Creationism

Well, to be fair I started it. If she really resorts to the lower levels of name-calling I will give her a warning, but no sooner. It does come off as a bit suspicious though.

 

Yes the Bible is the source behind the thinking of creationism.

Styx was mentioning that Evolution has helped scientists change the world, nothing to do with the different groups of science.

Yes I have. But the seventh day, even though he rested.Counts. Look up on Google, the seventh day counts. Like this for a example, notice that the person asks why God created the world in seven days and doesn't say six.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_God_make_the_earth_in_seven_days_and_not_one

So Styx calling my posts asinine was not insulting ?

No. I understood.

Right, riiight. And I'll use Frodo Baggins from Lord the Rings for my next example. >_>

Believe me I've tried. But everything I've posted is either something that ends up being laughed out, or it's just deemed as stupid or worthless.

Excuse me, but you have called my posts asinine and have done even more insulting things in reply to the posts that I have made. I could report you to a higher admiration and report all the nasty things that you have said to me. Have you read the rules ? Debates are supposed to be intelligent, but they are also supposed to be fun. And I could report, that a moderator is making this debate look like a tease- thread.

 

No, I said that the modern evolution theory is based on the same principles that have helped us in our daily lives.

That being said, me saying that he didn't create anything on that day was still correct.

No it isn't, as long as you play the ball and not the player.
"You are stupid" is an insult. "Your ideas are wrong (and therefore stupid)" is brutally honest.

Then you should have known that they are valid examples, and otherwise state why they aren't instead of laughing it off and revealing you have no comeback.

By all means do so, if it fits the context like mine.

Indeed. Which should help you draw conclusions, i.e. admit defeat.
Your views have been weighed and measured by a number of people: JediNinjaZC, Guardian_Soul, White_Rook, Cyanide and myself and you have not come out on top. That's the sad truth.

 

It's a debate between creationism and evolution so of course, it's going to be talked about. Yes, I've know a few people who have read the Bible differently. And no you haven't said the the bible was a lie, that was just a example how a creationist could be hurt if what they believed in was insulted.
I was just saying that a creationist could feel the same way, just like you were hurt when Darwin's intelligence was insulted.

No, no, no. I didn't mean it that way. I was saying that Darwin could of been guessing about this theories or making things up. It was a stab at Darwin coming up at the theory of evolution. Not hypothesis in general.

Didn't you call it the Lamarckian theory, before ?.

This was directed at Styx not you Cyanide. I was commenting about the insults that he was making towards me. I was accusing you of making assumptions about the bible. That's a lie, I do know somethings about it. Otherwise I wouldn't of mentioned the Missing link pages ago.

 

Lamarck is the surname, Lamarckian is the adjective.
Like Darwin and Darwinian evolution.

You didn't mean it that way but you said it regardless. Darwin's coming up with the theory of evolution has went through the same process as a majority of hypotheses before his. His methods really weren't all that different from any scientist's. That's what Cyanide meant when he said that.



Anyhow, I have a feeling we're straying off topic.
Let's try and avoid that.

 

It's a debate and I disagree with this statement. I am understanding, I just plain out disagree. I think that he would need to post his own knowledge of proof, it make it his own and not somebody elses. I understand your point, I just a different point of view from your own.

Yes. This is true, but I would imagine that a small group of very strong believers would still believe in God. Just like in Final Fantasy X-2 some humans supported Yu- Yevon, even he was proved wrong. [ Since UFO's are alright for a example, I'm guessing X-2 is too.]

Like I said before, the seventh day counts.

Are we back at little children's school again ? I'm so terribly sorry teacher :.-.:

No they just give us porno magazines.:.-.: note the sarcasm here.

The way that you were acting and typing before was like you seemed to believe that every single scientist was a evolutionist. About the sixth day, I've answered that already. It was so in-depth 'a person who posts asinine ' wouldn't of answered it back so quickly and with proof, backup to support.

Lol. This is such a huge major lie, if I was drinking soda right now, I would be spat all over the computer screen because of the huge laughter. You have insulted my knowledge and intelligence several times. 'Seriously, do they teach you to read in your school?'


That is a direct insult at somebody's intelligence. Don't lie Styx.

At least your being honest this time. Okay, this your personal opinion and there is totally nothing wrong with that. If you believe that creationism is hollow, then okay. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes this is probably most likely to be true.

wth. You just said before that your not insulting me. Have you read the rules ? Debates are supposed to be a intelligent chat between two different points of views and its supposed to be a fun debate. Seeing that your a mod and you don't know the rules here, I'm worried. Saying comments like this, are just wrong. Carry on like this Styx and I'll PM a higher moderator to complain. Seriously, this is a debate. Not a tease- thread.

