Debate: Creationism Vs Evolution

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-02 04:14pm

Spoonist wrote:
Newtonian Fury wrote:We're right, you're not. We're justified, you're not. Go fuck off.

Newtonian Fury wrote:That was not my intent at all.

Why are you picking on me? I already explained my situation.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-02 04:19pm

Australopithicus wrote: I generally don't like flaming and trolling, because I feel that the point should be put across before the insults start flying. Unfortunately, some people don't share this view, taking up an 'insult first and wonder whether he had a point or not later'. I see that you are not necessarily one of those people, as far as my information takes me, and for that, I am grateful.

Um, I hate to be the one to bring this up, but you had brought up more than enough incorrect and illogical points to be refuted and disproved before any flammatory remarks were made:

-Your 'Intellignet design' and 'Newton's friend' alanogies started nowhere and made no relevant conclusions.
-You stated that you believed that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but life is only 6000 years old.
-You failed to explain why evolution (the theory explaining the observed phenomenon of natural selection, diversity of life, fossil record, etc.) depended on unrelated theories (the Big Bang theory, etc).
-Failed to respond to claims that the creation of basic life has been conducted by scientists, using electricity and 'primordial soup'.
-Failed to back-up statement "Human genetics puts the existence of HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH back to 6,000 years".
-Provided the straw-man of 'Pitdown Man=evolution'
-Responded to the retorting postulate "There can be a Universe and no life on it." with the red-herring "But there isn't. We're living proof."
-Failed to back up statement that the formation of life was either from god or impossible chance.
-Again failed to see argument was on the processes outlined in the theory of evolution itself, not in the direct origin of those processes.
-Failed to sucessfully explain differences of natural selection versus processes of evolution.
-"Evolution as a theory is supposed to disprove Gods' hand in matters". Straw-man atttack.
-Cited '10% of human brain is used' brain-bug as fact.
-Failed to observe biological/intellectual paralells between humans and other apes.
-Cited completely unscientific/untruthful assumptions of supposed flaws in carbon-dating. failed to cite sources of extremely questionable statement.
-Cited the totally unscientific, intentionally irrational 'water canopy' flood 'theory' (one of the most idiotic theories to easilly debunk). Apparently expected extremely shaky statement to go by without further proof.
-Failed to cite source of unscientific 'lucy=mutant', 'mutants=dismissible changes in genetics' statements.
-Straw-man: assumed evolution is always progressive, even on the generational level.
-Assumed humanity has evolved significantly in the last 10,000 years (genetics disprove this).
-Straw-man: Assumed above assumption goes against evolution theory, and social.technological achievements equate evolution.

And only after spewing that did the flames slowly build up. Which might have been fueled by when Wong stepped in and declared your argument had become too idiotic to waste time beating the dead horse, or it might have come from their own conclusions. What other valid conclusion could we make on your argument? all you have managed to do is throw fallacies and brain-bugs at an Evolutionist straw-man that only says "humans were born from monkeys, and I can grow two more arms by next year if I carry alot of stuff." Try providing an argument that has some kind of integrety next time.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-02 04:24pm

-"Evolution as a theory is supposed to disprove Gods' hand in matters". Straw-man atttack

I've been skimming. Did he say this?

Kill him.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-02 04:26pm

Yes. That specifically is a direct quote from the first page, iirc.

EDIT: Found it. Third post from bottom of 1st page:

But the very EXISTENCE of evolution as a theory is supposed to disprove Gods' hand in matters by showing that all human life came from cells, and cells alone.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-02 05:24pm

You just don't want to hear it, or so I believe, and so I have not told you. Cap that with the fact that I can't be bothered to write 300 pages, and the fact that I am the only one on my side, and there you have it.

And considering this was a debate with me and you've just given up, then

THE END

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-02 10:32pm

Most scientists are interested in the truth. So I was wondering, are there any scientists in the fields relating to evolution intentionally seeking "evidence" against it? One could say this is similar to Proof By Contradiction. You intentionally look for potential "holes" in your logic/evidence so you may see how solid it really is. If it stands up to "threatening" evidence, then that's another thing creationists can't use(not that they would believe any scientific report that doesn't fit their belief anyway).

