Creationist shenanigans part 439

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Actually, you don't know jack shit about me, but if you think you're such an intellectual giant, pull out a little show and tell to prove to us what monster brain you are

Well, I can show you registration for Mensa. Or show you as recently as 2004 that according to the reference Stanford-Binet scale I score in the top 1/2 percentile.

You cant.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
Actually, you don't know jack shit about me, but if you think you're such an intellectual giant, pull out a little show and tell to prove to us what monster brain you are

Well, I can show you registration for Mensa. Or show you as recently as 2004 that according to the reference Stanford-Binet scale I score in the top 1/2 percentile.

You cant.

e-penis++

Neither of those things are relevant for a conversation about creationism in classrooms.

 

[WHAMPOM]

All we are arguing about is the difference between formulating a theory to explain the evidence and formulating ?evidence? to support your theory? Theory of Evolution Vrs. Intelligent Design? Big Bang Vrs. Creationism? And the people who cannot tell the difference?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You realize that the creation of fossils is relatively rare right?

Of course.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is significant, but incomplete evidence to suggest that evolution led to homo erectus.

From what?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Can you show us even a single positive fact as to why we should believe it?

A couple of responses. First, just because we cant comprehend or see something does not mean it isnt real. Many scientists did NOT believe the giant squid existed until (last year?) a Japanese scientist filmed and caught one. To not believe it based on subjective evidence suggests we know all there is to know. Which, as Im sure you will agree, is not only foolish, but wrong.

Second, lets assume for a minute I provided one link of proof. Then what? An endless string of threads with refutes, disagreements, links to prove me wrong, etc. This isnt something that can be done on a tech political messageboard.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again though, evolution makes NO CLAIMS to the origin of life. It is a theory based around speciation, not where life came from

Bingo. This is really the ONLY contention between creationists and evolutionists. The only one. And THAT my friend is what I have asked in almost every response in this thread. Origin of life.

An example of the differences in opinion is (and I dont want to derail thread, just making an analogy) the core difference between pro-life and pro-choice (although it should be called what it is-pro-abortion). Both camps belive the same things, with exception to abortion. But that one little difference is huge. Just as is the one little difference between evolutionists and creationists.

edit: got rid of double quotes to save space

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: papadage
No, they are not different theories. They are variations about the details of one theory. Thnakfully though, the ability to extract and sequence mitochondrial DNA is helpin got close the gap in the exact family relationship among the taxa that you mention. For example, this proces has totally eliminated Homo Sapiens Neaderthalis from being considered our ancestor. As more samples are gathered and examined, other holes will close as well. This will create the timeline that you mention.

As for the phasing out of earlier species, remember that there was an incredible fluctuation of climate during this entire period. As selective pressure favored taxa that were optimized for cold climate, or arid conditions, they out-reproduced the others. Climate change is a great selection mechanism.

The details change as more evidence is uncovered, but the theory is still the same. Each find may mean that some relationships may need to be revised, but the general structure is still very much the same. And as for homo erectus, many scientist believe that he arose from homo ergaster, who in turn evolved from homo habilis. Homo erectus was not replaced, and continued to survive as a species till very recently in geologic terms.

I dont disagree with any of this. But, as in the outline I noted above, there ARE differing beliefs and opinions. As noted in the article(s) linked for me to read. Call it opinion or theory, same thing.

Other than a bipod, what did homo erectus evolve FROM? anything other than another homo erectus? That is what creationists want evolutionists to answer. As well as me. That question remains unanswered.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bingo. This is really the ONLY contention between creationists and evolutionists. The only one. And THAT my friend is what I have asked in almost every response in this thread. Origin of life.

An example of the differences in opinion is (and I dont want to derail thread, just making an analogy) the core difference between pro-life and pro-choice (although it should be called what it is-pro-abortion). Both camps belive the same things, with exception to abortion. But that one little difference is huge. Just as is the one little difference between evolutionists and creationists.

