Pompous evangelical laymen opposed to science

[Mr. Neil]

Salutations!

 

I'm a born again Christian. That is... I'm a TrueChristian™! I would like to voice my opposition to science. Particularly, that dirty, filthy, satanic theory of evolution.

 

Scientists are really arrogant. They think that because they can put a man in space or make cars run on hydrogen that they know something! Sure, science is useful, but it's clearly limited in its application. If science was really everything everything that the atheists claim it's cracked up to be, then why do scientists only give us partial answers to things? They think that it's perfectly alright to have only part of the picture now. so that they can come back and fill in the rest some time later. Poppycock!

 

They think they can infer things without seeing them directly. That's just crazy atheist/secularist thinking! Christian nations, like the United States, know better than to use inference when doing science. We don't pretend to know what we can't see. And that's why we were the ones to come up with the atom bomb first and dropped it on those evil atheist Japanese!

 

Scientists can't see evolution happening, and they know it! They think that their silly molecular sciences proves something like common descent. Wrong! Clearly commonality is proof positive of an all-at-once creation, as God was only using commonalities while creation similar species. That's all. Why don't those idiot scientists see this!? It's right there in the Bible!

 

Molecular biology is a pseudo-science. The United States shouldn't fund institutions responsible for such lies! It has no application in the real world! None whatsoever!!!!!

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go take some insulin, as I am diabetic.

[DoubleDee]

They think they can infer things without seeing them directly.

OMG! That is just funny

[Vigile]

For accuracy sake you should perhaps consider misspelling a few more words, ramble off in several directions never quite getting to the point, and use less periods (run on sentences are far more efficient).

[invictus1967]

Many scientists are very arrogant. They hide behind the phrase “open-mind” because they don’t know the answer. They have no idea how life started. Then, with no starting point, they insist they are going in the right direction while they search for their version of the “truth”.

 

When someone tries to give them a possible explanation they have the arrogance to call that someone stupid for not buying into their ideology of “open-mindedness” or whatever the most recent catch phrase is for NOT KNOWING.

[Mr. Neil]

Invictus, I can't believe how stupid you are that you can't even see the blatant absurdity of your position. And you wonder why I have to treat you like a child.

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

That is beautiful. I write about the arrogance of calling someone else stupid and you come back with a post calling me stupid.

 

My point could not have been proven any better.

[invictus1967]

Madame M,

 

I said science has no idea where they are starting yet they insist they are going in the right direction. I am saying nothing has been proven yet they throw out anything that goes against their assumptions, insisting they are right without actual proof.

 

My point was this-

For anyone to say their unproven is better than mine is very arrogant.

[crazy-tiger]

Madame M,

 

I said science has no idea where they are starting yet they insist they are going in the right direction. I am saying nothing has been proven yet they throw out anything that goes against their assumptions, insisting they are right without actual proof.

 

My point was this-

For anyone to say their unproven is better than mine is very arrogant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can we have a smiley for someone shooting themself in the foot?

[I Broke Free]

I said science has no idea where they are starting yet they insist they are going in the right direction. I am saying nothing has been proven yet they throw out anything that goes against their assumptions, insisting they are right without actual proof.

 

Science has no spokesperson making or insisting any such claim. Science has no predetermined direction, but instead goes wherever the evidence leads it. Science is just a body of evidence, nothing more, and nothing less. You make it sound like science has an agenda to ignore evidence that would rock the boat of established theories. While individual scientists may do this for personal gain, there are always those out there ready to prove them wrong and take the limelight. The fact the science is always is changing does not bother me in the least; in fact it gives me great comfort.

 

Science ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven, not because it is not possible. If you cannot test something with the scientific method it cannot be included as part of scientific knowledge.

[invictus1967]

You guys are making my point for me.

 

Science “ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven” yet it embraces evolution and spontaneous generation which are also NOT proven.

 

Again, my point is-

It is arrogant to say your unproven is better than mine.

[Dio]

You guys are making my point for me.

 

Science “ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven” yet it embraces evolution and spontaneous generation which are also NOT proven.

 

Again, my point is-

It is arrogant to say your unproven is better than mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Easy. Life and natural selection are observable. The supernatural is not - it is a figment of your imagination.

[white_raven23]

You guys are making my point for me.

 

Science “ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven” yet it embraces evolution and spontaneous generation which are also NOT proven.