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-02 10:50pm

Most scientists are interested in the truth. So I was wondering, are there any scientists in the fields relating to evolution intentionally seeking "evidence" against it? One could say this is similar to Proof By Contradiction. You intentionally look for potential "holes" in your logic/evidence so you may see how solid it really is. If it stands up to "threatening" evidence, then that's another thing creationists can't use(not that they would believe any scientific report that doesn't fit their belief anyway).

Seeking Evidance aginst it?! Its standerd Pratice! Know why? Disprove a major theory has more than just fame reporcussions, it also will make your rich and funded to do whatever the hell you want in coming up with a better theory

Generaly Scientists attack all Theorys but thier own

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-02 11:01pm

I personally know scientists who attack their own theories. It may not be so profitable for them personally, but it sure is good for the people in general in the long run. Scientific truth can only benefit us all.

Which brings in another point, scientists are obliged to attack any new ideas and theories. Only by doing so can any validity be verified. If they're not doing this, they're doing their field of study a disservice.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-03 06:52pm

Australopithicus wrote:Do you now? Well here's your goddamn author and title:

AUTHOR: WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. TITLE: 'LIFE - HOW DID IT GET HERE? BY EVOLUTION OR CREATION?'

Still don't believe me? There's 254 pages of intensely researched information coming from hundreds of sources from respected scientists to famous newspaper bulletins FROM ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE. Ask some JW's for it if they call round again. You won't be disappointed. I GUARANTEE IT.

Please, someone put this retard out of his misery before he reaches puberty and has a chance to contaminate the gene pool

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-03 09:04pm

If he managed to cite at least one (count 'em, ONE) point made in that JW propaganda, I might give him a cookie...

Nah, he'd just fail to aknowledge the major rebuttals, and attack straw-men of the rest.

EDIT, whoa, that was an odd typo. I should get back to my Principles of Reasoning assignment.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-10-04 02:43am

Actually reading his debate I did not understood what he claimed or what he defended...If the earth was created right like the genesis, without any changes or if there is a god behind the changes that happened there (Which is a evolution teory, flawed but it is)...
also I am not sure if he read the books he claims to have, if he understand those or if the books he claim are just bad, because he seems to make childish mistakes about the definition of what the Darwin teory of Evolution (Which is the natural selection) is and mean and what evolution was and the history of the debate about this fact (like how evolution was used also in for example by Lyel and in his books and the victory of his teories are the great key for Darwin's teory go ahead) and somehow he thinks that Darwin's teory used fossiles to be proven, not actually the observation of moderm animals...I would expect that anyone that studied evolution would know that...

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-04 02:47am

"Wrong, you idiotic little s**t." - Darth Wong.

Did that make you feel good, Wong? Wanna try it again?
Generally, I find that most people who use swearwords in their argument are either:

1. Trying to make themselves look big in front of the crowd.
2. Trying to make themselves look clever in front of the crowd. Or
3. Have just nothing more intelligent to say.

So which one are you?

And I HAVEN'T given up get, so you can take that damn concession pic off your post, Olrik. I was actually hoping that you may care enough about the debate to read the book. But as you don't, it's obvious you just don't care about it enough to make me consider you seriously. So far you've given me a statement about genetics and a BBC website saying 'Ooh, we've found all these fossils IN THE LAST 4 YEARS when nothing's been found in the last 150 YEARS', with no additional proof, such as pictures, which I am supposed to automatically take as a given!?

Also, even though your statement about '98% DNA shared with monkeys' may be true, perhaps it slipped your mind that humans 'share 50% of their DNA with all other mammalian species', or so says a Dr. Pritchard.

Care to tell me the link between Human and Whales?

