Jump to content

Hellbender

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hellbender

  1. Would something that went extinct before it could produce any ancestors count? Like a dodo? Or a Tyrannosaurus rex?

    When creationists obsess over "transitionals" they are talking about organisms that straddle the line between 2 major types of animals. You are right, however when you say everything is transitional.

  2. *sigh*....okay. I meant transitional forms that weren't lies like Archaeopteryx.

    *SIGH* why do I get the feeling that you will dismiss every transitional we provide as a hoax? Thank you for proving me right, btw, see the bottom of post #52.

    I have a question for you evolutionists. *chews gum*

    How many Piltdown Mans and Nebraska Mans are you guys going conjure to up?

    *shakes head*

    Read my quote, posted by capn' above. I have a question for creationists: how many years is it going to be before you stop using long-defrauded hoaxes like these to attack evolution? You do know that they are no longer considered examples of human ancestors in bioanthropology textbooks, and haven't been for over 50 years, right?

  3. so much for logical discourse.

    so much for debate. Every point we make to you is either ignored, or goalpost-shifted (can't think of a better way to put that).

    Something I've been noticing is that when the heat is put on evolution, people seem to start to attack ID.

    What do you want us to do? you are presenting ID as science, and we reserve the right to point out its logical flaws (of which there are many). If you are going to argue against the theory we are defending, we will do the same.

    But that's only a cop out when evolution starts to be revealed as something faulty.

    so far you have not revealed anything, except the fact that you know nothing about evolution, like to talk down to us like we are a bunch of idiots, and are generally your garden-variety creationist, the likes of which we have dealt with countless times in the past. Try actually going to the sites we recommend.

    Let's not stray too far from the thread topic. I want to see if anyone can make the theory of evolution stand on it's own merit.

    We can, if you let us. But you continue to cry foul whenever someone attacks creationism, and simply shift the goalposts whenever a good point is made. I'll ask you, what part(s) of modern evolutionary theory do you have a problem with (and your ad hominem about darwin being a supposed racist is not a part of the science, whether it is true or not).

    But if no one can, than hopefully we can just be adult and admit that this is a hack theory.

    A hack theory? Why then have scientists stuck by it for so long? Why has it been around formore than a century? Why is it now considered a foundation of modern biology? Why must people like you resort to logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to argue against it?

    Evolution can barely cough up one transitional form.

    Read the "Intelligent" Design thread. At the end, Mokele lists all the transitionals between lobe-finned fish and humans. Its quite impressive, and I didn't even know we were able to find that many. The problem creationists have with transitional forms is that there are lots of them, and it is one of the simplest disproofs (in their eyes) of creationism. So what do they do? Pretend they don't exist, pretend they are hoaxed, focus on the organisms whose evolutionary histories are not complete, refuse to admit the fossil fits their idea of "transitional" or ask for transitionals between the transitionals.

     

    edit: and I can guarantee that you will do at least one of the above after reading bascule's caption on Archaeopteryx.

  4. Does this prove F-15's came from the old WWII planes.

    In a way yes, (as technological innovation can mimic the process of natural selection, if you want to think about it that way). But comparing something non-living to something that is alive and has the capacity to reproduce, and therefore, evolve makes for a blatantly dishonest analogy.

    In fact, some were delibrate hoaxes made to prove evolution, like Nebraska man, who had an entire skeleton constucted by people who found a tooth of an extinct pig. Why do you think evolutionists would do that?

    You make it sound like biologists need to deliberately hoax fossil evidence of human common ancestry just to prove their theory. Nebraska man (I believe) was a case of an incompetant scientist rushing to conclusions. Mistakes happen, but we don't focus on them. Other hoaxes such as the piltdown man are the result of conmen trying to make money. Why don't creationists focus on genuine fossil discoveries, I wonder?

    Don't harp on religion to mask the lack of facts from evolution.

    Like I said.... inteligent design does not point to any specific religion.

    ID makes a point not to be (although we all know its roots lie in religious conservatives), making it the sneakiest form of creationism out there.

    Come on. Attacking me, instead of the point? That's a low tactic when you know you are unable to make any good points.

    Pot calling the kettle black.

    see folks? that's what I mean by intelligent conversation.

    and I'm sure we will see more of the same from you :rolleyes:

    But about the lungfish--is that to say it's remained unchanged for millions of years while everything else has been evolving?

    To quote Phi: "read". First of all, just becuase an organism shares a resemblance with ancestral forms, it does not mean it has gone unchanged. Second, if their environmental niche has remained somewhat stable, there is no reason why a particular organism couldn't go unchanged.

    In the interview, I was making the point that pretty much every aspect of evoltution is speculative.

    Not true. Most aspects of evolution have been verified experimentally, such as natual selection, speciation, etc. All have been, and continue to be the subject of rigorous experimentation. Right now I am reading a book called "The Beak of the Finch", and pretty much every chapter goes into some sort of evolutionary experiment done by a biologist.

  5. - All guns ought to be elimated from the planet!

    Disagree

     

    - Homosexuality should be a federal crime!

    Disagree

    - All drug users should be mandatorily sterilized!

    Agree :P

    - Death penalty should be option for all crimes!

    Disagree

    - The ACLU is a terrorist organization!

    Disagree

    - Everything IMM says is the gospel truth!

    Agree

    - Woman shouldnt work in the military or office!

    Disagree

    - Hospitals shouldnt be treat the poor!

    Disagree

    - People who develop cancers from smoking should not be treated!

    Undecided

    - HIV/AIDS is God's punishment against the homosexuals!

    Disagree

    - Immigrants should be deported or thrown in prison!

    Disagree

    - Abortion doctors should be put to death!

    Disagree

    - Government is an unnecessary evil!

    Disagee

    - Taxes are a form of theft!

    Agree

    - Michael Moore for president!

    Umm disagree

    - Voluntarily childless couples are evil and selfish!

    Disagree

    - Legal drugs! All of them!

    Disagree

  6. No matter how much i flirt, how nice I am to them. They always end up being a friend. I think the reasons girls dont like me is as follows:

    How old are you? I take it you are in high school? There's your problem. I had the same problem. High school girls (and guys) are generally a different breed. Now that I am more mature, my approach works, but it didn't in high school when girls are generally looking for cocky, decidedly more aggressive guys.

    Im strange, for example my hobbies dont go with eachother, if you know what i mean.

    If you mean that your hobbies and interests are all over the place, thats not so uncommon. Its better to have interests in a broad range of things. Later on, girls may find this really attractive.

    Im really shy.

    I had this problem too. Overcoming shyness is gradual. Once you take one step, you are open to another then another, until you discover you aren't shy anymore. Its hard, its scary and it may take a while, but its worth it. For most people, the first step is the hardest, but it gets a little easier after that.

    Im not the most attractive person.

    As much as people like to say "looks don't matter", it is still true that they help. There is hope though. And who's to say that some girl in the future may see something about you that she likes. Who knows?

    Hardcore CAKE fan

    Yeah.... maybe, um.....yeah...:P

    So with all the information ive provided you people probaly have your opinions on what kind of person I am.

    So i got kinda caried away. Oh well

    Nah, this is what this thread has turned into. I was in your shoes before, and feel your pain. I was always the "friend" or the "big brother" figure. I hated it. So I got tired of it, and did something about it. You just gotta make yourself available, make yourself unique and make yourself fun to be around. Good luck. :)

  7. I will say, Hellbender, that your impatience and frustration is showing, and you are allowing it to influence your posting. Please carry on and don't let this post derail the discussion.

    I am sorry, usually I am pretty easy going, but members like buzsaw and herme3 get me frustrated pretty quick. I'll stop posting in this thread, as I don't want to earn myself a warning.

  8. Often in churches I've been in, videos, visiting speakers, etc apprise parishoners on creation science. Creationist pastors also should be able to direct youth and others to sources of learning about creation science.

    My real question was why do you think that they don't teach creationism in schools? Why should one have to go to a church official to learn about supposed science? You see where I'm going here?

    Creationists from ICR and other organizations do science and archeology for their arguments. You're not being fair here. Yes there's those who don't but some do.

    Yeah, but they are frequently dishonest. If they come out with evidence that may not fit the bible, they usually ad hoc the crap out of it. You see doing science is to help better understand the world, and hopefull apply what we find to better humanity as a whole. Trying to do science for the sake of proving dogma is not doing science.

    I suppose it all boils down to whether God and a higher dimension of existence does exist in the universe that secularist scientists ignore. I happen to believe there is plenty of evidence that there is, such as the fulfilled Biblical prophecies, verified by history.

    Some scientists, (stop calling them "secularists". You know, I know and I know that you know that all scientists aren't atheists. You just think that scientists who don't run around with a bible, trying to find data that prove it true, are all athiests. Shame on them them for doing their jobs properly.) likely believe in some metaphysics, but by definition, it can't be detected or measured, hence it is ignored when they are trying to do good science.

    Some on both sides do some of this.

    Really? Wow, that convinced me.

  9. Likely, Hellbender, that if I, buzsaw, creationist, equated you to OJ Simpson, brutal murderer, I'd end up with another 10 points or more against me, and imo, you deserve 10 points for this terribly meanspirited personal attack against another board member. :mad:

    LOL I wasn't equating you to him! I was saying (sarcastically) that my surprise was akin to....oh nevermind.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.