.


This is copied and pasted from above.

Debates are supposed to be a intelligent chat between two different points of views and its supposed to be a fun debate. Seeing that your a mod and you don't know the rules here, I'm worried. Saying comments like this, are just wrong. Carry on like this Styx and I'll PM a higher moderator to complain. Seriously, this is a debate. Not a tease- thread

And what the hell is wrong with that ? I can question whatever I want.

Good on him.

Yet you used a 'bridge' in your modern evolution theory. What's a bridge got to do with modern evolution ?

Yes, but you said that God created the world in six days. I've proven to you that God created the world in seven, and the day of rest counts.

You seem to enjoy attacking the player. As posted above, you have made insults towards my intelligence several times. Roll with the ball yeah, but if I hear one more insult I'm complaining to somebody of higher staff. Like I've said before, this is meant to be a intelligent debate, and a fun one. At the moment, this debate does not feel fun.

wth. This isn't a war, a battle to be won. It's a debate, a discussion. You are acting like this is some kind of important war to be won. It's a debate.
Views are bound to cross, and there is going to be some agreeing and disagreeing. You seem to forget that I only came here because what Pasty Stone said was wrong and felt sorry for those who strongly believe in creationism, and I was curious about evolution and wanted to ask about the missing link.
This hasn't been. " Evolution is false, because off blah blah of a reason " at the very beginning. Instead of trying to dig knives at me, you should notice why I'm here to begin with.

 

Fair enough. But I know how Patsy Stone debates. If he doesn't post his views, then it isn't because he is cowering away.

That is true. But taking the bible literally may lead to situations like this:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/
(This particular example is a parody site but similar communities exist, like the Westboro baptist church).

It counts in the creation story, but God didn't create anything on the seventh day, thus saying he created the world in six days is still correct.
If I were to say "The creation story spans six days.", then I would be wrong. They are subtle difference, but in a creationist debate they matter.

It was still a question, wasn't it?
When you have misread, or misinterpreted, or twisted as much of my posts as you have it's not too uncommon to wonder whether you were doing so deliberately or whether you're really not as...practiced in the Comprehensive Reading of debates and arguments.

Furthermore you have accused me of being insulting before I said the example you used.

I know the rules, thank you. And I know that I flirt with breaking them, but so far I believe I haven't broken any.
Sure, I questioned your reading skills, and your knowledge on the theory of evolution, and I've teased and provoked you but I haven't resorted to name-calling or anything.

Of course, as long as you can admit that your criticism was wrong when such is due.

 

In a debate you are supposed to learn.
Everyone in this thread has given you more than enough information on the missing link. Just look at my signature!! Your ideas have been shot down a thousand times, yet you still ignorantly hold on to them even though you have no proof for them.

Patsy isn't going to apologize, and we all know it.

*reads link, and then double reads it*
Yeah if I created a lego castle in 6 days, and then rested on the seventh then the seventh day doesn't count. Just because I looked at my lego castle doesn't mean that I did anything to it. Same thing with God.
In six days he created the universe, and then he curled up on his bed and dreamt on the seventh day.
The seventh day does not count as a day of creation.
Six not seven.
Your link didn't prove anything.

 

"You don't know anything about it" wasn't necessarily to be taken literally, but you don't seem to know much about evolution outside of the fact that Charles Darwin had a hand in it. Which would not really present a problem, if you had not proceeded to make statements about it that were false, whatever your intent behind making them was. What you said about the missing link wasn't correct, and I've already pointed that out. Nearly everything else you've said about evolution in this thread was either misleading or downright false.

Also, I don't believe you ever accused me of making assumptions about the Bible (that would be Styx). However, you did accuse me of other things at least twice:

I don't think you necessarily meant it this way, but I took it as you accusing me of assuming that most of the scientific community shared my opinion.

However...

...that is definitely you accusing me of assuming the same thing as before.

So yeah.

I don't really care if you're a "hardcore creationist", you certainly came off to me that way even if you said otherwise. Even if you were being the devil's advocate or whatever though, what really matters is you posted statements about evolution and I responded to them. That's about it, really.

 

Try again. I used that bridge example for another argument.

Yeah, because throwing a random link out there proves everything. This is what I meant when I said that you're not very fond of logic. Read what Jedi says; resting is not part of a creation process.
It is part of the creation story, not of the creation process.

