Starboy

Hmmmmm, are religious proponents constrained in the same way? Also we could be blatant about it. I don't think that would dissuade Christians in any way. I am sure they feel sufficiently armed in their own beliefs. What do you think? Let’s face it, Christians have been proselytizing for centuries, there is nothing opposing them except other religions, don’t you think that we as atheists should get more systematic and start using this incredible scientific method to advance our cause?

I think we need to stop the (mental master)debating society and start acting. The President of the United States, duly sworn to uphold the constitution has openly said that he will do everything in his power to undo a court decision protecting our religious freedom (in our case, freedom from religion). Unless there are more atheists and they are more organized, things are just going to get worse. I do not want to have to flee this country in a few decades because we failed to act when we could do something now.

I guess you could call this a call to arms, and what better weapon do we have than science? And we know how to use it, and it is obvious from their so called creationism science that they don't have a clue!

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

mfaber

Well if this isn't just the rankest form of projection on your part. You know that YOU are required to ignore everything that doesn't conform to your faith (belief without proof and often in spite of evidence to the contrary and therefore cannot comprehend the idea that there are actually honest people who want to know what the truth is as opposed to your lot who are bound and determined to defend a position, now matter what evidence negates its validity!!!!

A prime example of this is the so-called creationist research outfits like the Creation Research Society that SWEAR that they will ignore ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible (all of these societies have similar "creeds" so just one will be illustrative of the rampant intellectual dishonesty masquerading under the disguise of science (the term science is both beggered and sullied when associated with creationists so I will never use the two together!) NOTE: Emphasis added by me and comments added in italics.............................

***** Creation Research Society's Statement of Belief****


1) The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. No real scientist assumes in advance what he is trying to prove

2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. Again the a priori assumption of a model that will defended in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

3) The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. I thought one would try to prove this was a fact with evidence, but again the assumption that this is true WITHOUT any evidence to support it

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. And these posers have the nerve to claim that their real goal is science!! Looks like more a push for the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint and a very exclusionary one a that!!!

No wonder you believe that the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">theory of evolution (comprising data from many scientific disciplines)</a> is biased...you are simply viewing others through the distorted prism of your own biased viewpoint.

Now we get to part of the problem. If it requires you to read and study you don't want any part of it. The most seductive part of the creationist pablum is that it is easy to absorb and appeals to what I call the 'bumper sticker mentality".

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

One can hardly pick up a newspaper or listen to the news without hearing about a flood somewhere on the globe for the simple reason we live on a planet that is 70% water. The point being that floods WERE and ARE a common occurrence. It is no surprise that ancient people, who were clueless about the mechanics and causes of a flood, and who would have been devastated by them would write so many stories about them.

In the ancient world, the "world" to them was comprised of the locality in which they lived, i.e., the word "world" did not mean the whole earth as you understand it know (thanks to minds NOT intimidated by religious dogmatists of their day! or don't you know about Copernicus and Galileo?).

BTW The Biblical Flood is a knock off the the<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm" target="_blank"> Epic of Gilgamesh</a>.

Also just because large numbers of people believe in the supernatural does not make it true. This is a fallacy known a argumentum ad populum/numerum. Millions of people used to believe the world was flat, but it was still round. Belief is useless unless it is supported by the facts.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

Starboy

I rest my case. XBobTheAlienx has not budged one bit. If anything you have forced him to peruse the creationist propaganda for a come back with the same old baloney and thus have pushed him into his corner even further. LOL guys!

Adios

Starboy

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

MrDarwin

We each have different interests and different areas of expertise. And that's the problem with the scattershot approach you're using: you raise objections a, b, c, d, and e, about entirely different subjects, and then act surprised when several different people, each with different interests and areas of expertise, react to your vague and entirely unsubstantiated comments.

I've already picked one, and even thought you might answer it because I was asking you for your opinion. I asked you what kind of evidence for evolution you would find convincing, and instead of answering it you went and changed the subject to 12 different things entirely.

xBobTheAlienx

MrDarwin, i answered your question. ACUAL case of macroevolution. Yeah i know your gonna tell me to read the talk orirgins articles and i will.

MrDarwin

Bob, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about your reading comprehension. I have not asked you to read any articles; I have not directed you to any websites; I have not made any kind of argument or presented any kind of evidence. I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm not trying to change your mind. I am asking you a simple question. And you keep missing it, over and over again.

What would you consider to be an "ACUAL case of macroevolution"? Do you know what the word "macroevolution" means? Do you know what might constitute evidence for what that word means? Can you come up with one measly hypothetical example?

Let me ask it another way:

If a scientist presented some kind of evidence, and said, "this is evidence of macroevolution", how would you evaluate whether or not you found it convincing?

Let me ask it another way:

If a scientist held something out in front of you, and you exclaimed, "by gosh, you're right, this really is evidence of macroevolution", just what would that something be?

Let me ask it another way:

If you did some research of your own, what kind of results might you find that would suggest macroevolution to you?

Let me ask it another way:

Is there anything--of any kind--that would convince you of the truth of evolution? Would it be flying cows? A dinosaur hatching from a chicken egg? A human with 3 eyes? A time machine?

Or would you interpret anything, absolutely anything at all--no matter what it was, no matter how convincing to other people, no matter it was so good that an evolutionary biologist would jump up and down and point to it and say, "This here is the very best evidence we have ever found for evolution, macro or otherwise, and only a fool or an idiot or a madman would dispute it"--as evidence against evolution?

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

lpetrich

Or consider this scenario.

The God that xBTAx believes in picks him up and shows him a lot of past history, including evolution in action. And explains: "I am showing you what has happened in my creation: descent with modification, also known as evolution."

Will xBTAx have any real answer? Will he turn into a rear-end kisser, someone who tells God what xBTAx thinks that God wants to hear?

And the same for every other creationist around -- if the God that they believe in showed them that evolution is correct, what would they say?

RufusAtticus

Documented case of macroevolution:
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=102000 79&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations.</a>
That's just the abstract, but I can send you the paper if you need moe convincing.

Actual transitional fossils: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">FAQ</a>

What evidence do you have that the earth's spin is slowing and that it would have caused "nasty" problems in the past.

What calculations and data do you have to support that? It seems to me that your argument is heavly dependent on the rate at which the sunn is burning gas.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html" target="_blank">Here</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#dust" target="_blank">Here</a>

Because it's easy to imagine when your whole world is 200 sq miles, and the local river floods.

And never produce anything original or substantive. Would you please search our forum before you post "evidence" for creation. It is rather sad to see the same arguments paraded over and over again.

Oolon Colluphid

Okay... perhaps you'd care to define 'macroevolution' you have in mind for us, so we know what we're supposed to be giving examples of.

You do know what the 'evolutionist' definition of it is, yeah?

TTFN, Oolon

MrDarwin

Okay, I got a little silly with that one. What I'm looking for is some kind of example of some kind of evidence that could possibly be discovered in the real world.

Because if creationists believe that there is no convincing evidence for "macroevolution" then surely they must know what they would consider convincing evidence for macroevolution, and simply aren't seeing it. So what is it? I'm mystified.

So one more way to ask the question:

If macroevolution really had occurred, how would we expect the world around us--that is, what we can detect with our own senses and the various tools we have created--to be any different from what it is right now?