your views on creationism please

[justcurious]

I have a different take in evolution on species. It has based on my time in the US Army dealing with soldiers from other countries (England, Japan, Australia) that the strong usually aren't the smartest. Plus actual luck does happen including just plain bad luck. I see that all the time so to me Darwin was wrong in that account. The evolution of species was the animal that was the luckiest over time, not necessarily the strongest.

Good idea but luck being blind, the bad luck versus the good luck would cancel out and not favor any species over time.

 

[Ron Collins]

I have a different take in evolution on species. It has based on my time in the US Army dealing with soldiers from other countries (England, Japan, Australia) that the strong usually aren't the smartest. Plus actual luck does happen including just plain bad luck. I see that all the time so to me Darwin was wrong in that account. The evolution of species was the animal that was the luckiest over time, not necessarily the strongest.

One could say that because of evolved physiology the species in question could have been in a better postion to seize the opportunity luck provided.

 

[tyder001]

Wheeeww! Didn't even try to read every word of this. But, let me say this as to what I have read. I'm gonna get dinged. Anyway, how many of you guys beleive in free speech? How many say you beleive in free thought? Buut, one guy comes along and you all go ape shit batty. Ban him, Please Paul Ban him! He hurt Lance's feelings. He made Dying sun curse. He is a creationist and we must SILENCE HIM! We must bow down and spout "official" jargon and quote the gread dickie dawkins and make sure Lance and company know we are "smart" even though we think men and women are flying around in our skies in "space machines" and the dang government want tell us da truth! BAN HIM NOW!

Fact is I do "beleive" in evolution and admit right now I'm not educated in the subject enough to either entirely refute it or accept it. I pretty much just take it on "faith" the way I take my doctor or dentist or butcher. Sorry, I know to admit one does not have absolute knowledge of "science" on this board is heresy. It's not that I think the guy is right or wrong. It's just that I hate a mob mentality. Buh the bye Lance (if you read this) this was not meant as an attack on you. I just notice that since you are so "skeptical" of the u.f.o. stuff many of the beleivers here seem to "need" you to aknowledge that they are still "smart" even if they are wrong. It's o.k. we all (including me)like to be told we are "smart" or clever. Anyway, I'm for free speech and as long as somebody isn't dragging somebodys name through the mud or making personal threats then the word "BAN" makes me throw up a little in my own mouth.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Holy crap.

I went to bed last night and this thread had just a few pages. Then, a new member joins and all hell breaks loose. As someone that doesn't always agree with people in this forum, I do believe that it is important to argue properly. Openmindedman does not seem to be doing this. He's calling out logical fallacies when there really are none, applying terms like confirmation bias to the scientific peer review process, which is there to prevent it. Also, quoting something without real proof and refusing to provide proof when asked amounts to lying, which as we have seen in the past is against the forum rules. If openmindedman posts again, the quote better be in there, with proof, or he will be banned.
Honestly, he sounds like someone that looks for discussions like this all day long, joins in as a troll, and then leaves. I have no issue with banning him if his next post is not satisfactory to the requests of several members.

Angelo

 

[tyder001]

Well, I can see y'all's minds are clo...errrr made up. Hell, just ban me to cause I'm not gonna lockstep with anybody. Geeeshhh!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

@tyder001
You're not doing anything wrong though. I'm not one to just ban people. You know quite well that I don't agree with a lot of the stuff said in this forum, but I've never been banned. However, I also never just make stuff up and refuse to provide my source when I quote something. If he does that, even if I vehemently disagree with him, I will gladly have him as a member. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this is a private forum with rules. Please don't break them.

That's it.

 

[tyder001]

Well, I can see y'all's minds are clo...errrr made up. Hell, just ban me to cause I'm not gonna lockstep with anybody. Geeeshhh!

Fact is people come on here all the time and yell and fuss and fight. As I said before his (and I honestly don't know him from Adam) but his arguments are no less and no more logical than most stuff I see on here all day. Once ya start putting "requirements" and make yourself the thought police then all honest discourse is over. It's up to the forum "gods" I guess. Maybe it's just the "American" free speech in me. But, I hate a mob or pack mentalitiy. The guy made some points. Lance and others made some points. Why does anybody need to be banned? Nobody (that I saw or heard or read) said they were going to stalk or hurt anybody else. So, if this little "forum" is going to now be the mirror image of the Skeptical Inquier (scuse muh spellin) or the Christainity or Muslim or Athiest Today then I don't want to be around it anyway. Again, Geeeesssh!

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

Fact is people come on here all the time and yell and fuss and fight. As I said before his (and I honestly don't know him from Adam) but his arguments are no less and no more logical than most stuff I see on here all day. Once ya start putting "requirements" and make yourself the thought police then all honest discourse is over. It's up to the forum "gods" I guess. Maybe it's just the "American" free speech in me. But, I hate a mob or pack mentalitiy. The guy made some points. Lance and others made some points. Why does anybody need to be banned? Nobody (that I saw or heard or read) said they were going to stalk or hurt anybody else. So, if this little "forum" is going to now be the mirror image of the Skeptical Inquier (scuse muh spellin) or the Christainity or Muslim or Athiest Today then I don't want to be around it anyway. Again, Geeeesssh!

