Creationism = trying desperately to fit reality into the book of Genesis.

I can't stand it when people say "evolutionists", instead, you should say "thinking people who examine and analyze reality using the scientific method"

If you disagree with the scientific method, then you probably should stop taking medication, using computers, driving automobiles, using electric lights, astronomy and physics, because they are all derived from science.

Cretinists take and take and take the fruits of science yet complain when it conflicts with their religious agenda, the desire to take Genesis word for word.

It's the same myopic sub-mentals who wanted to kill Galileo, poisoned Socrates, throw Oscar Wilde into prison, too ignorant to realize that science is the lens with which we regard our universe with awe and respect.

When fascism hits America, zealot fundamental christians will be marching proudly at the front of the parade waving their flags and praising jesus, eager to re-structure universities and threatening professors to promote their anti-intellectual movement.

Why is that pople who have obviously no real understanding of the issues involved are the most vocal opponents of science? The amount ignorance displayed by Iceman and Capanno is staggering.

People: learn some things about something before you criticize, or you just end up sounding like a raving lunatic or a simple immature half-wit.

Matt,

I submit to you that I have a very real understanding of the issues involved. You just want so badly to be right that you reserve all validity for your own view. I love you anyway.

The thing about the scientific method that doesnt really apply to darwinist evolution is that you cant look at any number of bones, or similarly looking animals..and say "mm..they seem to be alike..they must be related" and thats suppose to fly without any quantitative data or definitive invariables to support it.

If this is science, then its qualitative..as opposed to quantitative..which I buy more.

qualitative science is at best educated guessing.. which is why darwin's evolution is a theory, and shall remain so unless we develop definitive verification for it's claims.. since it involves so much prehistory, time travel (not currently possible) would be the only definitive means of proving it into law.

Until it becomes law, this particular theory that I wouldnt buy with my last dollar, shall remain on my list of things to question.

I'm sorry if your encyclopedia britannica says what it says, Matt.. but some of us dont readily believe anything and everything.. if so, you'd believe God was at least possible.

If you percieve it as ignorance that I (and lots of others) dont accept a theory as solid fact yet, I'm sorry you feel that way.

two things both sides shouldnt do:

Scientists: Dont dare approach any debate mistaking science theory for science fact.

And dont percieve science as the end all to what is. Our science, as you kknow and cant dispute is accurante but very incomplete as far as the scale of things we have yet to know.

Religionists: Dont dare approach with religious texts. They contain the written word of man, which regardless of how strongly you believe the word, is subject to innaccuracy and deliberate variation.

I hate to attack on both sides but the main problem with debates over speculative subjects like God, our origins and such is that scientists use their impressive but incomplete compendium of knowledge and religionists use their holy texts and such, both poking holes in references which already contain enough incompletion and dilution to be the source of the unintelligen debates that result.

The fact is we wont know where we came from until we have all the knowledge of this universe, or close to it..and we may not know definitively if a God ever did exist or does.. because we dont even know what to look for or where to look for it! Our reference points on both inquiries arent solid enough, and no one among us wants to do whats neccesary so that all can go forth and learn the truth... we just want to prove who's right..here and now...when its simply not possible.

I dare anyone to ask "How is it that we go about finding out the truth then?".

My! I've been so busy with my rpg I forgot all about the debate (actually I've been thinking about it, but I've been on a roll and didn't want to stop working on the game....plus all that nonsense about being social...human interaction and whatnot).

I love watching evolutionists get more and more nasty every time you bring up something that contradicts their religion ( ). They don't have any evidence, but as long as they repeat their chant about people who disagree with them being ignorant, and not knowing anything, then that makes everything right.

I'll be around tomorrow. Until then...

Haa.. I dunno about all that but.. I typically come back to see if I can kidnap a programmer to do my bidding .. I haven't got one yet so I can't finish the lil mini project I'm putting together. (I've given up on games for now cuz it takes too long to gather up loyal troops..especially without funding.. but I've got other things in mind.. mainly those set to correct that problem.. but I still need one or two draftees from here and I can still use the program for what i've in mind, tho it's not a game. Afterall gamestudio isnt just for games, right?) ..but I usually come up empty netted..:: cough::..handed...

and end up indulging these lil tribunals outta sheer boredom and lack of anything better to do than cage rattle.

Quote:

---

The thing about the scientific method that doesnt really apply to darwinist evolution is that you cant look at any number of bones, or similarly looking animals..and say "mm..they seem to be alike..they must be related" and thats suppose to fly without any quantitative data or definitive invariables to support it.

---

Have you read Darwin? His method is thoughroughly scientific. As I said, you obviously havent a clue about it, so maybe you should learn some things...For instance, have you ever heard of cladistic phylogeny? This is computer assisted analysis of derived traits, that relies very much on quantification.

What about genetic data? You can't get any more quantitative than that. Genetic relationships prove close affinities between species,such as humans and chimpanzees, beyond any doubt. if you cant accept this its becase you are either unaware of the data, or unwilling to belive it because of religous and emotional reasons.

As I said, you have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of evolutionary science. I dont say this to hurt your feelings, but perhaps you might want to educate yourself if you want to any credibility at all.

show me this quantitative analysis results that says I originate from a monkey.. (perhaps you might.. but I dont), and I might believe.

What I will and wont buy about evolution:

I will buy: that man comes from earlier forms of man, according to his envoronmental need for change.

I will not buy: that man comes from reptilian origin. What darwinists tend to link are fossils with minor similarities to a handful of extreme similarities. Sometimes this works where it's obvious.. such as grouping canidae into the same phylum, or categorizing similar birds.. but it's quite qualitative.

Until you sit me in front of database containing genetic analysis that walks me through the hundres of billions of years it wouldve taken for such radical mutations (and not billions) and the dramatic changes on earth that made them neccesary I cannot believe such loose nonsense.

I'm sure this same debate happened the last time there was a clash of scientitific scholary (probably when the earth was still believed to be flat or when it was believed that negroids were subhuman somehow..) but it will all come to light, perhaps in a few more techological strides.. once again.. not now. As much as you might want to be definitely right today, it's still only extremely sophisticated guessing.

What we can agree on is that all physical animal evolution is in direct response to changes in their envoronment. You tell me what change(s) might've required this wild animorph to take place.. and why modern chimps have seemingly gotten the short end of the stick evolutionarily.. and why they still exist if they are a past form of us. Maybe they are genetically our closest match..but that just says their five opposoble fingers and toes and humanid bones makes them closer than any other animal.. it doesnt really say much if the next closest are dogs..

The genetic difference between man and chimp is a significant one.. not as significant as man and whale.. but one which makes them primate and us human.

When this is proven into law, then I may have to buy it.

"and why modern chimps have seemingly gotten the short end of the stick evolutionarily.. and why they still exist if they are a past form of us."

The human is only related to the chimpazee. Chimapzees and humans changed alot with the time. Do you know that medieval humans were smaler than people nowadays?
Anyway the chimpazees brain is growing much slower than the human brain. As far as I know the octopos brain is growing the fastest, what would mean that the new human like kind would be a squids kind if it´s going on like now.
Why should the parent kind die if they produce a new kind??? If parents get a child with three arms they won´t die. But the idea is funny. "Ugh! We got a child with three arms! I can´t believe!!! *DIE <--- all humans without 3 arms*"

You know how many kind of insects, mammals, reptiles, bacterias, plants and everything else we have today? It´s like a root of a tree, the deeper you go the more little roots you will find. If you come to a point where the most minerals are, you will find the most little roots. If you come to a point, where the ground has no water and minerals, you won´t find many roots. And every root, has it´s parent root, but still no root is like the other.