Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him

Pages: (18) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:11    Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,09:53) I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   To me this says you want us to argue with our hands tied behind our backs by not using established research and sources.  But that's not the way science works, and evolution is a science.  Science is built on the research and findings of those who have gone before.  If you're going to challenge us about the evolution of whales but then say that you don't want to be linked anywhere, well, what are we supposed to do?  Each and every one who wishes to refute you has to what...go dig up for him or her self a complete evolutionary history of the whale? And can we trust that your promised arguments that will scientifically prove creationism are yours and yours alone, and that you aren't getting any outside help?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:45    Quote When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years, Precisely ... DING DING DING.  I think we are finally getting on the same page here ... I have NOT observed "God creating it" and you have NOT observed "Evolution creating it" -- i.e. big morphological changes like scales to wings, new hands where there were no hands, etc. So ... all I am asking is why can't we agree to just teach the school children something like this ... "Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief." -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:48    Quote (Flint @ April 26 2006,09:42) Quote But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve. Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another. The reason for that is that creationists cannot escape their way of thinking, even when they "try". For them, Humans are the pinnacle of creation, sitting on the throne of life. We are perfect in structure and ability, made in the image of our, er, Designer, representing His ultimate and most priceless product. IF evolution were true, shouldn't all living things "aspire" to gain enough XPs to reach our level, so to speak? Um, sorry about the lame RPG analogy, but I think it shows clearly how creationists must perceive the evolutionary process. In all their supposed humility, they are too arrogant to drop the notion that everything in life has rulers and servants, with themselves on the appropriate side. It's too deep inside their subconcious. Pathetic, really. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:58    OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ... The logic works anyway ... Nice try though! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:01    Quote "The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe the Pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians as tombs for their Pharaohs, using the means and knowledge available at the time... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of writers and researchers and a substantial portion of the public believes that the Pyramids were created by aliens -from Mars, Venus, the Goa 'Ould [whatever--not up on my Sci-Fi series], Alpha Centaurians, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the construction of the Pyramids has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief." Aaaah... What an interesting world this would be, if only afdave was even remotely right... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:05    Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58) OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ... The logic works anyway ... Nice try though! So, life on Earth is a "heap", and it has a "top". Thanks for making my point clearer, afd. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:07    Yeah, and it would be a pretty groovy world as well with Faid's idea of the food chain order ... Maybe we could then elect chimps to public office ... [Yes, I know some would say we did in 2000 ... and I would reply that we did in 1992 ... OK ... OK ... back to the topic] -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:27    Whaaa? My idea of the "food chain order"? Food chain? That's what you think evolution is all about- animals getting on top of the "food chain"? Oh man, and you wanted us to explain evolution to you in 5 sentences? Tell you what: Next time you go swimming, if you happen to see a white shark, tell him he's got your vote for public office and maybe he'll let you go. After all, sharks in public office are quite common... Keep it up, man, it gets better with each of your posts. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:04    AFDave, as has been said, you are spouting boilerplate. There is nothing here but stale rhetoric. However, a couple of points need to be made as often and as forcefully as possible. Quote There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, It's all the same evidence. The difference is that science looks at the evidence in its totality, integrates it with the larger totality of everything that is known, and tries to draw the conclusion that makes the best fit. Creationism proceeds from the conclusion, and cherry-picks anomolous or misconstrued results out of the evidence in order to support that conclusion for the benefit of the credulous. Creationists want to have 'their own evidence,' but science does not, and could not, proceed on such a basis. The upshot is that a young earth is flatly contradicted by ALL of science. Quote but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, This is trivially true, as science is not in the business of 'proving' anything. Quote since the origin of life has never been directly observed. ALL observations are mediated to some degree. You're harping on this point as if it weren't true of all science. Whether the observation is a fossil of a fifty-million year dead creature, or the track made by a particle that died a nanosecond after the result was recorded, all obswervations are indirect, and concern past phenomena. If you like, Dave, you can try to argue that the degree to which evolutionary observations are separated in time from the events in question is terribly significant, but you cannot get away with construing it as a difference in kind from any other scientific observation, in any other field. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:09    I will say again, science can deal with historical processes and can test hypothesis based predictions we can make from those processes. Quote "Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief." Firstly the origin of life is not taught in schools. What the public believes is irrelevant to a science class, although maybe not a philosophy of science class, same with theologians and philosophers. I have not seen any evidence to support the supernatural side, and masses of evidence to support the natural side, and like Ken Ham says, we all use the same evidence. To teach this statement would be dishonest, I would prefer: "The vast majority of scientists believe that life on earth has evolved from one or more common ancestors over the course of billions of years. Although there are a small minority who doubt this view the masses of evidence collected in the past 150 years since the theory was first proposed support it. Although events that occured in the past cannot be proved with 100% accuracy there is no other theory that fits the data and makes predictions better than, and no evidence yet discovered that contradicts evolution. While there are questions regarding the specific mechanisms involved, there is no controvesy among scientists as to whether evolution occurred."

