinful lifestyles.

Thanks.

P.S. Forget it guys, arguing with bob is useless. We might as well stop now, no one can ever counter the likes of "THAT WAS THE BEST U GOT" It is such a sound argument, the best I've heard in fact.

Duvenoy

"THAT WAS THE BEST U GOT? You honestly cant believe that those were cases of macroevlution, can you! so sad, so very sad. And Mrdarwin, i wont believeevolution till i see a generation of humans with a 3rd eye or a generation of birds with 3 legs or somehting like that."


This was part and parcel of one of the silliest posts I've ever encountered. xBob seems to expect evolution to be a freak show.

Hey xBob, what do you want? Why are you here?



doov

Synaesthesia

xBob doesn't understand evolutionary theory. Just what you'd expect from memetic evolution: Memes that obstruct the formation of alternative memes.

Mageth

In the hope of generating some more discussion on this issue I have posted therein the following link to an essay by Alvin Plantinga entitled "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible."

And don't miss Vorkosigan's excellent critique of Plantinga's "argumentation" on page 3 of the thread.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Duvenoy:
<strong>
Hey xBob... Why are you here?</strong>

Instead of in Rants, Raves and Preaching, which is the natural resting place for a specimen such as xBob.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>