 

Again, my point is-

It is arrogant to say your unproven is better than mine.

 

Evolution has been proven you twit. It's the origin that doesn't yet have a satisfactory answer.

 

Evolution -the process by which things change over time

Origin - the catalyst that starts something

 

Evolution does not prove or disprove any origin. It is the expression or reaction caused by the origin.

 

You want to confuse origin and evolution together. Uh-Uh.

[invictus1967]

Life is indeed observable, but how it originated is not.

 

Natural selection, if anything, goes against the very theory it is suppose to support.

 

Natural selection is process of a species disappearing because it cannot survive in its environment. Evolution is all about the creation of one species from another.

 

Through natural selection, the gene pool is decreased. If you are decreasing the number of possible genetic traits, evolution falls apart.

 

If the theory of evolution is correct, the number of species should be increasing as new ones evolve rather than decreasing as they clearly are.

 

Again, to say your unproven is any better than mine is to be arrogant.

[crazy-tiger]

Evolution has been proven you twit. It's the origin that doesn't yet have a satisfactory answer.

 

Evolution -the process by which things change over time

Origin - the catalyst that starts something

 

Evolution does not prove or disprove any origin. It is the expression or reaction caused by the origin.

 

You want to confuse origin and evolution together. Uh-Uh. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's been doing that for ages...

 

Neil came up with this, and it's Invictus to a T.

[Dio]

Call me arrogant then. My unproven is better than yours.

 

Whatever. I knew I shouldn't have replied to your post. I don't have time to waste on this.

[crazy-tiger]

Lets play "Spot the strawmen"

Life is indeed observable, but how it originated is not.

 

Natural selection, if anything, goes against the very theory it is suppose to support.

 

Natural selection is process of a species disappearing because it cannot survive in its environment. Evolution is all about the creation of one species from another.

Number 1...

 

Natural selection is species dying out in areas (doesn't have to be everywhere that species lives) OR adapting to it's environment, often leading to a new species.

Evolution is species dying out in areas (doesn't have to be everywhere that species lives) OR adapting to it's environment, often leading to a new species.

Through natural selection, the gene pool is decreased. If you are decreasing the number of possible genetic traits, evolution falls apart.

Number 2...

 

Through natural selection, the gene pool is decreased OR increased. If the number of possible genetic traits is decreased OR increased, evolution is steady as a rock.

If the theory of evolution is correct, the number of species should be increasing as new ones evolve rather than decreasing as they clearly are.

Number 3...

 

If the Theory of Evolution is correct, the number of species should be increasing OR decreasing as new species evolve and old ones become extinct.

 

 

 

Are you determined to be known as a complete twerp?

[invictus1967]

crazy,

 

You just referred to “an intelligent outside force” in another thread. Now you are trying to argue for natural selection.

 

You can’t have it both ways.

[Ouroboros]

I would like to see one, just one, single animal or plant being created out of thin air, just to prove Creationism.

 

And I still want an answer to why men have nipples and milk glands, and have it explained through Creationism.

[white_raven23]

crazy,

 

You just referred to “an intelligent outside force” in another thread. Now you are trying to argue for natural selection.

 

You can’t have it both ways.

 

 

WHAT??

 

Who the f*** says you can't?

 

Are you trying to imply that you can't believe in god and science?

 

According to what I believe, science is the language of god. Science is the process god uses.

 

To say you can't have it both ways sounds utterly ridiculous to a Deist.

[crazy-tiger]

crazy,

 

You just referred to “an intelligent outside force” in another thread. Now you are trying to argue for natural selection.

 

You can’t have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Get it right!

 

The intelligent, outside force was refering to the process of UN-natural selection, (humans breeding animals) not in reference to any natural selection.

 

 

Stop trying to make out that I've said something I haven't.

[Ouroboros]

Because you men are supposed to be helping out the women folk with the job of nursing babies, but you all won't conform!

 

 

I think there was some research showing that men could produce the milk too from the glands. But only under certain conditions.

[Mr. Neil]

That is beautiful. I write about the arrogance of calling someone else stupid and you come back with a post calling me stupid.

Because you are stupid, as your inability to listen would indicate. I even gave you a detailed, multi-page article, loaded with scientific references, describing the evidences for evolution, but you refused to read it. Therefore, you are being intentionally evasive, and I reserve the right to criticize you for your obvious intellectual dishonesty. And the fact that you have to be dishonest in order to justify your own religious convictions makes you a dumbass.

