138 replies to this topic

[Goose]

Reflectionist, this is an official warning. No more flaming.

Vodkamaru, dont argue back to his flaming.

People, we need to keep this at a calm level if we intend to get anywhere with this debating. PAssion is good, but getting personal only ends up making people look like pricks.

[arunma]

Sure there is. You think Tacitus is a religious source?

What I think isn't at issue here. What the people of the ancient Near East think is the matter at hand. Again: there was no such thing as a "religious source" in ancient times, so to even speak of such a thing is absurd. For example, St. Justin Martyr refers to the New Testament writings as the "Memoirs of the Apostles" in chapter 67 of his First Apology. Apparently the early church, as well as others who read the fathers' writings, viewed the Bible as a historical document and not a mere piece of liturgy.

[Reflectionist]

Edited

Edited by Reflectionist, 25 June 2007 - 04:13 PM.

[Goose]

Yes In a forum modded by two crazy christians (arunma and I) , being a christian is hypocrytical. Whatever you reckon.

Contro has always stood as a place where people from all backrgrounds can argue their point of view, but not in a personal attacking way.

What you were doing was flaming. Plain and Simple.

Leave or stay, it matters not. But dont use the minority excuse. It gets old fast.

[MikePetersSucks]

What I think isn't at issue here. What the people of the ancient Near East think is the matter at hand. Again: there was no such thing as a "religious source" in ancient times, so to even speak of such a thing is absurd. For example, St. Justin Martyr refers to the New Testament writings as the "Memoirs of the Apostles" in chapter 67 of his First Apology. Apparently the early church, as well as others who read the fathers' writings, viewed the Bible as a historical document and not a mere piece of liturgy.

Religious is religious, no matter what people THINK about it. Heck, most Christians regard the Bible as a historical document and still admit it's a religious source.

and btw, you and MPS.

What about me?

before vodka dude came in and said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution has no place in a debate?

He said people who don't UNDERSTAND evolution, not believe. Big difference, sweetheart.

[vodkamaru]

Vodkamaru, dont argue back to his flaming.

I wasn't trying to provoke anyone, just defending my statment.

Watch Kent Hovind "school" Mike Shermer in a debate about evolution/creationism. He's selling creationism like a used car. The question from the audience asking which human biological system evolved first (e.g. skeletal, circulatory, nervous, digestive systems etc...) completely blows me away. Are people confused because of misinformation or do people not care to learn about evolution because it contradicts their personal beliefs? Hovind makes me think the former is true.

Edited by vodkamaru, 25 June 2007 - 01:17 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Vodkamaru, dont argue back to his flaming.

I wasn't trying to provoke anyone, just defending my statment.

Watch Kent Hovind "school" Mike Shermer in a debate about evolution/creationism. He's selling creationism like a used car. The question from the audience asking which human biological system evolved first (e.g. skeletal, circulatory, nervous, digestive systems etc...) completely blows me away. Are people confused because of misinformation or do people not care to learn about evolution because it contradicts their personal beliefs? Hovind makes me think the former is true.

Well, just to say, I think that evolution / creationism is a lot like politics.

There are idiots on both sides, but its just a matter of which side has the more vocal idiots. Which I'm ashamed to say is Creationism. And I think, not to be flaming or anything, that the very nature of the argument, and how it happens lends itself to the evolutionary side of thinking anyway.

For instance, you can't ever cite a Creationist Source. Ever. If you try it, you get one of the following: 1. That's not a good source because it's not scientific, or 2. That source is biased towards Creationism and doesn't bother to explain Evolution. Am I right?

And then, just saying, we get the whole "You're just closeminded," argument. Because we refuse to listen to evolution, right? Well, that's not exactly true. I don't know about you, but I can name off more people that shoot down every creationist source simply because it's a creationist source than people who do the opposite.

So Evolution vs. Creationism... just don't bother arguing it, you won't get anywhere, you're not going to change anyone's mind, you're not going to get anything out of it but a bruised ego.

And I'm sorry I got riled up, Vodkamaru. It did look like you were just trying to provoke me, and I acted accordingly. But since you weren't, I retract earlier statements.

And just another quick edit: See here, I'm trying to not be flaming or spamming right now? Trying to make a good decent input into the debate? Yeah. This is how I do my posts. Internet = the number 1 place for intentions to be misinterpereted.

Edited by Reflectionist, 25 June 2007 - 04:12 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

For instance, you can't ever cite a Creationist Source. Ever. If you try it, you get one of the following: 1. That's not a good source because it's not scientific, or 2. That source is biased towards Creationism and doesn't bother to explain Evolution. Am I right?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain something like number 2. As for number 1, yes, if something's not scientific, it shouldn't be used in a debate, no matter what the subject matter is. It'd be like trying to argue for the Gay Bomb. It'd be thrown out without a bat of an eye.

There are idiots on both sides, but its just a matter of which side has the more vocal idiots. Which I'm ashamed to say is Creationism. And I think, not to be flaming or anything, that the very nature of the argument, and how it happens lends itself to the evolutionary side of thinking anyway.

While I agree with most of that, I wouldn't call most of the major voices for Evolution idiots (Like Richard Hawkins).

And then, just saying, we get the whole "You're just closeminded," argument. Because we refuse to listen to evolution, right? Well, that's not exactly true. I don't know about you, but I can name off more people that shoot down every creationist source simply because it's a creationist source than people who do the opposite.