If I made insults to your intelligence, then I must have found them to be in order. You really haven't given an intelligent impression in this debate. Your sources have been questionable, your attacks on evolution have been refuted and you have misinterpreted my posts rather often.
Debates can't be fun for everyone. More often than not you'll see your own views criticized or even second guessing yourself.

Why do people debate, if not to convince themselves of the validity of their thinking? What is a discussion if it isn't crossing swords with each other and put each other's views to the test?

And you should notice what this thread is about.
This isn't the "Reprimand other members for their behaviour" topic. This is a debate thread about Creationism, which we have been doing.

Calling out other members can be done via PM or VM. By entering a thread with a certain subject I expect that person to at least have an interest in that subject.

 

Wow someone is a sore loser. You can't even readly admit that Styx was right, so you change the subject and try to take a stab a Styx.
His comment was

Hmmmmmm I don't see anything rude here at all.
What he listed was true the Bible and Terminator are both works of fiction.
When Styx said "Without making a fool out of yourself"
he/she meant that his/her argument can't be foiled, or scrunched up. The only way you can foil it up (in your mind) is by throwing away your logic (Aka making a fool of yourself), which is exactly what you did again. I am listing the events I have seen, and if you don't like what you hear then maybe you should try to improve yourself instead of kicking others down.

 

I haven't seen him post anything in days. Which is strange, because he has so many people at the moment to support him on the theory of evolution being a better theory to believe in than creationism. Actually, typing this, I don't think he is cowering away.

That forum is a complete joke, it's a troll forum. I don't think that a troll forum counts. Not even in a example.

This debate is actually 'creationists are dumb' agree/ disagree ? That's what Pasty Stone started with, anyways. Anyways, I'm pretty agreeable with this statement about the creation.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, this is only my second debate in life. I'm still novice in the world of debating and I came here only to mention what Pasty Stone said was wrong. I didn't want to debate creationism or evolution at all. If you want to know about my English knowledge, we are studying Shakespeare's Hamlet and we are just done with Anne Frank.

I'm not accusing you of being insulting. I actually think that you ARE being insulting.

To me that's insulting, but whatever each to their own.

The missing link question was at the very beginning, not right now. What ideas ? My idea was plainly that I disagree with Pasty Stone in saying that creationists are brainless and dumb. If you want my idea, that's it. I want to say that creationists are not dumb, I haven't posted any proof on that because so far it's you and Styx misunderstanding why I'm truly here.

How many times, I have I said that I'm here because I believe that people who believe in Creationism are not dumb ? Get the real message. Creationism versus Evolution, I don't give a care. People can believe in whatever they want.

So. Do I care ? No.

My link was to prove that the seventh day kind of counts. Whatever, just read what Styx said about the seventh day and sixth day logic. He explained it better.

This clearly well, (subliminally) means that you want more information from me about why I don't believe in evolution ? well, no. I do have proof tucked away somewhere, but I'm not going to show it you. Why ? Because for the millionth time. I'm here for any sort of creationism versus evolution debate. I'm here to support that people who believe in creationism are not idiotic, like Pasty Stone mentioned. Do you finally understand the memo ?. You can 'question' my intelligence, but I can actually question yours in return. Why ? Because I said that I'm only hear to disagree what Pasty said. I'm pretty sure, I even bolded it in for one stage for you to try and make it clear, but it hasn't dug in yet. If your so sharp, how come you have noticed it ? when it has been a) several times and b) bolded out to you. You may act clever in the subjects of evolution, but reading what other people have said... fail.

Oh, lol. Didn't you like, give me a F because you thought I failed at reading what other people have mentioned within the debate ? oh, lol, lol, lol.
This is completely classic. I sir, give you a nice F in return. :rockdover:

Debates are to make people side with your own view. Nothing about swords, we are not playing Zorro here.

Then you should stop being so insulting to what other people say...

Uhm. No, just ... no. Have you even read some things that Styx has said ?


Hmmmmmm I don't see anything rude here at all.
What he listed was true the Bible and Terminator are both works of fiction.
When Styx said "Without making a fool out of yourself"
he/she meant that his/her argument can't be foiled, or scrunched up. The only way you can foil it up (in your mind) is by throwing away your logic (Aka making a fool of yourself), which is exactly what you did again. I am listing the events I have seen, and if you don't like what you hear then maybe you should try to improve yourself instead of kicking others down.[/QUOTE]

You can't even find the things that Styx said that were even borderline insulting.You tried to use a un-insulting example, to try and make it like Styx has said nothing wrong at all. Clever move, it had potential... but it failed.
LOL do you want me to choke up in laughter ?

and if you don't like what you hear then maybe you should try to improve yourself instead of kicking others down

Clearly you're just hear to support Styx, and nothing else. Styx is going around knocking me down everysingle chance he can get, and your like ' your the one kicking people down.' Be a man, grow some pants and stop cuddling somebody else like a baby.