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-10-04 03:09am

perhaps you would know the answer, after all you called a whale a mammal like us...there is a reason behind this, something about this group had origem in the same group of ancestors...
^^
I must tell something, Darwin did not needed DNA analyses or fossiles analyses to formule and have his teory tested...so Why do you attack those sources ?Makes no sense at all...

Isaac Newton had a friend who believed in evolution. As a test of the logic in this, he built a scale model of the known solar system with all of the orbits and axis rotations in sync with the information he had. When his friend came round one day, he looked at the model, and said, "That model is magnificent. Did you make it?"
Newton looked up from the book he was reading and said, "Of course not. No - one built it."
His friend was incredulous. "What do you mean, 'no - one built it'? Of course they did! Someone must've built it, or it wouldn't exist! Now who built it!?"
Newton smiled and said, "Well, I did build it. But how can you believe that someone made this puny model and not that someone made the wonderful and grand universe?"

Then Mr. Darwin knocked at Newton's door.
But Isaac, do you see here all the different adaptations that each specie have ? You see each step between those ? Do you see here the fish members gradual modifications to became the members of terrestrial species ?
"Yes, Of course, I can" Newton answered "For sure when achived the superior and funcional format the in-between species are abandoned, isn"t?"
"Of course not, Mr. Newton. They still exist. But they only live in the place They are able to adapt. A ambient that is similar to their old one where the competitive adavantages of the more younger species are no different"
"Then, the species change was just a natural answer to the enviroment changes ?" Asked again Newton.
"Of course. A Natural change. A Natural selection that explains the changes and variety of species. Some call this Evolution" - Darwin answered.
"Then the earth creation in Genesis was wrong. Earth formation was a slow progress. Of gradual changes" Said Newton.
"For sure, Newton."
"And for the life evolution it was not needed a intervention. Happened all by itself, Darwin"
"Yes, after all, a God would created something flawed ? Would need the steps ? What for ? He should be all-knowing, Newton"
"My faith is shaken, Mr. Darwin. Actually, why have I even used the solar system as an example to refute evolution ? "
"I think is Sunday, Newton. Even a scientific mind needs rest"

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-04 06:20am

Australopithicus wrote:"Wrong, you idiotic little s**t." - Darth Wong.

Did that make you feel good, Wong? Wanna try it again?
Generally, I find that most people who use swearwords in their argument are either:

1. Trying to make themselves look big in front of the crowd.
2. Trying to make themselves look clever in front of the crowd. Or
3. Have just nothing more intelligent to say.

So which one are you?

That's it. Attack the Man's style and completely ignore his arguments. You're becoming a good fundie

And I HAVEN'T given up get, so you can take that damn concession pic off your post, Olrik. I was actually hoping that you may care enough about the debate to read the book. But as you don't, it's obvious you just don't care about it enough to make me consider you seriously.

This is just ridiculous. Will you read the books I advise you as well? Do you want a list of the books I read and of those that I had to study? It's considerably more than 300 pages.. That's the biggest strawman on Earth. Pointing sideways and saying: read this and refute.

If your read the book, understood it, and found some fiasible arguments, then shortly explain them here in your words. Do you think I (or Lord Wong, or anybody else) just invent the Evolution theory as it pleases me?
Or that I studied it and understood the concept?

So far you've given me a statement about genetics and a BBC website saying 'Ooh, we've found all these fossils IN THE LAST 4 YEARS when nothing's been found in the last 150 YEARS', with no additional proof, such as pictures, which I am supposed to automatically take as a given!?

Yes, I've given you a statement on how Evolution works, that corresponds to the accepted theory of Evolution. You did not start to understand it, much less refute it. And there were lot's of fossils discovered in the last 150 years. And what's wrong with the site? do you have reasons to doubt its credibility? Because that information is available in many other sources (such as the books of my "for you to read" list).

Also, even though your statement about '98% DNA shared with monkeys' may be true, perhaps it slipped your mind that humans 'share 50% of their DNA with all other mammalian species', or so says a Dr. Pritchard.