No it's not. By what you are saying it is possible for people to be both creationists and evolutionists at the same time. This is not possible considering the standard definition of those terms. If you want to say that you believe in evolution, just that god made the universe, then you are an evolutionist... because evolution makes no claims to where things came from. I think the idea that a god poofed the universe into existence is absurd, but that's a totally different argument. It has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolution.

Also your responses to my request for evidence are not valid. I am aware of no scientist that did not believe the giant squid existed. If they did, they were fools. While nobody had ever seen one, they had found them in the stomachs of sperm whales, etc. In effect however you are saying that because you can't be proven wrong, that we must give credence to it as if it might be right. This is not valid reasoning. By the same logic you cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe, should we give it equal time as well?

Finally, saying that you won't supply evidence because it will be disproven isn't a very good reason for not doing it. I'm sorry to tell you, but teaching creationism in schools or viewing it as a viable contender to evolution is not a defensible position.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
Actually, you don't know jack shit about me, but if you think you're such an intellectual giant, pull out a little show and tell to prove to us what monster brain you are

Well, I can show you registration for Mensa. Or show you as recently as 2004 that according to the reference Stanford-Binet scale I score in the top 1/2 percentile.

You cant.

e-penis++

Neither of those things are relevant for a conversation about creationism in classrooms.

I was giving a direct OT answer to Harvey's direct OT question. OT or not, it got answered.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bingo. This is really the ONLY contention between creationists and evolutionists. The only one. And THAT my friend is what I have asked in almost every response in this thread. Origin of life.

An example of the differences in opinion is (and I dont want to derail thread, just making an analogy) the core difference between pro-life and pro-choice (although it should be called what it is-pro-abortion). Both camps belive the same things, with exception to abortion. But that one little difference is huge. Just as is the one little difference between evolutionists and creationists.

No it's not. By what you are saying it is possible for people to be both creationists and evolutionists at the same time. This is not possible considering the standard definition of those terms. If you want to say that you believe in evolution, just that god made the universe, then you are an evolutionist... because evolution makes no claims to where things came from. I think the idea that a god poofed the universe into existence is absurd, but that's a totally different argument. It has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolution.

Also your responses to my request for evidence are not valid. I am aware of no scientist that did not believe the giant squid existed. If they did, they were fools. While nobody had ever seen one, they had found them in the stomachs of sperm whales, etc. In effect however you are saying that because you can't be proven wrong, that we must give credence to it as if it might be right. This is not valid reasoning. By the same logic you cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe, should we give it equal time as well?

Finally, saying that you won't supply evidence because it will be disproven isn't a very good reason for not doing it. I'm sorry to tell you, but teaching creationism in schools or viewing it as a viable contender to evolution is not a defensible position.

Then perhaps we will agree to disagree what creationists and evolutionists definitions are. Again youre ignoring the fact that creationists dont have a problem with species adapting to their environments. If you want to call that evolution, fine. But to think ID/creationists dont believe that is assinine. Perhaps as assinine as the small minority of ID/creationist's opinion that evolutionists believe all life ever evolved from a single cell. *shrug* whatever.

If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bingo. This is really the ONLY contention between creationists and evolutionists. The only one. And THAT my friend is what I have asked in almost every response in this thread. Origin of life.

An example of the differences in opinion is (and I dont want to derail thread, just making an analogy) the core difference between pro-life and pro-choice (although it should be called what it is-pro-abortion). Both camps belive the same things, with exception to abortion. But that one little difference is huge. Just as is the one little difference between evolutionists and creationists.

No it's not. By what you are saying it is possible for people to be both creationists and evolutionists at the same time. This is not possible considering the standard definition of those terms. If you want to say that you believe in evolution, just that god made the universe, then you are an evolutionist... because evolution makes no claims to where things came from. I think the idea that a god poofed the universe into existence is absurd, but that's a totally different argument. It has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolution.