I can't speak for everyone, but from what I've observed, msot people just shoot it down because they're tired of legitimately discrediting Creationist arguements and so forth when, from their viewpoint, they feel they've already done so countless times before. Surely you'd be frustrated if you had to explain the same exact thing for the 20th time?

So Evolution vs. Creationism... just don't bother arguing it, you won't get anywhere, you're not going to change anyone's mind, you're not going to get anything out of it but a bruised ego.

Except one of these standpoints, or atleast one of those EXTREMES (due to options like theistic evolution), is wrong, and it's a scientist's civic duty to stop the spread of misinformation, as i'm sure the same applies for the religious.

And I, personally, have managed to change a few people's minds, so nyeh.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

For instance, you can't ever cite a Creationist Source. Ever. If you try it, you get one of the following: 1. That's not a good source because it's not scientific, or 2. That source is biased towards Creationism and doesn't bother to explain Evolution. Am I right?

Well, if it's from "Answers in Genesis" then I will always argue Number 2. Let's face it. Kent Hovind (or is it Ken Ham?) is a money-making shmuck, whose running a scam called Creationism. He's using it to rake in the big bucks.

And then, just saying, we get the whole "You're just closeminded," argument. Because we refuse to listen to evolution, right? Well, that's not exactly true. I don't know about you, but I can name off more people that shoot down every creationist source simply because it's a creationist source than people who do the opposite.

Let's also not forget that the majority of Creationist arguments just aren't scientific. At worst, they have huge logical flaws in them like... the infamous Banana Argument.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 27 June 2007 - 03:58 AM.

[vodkamaru]

A win for stellar/planetary evolution. It turns out that god didn't make the planets spin and there's a reason why planets have more angular momentum compared to the sun.

Edited by vodkamaru, 26 June 2007 - 09:24 AM.

[arunma]

Well, just to say, I think that evolution / creationism is a lot like politics.

There are idiots on both sides, but its just a matter of which side has the more vocal idiots. Which I'm ashamed to say is Creationism. And I think, not to be flaming or anything, that the very nature of the argument, and how it happens lends itself to the evolutionary side of thinking anyway.

I agree. In addition to people like Richard Dawkins, I think that the largest base of evolutionist idiots are the people who don't have scientific degrees (or any formal scientific training) who run around arguing for evolution and making moral/religious arguments on an evolutionary basis.

To my fellow posters: please make sure you don't become one of these people, because I'm getting tired of debating them.

[MikePetersSucks]

Alright, but what do you mean by "making moral/religious arguements on an evolutionary basis?" Honest confusion, here.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I rarely come across those idiots, unless I come across a debate filled with idiots. Then it's idiots on one side, idiots on the other, all of them making vague wild claims about Evolution that are patently false. Although the idiots on the Evolution side will eventually spew out a point that is scientifically correct.

May I point out that when it comes to evolution, Richard Dawkins is not an idiot. It's only when it comes to Religion, and only then because of religious fundamentalism. He confuses it with mainstream religion and even then he confuses different types of fundamentalism with each other.

[vodkamaru]

I think that the largest base of evolutionist idiots are the people who don't have scientific degrees (or any formal scientific training) who run around arguing for evolution and making moral/religious arguments on an evolutionary basis.

To my fellow posters: please make sure you don't become one of these people, because I'm getting tired of debating them.

So do we need a degree in theology to talk about religion?

Edited by vodkamaru, 27 June 2007 - 08:58 AM.

[arunma]

So do we need a degree in theology to talk about religion?

Depends on what you want to say. If you want to express an opinion about the Bible or some other religious scripture, then be my guest. If you want to discuss the intricasies of St. Thomas Aquinas, then probably yes.

Not to mention the fact that science is far more technical than religion. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes, but it takes a lot more brainpower to study science than it does to study psychology, history, religion, etc. There's a reason that the media always stereotypes scientists as nerds. Evolution is a science. It's not some atheist political manifesto that people should be sticking on their cars' bumpers. I myself don't know all that much about evolutionary biology, but I do know quite a bit about science in general (I do have a degree in physics, so I'm not speaking from total ignorance here). And I know that science requires quite a bit of rigorous technical knowledge. You can't spend 30 minutes on TalkOrigins, and act as though you know something about evolution. To do so would entail quite a degree of arrogance.

[LionHarted]

There is no empirical proof that X organism evolved into Y organism.
There are similarities that point to it, and enough of them that we can deduce it.
We have evidence.
But we have no proof, since we have not witnessed it happen.

Of course, Genesis has always maintained that God told the Earth to bring forth life, so evolution actually follows pretty smoothly from that anyway.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 July 2007 - 02:08 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Of course, Genesis has always maintained that God told the Earth to bring forth life, so evolution actually follows pretty smoothly from that anyway.

Of course. Lots of people think that the Biblical and Scientific creation ideas match up if you interpret Genesis metaphorically.

[vodkamaru]

Evidence of a new species being created. That's macro-evolution in progress.

...Dr Abbott’s research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus fits the scientific definition of a separate species.

edit: link updated

Edited by vodkamaru, 06 July 2007 - 08:16 PM.

[SOAP]

Evidence of a new species being created. That's macro-evolution in progress.

...Dr Abbott?s research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus fits the scientific definition of a separate species.

The link is broken, sir.