Wrin wrote:
Radio wrote:
Tossrock wrote:
lawlzevolutiondebating means (<s>no offense</s>) that people who try and argue against evolution tend to be, how you say, <i>fucking moronic</i>. <s>You've certainly proven otherwise for yourself, but there you have it.</s>
Fixed.
Radio, you've been a little bit...overly...abusive lately in some of your posts. What the hell's going on? It seems to be kind of random...
In this instance, abuse is not intended. Whether it is regarded as abuse, I don't necessarily care. Simply put though, this is not an instance of a smart individual capably arguing a controversial position. He may very well be intelligent. His arguments here do not prove this, as they are hardly capable ones, using every sleight of hand available to him.
Quote:
So… why, then, besides the fact that it’s unpleasant to admit that we’re beholden to a Being much greater than ourselves, and are incapable of making restitution on our own, is it ‘bullshit’ to believe in a mythical progenitor? Heck, Hinduism, one of the most popular religions on earth right now, believes we came from milk. Very well divinely churned, infinite milk. Holy cow. Literally. Technically, so does Buddhism, one of the most respected religions on the planet. And evolution believes that natural processes that have a zero percent success rate are responsible for life, the universe, and everything. Huh. People will believe the craziest things.
Quote:
he fact is, none of us were there, at least not on any kind of scientific record. We can’t say for sure we existed more than three seconds ago…
Quote:
Still, we talked for a while, and then he said the strangest thing. He's not a Christian, and when he'd gone into astronomy, like any good kid who learned everything he could, he was an atheist. Recent surveys, he told me, indicated that 75% of astronomers started our atheists. By retirement age 75% of astronomers ended theists or more religious. Interesting reversal of roles. I thanked him and left, feeling dejected, not realizing the importance of what he said at the time. Funny how life works like that.
Quote:
Yet, ultimately, we still fail to prove anything. Because the sources are under debate to crediblity, we can't rely on them... unless we choose to. Ultimately, this is what it all comes down to. If you look at it in any way, no matter what, it's all a choice. A choice on what to believe, what to accept, and why.
Quote:
Given all the evidence that we have, we've proven that either a) no one has found the truth yet (because again, the post-Big Bang events have zero percent chance to actually succeed in making us as we are, and obviously, anything with religion in it can't be trusted by science) or b) someone has found the truth and there are things that obscure it so it's not obvious to all. I'd tend to fall under b) myself, but again, it's a choice.
Quote:
In science, we're essentially guessing about everything, based on reason and logic and repeatable experiments. If this is our only standards were reason and logic, we get to the point where we question even everything we experience and recieve, according to our senses. Who is to say that we aren't experience a consentual mass-hallucination right now? Logically, we have no reason to deny it, since we know that our own senses can be fooled, they can't be trusted in all things, and if they can't be trusted in all things, then why trust them at all?
Quote:
The fact is, according to science's basic tennets, if we weren't there, we can't define it as science. For anything that lacks a historical record, we can't assume that we were there. That means, it's not science.
Quote:
Instead, evolutionary theory became suddenly very popular as a means of excising God from a group of scientists who wanted something other than the oppressive religion they'd grown up under. Of course Darwin's theory matched the Deep Time... he'd made his theory based on it. We've now proven that Darwinian evolution is more rediculous than most theories, yet evolution itself persists, just in very different forms. It's getting more refined, more reasonable, and more accurate as time goes on... it's just not there yet, in my opinion, and in the opinion of several very well respected multi-PhD athiests.
Quote:
Finally, even given that evolution is proven to happen today, we'd have to prove, for creationist (like I am) that it happened in the past, which is patently impossible. We can conjecture, and point, and say 'well it's logical that...' but there is no way to prove it.
Quote:
I've never intentionally stated that evolutionists are rediculous, only one specific evolutionary theory. Specifically Darwinian evolution, because it's based on a flawed scientific theory that has been proven false. Current evolutionary theory (Post Neo Darwinian evolution) is based off of scientific theories that are not proven false, but their original foundation (Darwinian evolution) was.
These statements are utter bullshit. Semantics, Jack Chick science, ridiculous notions of "evolution is because of atheism!" and completely ignoring logical statements(no, very low odds do not automatically equal "zero chance of success" despite the repitition) do not equate to evolution being seriously flawed or even remotely near the same levels as arguments from religious sources. Creationist theories are junk. Evolution
is superior to every single one of them.
Simply being more polite than Mibbers does not make one a good debater.
And one last note: bullshit conciliatory statements are just that. Bullshit. "I'm totally not trying to tell you that evolution is worthless, nosirree, but... evolution is worthless." You can change the phrases to whatever synonymous ones you want, but every time, it's nothing more than an insult to your target/reader's intelligence. Say what you mean and mean what you say. None of this nonsense.