Also your responses to my request for evidence are not valid. I am aware of no scientist that did not believe the giant squid existed. If they did, they were fools. While nobody had ever seen one, they had found them in the stomachs of sperm whales, etc. In effect however you are saying that because you can't be proven wrong, that we must give credence to it as if it might be right. This is not valid reasoning. By the same logic you cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe, should we give it equal time as well?

Finally, saying that you won't supply evidence because it will be disproven isn't a very good reason for not doing it. I'm sorry to tell you, but teaching creationism in schools or viewing it as a viable contender to evolution is not a defensible position.

Then perhaps we will agree to disagree what creationists and evolutionists definitions are. Again youre ignoring the fact that creationists dont have a problem with species adapting to their environments. If you want to call that evolution, fine. But to think ID/creationists dont believe that is assinine. Perhaps as assinine as the small minority of ID/creationist's opinion that evolutionists believe all life ever evolved from a single cell. *shrug* whatever.

If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

Hey, Mensa boy-- it's "asinine". Maybe you could use your superior intellect to use Google and read up on creationism. You could use Harvey's links, for starters.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, I can show you registration for Mensa. Or show you as recently as 2004 that according to the reference Stanford-Binet scale I score in the top 1/2 percentile.

Gosh oh gee willikers. According to this table, that puts your IQ somewhere around 138 - 139.

IQ _ Percentile

139 99.5338778217%

138 99.4350805958%

This one agrees:

Top 0.5% (99.5th percentile; 1/200; IQ 139...)

< yawn > Am I supposed to be impressed? :roll:

For a guy who thinks he has a high function brain, you're sure working overtime to disprove it. :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bingo. This is really the ONLY contention between creationists and evolutionists. The only one. And THAT my friend is what I have asked in almost every response in this thread. Origin of life.

An example of the differences in opinion is (and I dont want to derail thread, just making an analogy) the core difference between pro-life and pro-choice (although it should be called what it is-pro-abortion). Both camps belive the same things, with exception to abortion. But that one little difference is huge. Just as is the one little difference between evolutionists and creationists.

No it's not. By what you are saying it is possible for people to be both creationists and evolutionists at the same time. This is not possible considering the standard definition of those terms. If you want to say that you believe in evolution, just that god made the universe, then you are an evolutionist... because evolution makes no claims to where things came from. I think the idea that a god poofed the universe into existence is absurd, but that's a totally different argument. It has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolution.

Also your responses to my request for evidence are not valid. I am aware of no scientist that did not believe the giant squid existed. If they did, they were fools. While nobody had ever seen one, they had found them in the stomachs of sperm whales, etc. In effect however you are saying that because you can't be proven wrong, that we must give credence to it as if it might be right. This is not valid reasoning. By the same logic you cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe, should we give it equal time as well?

Finally, saying that you won't supply evidence because it will be disproven isn't a very good reason for not doing it. I'm sorry to tell you, but teaching creationism in schools or viewing it as a viable contender to evolution is not a defensible position.

Then perhaps we will agree to disagree what creationists and evolutionists definitions are. Again youre ignoring the fact that creationists dont have a problem with species adapting to their environments. If you want to call that evolution, fine. But to think ID/creationists dont believe that is assinine. Perhaps as assinine as the small minority of ID/creationist's opinion that evolutionists believe all life ever evolved from a single cell. *shrug* whatever.

If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

Hey, Mensa boy-- it's "asinine". Maybe you could use your superior intellect to use Google and read up on creationism. You could use Harvey's links, for starters.

and what..read his cherry picked web pages? I can find my own cherry picked webpages based on what I believe thank you very much. Although Im not a regular attender I can tell you every single one of the churches I have attended believe as I do. As do every person I have ever talked to about this.

Again its a case of what you think the other side thinks based on cherry picked web pages must be right. Right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then perhaps we will agree to disagree what creationists and evolutionists definitions are. Again youre ignoring the fact that creationists dont have a problem with species adapting to their environments. If you want to call that evolution, fine. But to think ID/creationists dont believe that is assinine. Perhaps as assinine as the small minority of ID/creationist's opinion that evolutionists believe all life ever evolved from a single cell. *shrug* whatever.