 

You are not deserving to be treated as anything more than a contemptuous child, whining about a field of science which is about as rock solid as sciences go.

 

And isn't it funny that the only consistant criticism that evolution gets comes from Christians? And the "experts" that these Christians draw their information from are always either crackpots with phony degrees or nitwit apologetic authors. Neither of which have any business criticizing evolution, as clearly none of them are formally educated.

 

At least when I appeal to a majority, it happens to be a majority of educated figures who've spent their lives studying this shit. And there's nothing wrong with that! There is absolutely nothing wrong with referencing a source, such as a molecular biologist, whose had years of training and experience in this field of science and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Real science has checks and balances, and as long as that's in place, then it's reliable. It's when a so-called "scholar" attempts to hide and evade from criticism that said scholar's credibility can be called into question. And who does this? The apologists, creationists, and people with phony baloney degrees.

 

And here we have you, a prime example of someone who is not only not educated in biology, but refuses to be educated! Again, I gave you a perfectly good, scholarly resource, and you refused to read it. There it is, right there! But you called it someone's "homepage".

 

So yeah... fuck you. If you want some respect, start showing a little intellectual honesty, because the only other way I'm going to let up on you, Invictus, is if you just leave this site.

 

Science “ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven” yet it embraces evolution and spontaneous generation which are also NOT proven.

Science ignores the supernatural, because the term is meaningless, dumbass. As soon as you start appealing to magical beings, you've left science. You keep whining about how we don't immediately jump your stupid design conclusion, but you've yet to give us a solid reason why it should even be considered!

 

You missed the irony of the statements I made in my facetious opening post, in which my fundamentalist character said that real science doesn't believe in the unseen, and yet it was the unseen atomic science that lead to the atomic bomb, thus wiping out two Japanese cities.

 

Guess how many people have seen a neutron impacting a atom? The answer: NONE! Yet we can base science on theoretical constructs, such as atoms and particles smashing into each other and releasing energy via nuclear fission.

 

That's exactly the way evolution works! We don't see animals becoming different animals, but we can use that data to further our understanding of molecular biology, so that scientists are able to put insulin-producing DNA into E. coli bacteria, or new pesticides can be created to combat adaptive insects in corn fields.

 

This is real science, Invictus, and it has real world applications. For you to sit here and bash it as though it's somehow worthless is not only ignorant, but considering the applications in which evolution is implied, it's patently immoral for you to behave this way.

[white_raven23]

That's exactly the way evolution works!  We don't see animals becoming different animals.....

 

Actually, if you accept the fossil record, aren't there some fossils of small dinosaurs making the transition to birds (feathers)?

 

If so, it's not a matter of seeing animals becoming different animals, it's a matter of believing what is seen.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, if you accept the fossil record, aren't there some fossils of small dinosaurs making the transition to birds (feathers)?

 

If so, it's not a matter of seeing animals becoming different animals, it's a matter of believing what is seen.

IIRC, The horse is the best mapped out from fossil findings.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

 

Creationists reject fossil records as evidence to evolution though.

 

ID proponents accepts fossil records and even evolution to large degree.

 

-- edit

 

spelling check, I spell like a horses ass...

 

-- edit 2

 

another link:

 

http://horsecare.stablemade.com/articles2/horse_origins.htm

[Mr. Neil]

Actually, if you accept the fossil record, aren't there some fossils of small dinosaurs making the transition to birds (feathers)?

 

If so, it's not a matter of seeing animals becoming different animals, it's a matter of believing what is seen.

You're absolutely right. There are quarries in China full of them. Anyone familiar with the brilliant work of Mark Norell should be familiar with them. Not to undermine his Chinese counterparts. I just don't remember any of their names at the moment.

 

Consider this as well. Pseudo-scientists, like creationists, will simply assert that the dinosaurs with feathers are really just walking birds. Mmm-hmm... sure they are. But the interesting part is that the fossils with feathers are of the raptor "kind". Remember, creationists say they have no problem saying that animals could microevolve from a similar kind.

 

So if the raptor kind has feathers, and feathered raptors are just walking birds, then the creationists are saying that other animals of the same kind are also walking birds. Very large animals like megaraptor!