Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

Although the idea that we are a failed experiment does come to mind every time I watch the news or see another human being.

---

Then I sincerely hope you are happy in your lonely little world, if you can't even bear the sight of another human being. I gather, then, that you think yourself the epitome of human elovution, the most brilliant mind ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

Every time I read your self-proclamation I get the itches. It seems more that you _think_ yourself some ‘great questioner’ until you find a theory (or ‘answer’) that you’re comfortable with.

---

And you I notice throw snide remarks and downright insults at anyone you disagree with. Touching. I question and manage to remain civil, even when disagreeing. You make no secret that you feel everyone else is a dolt for believing anything less that what you proclaim is the truth. All we have a right to is an *informed* opinion? And, I take it, you will inform us what that opinion is? And excuse me, but we are the ones who are supposed to be crazy? Hum... :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

extreme),
…and I find the idea of debating someone that subscribes to a “literature” forum but negates the works of William Shakespeare and the Brontes as dismissible something along the lines of ‘colossally wasting my time’.

---

So I don't like the Brontes' writing and I'm not into Shakespeare. If you disagree with me there, post it on that forum. If you feel you're "colossally wasting" your time debating with me, then don't. You are probably a person who would never step out of the way for a fool. I on the other hand, always do. :) Most civilly yours. Dragon out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Then I sincerely hope you are happy in your lonely little world, if you can't even bear the sight of another human being. I gather, then, that you think yourself the epitome of human elovution, the most brilliant mind ever.

---

Flip back some: never assume. (tis good advice, even for someone ‘always questioning’)
And don’t paraphrase me.
My words are right there in front of you.
Don’t just read them: comprehend them.
No need to create a little back-story or embellish.

Quote:

---

And you I notice throw snide remarks and downright insults at anyone you disagree with. Touching. I question and manage to remain civil, even when disagreeing.

---

Interesting that someone cracking your ‘debate’ open to show you its hollow interior (as if the exterior wasn’t malnourished enough) is deemed as ‘uncivil’.

Quote:

---

All we have a right to is an *informed* opinion?

---

You honestly think anyone should just blab on about anything they know nothing about? (rhetorical question, simply based on your above ‘observations’).

Conversation is already dying out; let’s not give any wanker with a modem and a keyboard the ‘right’ to step on the ‘soapbox’.
Or to put it in more ‘hip’ terms: if you’re gonna come: come correct.

Quote:

---

And, I take it, you will inform us what that opinion is?

---

I’m not that bold. Nor have the time.
Informed opinions usually ring a bit stronger than the nonsense. Usually.

Don’t get so slighted, I’m not out to get you. “intelligent design” simply has no content. Since there is no content there is no argument.
(I think I’m paraphrasing (or maybe directly quoting) Dr. Daniel Dennett there…)

You kids unearth (pun intended) some, bring it forth.

quite fascinating the...evolution of this thread.

best quality coffee spilled everywhere, is spreading a fresh aroma...
I light a cigarette and say: "eppur si muove!"

Religious discussion are always sensitive, causing the most upset. However, it is good to remember that we all come here to exchange ideas as well sharing our views and it is these opinions that we disagree with. Please do not attack personally those who disagree with your views. We cannot expect others to change their beliefs just because we say so.

If you cannot accept this and/or do not want your opinions to be criticised by others, please stay away from these threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

Flip back some: never assume. (tis good advice, even for someone ‘always questioning’)

---

Quite right. I apologize. As Sherlock Holmes always said, "It is a mistake to theorize without all the facts."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

Interesting that someone cracking your ‘debate’ open to show you its hollow interior (as if the exterior wasn’t malnourished enough) is deemed as ‘uncivil’.
I’m not out to get you. “intelligent design” simply has no content. Since there is no content there is no argument.
(I think I’m paraphrasing (or maybe directly quoting) Dr. Daniel Dennett there…)

You kids unearth (pun intended) some, bring it forth.

---

Neither am I out to get you. I just don't think you've proved me wrong. Mendel allowed for mutations, yes. A mutation is a variation from the norm, a result other than the one one should expect given a set of circumstances. It just adds another factor into the equation and lengthens the odds of its occurance. That's all I'm trying to say.

Pshaw.... since when did Mutation ever mutate something for the better as evolution claims to have done? Also, one cannot 'mutate' so far as to change environment and subtances.... like feathers to scales or vise versa. :brow:

I doubt very much that evolution claims that mutations mutate for the better. What do you mean by 'better'? It appears to me that mutations persist if they maintain or increase a species fit to its environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Religious discussion are always sensitive, causing the most upset.

---

Your sentence is incomplete. Here, I’ll finish it for you…”causing the most upset by those that possibly/potentially question their “beliefs”, many (if not all) times because it is based on little-to-nothing.”

