Evolution

[Switch]

This seems to be starting to verge slightly into the realms of religion vs. science... that's a no-no topic round here as it makes Peregrine go ape, so let's not do that okay? ;) Just a reminder.

[hoots7]

This seems to be starting to verge slightly into the realms of religion vs. science... that's a no-no topic round here as it makes Peregrine go ape, so let's not do that okay? ;) Just a reminder.

 

I see no conflict in the 2, so there is no x vs. science.

FYI, I it is Peregrine that brought it up, discussing it and breaking his own rules for the topic & according to what you say here as well.

I posted the R word only in a quote from Albert Einstein; I will officially apologize for that here & now.

-H

 

Sorry guys, I've been out of town for the past three weeks and unable to post. But I won't deprive you of your flames any longer!

 

Word of advice to you: research your quotes before trying an appeal to authority. Despite the common misconception, Einstein's religion was about as far from the traditional monotheism of most of the world (and I would assume, of your religion). At most, Einstein could be considered a deist, in his words:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

Or even better, just look at the entire context of the quote you gave (emphasis mine):

 

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

Nowhere does he mention worship of Jesus, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other conventional religion. The required ideas of "truth, understanding, reason" are only superficially related to the conventional idea of religion. It's a choice of words that, in hindsight, could have been much better and not so open to abuse.

[Peregrine]

No geographical evidence exists that a major flooding of the earth happened after the rise of man

You’re not being intellectually honest; a quick Google gave me this article, not proof but evidence none the less. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...nkencities.html you will find similar results as well, signs of water on highest points on earth.

 

1) Did you even bother reading your own link before posting it? The link refers to local geographic changes, not a global flood. A few scattered coastal ruins don't even come close to the scale of a global flood. And this isn't even a flood (by definition a temporary event, which puts water where it shouldn't normally be and ends as soon as the water drains away), the changes were permanent and involved the land itself.

2) Please, post these "signs of water on highest points on earth". I need some entertainment.

Yes I did, that’s why I stated “not proof but evidence none the less”, they claim in the article that it was a local event, years from now after they do more research they may change that position.

 

God you're an idiot. Please go away and don't come back until you have at least a vague idea of what you're talking about. It isn't evidence in any way for a global-scale flood. Anyone who claims otherwise clearly has no knowledge of geology.

 

I was responding to 'Marcus Wolfe's post where he stated “No geographical evidence exists”, not making an initial statement of my own.

 

Fine, now prove this statement. This is a debate, which means you are expected to back up your statements with evidence. It is not enough to just go back and forth with "it exists". If your so-called evidence exists, then post it or concede defeat.

 

 

“Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?”

No, exactly my point, thank you for making it for me.

Jackson Pollack, is the only artist I know of whose style is closest to evolution.

I’ve watched him work and to me he seems to open paint buckets & apply paint to a canvas like a child would.

 

What the hell? Random paint splatters are NOT close to evolution. Please go away until you have at least some understanding of the concept of cumulative selection, and why it is not random.

 

And what do art styles have to do with anything? Put down the drugs and at least try to make a coherent point.

 

 

He would tell you that’s not so, he chooses colors, dispersal methods, patterns and other things.

But with most artist though the observer can tell that someone with great skill has purposely created this “priceless work of art”. I believe Albert Einstein was just such an observer of mathematics, science and the universe & saw as he worked that all that is must have been the work of someone, no he did not define it using a religious tag (I never said he did) that people use, but he did recognize it.

 

In this case, a correct judgement, because someone did purposely create it. That doesn't mean the evidence for evolution is the same. You can't just declare this arbitrary analogy without facts to support your position. If you want to make a claim that a skilled entity was required to create the universe, then provide some evidence of areas where inanimate processes fail to explain the evidence.

 

 

All this discussion is really interesting but let me cut to the chase and ask you the big question.

How did it all start?

 

Irrelevant. Are you illiterate, or just completely ignorant of the theory of evolution? Either you are deliberately ignoring the rules of debate that I set in the first post, or you don't even realize that "how did it all start" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

FYI, I it is Peregrine that brought it up, discussing it and breaking his own rules for the topic & according to what you say here as well.

I posted the R word only in a quote from Albert Einstein; I will officially apologize for that here & now.

-H

 

You lying ****. I mentioned religion ONLY in a direct response to your Einstein quote. You will not attempt to dodge responsiblity for your actions by blaming me.

[FritzDerochebrune]

About the flood: it did happen. Now this might seem strange, but it really did. And back then, it was a flood wich destroyed the whole world. Let me explain.