If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

Again, the origin of life CANNOT be a difference between creationists and evolutionists because evolution makes no claims to it.

If you are willing to say that new species can arise from others due to accumulated genetic mutations over time, then sure... call it whatever you want, but you are an evolutionist. If you're trying to say that only minor changes can happen, microevolution style then no. Microevolution isn't even a term that's really used in science much anymore because there is no difference in mechanism between micro and macro evolution, they are the same thing.

Simply put, ID was made to put a more scientific and respectable face on creationism. It failed. The reason it failed is for the same reasons your argument doesn't work now. Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, and while there are certainly cases in which the fossil record is incomplete the sheer weight of facts supporting it are overwhelming. ID/Creationism has zero... zero positive evidence for its theories. Not only that, but they offer no mechanism to test their theories or to provide positive evidence. This makes them simply not science, but religious dogma. It has not earned the right to be in the same room with evolution.

If you have any positive evidence for ID/Creationism I would very much like to see it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, I can show you registration for Mensa. Or show you as recently as 2004 that according to the reference Stanford-Binet scale I score in the top 1/2 percentile.

Gosh oh gee willikers. According to this table, that puts your IQ somewhere around 138 - 139.

IQ___Percentile

139 99.5338778217%

138 99.4350805958%

This one agrees:

Top 0.5% (99.5th percentile; 1/200; IQ 139...)

< yawn > Am I supposed to be impressed? :roll:

For a guy who thinks he has a high function brain, you're sure working overtime to disprove it. :laugh:

and so? lol I guess that would put you at around 100? *shrug* Go test for the hell of it and see where you stand. Give yourself 2 days. My guess not near top 10%. *shrug* But who cares right?

Oh and your comment of high funtion of brain...lol you have no idea how IQ is tested do you

Get off this topic as you are out of your league, and get back to topic at hand.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you are willing to say that new species can arise from others due to accumulated genetic mutations

Species? No. Sub-species? Yes. BIG difference.

Can you answer my question? If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I has high level of smarts!!!

:laugh:

 

[heyheybooboo]

+++++

lol @ Mensa Boy

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Maybe you could use your superior intellect to use Google and read up on creationism. You could use Harvey's links, for starters.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and what..read his cherry picked web pages? I can find my own cherry picked webpages based on what I believe thank you very much.

Cherry picked web pages? BUAHAHahaha!!! :laugh:

All I did was search Google for creationism and post quotes from the first three links.

Go ahead... Pick some others, and show us how they prove that creationism is anything other than a creature of religion.

Although Im not a regular attender I can tell you every single one of the churches I have attended believe as I do. As do every person I have ever talked to about this.

Hmmm... VERY scientific, indeed. :laugh: But you still haven't told us why any of those church goers or this Florida school board has any business imposing their religious dogma into the science curriculum of public schools.

But wait... the Florida school board said they wanted to go further. They opposed "new science education standards that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology."

Regardless of what you choose to believe, denying reality doesn't change it, and asserting your own myths doesn't make them real.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
and what..read his cherry picked web pages? I can find my own cherry picked webpages based on what I believe thank you very much. Although Im not a regular attender I can tell you every single one of the churches I have attended believe as I do. As do every person I have ever talked to about this.

Again its a case of what you think the other side thinks based on cherry picked web pages must be right. Right?

Go read up on creationism, so you can understand what you're claiming to support.

By the way, my IQ blows yours away-- and I'm a better speller.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you are willing to say that new species can arise from others due to accumulated genetic mutations

Species? No. Sub-species? Yes. BIG difference.

Can you answer my question? If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

You just answered it. You don't believe in speciation... that means that you think that life on this planet was created in a manner that is largely similar to what we see today.