Angel, I do understand where you are coming from. I just think it's a slippery slope.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Fact is people come on here all the time and yell and fuss and fight. As I said before his (and I honestly don't know him from Adam) but his arguments are no less and no more logical than most stuff I see on here all day. Once ya start putting "requirements" and make yourself the thought police then all honest discourse is over. It's up to the forum "gods" I guess. Maybe it's just the "American" free speech in me. But, I hate a mob or pack mentalitiy. The guy made some points. Lance and others made some points. Why does anybody need to be banned? Nobody (that I saw or heard or read) said they were going to stalk or hurt anybody else. So, if this little "forum" is going to now be the mirror image of the Skeptical Inquier (scuse muh spellin) or the Christainity or Muslim or Athiest Today then I don't want to be around it anyway. Again, Geeeesssh!

There are forum rules, and they're pretty simple. I don't want to ban him, and I won't if he follows the rules. Forum members asked him where he got the quotes he used, and he hasn't (to my knowledge) provided any answers. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, and he won't get banned.

 

[tyder001]

There are forum rules, and they're pretty simple. I don't want to ban him, and I won't if he follows the rules. Forum members asked him where he got the quotes he used, and he hasn't (to my knowledge) provided any answers. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, and he won't get banned.

I guess that's kind of what I'm wondering about. I've been guilty myself of just stating my opinion without backing them up. I've often said I don't like Richard Dawkins or James Randi and I've also said I don't like Pat Robertson or don't agree with fundies of any stripe be they atheist or religious. But, I don't provide "real documentation" as to why. Now, I know you can say that is different because I'm not trying to "prove" or disprove a scientifc or religious point. But, sometime I do rememer a quote by Rupert Sheldrake or Roger Penrose or Carl Sagan and I can't remember the actual place I saw it or even find it. I'll more than likely admit thought. Anyway, he was more than likely trying to "stir" up the forum. Looks like he did that. I just have a knee jerk reaction to banning people. I've noticed the "tone" of the Paracast is more reasonble lately without David B. spitting and going off. I prefer Paul or Greg and their more ..."reasonalbe" way of putting facts out there and questioning without burning all bridges in a hail of self rightousness. Still, after thinking about it I will accept whatever the forum decides to do. I just wanted to get in my two cents.

 

[justcurious]

It's not just about forum rules anyway,

This place is a community... with very wide divergences in opinions (from cesspitcs to paratards ), if everyone is annoyed at him there must have been a reason and that counts too.

What I mean is that if everybody was making remarks on my behaviour, even though I had not breached any forum rules, I would try to understand and reassess my social skills...

My humble view...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's not just about forum rules anyway,

This place is a community... with very wide divergences in opinions (from cesspitcs to paratards ), if everyone is annoyed at him there must have been a reason and that counts too.

What I mean is that if everybody was making remarks on my behaviour, even though I had not breached any forum rules, I would try to understand and reassess my social skills...

My humble view...

I'm more about the rules. If your behaviour goes against the rules that's when the problem arises.

Okay - no more discussion about banning and stuff - let's keep this about creationism and evolution. It's extremely interesting to me how people think that a scientific theory has anything to do with religion.

Angelo

 

[Xylo]

One additional point and then I'm done with you: Human beings have tonsils, wisdom teeth and an appendix. None of them serve any purpose.

.

While I completely agree with the main points of your posts CapnG, I have to object to your mention that tonsils serve no purpose. While one can live without them, Tonsils are one of the first stages of protection from germs and bacteria, and they do serve to fight infection. [source]

Now there are other vestigial remains in the human body that serve no apparent purpose. There's a fairly interesting blog that discusses these as well. My favorite is the Palmaris muscle: since a small percentage of people have it, and some will have it on one arm and not the other.


As far as irrefutable proof that evolution exists, all one has to do is look at the family dog. Dogs have evolved, through selective breeding (not natural selection) into the critters that grace our homes. There are over 200 breeds of dogs and all of them can interbreed-and breed with wolves to produce viable offspring. Yes, your Toy Poodle can mate with your Great Dane and produce fertile offspring.

An interesting experiment is ongoing in Russia, breeding Silver Foxes and selecting for friendliness towards humans, as well as conversely selecting for aggressiveness towards humans (the darker side of the experiment.) Though the animals still remain Silver Foxes, their appearance has changed dramatically. To wit, this experiment is considered a long running experiment though it would be interesting to see if there is a resultant DNA mutation over 100 years, 500 years or a millenia.

We humans are short sighted, relative to time. We live on average 70 years and do not get to see the true long term changes that are occuring over time. The planet is over 4 billion years old, which is over 57million consecutive human lifetimes. So we get to see 1/57,000,000 of change-if we're lucky.

