evolution

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-06 05:13pm

Australopithicus wrote:Gross ignorance on a grand scale? Seriously too far gone indoctrination? I don't know. Pick 'n' mix. Just don't call me arrogant, or I'll show you how arrogant I can be at some subjects...

But why should we not call you arrogant, even though that is what appears to be happening here? You are clearly all of the other adjectives you used to describe yourself, but that does not preclude your arrogance.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-06 05:17pm

Australopithicus wrote:Gross ignorance on a grand scale? Seriously too far gone indoctrination? I don't know. Pick 'n' mix. Just don't call me arrogant, or I'll show you how arrogant I can be at some subjects...

If you:
- admite your ignorance
- Admite you're talking to someone who knows more than you

And still refuse to change its ideas, and cling to the old gut feelings without giving them a second thought..

And keep on talking as though you're right (like in the beggining of this thread)

wouldn't you call yourself arrogant?

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 05:20pm

No, I'd call myself blind and stone deaf. With a hint of the absolute moronic in for good measure.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-06 05:23pm

Australopithicus wrote:No, I'd call myself blind and stone deaf. With a hint of the absolute moronic in for good measure.

You're on the good path. Now learn science.
It's not that hard and, trust me on this, it's very rewarding.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 05:26pm

But suppose I learn all there is to learn about science, and still put myself on my current standings? What then? Will I be a fabulously educated, know - all - there - is - to - know moron? Or something else?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:26pm

Australopithicus wrote:I love it when people use swearwords and their IQ's or qualifications to back up their arguments...it gives me a warm glow of satisfaction...

*gasp* Yet no one's done that!

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:27pm

Australopithicus wrote:The truth is that it doesn't really matter anyway. In any case, evolutionists must think really little of planet Earth to suggest that all mammalians came from the common ancestor, that being a rodent...

Irrelevant red herring.

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » 2002-10-06 05:27pm

I'm watching a program on evolution right now,
i really didn't think there were that many ignorant people in the world

a school, Wheaton i think its called recieved hunreds of letters after a teacher expressed his belief in evolution, now every teacher that works there has to sign a statement saying that humans are derectly decended from adam and eve, and created by God

Sum of these ppl definately fell out of the stupidity tree and hit every branch on the way down

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:28pm

Australopithicus wrote:And it wouldn't be awe - inspiring to think that an omnipotent being created all of us to an extremely detailed degree, now, would it?

Awe inspiring means Jackshit. Manji's mile-long warship is "awe inspiring" It's also useless.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-06 05:31pm

Australopithicus wrote:But suppose I learn all there is to learn about science, and still put myself on my current standings? What then? Will I be a fabulously educated, know - all - there - is - to - know moron? Or something else?

In the event that you actually learn some science and cling to this tribal superstition of yours, you will nevertheless be forced to SEVERELY modify your perceptions of what is and is not valid in terms of science. Scientifically qualified creationists are generally "intelligent design" creationists (such as Dr. Behe). Most of them freely admit that evolution happens, speciation happens, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, etc., and they use logical fallacies to cling to their little superstition. However, I have never encountered any hardcore creationist who has legitimate scientific qualifications, nor have I ever heard of one.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-06 05:31pm

Australopithicus wrote:But suppose I learn all there is to learn about science, and still put myself on my current standings? What then? Will I be a fabulously educated, know - all - there - is - to - know moron? Or something else?

Then you'll understand Evolution, biology and physics. If you still cling to creationist beliefs, then you'll at least be able to know what is exactly the Evolution teory and discuss why you don't believe it,

But I greatly doubt you would still hold that position.

Bear in mind, again, that there is nothing in science, much less in Evolution, that prevents you of believing in God.

Only on the small petty all-intervening God the J.W put into you

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2002-10-06 05:31pm

Australopithicus wrote:But suppose I learn all there is to learn about science, and still put myself on my current standings? What then? Will I be a fabulously educated, know - all - there - is - to - know moron? Or something else?

In that case you by neccesity have to ignore everything you learned to continue to cling to Creationism, and so you'd still be a moron.

Education is no good if you don't use it.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:31pm

Australopithicus wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote: You failed to refute Evolution in the debate. And you still cling to your gut feelings.
Need I remind you that a lot of scientific advancement have come from gut feelings and opinions. I believe that they are called 'theories'.

Gee wiz, you're right! Newton didn't have an apple nail him, he had a gut feeling on gravity. Scientists don't do stupid experiments, they use opinions!

Besides, all that I have failed to refute is that chimps and humans share 98% of the same DNA. However, I could just become completely closed - minded that I could say 'It's all just one big coincidence,' or I could say that 'Monkeys were God's smartest animals at the time, and looked sort - of like him, and humans were used on some of the basic template characteristics of a monkey', couldn't I? Of course, you'd refute it, people would insult me, I'd become indignant, and it'd all go full circle like it's going on our 'debate'. Too bad I had to open my trap with that big ol' parable of Newton and his friend...maybe we'd be getting somewhere if I'd just said 'yes' to your first question...

The parable about the creation of universe which is a big red herring?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-06 05:35pm

Question.

Austra: The existence of God and the existance of evolution are mutually exclusive...how?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:36pm

Cyril wrote:Question.

Austra: The existence of God and the existance of evolution are mutually exclusive...how?

It's called "Deism"

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 05:38pm

As is common, my brain is not working at this time.Primarily because I don't think in the first place, but also because in my time it is nearly 11:00 pm. I'll get back to you if my brain gets a restart.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-06 05:39pm

I may also point out that many of my good impressions of the portuguese church come from a priest with a close friendship with my parents.

He is a Scientist. An extremelly religious and decent man, and also a PHD in engineering. He is scientific in all matters except, of course, faith.

It's really a previlege to talk with him.

Just to remind that you can be an extremelly religious and decent man and still be scientific and, of course, understand and treat Evolution as a fact.

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » 2002-10-06 05:41pm

if ur in the uk i sugest u go switch on ur tv turn to national geographic and watch the rest of the program on evolution u just might learn sumthing

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-06 05:46pm

It's called "Deism"

Isn't that the theory that God set the world into motion and refuses to intervene? I don't get your point.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-10-06 05:52pm

Hmm. Aus actually had a little bit of fortitude, and stuck around after that debate. He even admits that he doesn't yet understand how evolution actually works. If nothing else, that's better than you're likely to get from most creationists. I say we keep him around, and only kick him when he says something stupid.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-06 05:52pm

Cyril wrote:
It's called "Deism"
Isn't that the theory that God set the world into motion and refuses to intervene? I don't get your point.

A religon with god and evolution.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 05:53pm

My brain has retained enough solidity to say thankyou, Grandadmiralprawn

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-06 06:01pm

However, with that last comment in mind, I'm probably likely to be dead of kicks by the end of next week....

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-06 06:02pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:
Cyril wrote:
It's called "Deism"
Isn't that the theory that God set the world into motion and refuses to intervene? I don't get your point.

A religon with god and evolution.

Yeah, the God basically lies back and smokes weed in Heaven/Redneck Trailer

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-10-06 08:33pm

I don't want to read all the previous pages so I'm going to just stick around for a while and wait for someone else to post something that I can reply to. Besides, points seems to have aalready been made.