You've answered your own "question".

Care to tell me the link between Human and Whales?

Yes. They shared a common ancestor. In fact, you might know that whales ancestors where terrestrial, explaining why they are mammals thus requiring to surface in order to breath, along many other things.

A quick google search returned a recently found ancestor of all mammals

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune ... 68058.html

A small placental mammal which is near the root of all mammalian.
Not the only one found, by any chance.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-04 04:37pm

Please don't tell me that that's the same shrewlike rodent that evolutionists have been harping on about as an ancestor of man for years, because it sure looks like it. This particular little creature was actually no cause for evolutionary basis, as no fossils have been found linking this furry little rodent to the rest of us. In the book Lucy:The beginnings of humankind, scientists D.Johnson and M.Edey say that 'They were insect - eating rodents about the size and shape of squirrels', which seems to concur with the pictorial evidence of the site you gave me. Life - how did it get here? By evolution or creation? points out the fact that 'No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.'

As for carbon dating, I have far better proof against it than the last stuff I gave, which, I admit, was purely a product of tiredness, annoyance and desperation. Here it is:

This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over 2 decades by scientists all around the globe. It was widely acclaimed (as it is now, as you have all shown me) for accurate dating of artifacts from mans' ancient history. But then a conference of the world's experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser dgree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is 'not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E or before.'

Darth Utsanomiko - Can I have that cookie now?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-04 05:25pm

Please don't tell me that that's the same shrewlike rodent that evolutionists have been harping on about as an ancestor of man for years, because it sure looks like it. This particular little creature was actually no cause for evolutionary basis, as no fossils have been found linking this furry little rodent to the rest of us.

No, it's not. It's just another animal which is suspected to be one of the first species of placental mammals. Humans are part of that group, as well as whales.

Firstly, I point out, again, that evolution is not proved/disproved by the existance of fossils. The theory was initially formated by observation of actual species, and how very similar species can be found in different regional areas, hinting that they shared a common ancestor and mutated according to the different conditions of each region. These observations have nothing to do with fossils.

Nowadays, scientists studied something called DNA evidence that you didn't and cannot start to refut. The DNA links us irrefutably to all the other species of life in existance and extint, as well as providing a means of mapping when each branch separated to create a different species. This has also nothing to do with fossils.

Finally, there's the fossil evidence. You said that there is no fossil evidence to link that rodent to us. Ignoring the fact that I had already stated the evidence is not necessary, I merely say that that is a lie.
Firstly, Scientists discovered fossils linking us to primates. primates are precisely defined as small, rodentlike mammals. Do you think primates are 1.85 m and capable of speech?

There are fossils for each transitional situation. fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals and finally to the mammalian specie known as Homo sapiens.
Your book fails to mention them?
Get new ones.

In the book Lucy:The beginnings of humankind, scientists D.Johnson and M.Edey say that 'They were insect - eating rodents about the size and shape of squirrels', which seems to concur with the pictorial evidence of the site you gave me. Life - how did it get here? By evolution or creation? points out the fact that 'No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.' In fact, believe that this particular little fuzzy chap is found scuttling around on the South American continent and is called a Daman.

see above.

As for carbon dating, I have far better proof against it than the last stuff I gave, which, I admit, was purely a product of tiredness, annoyance and desperation. Here it is:

This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over 2 decades by scientists all around the globe. It was widely acclaimed (as it is now, as you have all shown me) for accurate dating of artifacts from mans' ancient history. But then a conference of the world's experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser dgree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is 'not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E or before.'

Right, be careful, I'm patient, But GET SOME KNOWLEDGE before trying my natural unwillingness to flame.
I asked you if you know what carbon dating is. Obviously you do not.

Sigh.

Carbon 14 (C14) is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun (Specifically, neutrons hit nitrogen-14 atoms and transmute them to carbon).