 

Most scientist agree the flood story has taken place in the middle east, more exactly where the Black Sea is. In early times, the Black Sea was just a fresh water lake. The change came with global warming, when ice trapped on the mountains since the last Ice age began melting. That water began heaping up in huge reservoirs, until the natural dams finally collapsed. An enormous amount of water rushed to lower levels, eventually reaching the Black Sea. Of course, there where settlements near the previously freshwater lake. Those where flooded, and now lie 20m under water (well, their remains).

 

There will be people wondering: but that wasn't the whole world? Indeed. For us, it is just a small piece of land. But for the people back then, that was the world. They didn't travel further than a few kilometers during their life. That is why the story still says the entire world was flooded.

 

And the story isn't religious: Around the world there are stories about a huge flood, from the native americans to the indians (people from India, not the native americans) all have a story about a great flood. There are differences, but they all have the same basics. The story of Noach only had a lesson attached to it: people have to start living better. It's just like the Garden of Eve: of course nobody found it, it just didn't exist. The story tells us that humans always do things that are forbidden.

 

Oh, one more thing about [qoute]“Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?”

Well, it is. A work of art is only worth the amount of supplies it costed. But there is a strange human quality: feelings. Because paintings summon a specific kind of feeling (happiness, sadness) people raise the value of them. Have you ever seen the movie "Equilibrium"? It shows the world in the future, when people use a drug to neutralize feelings. In that world there are no paintings. They even burn the Mona Lisa. Really a good movie.

 

Cya

 

Fritz

[Switch]

Peregrine: Calm down and stop throwing around insults please. If you keep doing it I'll close the thread.

[hoots7]

Peregrine: Calm down and stop throwing around insults please. If you keep doing it I'll close the thread.

 

I believe he is seeing red because he knows he’s wrong either consciously or unconsciously and can’t stand it.

That’s why he keeps breaking the rules (and his own).

God you're an idiot.

What the hell?

WOW!

He has clearly chosen to keep breaking the rules.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine: Calm down and stop throwing around insults please. If you keep doing it I'll close the thread.

 

I believe he is seeing red because he knows he’s wrong either consciously or unconsciously and can’t stand it.

That’s why he keeps breaking the rules (and his own).

 

No, it's because I'm sick and tired of your evasive tactics. I have no patience for stupid people, and anyone who's been here a while knows it. This is a debate, not an opinion poll, either back up your claims with factual evidence, or concede defeat and stop posting. Simply saying "there is evidence, I'm right" is not acceptable, and neither is just accusing me of rule-breaking while ignoring every point I make.

 

As for the idea of me being wrong, I can only laugh at that. As much as I hate to brag about credentials, I think I have to here: I'm two years from a degree in aerospace engineering and my professional license (a statement that I have enough knowledge and experience to be trusted to get things right when peoples' lives are at stake). Outside of my prefered field, I do a lot of reading to satisfy my curiosity, and my general scientific background means I'm qualified to understand the methods and evidence involved. So it's a safe bet I know more about science in general and evolution specifically than you do.

 

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it. But you will do so according to the rules of debate, by rational arguments supported by factual evidence. NOT by just saying "you're angry because you're wrong."

 

God you're an idiot.

What the hell?

WOW!

He has clearly chosen to keep breaking the rules.

 

Ok, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just trolling, and not suffering from severe brain damage. If you can't tell the difference between "what the hell?" and an argument about why your imaginary man in the sky doesn't exist, you have some serious problems. Anyone with a little common sense knows that the rule bans discussion of religion, not every word that might have some vague origin in religion. Anyone with a little common sense knows that my use of the words falls in the second category, "hell" is profanity, not a debate on the metaphysics of afterlives.

 

And if anything, you are the one breaking both the forum rules and the terms of debate. You have:

 

1) Very obviously tried to bring religion into it. When you say "According to this book that I can't name because it's against the rules", anyone with half a brain knows you're talking about the bible. It's no different than saying "Jesus did it".

 

2) Directly brought religion into it with your Einstein quote.

 

 

Now drop this silly argument and stop trying to sneak in your religious beliefs before you get my thread locked.

 

 

 

==============================================

 

About the flood: it did happen. Now this might seem strange, but it really did. And back then, it was a flood wich destroyed the whole world. Let me explain.

 

...

 

Yes, I know that a severe local flood at a time when human civilization was tiny would explain a lot of the various flood myths. But I think it's a safe bet that he's trying to argue that a global flood actually happened, and would not consider this myth-forming local flood acceptable. And unlike the local flood, there is ZERO evidence for a global one.

