What's new
By:

Evolution - A serious question.

I'm with Millsapa. I know there is a lot of substantiation for evolution, anatomically, genetically, etc. But even if something has a lot of substantiation for it, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's true. As we are both Christian, stories like Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark just make more sense.

I think all the animals/plants started existing at the same time. All aspects of science contradict that, but who cares about science? I prefer to believe in Noah and all the stories I was told as a child. Thanks for listening.

- Craig :)
 
Craig K. Manscill said:
I'm with Millsapa. I know there is a lot of substantiation for evolution, anatomically, genetically, etc. But even if something has a lot of substantiation for it, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's true. As we are both Christian, stories like Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark just make more sense.

I think all the animals/plants started existing at the same time. All aspects of science contradict that, but who cares about science? I prefer to believe in Noah and all the stories I was told as a child. Thanks for listening.

- Craig :)
Click to expand...

I'll admit that your schtick was funny the first few posts but now you just come across as a unoriginal hack.
 
The-Joker said:
Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.
Click to expand...

There are biologist who support Intelligent Design and common descent, such as Michael Behe. There are non-biologists who are creationists (including a couple of geologists who still manage to do good work and get published). There is even a Moonie who got a PhD in Biology specifically to give himself credibility when attacking evolution (Jonathan Wells).
 
TheItinerantSon said:
But I think it can be helpful to think about developmental biology. You may remember in your high school biology textbooks that dramatically different species look very similar at certain stages of development. See the image below
Thats because during embryogenesis, you have these master regulatory genes called HOX genes that direct programs of development. Slight mutations in these genes have ripple effects that can cause dramatically different physical outcomes.
Anecdotal evidence of a sped up version of this comes from the Siberian Farm-Fox experiment.

Which you can read about briefly here

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/science/new-breed-of-fox-as-tame-as-a-pussycat.html
Click to expand...

You say a mutation in these developmental genes result in a "dramatically different physical outcomes" yet in your example it talks about slight behavioral changes due to selective breeding. The Fox is still a fox...a nicer version of a fox but with no physical differences right?
 
Millsapa said:
It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.
Click to expand...

Now you're just lying and not debating. You're just making stuff up to make people angry and using that as justification.

You've been told countless times that what you're trying to pass of as evolution and its mechanisms as a whole is completely incorrect, yet you still try to argue against your disillusioned cloud of evolution as if that's what evolution is.

And to clear something up. All mammals have had the female and male sex organs. That developed long before mammals ever existed.
 
Millsapa said:
They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.
Click to expand...
Wow. You really living in your own little fantasy world.

Richard Dawkins is a moron. I can tell you that every professor I've had here at UChicago has has spoken of him very dismissively. You can't just quote Dawkins as a straw man and then push him over. *I* could do that. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists any more than you speak for all Christians.

This is pointless. I'm going to try my best to ignore this thread from here on out.
 
The-Joker said:
Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.

We've mentioned several relevant persons and their ideas... Darwin, Dawkins, the expert I quoted Futuyama, among others... from what I can tell you've essentially been pulling things out of your ***... hell you even tried to justify your grammar mistake with "I've heard it said that way before".
Click to expand...

Ain't you ever wondered about the 5% of scientists you say doesn't believe in evolution? Hasn't you been the least bit curious about what they might have to say?
One of my favorite brilliant ID scientist dudes is named William Dembski who has this mathematical formula for detecting design in the universe, which is distinct from chance or accident. He has himself a blog called Uncommon Descent where you can watch a video with a bunch of other ID scientist dudes if you care to learn anything other than what you've been fed in gubment schools.

I amn't in need of grammar help. It ain't (ay not) like I doesn't know the proper use of contractions. I was being facetious in my use of don't. My response to your grammar help was facetious as well. Hasn't you ever watched the show Pysch? I was using this meme the main character uses, "I've heard it both ways."
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Now you're just lying and not debating. You're just making stuff up to make people angry and using that as justification.

You've been told countless times that what you're trying to pass of as evolution and its mechanisms as a whole is completely incorrect, yet you still try to argue against your disillusioned cloud of evolution as if that's what evolution is.

And to clear something up. All mammals have had the female and male sex organs. That developed long before mammals ever existed.
Click to expand...

None of your accusations are true. You agreed that the NeoEvolutionary theory was about the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection supposedly being the engine of "change over time" from simple to complex organisms. You did add that it was more complicated (with no further explanation.) You also agreed that mutation is essential to new attributes on more complex organisms. Why would my posts make you angry? I don't get that.

On what animal did the sex organs first appear or start to appear from these random mutations? Tell me about how the first mammaries came about and how many mutations it took to get them things to have milk squirt out of them for the babies.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
Wow. You really living in your own little fantasy world.

Richard Dawkins is a moron. I can tell you that every professor I've had here at UChicago has has spoken of him very dismissively. You can't just quote Dawkins as a straw man and then push him over. *I* could do that. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists any more than you speak for all Christians.

This is pointless. I'm going to try my best to ignore this thread from here on out.
Click to expand...

You are going to try to ignore this thread? You aren't even going to look at my response? Why the temper tantrum?

The Joker agrees that Dawkins is a relevant person...maybe because he is one of those disillusioned christian atheists:

The-Joker said:
We've mentioned several relevant persons and their ideas... Darwin, Dawkins, the expert I quoted Futuyama, among others...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Millsapa said:
One of my favorite brilliant ID scientist dudes is named William Dembski
Click to expand...

Dembski is not a scientist. He is a mathematician. Dembski is also a young-earth creationist, with a religious motivation.

Millsapa said:
who has this mathematical formula for detecting design in the universe,
Click to expand...

No such formula exists. He has an idea that can't be put into a formula successfully.

Millsapa said:
which is distinct from chance or accident.
Click to expand...

His explanatory filter treats design as the default when you can't prove chance or regularity (chance and accident would be the same thing in Dembski's EF). This means the EF has problems with false positives as well as false negatives. It's not useful.

Millsapa said:
He has himself a blog called Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...

UD used to be a big joke because they banned anyone who disagreed at all, and because when they put up a post that was shown wrong, they would edit or remove it without notification. They may have improved since then.

Millsapa said:
where you can watch a video with a bunch of other ID scientist dudes if you care to learn anything other than what you've been fed in gubment schools.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't mind being fed unreliable, useless information.
 
One Brow said:
So? You haven't reponded to me in a few pages now. Why should anyone feel the need to respond to you?
Click to expand...

Thread: Evolution - A serious... 07-06-2011 03:59 PM
take the hint dude Millsapa

The hint being that you don't really have good responses, so your just baiting other people? Works for me.
 
Millsapa said:
Hasn't you ever watched the show Pysch? I was using this meme the main character uses, "I've heard it both ways."
Click to expand...

Oh I was supposed to understand your pop culture references from a substandard TV series...

My god, you are a moron.
 
I like Psych. It is kind of fun. I am still uncertain how Futurama is a scientist, but ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top