BTW. How can I be a sore looser when this debate was retarted from the very day it was born ?

To me, winning this debate would be like winning a video game... you've won, but it was completely pointless outside of reality.

 

You came to the debate zone, where it was science versus creationism. Then you and other people pop up saying "Oh, evolution has no proof what so ever!". You pressed the big button saying evolution is a crazy idea from wonderland, so yes you were only asking for a debate.
We evolutionists proceed to give you all the proof we could to debunk your inacurate accusations about evolution, yet you ignore every single shread of evidence for over three pages. Then you start getting pissy with the moderator for making accurate points that you can't debunk, so then you threaten the moderator. That type of behavior is not only unwanted it is actually demoting your cause. Your cause to prove that creationists are not stupid. It demotes everytime you ignore the evidence that we give you. It demotes everytime you lose an argument, but then deside to twist it around in an untruthal, and childish manner. The only reason I say any of this is because I used to be in your shoes, and that I don't want you to make the stupid mistakes that I to this day regret.

For the first three posts the idea was to show some stupid things about creationism; however Gobolo entered the thread and wanted to hear what science knows about the world, and others like Bushido, and you fueled the heat for evolutionists to make our point across. What would be a simple proccess of explaining somthing to you has taken us over three pages, because you don't listen to anything that we say.

Ah, yes now we are getting back on topic to the certain points of creationism that are utterly stupid. That was the main idea.

Well at least we can agree on somthing.

That's because you responded to his un-insulting example. That is your fault not mine. If he was insulting you then I did not see it for some reason.

First off what is wrong for defending someone/somthing that you believe in? Is being a man to you mean being emotionless?
A real man is someone who stands up for what they believe. I believe that anyone that starts spreading around BS just because they aren't getting there way need to be dealt with.

 

It is a troll forum, but one that tries to convey how Christians would be if they'd actually take the bible literally to the letter.
Furthermore, I knew you were going to say that so I gave a more valid real-life example in the very sentence after that.

Comes down to the same thing imo, but whatever works.

That wasn't the intention at all actually.

We know why you were here. I did understand (whether I cared is a different matter). But you did question evolution at one point, and we just returned the favor. The subject of evolution eventually started to play a larger role in both our replies (until recently), but we're both to "blame" for that (even though it is, as I said, conform to the original purpose of this thread). It takes two people to have a discussion.

Sorry to burst another of your fragile bubbles, but I didn't misunderstand you. I've known from the very beginning that your core message was that "Anyone is free to believe anything.". But that was hardly an answer to the statement at hand. Patsy questioned the intelligence of creationists, not their rights.

Besides, the best way to solidify your claim of creationists not being dumb is by holding your own in a debate on said subject. You may not be a hardcore creationist but you are still a creationist. Hence a demonstration of wit and wisdom would be in order for you to back your claim of "We're not stupid." up.

What you said about "siding with your own view" is basically a paraphrased version of "convincing them", which I quite literally said in that piece of text you quoted. And the crossing swords thing was a figure of speech...something you may want to familiarize yourself with if you want to have a go at understanding Hamlet.

These for example are indications that you're being a sore loser.
And sadly, you too have sunken to the depths of insult by now. You would've had more credibility if you didn't give in to that.

It's true that debates such as this one hardly ever serve a practical use. But the same can be said about religion in general.


Guys, I think we should leave it at this.
February, I don't want to silence you or anything but if you still have anything to say in your defense then do so by other means (VM or PM).
This thread should focus on the Creationism debate from now on.

 

Ok, I just found this, and I would like to join into the debate, so could I please get a recap on what points have been made so far?

Thank you very much for calling me a ******, it will feel very good to prove you wrong.

 

Alright to get back on track.

All bible banter aside it is not entirely unreasonable to conceive of something much larger than ourselves--a higher power, if you will-- that had a hand in setting the universe into motion. I'll leave the people who know the story to fill in the gap, but if we take it word for word we're cruising for another shite storm. That being said we can assume that this being was able to set things in motion because it resides outside of time and space, a la Guardian's proposition. That being said, there's still the paradoxical issue of explaining something interacting with space and time when it doesn't interact with it to begin with (i.e. it's outside of it).