A creature dies, and the body is preserved. The C14 will undergo radioactive decay, and after 5730 years, half of it will be gone. Eventually, all of it will be gone. So, if we find such a body, the amount of C14 in it will tell us how long ago it was alive. Right?

After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all.

When talking about fossils, we're talking about beings who existed millions of years ago

THEREFORE, carbon dating is not used to validy the found fossils

Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned. Got that?

The fossils are classified by its characteristics and the environment where they are found.
DNA has no connection whatsoever with fossils
And we still have all the living animals which were used to form the theory in the first place.

Sigh

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-10-04 06:45pm

Hey kid, creationist boy, have you given one piece of actual argument or evidence that HASN'T been ripped to shreds? I haven't see one so far.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-10-04 08:25pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Hey kid, creationist boy, have you given one piece of actual argument or evidence that HASN'T been ripped to shreds? I haven't see one so far.

Apparently his 300 pages of absolute proof are so important he can't actually post them.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-05 11:57am

Alyeska wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Hey kid, creationist boy, have you given one piece of actual argument or evidence that HASN'T been ripped to shreds? I haven't see one so far.
Apparently his 300 pages of absolute proof are so important he can't actually post them.

If that argument of his about carbon dating was taken from the Book (and I expect it was), then he must be trying to figure out where is the flaw in my physics, as it completely destroys the Book argument concerning fossils.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-05 05:43pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Hey kid, creationist boy, have you given one piece of actual argument or evidence that HASN'T been ripped to shreds? I haven't see one so far.
Apparently his 300 pages of absolute proof are so important he can't actually post them.
If that argument of his about carbon dating was taken from the Book (and I expect it was), then he must be trying to figure out where is the flaw in my physics, as it completely destroys the Book argument concerning fossils.

Indeed. Here, have a cookie.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-10-06 01:25am

I think he punked out and ran away. His last few posts certainly made it sound that way.

"Sure I could crush all your stupid arguments, you heretic scum, but... uh... I just don't feel like it right now! Here's a book that I demand you read!"

It's a typical exit strategy.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-10-06 06:54am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I think he punked out and ran away. His last few posts certainly made it sound that way.

"Sure I could crush all your stupid arguments, you heretic scum, but... uh... I just don't feel like it right now! Here's a book that I demand you read!"

It's a typical exit strategy.

I just started to read this thread, so I hope he hasnt gone, I need entertainment.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 07:40am

*Indignance factor kicks in*

"Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned. Got that?"

Actually, I never said that. It's more like a placeholder warning for you if you spout prattle like "this fossil is more than 3,000,000 years old", because I'll come back with the above argument. That's all. It wasn't an attack on evolution. It was a warning about the validity of carbon dating, nothing more.

Next you'll be telling me that Eopipphus is the ancestor of the horse...

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-06 07:59am

Australopithicus wrote:*Indignance factor kicks in*

"Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned. Got that?"

Actually, I never said that. It's more like a placeholder warning for you if you spout prattle like "this fossil is more than 3,000,000 years old", because I'll come back with the above argument. That's all. It wasn't an attack on evolution. It was a warning about the validity of carbon dating, nothing more.

You bringing carbon dating to the discussion only proves your ignorance about the theme. I would never say that a fossil is millions years old because of carbon dating, because I know physics. Unlike you.

Fossils are classified according to their characteristics and those of the surrounding environment.

It's not your placeholder that disproves carbon dating, it's simple physics that you do not understand. Got that?

Anyway, again, we do not need fossils to validy Evolution.

Again, carbon dating IS NEVER USED TO CLASSIFY FOSSILS. Got that?

Next you'll be telling me that Eopipphus is the ancestor of the horse...

That's not an argument.
There are several known ancestors in the branch of modern horses.
Do I need to explain them one by one?
Do you have a staggering never heard proof refuting them? And DNA?
Let's hear it.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-10-06 07:59am

Australopithicus wrote:*Indignance factor kicks in*

"Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned. Got that?"
snip

Could you please refer to whom you are replying? and preferably to what part of their argument.