Quote:

On purpose, well no not really. But your response is evidence that you do know how it works in reality. The part between the brackets that followed shouldn't be there and you know it.



Honestly. What are you talking about? Someone said that I think all animals reproduce sexually. I said that I know that not all animals do. There's no reason for this to continue. I also have no idea what you're talking about, brackets and whatnot, but I'm not going to go back through the posts. Someone put words in my mouth. I corrected them. That's all.

Quote:

Nor did you disprove evolution, so this is quite irrelevant.



Never said I did. You can't disprove evolution, you can just prove that there's no reason to believe it.

Evolution is a theory that persists whether or not there is evidence for it. If there's no transitional fossils in the fossil record (which professional scientists admit), then that's what we would expect if evolution is true. Its a joke.

Quote:

I think it's clear that you have a problem with science because it offends your belief, not because you don't see the evidence that's out there.



Ok, I bring up some things that are inconsistent with evolution theory, and your response is that I don't believe evolution because it hurts my feelings? If the only way you can defend your theory is to attack my motivation, then that's basically an admission that you don't know why you believe your theory. There is no evidence.

Quote:

You don't belief in moral relativism, because you think the bible should be the only moral truth, which it's obviously not.



So having another thread where this topic has already been brought up isn't enough? I should have the debate in two places?

Quote:

You don't wish to see the transitional fossils because you hope there are none.



You haven't shown me a transitional fossil yet. Repeating the hopeless chant that there are transitional fossils doesn't make them appear out of nowhere. You have to actually have them. Evolutionists have known for 150 years that there are no transitional fossils. Which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium.

Quote:

To be honest with you a debate with you is futile, btw I'm still waiting for all the scientific evidence in favor of a creator and god.



Yeah, its kind of hard to have a debate when you don't speak in ideas, you just insult my motives and say I believe whatever I want to because it feels good.

If you want scientific evidence for a creator then go outside, and open your eyes.

Quote:

I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong.



The entire scientific community doesn't believe evolution anyway.

Quote:

Mammary glands are just specialzed skin glands, that likely devloped from sweat glands at the hair follicle area.



Ah, yes. We sweated milk for a while.

But that's not what I asked. I asked for a plausible way in which this could even take place. How did it develop? Its impossible to describe because its so ridiculous.

Did we develop hormones that made us produce milk? What good are they before we can produce milk? What good is producing milk if we don't have the hormones to control release? Which developed first? Then, you have to factor in changes in the brain to regulate the entire process. Can you actually think critically for a moment, and tell me how that could have happened little by little?

No piece is good without the other, and half working mammory glands are useless too. They wouldn't be selected for. They won't be selected for if the proper hormones aren't being produced correctly. Hormone production won't be selected for unless milk is being produced.

By the way, this is a pretty big transition. Where's the evidence? All you have are lizards that don't produce milk, and then all of the sudden you have mammals that do. You wouldn't believe that on faith, would you?

Quote:

To see what primitive mammary glands may have looked like one can look at the monotremes, like platypus.



I'd hardly call that primitive. It already has every peice in place. A primitive, transitionary gland might include some of the steps leading up to milk production. But you won't find that, because nature won't select for that.

Quote:

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 the scientific method could be defined as, "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

We haven't observed evolution. We can't reproduce it through repeated experiment and testing. Its just speculation.

Before you go screaming about germs, please, use some common sense. Those germs will remain germs for as long as time exists. We've never seen an animal become another kind. It has to be accepted on faith.

Quote:

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.



You pointed out a big difference between evolution and science. The scientific method gives us useful stuff, things that change our lives. Evolution causes biologists to waste time coming up with trees, and charts......and not much else. Oh wait! It did cause dentists to give bad advice about wisdom teeth that caused lots of problems.

Quote:

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.



We're not out to prove genesis, we're just out to show that the world and everything living in it was created. If you want to believe it was genesis, go ahead. But it doesn't have to be.

Quote:

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.



So....because some idiots wanted to kill and imprison some people hundreds of years ago, evolution is true? How about you come up with some evidence?

Quote:

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.



I can't think of any of the bigger, modern creationist organizations that want evolution explicity taken out of the classroom. They just want students to be taught the truth about it.

Fascism is an anti-christian concept, by the by. One of the most famous fascists ascribed to evolution.

Quote:

Have you read Darwin? His method is thoughroughly scientific.



I'm glad you mentioned that. Because he thought diet, excercise, and behavior determined evolution. Which turned out to be horribly wrong. Evolutionists are quick to say that that doesn't drive evolution.

He said giraffes obtained larger necks by stretching out to reach food sources. Does it get any less scientific than that? He invented natural selection (which was more accurately described by a creationist) out of ignorance of science (namely genetics which would quickly come to fruit about that same time).

Quote:

This is computer assisted analysis of derived traits, that relies very much on quantification.



So anything we can simulate in a computer is automatically true? I don't know, The Matrix Reloaded is on the tv behind me, and someone just jumped out of a window, slowed time down almost to a crawl, and is shooting her uzis at someone who just jumped out a window after her. That's a pretty good computer simulation, but I don't suppose that automatically makes it scientific.

Quote:

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.



No more so than us looking alike proves evolution. We have 35% of our genome in common with a specific species of flower (can't remember which one offhand). Does that make us 35% flower?

Quote:

Do you know that medieval humans were smaler than people nowadays?



Thanks to changes in lifestyle, not evolution.

Quote:

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*"



Because, thanks to sexual reproduction, if the parent kind doesn't die off, then the changes will just get drowned within the gene pool and not do much to change the animal at all.

Quote:

I think creationists make scientologists look relatively sane.



What's the objection to dinosaurs living with people? Unless Jurassic Park is considered science 'fact.' Wouldn't surprise me.

Quote:

The Bible also states that Earth is flat, set stable in the universe and that there is nothing beyond the sky-.-



Except that no it doesn't. If you want to discuss these further, please bring them up in the bible thread. The bible is actually one of (if not) the first documents to reference a spherical earth.

Quote:

Agreed, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", this is a label creationists apply to try to "even the balance".



Ok then. In that case, there's no such thing as creationists.

Quote:

But not all atheists may agree with evolution, and not all deists may not agree with it.



An evolutionist is someone who believes evolution is true. If you have a problem with this definition, then I'll call evolutionists, "People who believe evolution happened." That way I won't hurt your feelings.

Quote:

Without exception this so called "evidence" is bunk, and comprised of errors, misunderstandings, and outright hoaxes.



For a moment I thought you were talking about all the proofs of evolution.


Anyway, I like how a thread talking about the problems of evolution quickly gets sidetracked onto religion, and questions of motive. Are you guys having a problem producing thoughts on your own theory?

Furthermore, you guys got defensive of atheism. A topic I didn't see anyone even bring up. You can't help but equate evolution with religion. Your judgement is clouded, and that's the only reason you believe evolution in the first place. Creationists don't care. If God created through evolution, then He did. We don't need to confuse ourselves and live in ignorance just to rationalize our worldview.

If evolution is so obvious, then you shouldn't have to distract the debate with religion, and all that other nonsense.

One day, the acceptance of evolution as fact will be known as the dark age of science.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/22/06 04:00.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."