 

[tyder001]

I've gotta start work now so I guess this will be it for a little while.

Lance: Took your nasty pill this AM I see. I am simply anti censhorship and that's just how it is. Didn't know there were such absolute rules for posting on the internet. Thanks for your blathering pompous insult. Other than that i will really try to keep up with all the "bad men with who I disagree here." Peace! 8)

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

I've gotta start work now so I guess this will be it for a little while.

Lance: Took your nasty pill this AM I see. I am simply anti censhorship and that's just how it is. Didn't know there were such absolute rules for posting on the internet. Thanks for your blathering pompous insult. Other than that i will really try to keep up with all the "bad men with who I disagree here." Peace! 8)

Oh buh the bye ah thank ah do unnerstand how an argument even on the internet works Lance. First you state dribble and cloak a word view in the guise of "science" which is a method not a world view but that doesn't have to stop you. then you call up a few friends to join in as you call people retards and idiots and make snippy little remarks. Then you can go back to richiedawkins.cum and tell em all how ya put them there religious skygod belivin idiots in their place. That about it?

 

[tyder001]

Hey I was just trying to "stir up the forum". I thought you liked that.

Lance

Everytime I think I'm out...They pull me back in.

 

[trainedobserver]

Too many gods, too little time.

Godchecker's Mythology Encyclopedia currently features over 2,850 deities.

Plenty of creation stories to choose from.

http://www.godchecker.com/

 

[Han]

Thanks again for your input everyone. I have just read an article about "the dangers of creationism in education" http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm
It outlines the reasons why "creationism" should not be taught along side "evolution"

"The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.
Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.
The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline." ((source))(http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm)


I only dicovered the Paracast and this forum very recently, I can honestly say that it has gone above and beyond all of my expectations. What a brilliant place and show.
for me personaly I am not interested in politeness or niceties, just what people really think. I get that in abundance here LONG LIVE THE PARACAST!!!!!!!!!

 

[Michael Allen]

Interesting reading. Mostly because none of the answers seem to have a grasp of creationism but still have a very biting opinion. Which is usually the case, the harshest opinions come from the least knowledgeable. ;-)

Creationism is flawed in the since that they try too hard to prove the validity of the theory by tearing down evolution instead of standing on their own facts.


Evolution is a tenuous theory, the facts all seem to fall into the basic psychological traps of conformational bias and narrative fallacy. For example when evolutionary scientists decoded Platypus DNA they admitted that "We have no idea how evolution or natural selection could have created the Platypus... but that just shows you how amazing the power of evolution is."

Of course I'm sure most people don't notice the self-validation that goes into that statement. We don't know = Proof of what we believe to be true.

If you apply psychology to the development of evolutionary theory, you very quickly see the patterns that have created a system of belief, not a proven science.

Ok, now I'm going hear all the people start to tear down the little bit of data I just stated... which also falls into the psychological tests that show people attack data they don't agree with.

To me, this is just a proof of what psychology tells us about belief systems. people will defend them beyond facts or reason.

Evolution is not a fact.... defend away.

Allen's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one side labeling the other a "belief" approaches 1.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Fact is people come on here all the time and yell and fuss and fight. As I said before his (and I honestly don't know him from Adam) but his arguments are no less and no more logical than most stuff I see on here all day. Once ya start putting "requirements" and make yourself the thought police then all honest discourse is over.

Oh please, give me a break. Requiring someone to post a source for a quote they have used to buttress their "argument" isn't "though police" type stuff.

It's threads like this, and lazy thinking like this, that make the Paracast Forums less and less interesting to me with each passing day. By all means, however - do continue.

In the meantime, I would like to offer this quote from a prominent evangelical who has been a leader of the ID and creationist "movement" for decades now: "I hate to admit it, but I've been wrong for over forty years now. I've finally seen the light of rationalism, and have come to accept that there is no God."

When challenged to provide a source for that quote, I will simply obsfucate, then refuse, then change the subject. But trust me - the quote is real. Honest.

 

[tyder001]

Your minds are made up. Sorry I tried to have a civil debate on the merits of banning. Preach on! Buh the bye Anthony Flew a promintent atheist changed his mind. Nope didn't become an evangelical but did refute athesim. I guess everybody can pull names and sling mud though.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

Your minds are made up. Sorry I tried to have a civil debate on the merits of banning. Preach on! Buh the bye Anthony Flew a promintent atheist changed his mind. Nope didn't become an evangelical but did refute athesim. I guess everybody can pull names and sling mud though.

When did thought about the nature of reality and God and free speech become lazy? I guess i"m really not "smart" enough for this here forum.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Your minds are made up. Sorry I tried to have a civil debate on the merits of banning. Preach on! Buh the bye Anthony Flew a promintent atheist changed his mind. Nope didn't become an evangelical but did refute athesim. I guess everybody can pull names and sling mud though.

If he found God and decided to become religious, what difference does it make?