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,08:11    As often as it has been pointed out, it's still interesting that even the most religion-addled creationist lives 99+% of their lives by drawing probabilistic conclusions from evidence and acting accordingly. If this were not the case, they couldn't function even to the point of swallowing food. So what we have is narrowly constrained territories of reflexive denial, where the normal process is simply not permitted to be considered. Territories where predefined absolutes are simply beyond anything resembling question, analysis, or reason. For the terminally creationist, evolution is one of those territories. It can't be true because it IS NOT TRUE. Period. Evidence and the implications of evidence are powerless to cross the border into this territory. And so it's amusing to watch people deploy evidence and reason against positions evidence and reason played no part in cementing. These are the wrong weapons. The way out of these black holes isn't through persuasion, but through conversion.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:02    Flint-- It's not a black hole ... it's the light of truth finally being turned on again ... one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ... There's a reason for that ... People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere?  I mean 20,000 people going to ONE CHURCH in a single city!!  These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe and they are just not buying it (Stephen Hawking's own wife didn't buy it).  And its good for YOUR political freedom and mine that they are not.  We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty.  Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that! You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science and I call Evolutionary Dogma.  And a such, there is probably no repairing it--replacement is probably required. But that's OK. It remains a historical fact that it was BL Creationists (BL=Biblical Literalist) who INVENTED the universities which you and I benefit from today, it was BL Creationists (Newton included) who founded most of the major branches of modern science which you and I also benefit from.  It was BL Creationists who founded Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and many others to study and proclaim the Truth of Scripture and of Science. And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable.  Not saying we are there yet, but listening to some of you here makes me think it may not be far off. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:11    Quote 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably. Wow. That's right up there with "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:23    dave: Science, to work at all, requires people to be able to admit error and change their minds. For this reason, I think those who can draw conclusions from evidence rather than vice versa will forever be in the tiny minority. Those in the black hole you so enjoy, surrounded by warm fuzzy ignorance, will of course continue to feast on the fruits of science while biting the hand that feeds them that fruit. So those who value knowledge (and actually know what it is) may be employing the wrong strategy here. Trying to break through the nearly-impermeable barriers of ignorance you gloat about and penetrate all the way to the brains of every student is perhaps philosophically misinformed - it treats all citizens as potential scientists, when in reality very few can ever qualify. So perhaps we should have two "tracks" in public school, one for those who wish to learn, and one for those who think they already know all they need to. The latter group can drop out as young as possible and attend the mega-church of their choice - which are designed by, and built of materials invented by, those former few who actually learned something. Cyril Kornbluth suggested something similar long ago, of course.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:24    Oxford university was founded over 800 years ago. I do not blame those people for assuming that the bible was scientifically accurate, there was not enough evidence to the contrary. Do you see the difference in positions here, it always happens in these kinds of arguments, just look at the thread with Shi for an example. Eventually you see that the evidence does not support your views, so you have to claim atheist conspircay and make sweeping claims about the evils of secularism and how only religion can sort it all out. Even Richard Dawkins has never said that evolution is true because there is no god. We teach evolution because it fits the evidence and makes predictions that help us understand life on earth and cure diseases. If you have any evidence that it is entirely based on secularism I suggest you present it.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:42    2--> Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,162) Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that! Oh, stop it, afd. People will think I've deliberately hired you to make my point clearer with every post you make. Is it really that hard to realize that there is no "Throne of Life" for anyone to sit, humans, or chimps, or mosquitoes - or the worms that will devour us when we die? Do you really believe that we have a divine right -sorry, a Designer-derived right- of absolute rule over all life because we're the "best"? That all living things were meant by right to serve us, the Designer's favorite species? And you say my views have "implications"? How many years of indoctrination does it take to develop this selective disengaging of the brain? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:43    Yes.  Please.  We're all waiting and anxious for the evidence that you've been promising us.  You seem to have plenty of time to build strawmen versions of Faid to knock down.  Surely that requires new effort, whereas I'm sure you already have all your evidence that's going to turn the scientific world on its ears. Though...though why are you going to tell it to us?  Shouldn't you be rushing to the press?  To the nobel committee?  You can disprove 150 years of biological science, and you're going to waste it on us?  I guess we should be honored.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,12:13    afdave, Since your statements seem to be indicating that you are a creationist, would you describe yourself as a young Earth or old Earth creationist?