Nothing to get upset about if one has a foundation to base their “opinion” on.

Quote:

---

If you cannot accept this and/or do not want your opinions to be criticised by others, please stay away from these threads.

---

You should really leave this kind of bunk to the moderators.
Everyone’s doing fine here.
Pendragon took a side-swipe and tried to create an image of me, which is fairly typical of someone with no argument and tries to weight the side in their favour - although I have a big feeling you’re addressing your ‘warning’ to me, which is funny, to say the least.

Those that have no thesis will interject with “Pshaw” (for example) from time to time, and while slightly amusing (if not disconcerting), it’s a no blood, no foul arena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I just don't think you've proved me wrong.

---

One would have to make a statement based on something to be proved wrong.
You’re linking Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment [let alone a card deck in a “closed system”] which 1) is only ~150 years old and 2) sorry to say, being shown to have some flaws in certain plant species (I believe it was out of Purdue, I can try to dig up the article if you wish) to an abolishment of evolutionary fact and theory is, as I jested before, trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole.
Far weaker than Behe’s in-depth theory that ‘our blood clots (among other things), so there must be a creator’.
Sorry, "irreducibly complex” (Behe again) doesn’t mean “gawd”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Pshaw.... since when did Mutation ever mutate something for the better as evolution claims to have done?

---

Since it’s been “claimed” countless times.
“Better” meaning survival, I’d guess you’re meaning…
Feel free to read up on some.
Co-inkly-dinkly, the book I mentioned before by Stephan Jay Gould, Full House, subtitle “The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin”, (1996) has a chapter, entitled, “Case Two: Life’s Little Joke”, subtitle being, “Genuine changes in central tendency are meaningful, but our failure to consider variation has led to a backwards interpretation: the evolution of horses”.

Kind funny how a book’s chapter title has more words, let alone merit than some posts around here.
Anyway, I am not always in agreement with SJG, but that’s also part of the fun. And needless to say when he counters something I believe (although he was far smarter and experienced than I could ever hope to be) he _does_ come up with something jusssssssssssst a bit more than “pshaw” (for example).
Assuming this book is still in print, I’ll have Amazon send out a few copies to those interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coffeestained

You should really leave this kind of bunk to the moderators.

---

I am the Moderator, Coffeestained. ;) (along with Logos)


Now, once again, please read the Forum Rules and try to keep your arguments within these, without resorting to personal attacks and disrespecting others in general.

Thank you! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am the Moderator, Coffeestained. ;) (along with Logos)
Now, once again, please read the Forum Rules and try to keep your arguments within these, without resorting to personal attacks and disrespecting others in general.Thank you! ;)

---

My apologies.
Usually mods are labeled as such.
My bad.

But I still feel I was not the one crossing any lines…feel free to close my account if you feel I’ve breeched forum contract…

If anyone feels that I have personally affronted them in any way, please accept my sincere apologies. But I will still defend my beliefs and statements, for I believe they have merit. Once again, for the record, that is that God created everything. Evolution has taken it from there, each species evolving independtly, no "ape into man" type of thing. I base this on the fact that if man hasn't changed since Eden, then why are there so many diffrent races of man? Thus I believe in both, with limitations. I discount chance as mathmatically unsound. That's all. :cool:

Quote:

---

I discount chance as mathmatically unsound.

---

Pendragon, I wonder if you've heard of the Uncertainty Principle? Read Hawking or Davies and you're bound to come across it. "God" does play dice, after all.

Loki out

Pendragon,

I presume then that you think that the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there not being one? That the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there being a purely deductive scientific explanation for the birth of the Universe and the development of life within it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If anyone feels that I have personally affronted them in any way, please accept my sincere apologies.

---

I hope I made it clear that I didn’t feel that way but I _do_ see the fabrication of a person is far more “personal” than me saying, for example, “generally believing in invisible people and fictional places/things is, under several entries in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders), not…healthy.”

Quote:

---

I base this on the fact that if man hasn't changed since Eden,

---

Um, what “fact” are you calling upon when your source material is 1) lifted from far older (and better written, more interesting) texts and 2) completely and utterly mythology

You seem to like to question.
Sometimes.
You may actually enjoy reading some religious texts. And here I mean scholarly work, not mythology.

Quote:

---

I discount chance as mathmatically unsound. That's all

---

You base your math games in a closed system.
[looking outside the window, reflectioning on, ohhhhhhhhhh, millions and millions of years of Earth]
Last I heard Earth is pretty gawdamn open.
-For those not grasping this open/closed thing, feel free to glance at a textbook that is probably taught (unless the education system has crumbled far more than I speculate) in 7th grade…

I respect your **NEED**, and that’s all it is (barring any chemical imbalance or misfiring of neurons), to believe in fantasy figures, but please don’t place them out as “fact”.