 

Oh, one more thing about

“Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?”

Well, it is. A work of art is only worth the amount of supplies it costed. But there is a strange human quality: feelings. Because paintings summon a specific kind of feeling (happiness, sadness) people raise the value of them. Have you ever seen the movie "Equilibrium"? It shows the world in the future, when people use a drug to neutralize feelings. In that world there are no paintings. They even burn the Mona Lisa. Really a good movie.

 

Yes, I've seen the movie. But my point is that feelings and the value we give them are questions for philosophy, not science. Science could, if it is at all possible, give you a recipe for the anti-feeling drug. But it can't tell you whether you should create the drug. You can look at all the theories you want, perform every experiment you can think of, but nowhere will you find "emotion is priceless, life is worthless without it" or "emotion is too dangerous, we must destroy it". Science simply describes how things are, not how they should be.

[FritzDerochebrune]

Yes, I know that a severe local flood at a time when human civilization was tiny would explain a lot of the various flood myths. But I think it's a safe bet that he's trying to argue that a global flood actually happened, and would not consider this myth-forming local flood acceptable. And unlike the local flood, there is ZERO evidence for a global one.

(Never thought I'd be on your side when I first replied on this topic, but now I am ;D )

 

Yes, exactly: there never was a global flood. And for those still doubting: think about it: the story has been told from father to son for hundreds of years before it was written down. What would impress you more: a global flood, or a local one?

 

Cya

 

Fritz

[hoots7]

As for the idea of me being wrong, I can only laugh at that. As much as I hate to brag about credentials, I think I have to here: I'm two years from a degree in aerospace engineering and my professional license (a statement that I have enough knowledge and experience to be trusted to get things right when peoples' lives are at stake). Outside of my prefered (preferred) field, I do a lot of reading to satisfy my curiosity, and my general scientific background means I'm qualified to understand the methods and evidence involved.

BIG DEAL!, do you really think anyone cares,? I’ve had my PE for 8 years now, so what, I have contributed to the design and manufacturing of large navel vessels for years, I am “trusted to get things right when peoples' lives are at stake” also, again big deal.

You have an over exaggerated sense of importance.

 

So it's a safe bet I know more about science in general

NO

and evolution specifically

YES

than you do.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it.

I don’t even have to, your own words prove it; you have time and time again committed Freudian slips.

If a person actually reads what you’ve written they can see the real truth. You are an angry little man; I hope you get help soon.

 

God you're an idiot.

But you will do so according to the rules of debate, by rational arguments supported by factual evidence. NOT by just saying "you're angry because you're wrong."

Your rules for the “debate” are childish, I can mention religion but you can’t.

If you want a real debate state the form, Lincoln Douglas or standard?

Where is your resolution? Are you affirmative or negative?

You don’t want a real debate, you just want the spot light on you and you want to beguile people.

 

“SickleYield, THIS MEANS YOU!” what’s that all about? You’re a bully and I hate bullies.

 

 

God you're an idiot.

What the hell?

WOW!

He has clearly chosen to keep breaking the rules.

 

Ok, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just trolling, and not suffering from severe brain damage. If you can't tell the difference between "what the hell?" and an argument about why your imaginary man in the sky doesn't exist, you have some serious problems. Anyone with a little common sense knows that the rule bans discussion of religion, not every word that might have some vague origin in religion. Anyone with a little common sense knows that my use of the words falls in the second category, "hell" is profanity, not a debate on the metaphysics of afterlives.

 

 

And if anything, you are the one breaking both the forum rules and the terms of debate. You have:

 

1) Very obviously tried to bring religion into it. When you say "According to this book that I can't name because it's against the rules", anyone with half a brain knows you're talking about the bible. It's no different than saying "Jesus did it".

 

You can infer what you want, but I did not use any religious terms like you keep doing, you just used the J word (no you did not hyphenate it like Spanish do, Jesús) even your profile From: you put “Hell” another Freudian slip.

2) Directly brought religion into it with your Einstein quote.

Now drop this silly argument and stop trying to sneak in your religious beliefs before you get my thread locked.

 

I’ve already apologized for this “I will officially apologize for that here & now” but I’ve yet to see an apology from you.

[Peregrine]

As for the idea of me being wrong, I can only laugh at that. As much as I hate to brag about credentials, I think I have to here: I'm two years from a degree in aerospace engineering and my professional license (a statement that I have enough knowledge and experience to be trusted to get things right when peoples' lives are at stake). Outside of my prefered (preferred) field, I do a lot of reading to satisfy my curiosity, and my general scientific background means I'm qualified to understand the methods and evidence involved.

BIG DEAL!, do you really think anyone cares,? I’ve had my PE for 8 years now, so what, I have contributed to the design and manufacturing of large navel vessels for years, I am “trusted to get things right when peoples' lives are at stake” also, again big deal.

You have an over exaggerated sense of importance.

 

What is this "PE" you refer to? I've never heard of that degree. Exactly what contributions do you make? Your vague statement about contributions could mean everything from being a licensed engineer leading the design team for a carrier to the janitor who cleans out the engineer's office.

 

But the real point here is that I actually know what I'm talking about. I'm not just quoting wikipedia like some people, I've actually studied and understood the subject.

 

than you do.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it.

I don’t even have to, your own words prove it; you have time and time again committed Freudian slips.

If a person actually reads what you’ve written they can see the real truth. You are an angry little man; I hope you get help soon.

 

Your idea of "Freudian slips" is stupid beyond belief. I'm arrogant and impatient, among other things. I also happen to be RIGHT, which is the only one of these that matters.

 

You will stop attempting to use an ad hominem argument as your only tactic, and provide the proof for your side. Or concede defeat, it's your choice. But you will stop this trolling.

 

 

Your rules for the “debate” are childish, I can mention religion but you can’t.

If you want a real debate state the form, Lincoln Douglas or standard?

Where is your resolution? Are you affirmative or negative?

You don’t want a real debate, you just want the spot light on you and you want to beguile people.

 

I have no intention of bringing up religion. I only said it in response to YOUR attempt to bring in religion. If you would stop trying to break the rules and make the debate about religion (and "that book I'm not allowed to mention" isn't fooling anyone), I would be happy to leave religion out of it. If you want a debate about religion, take it to PMs and I'll be happy to prove you wrong there too.

 

And I'm not talking about some official rules, only a debate involving FACTS. I don't care if you follow some formal rules precisely or not, but you WILL produce factual evidence to support your case instead of this evasive trolling.

 

 

“SickleYield, THIS MEANS YOU!” what’s that all about? You’re a bully and I hate bullies.

 

SickleYield is a young-earth creationist and a fraud who claims to have multiple science degrees while demonstrating complete ignorance of both the scientific method and specific facts. She also refuses to debate me because I am not nice enough, so I made a public debate where she can't hide behind that excuse. The moderators will enforce the rules, but not surprisingly, she refuses to defend her flawed ideas.

 

You can infer what you want, but I did not use any religious terms like you keep doing, you just used the J word (no you did not hyphenate it like Spanish do, Jesús) even your profile From: you put “Hell” another Freudian slip.

 

Ok, now you're definitely trolling, nobody capable of posting on a forum is that stupid. The forum rules (as well as the rules for this debate, which are just a re-statement of the forum rules) ban DISCUSSION of religion. NOT profanity that just happens to have a religious origin. If you can't tell the difference, get out of my thread before you get it locked.

 

And you trolling ****, your own words prove you are a liar:

 

"Here is a quote for you, I try to go by.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein"

 

Or how about:

 

"Do you mean “The Garden of Eden”? According to a certain book that can not be mentioned on this topic it’s not suppose to be found until a certain thing happens."

 

Anyone with half a brain knows you're talking about the bible and the return of Jesus. The fact that you didn't actually say "Jesus" doesn't make it any less of an attempt to bring religion into the discussion. You know perfectly well that's against forum rules (and so do I, that's why I didn't give you the counter-argument you deserve), but not only do you still post it, but you lie about it afterwards.

 

Or maybe:

 

"According to the Book I can’t mention you are priceless and worth dying for."

 

Again, everyone with half a brain knows you're talking about the bible and Jesus dying for our sins. You're not fooling anyone here. If you want to debate religion, take it to PM/AIM and I'll be happy to do so. But stop breaking the forum rules and lying about it, I don't want my debate locked.

 

Until you made those statements, I hadn't said anything about religion. My only mention of religion was in direct response to YOUR posts, and I didn't even comment on all of them (as I would have if it wasn't against forum rules).

 

I’ve already apologized for this “I will officially apologize for that here & now” but I’ve yet to see an apology from you.

 

And you won't. Unlike you, I haven't tried to hijack the debate, break the forum rules, and then lie about it to hide my mistakes. I have nothing to apologize for.