There is no empirical support for this position.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and so? lol I guess that would put you at around 100? *shrug*

As I said, you don't know jack shit about me, but if you bet on that, you'd lose. Put your e-penis back in your mouth before you hurt yourself. :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you are willing to say that new species can arise from others due to accumulated genetic mutations

Species? No. Sub-species? Yes. BIG difference.

Can you answer my question? If the only difference is NOT origin of life, then what, in your opinion, is the difference?

You just answered it. You don't believe in speciation... that means that you think that life on this planet was created in a manner that is largely similar to what we see today.

There is no empirical support for this position.

No. That is NOT what I believe. What I DO believe is that whatever changes have happened in terms of RNA and DNA were not random, but intelligently created that way. I guess thats the difference between creationists and evolutionists, on top of origin.

The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point. And I concede to that. There is pleny of evidence, although none so conclusive as to make it fact, on both sides. One side says "Look! This virus has mutated and is genetically different than what it was before based on its environment! It evolved!", while the other side says "Look! Because the old virus was no longer effective, a new virus was created!" How do you prove it wasnt? Again it comes back to proof of origin. In this case, evolutionists cannot prove it evolved and was not created.

You said earlier even if evolution was completely proven false, it does not validate creationism. The reverse is true also. Even if creationism is proven false, it does not validate evolution in it's loosest terms.

Just because I believe that organisms all the way up to mankind adapts to its environment doesnt mean I dont believe it doesnt happen by design. In the same way you cannot prove that theory false, I cannot prove it true. Who knows what we will learn in 100 or even 1000 years right? We've learned alot in the last millinium. It doesnt mean we know even close to the total truth.

In the meantime, we disagree. Thats fine. I totally understand the logic and the thinking behind evolution. I just happen to think its wrong. In the same way I understand the logic and the thinking behind those who think the Federal government should provide job guarantees, insurance, blah blah blah, I just happen to think that idea is wrong.

The fact that some evolutionists do NOT explain origin of life is disturbing to me. I really dont understand why a scientific community cannot explain it. Most evolutionists, like you Im sure, think the idea of intelligent design to be a cop out or a crutch or whatever you think. To me, it all boils down to a technical long winded answer : I Dont Know. THAT is just as laughable.

Without attacking you, I am interested in knowing what you believe the origin is. Of course this topic is a whole thread in and of itself, but Im just curious.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: blackangst1
and what..read his cherry picked web pages? I can find my own cherry picked webpages based on what I believe thank you very much. Although Im not a regular attender I can tell you every single one of the churches I have attended believe as I do. As do every person I have ever talked to about this.

Again its a case of what you think the other side thinks based on cherry picked web pages must be right. Right?

Go read up on creationism, so you can understand what you're claiming to support.

By the way, my IQ blows yours away-- and I'm a better speller.

Congrats Many people's do. 99.5% of the world doesnt though. Who cares? If it wasnt for Harvey challenging my intelligence I never would have brought it up. Let not turn this into a "Im smarter, youre dumber, youre not smart because you think this or that". So fucking childish. It really doesnt matter.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and so? lol I guess that would put you at around 100? *shrug*

As I said, you don't know jack shit about me, but if you bet on that, you'd lose. Put your e-penis back in your mouth before you hurt yourself. :laugh:

Pretty defensive coming from someone whose posts mostly rely on name calling

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Pretty defensive coming from someone whose posts mostly rely on name calling

And you weren't attacking? :roll:

You pimped your own IQ and said mine is around 100. Go ahead, and post all your links to prove you know what my IQ is. You'll find about as many as there are links to prove creationism isn't an invention of religion.

While you're looking, you can chew on these links, too:

U.S. Patent #4,155,047

U.S. Patent # 5,157,350

It's a not a good idea to get into a battle of wits when you're only half armed. :laugh:

 

[punchkin]

Someone here is trapped in their faith.

Incidentally, not one article by an Intelligent Design proponent or creationist has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as far as I know. This despite the fact that there are religious scientists, some of them even belonging to the National Academy of Sciences.