Moreover, discussing Creationism implies intelligent design. And there is a substantial evolutionary evidence in the physiology of many animals that does not suggest intelligent or purposeful work. The giraffe for example has it's laryngeal nerve run all the way from it's brain down it's neck, loop around the heart and back up to the larynx. For lack of a better word it would've been smarter for the nerve to run from the brain straight to the voice box (we're talking about a few inches) instead of traveling several feet down and back up again to the voice box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2bkZfHw4

 

Ahh, but evolution states that it happens randomly, one trait at a time, right?

So then explain why the Giraffe is alive after all of these:

1. has a long neck, a regular sized heart would never be able to pump enough blood to the brain for the giraffe to remain alive.
2. has a strong heart to counter this, but when the giraffe bends it's head down to drink water, the heart would crush the brain with the combined force of it's presure and gravity.
3. has a special block in it's head to counter this, slows down the blood long enough to have the heart itself slow down.
4. but what happens when a predator comes along, and the giraffe springs up and runs, the heart will take so long to get back up to speed, that the giraffe would fall uncounsious, and be eaten.
5. but the block in it's head also acts like a sponge, and keeps enough blood in the brain for the giraffe's heart to get back up to full power, while the giraffe is running.

Now what is the chance that all of these evolutions happened at the same time, to enough Giraffes for the species to survive?

 

But you're assuming that these features didn't develop over time in coordination with one another. The way that you've presented it yourself implies an interdependence among each of those features. One may have started it first but the others would've occurred to play catch-up due to pressures from natural selection. Evolution as a whole is non-directed and essentially random, but natural selection screens via reproductive fitness.

The long neck may be a case in point. As the necks of giraffes increased due to those with longer necks being able to increase their foraging and thus sustainability (and thus those giraffes that sustained themselves with food in more places outlived those that were limited to foraging on the ground), those with weaker hearts would've died off since their brains wouldn't have received enough oxygen. Those giraffes with strong hearts were the one's that survived and were allowed to pass on their genes for stronger heart muscles. Over time hearts that were too strong ended up crushing certain giraffes' skulls with a combination of blood pressure and gravity when they bent down to drink water. Those giraffes with slightly less constricted portions of arteries were able to stave off the increased pressure to allow their hearts to adjust and survive to pass on their genes.

How it became a spongy blockage I don't know for sure. It's possible that variable pressure dilation's and constrictions across the vascular portion of the neck didn't work out so the blockage developed as a means to allow for consistent pressure throughout. That way getting up to run away from a lion and bending down to take a drink result in the same amount of pressure throughout the movement. those giraffes that got up too fast to run away allowing gravity to force a lot of blood from their heads were eaten. Those whose arterial and venial pathways possessed inconsistencies in pressure throughout were better able to survive and pass on their genes. Again the blockage eventually became porous in order to maintain a consistent dilation/constriction across that portion of the vascular area in order for the heart to have time to slow down/speed up. Thus the vascular region in the neck allots for blood pressure differences throughout the span of slow bends and quick raises of the neck so that the heart can shift between higher and lower "gears". Those that possessed this trait outlived and reproduced more than those that didn't not.

Again, the features that you described are interdependent on one another. The acquiring of traits doesn't occur in a vacuum consisting of a single trait. A shift in one selection pressure more often than not compromises a number of other features forcing them to go along with the change as well.

Now that that is sorted out the philosophical implications of your post come to mind: that the giraffe is a product of intelligent design. While this is a very thin assumption to begin with it only comes back to my comment about the laryngeal nerve. If a god did all that for the giraffe's circulatory system, why the botched laryngeal nerve?

 

Or the vertebrate retina.
Or the blind spot.
Or the human vas deferens.

Evolution is logically bound by constraints, limitations in time and space, where a deity is not. These inefficiencies may not be the biggest of problems but they can be avoided nonetheless. Evolution can explain them. The intervention of God cannot. Zing!

Sounds very plausible, more so combined with the process of stabilizing selection. Stabilizing selection is a selection model where extreme phenotypes are "selected out" in favor of intermediate phenotypes, in this case extremely strong and extremely weak hearts in favor of regularly strong hearts.

 

And another point is this, if there was an imortal being creating all of this, it would be so much more advanced than us, that we would have no clue how it thinks, if god exists, then no human on earth would be able to match wits with it, so there could be reasons unknown for the so called inefficencies, it could have nothing to do with the survival of that particular species, and be used as an advantage for a different one. But that is only the explination if you choose to belive in god.