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:08    It seems to me we're taking the wrong tack with Dave (and most other creationists, too). Let's agree on a couple things: 1. Biological entities do change over long periods of time (evolution happens). 2. The theory of evolution is a well-tested, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time. et us all assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false.  Dave, what is your testable, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time that accounts for ALL the evidences that the theory of evolution does, only better? As for your religious rantings, may I kindly suggest you go read Evil Bible for a while.  In fact, feel free to sign up there and post on the forums.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:32    Double post - two separate thoughts deserved two separate posts. . . . All this talk of not personally witnessing evolution (or the pyramids being built) reminds me of a good analogy. A good friend's house was broken into one night while he was out of town.  He lives a ways out in the country and therefore has no neighbors who could see anything.  The police came out and scoured the house for clues, and found a fingerprint and a shoe print that didn't belong to him.  The fingerprint was run through AFID and a match was found.  Searching the suspect's house turned up a shoe that matched the shoe print, and one of my missing articles.  The suspect was arrested and convicted based only on the evidence. Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:02    Quote (UnMark @ April 26 2006,18:32) A good friend's house was broken into one night ....and one of my missing articles.   Either you keep stuff at your friends house or you have an interesting way of referring to yourself.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:56    Blech.  I started writing first person, but decided to switch at the end to skip the antisympathy "this is just a story" stuff.  I guess I missed a pronoun in my reread. . . .  I hope it didn't detract too much from the message.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,17:05    Quote Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why. Hmmm ... where did I say that?  No, I agree the perp is guilty ... we have good evidence.  And in the same way, we also have good evidence for the existence of the God described in the Christian Bible even though we cannot see Him or "prove" He is there.   You also have evidence that leads you to believe that all life derived from a common ancestor over millions of years even though you didn't watch it happen. Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.   I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,18:13    Dave, you said that you don't believe in evolution because no one was around to witness it.  (We'll ignore the several obvious cases of speciation that have actually happened while scientists WERE watching.)  Using this philosophy, since no one saw the person break into my home, the forensic evidence cannot be conclusively used to determine the accused's guilt. I look forward to your evidence for God's existence.  My searching has turned up exactly none, and I'd like to at least know why.  Since you're willingly putting your beliefs up for scientific review, let me ask you a question: if God is omnipotent, can He create a better God? Parting thought: God hates people

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,19:06    ...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it? -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:10    I just posted "AF Dave's God Hypothesis"  as a new topic ... check it out ... This post, and a fairly recent picture is also at my recently revived blog site airdave.blogspot.com ... I welcome your comments! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:44    Quote one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ... Love to see some documentation on this.  You are on a debating website.  Don't pull statistics out of your hat. Quote People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere? Breathtaking.  The MegaChurch seen as proof of the fall of Eviloution and science.  What does NASCAR and pork rinds prove then? Quote These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe You are making the mistake of catogorizing confidence in well researched science you don't understand as arrogance.  Don't blame science for not talking slowly enough!  Blame your biology teachers for that. Quote We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty. Yes, here in the USA.  And we have the vaccines to prove it.  Not like in theocracies. Read Flint's excellent post. (Quite right Flint! Quote Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that! Yeah.  He might do something outrageous like taking a stand against torture.  BAD FAID, NO donut for YOU. Quote You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science  Yes, despit the fact that the country is turning to God, the best educated and argueably the brightest minds still belive in their testable theory.  Says volumes, I think.  They stick by their guns and tell the hard truth to the ignorant.  This is not true of the creationists trying to sneak the bible into schools as ID.  I remember the perjury that went on in the Kitzmiller trial.  Lying for Jesus. Ignoring Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Link to perjury by Allan Bonsell. Quote And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable. Well perhaps.  And after that, we will have a renaissance.  Maybe the church will condem scientists again.  But in the end, religion will have to admit that the scientists were right. Is there any chance that evolution could be explained to you in a manner that you might belive it? Because if not, you are wasting time as a troll.  A closed mind, howling at the intelectual elites.  In the meantime, you are still welcome to vaccines. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:30    Calm down, Seven Popes, we're not planning on condemning scientists ... we're just planning on putting a little balance back into academia ... you know, like Rush Limbaugh balances the libs in politics? And can I be an intellectual elite also if I can spell "intellectual" and "categorizing" correctly? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:47    What exactly do you mean by balance? Most of the scientists I work with are religious. I have also worked with a biblical literalist but she would at least admit that the scientific evidence does not support her beliefs and that is the point here.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:14    Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58) OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ... The logic works anyway ... Dave, there is no top of the heap. This is one of the many places where Creationists just go completely off the rails. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Pages: (18) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard