Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike,
You can insult me all you want but please understand that it does not
any way strengthen your argument. Also understand that I won't be
participating in personal attacks.
Mike Miller wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:
I've read a number of books/papers/sites in support of evolution and
I haven't found one that addresses the core problems with the theory
itself. It seems that the ideologues on that side of the argument
ignore the problems because some parts *could* make sense if taken in
a vacuum. The blind watchmaker theory seems to have a laundry list of
problems, though I have yet to read the book myself.
Let's just say that your going to remain ignorant and leave it at
that. It isn't my problem to fix all of you. I told you about two
books. I can lead a horse to water...
Let's not. Wow..that was an easy argument to defeat.
How about you buy a book, too? May I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785243631/002-8476775-1547205?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
Why the heck would I want that? It seems to have nothing to do with
evolution. It is a book about Christianity written explicitly to help
Christians to feel better about themselves.
Because you can't truly decide which theory is the most likely without
understanding the alternatives to the best of your ability. I'm not
saying you have to learn everything about every possible explanation,
but checking out one that millions upon millions of people believe may
not be such a bad idea, even if it causes you to challenge some
long-held beliefs.
Maybe you should name one such person. I don't think Michael Behe,
the guy most people would name first, doesn't believe in evolution,
he just believes that it is possible that there was some divine
intervention in addition to the evolutionary process. Am I wrong?
He's a religious ideologue too.
There are thousands of educated individuals in this country that
strongly belief in Christianity. I suppose your argument is that they
can't possibly be true scientists, despite many holding advanced
degrees in fields of science, if they don't agree with you and
therefore should be excluded.
You probably can't even tell how confused you are. This debate was
about evolution. You were going to tell me the names of some
legitimate scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution. Oh,
wait...
I am assuming you wrote this before reading below.
Here is a list of general scientists who support creationism:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci
And here is a list of just biologists:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci
But that's a list of names of supposed scientists. It doesn't show me
what they believe. The first one I looked at hasn't published a paper
in more than 35 years.
They are all associated with the organization in question. You are just
building straw man arguments now.
By the way, some legitimate scientists do believe other theories.
You don't see that because your criteria for "legitimate" includes
"agrees with me."
Who are you talking about? And why are their names being held in
secret?
Secret? See above.
So all the scientists who don't believe in evolution work for the
Institute for Creation Research? Sorry, but that web page doesn't say
that those people listed do not believe in evolution.
Actually, it says exactly that. Let me provide a quote since you
obviously didn't spend 30 seconds glancing at the site:
2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?
No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world
who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive
survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find
out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or
creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus
evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret
depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.
Also, reference the thousands of books written by individuals other
than evolutionists on the topic. The ACLU has not yet succeeded in
making it illegal to voice an opinion outside the liberal agenda.
(Sorry, cheap shot there...)
Cheap, maybe, but it is a clear profession of ignorance. You don't
even know what the ACLU is.
I find that many of those who support the ACLU don't really know what it
is. Let me ask you, do you support the ACLU?
If so, perhaps you can explain why exactly the ACLU thinks the National
Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which actively supports and
encourages sexual molestation of minors, deserves their army of lawyers
on its side? Do they support the legalization of child abuse?
Why did the ACLU threaten to sue the city of Los Angeles for having a
very small cross on their seal while ignoring the massive Indian god in
the foreground?
Simple. The ACLU is an anti-Christian and immoral organization seeking
to promote an agenda on a massive scale.
Nothing has ever happened to alter Darwin's theory in a substantial
way. It's pretty much now what it was in 1859. Every discovery
we've made in molecular biology has served to support Darwin.
You're just making things up.
Not at all. The "theory" is constantly being adjusted based on new
evidence, but not adjusted with the honest intent of discovering the
truth.
No, it isn't. I just wrote "you're just making stuff up," and then
you come out with this crap.
I have little choice but to respond to your rants and personal attacks
since you offer little or no real substantive arguments.
Virtually every article I've read from evolutionist ideologues about
new evidence maintains the attitude of "wow, we were wrong..
There is no such article.
I can see how you are an authority in what I've read and even in what
exists in the entire world of written work.
I think some Indian tribes believed that the world came out of a
turtle's butt. That's another leading contender, just as believable
as your ideas. I see those creation theories as tied for a distant
second after Darwin's theory.
And they are included in my edits.
Do you mean that you added the idea that the world came out of a
turtle's butt to a Wikipedia entry about evolution? That's very fair
minded of you, but also completely stupid.
Don't try to alter my argument to fit your prejudices, please. I am
saying that the article shouldn't falsely claim that no other theories
for the very existence of life exists. I am not necessarily saying it
should specifically name every theory, but that a mention should
probably be made for the major competing theories. How about we say it
should mention theories with more than a few hundred million supporters?
Do I consider their views valid? No. But I, for one, am not too much
of an ideologue to acknowledge their existence when discussing the
topic. And just for good measure: I consider those views to be about
as believable as the fallacy that is evolution.
Because you are a complete fool. You are deluded. You pretend to
know the facts and evidence, but you haven't shown here that you know
*anything* at all about evolution.
Once again, I must remind you that personal attacks do absolutely
nothing to strengthen your case.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact