Total Posts:159|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

REMINDER TO ALL CREATIONISTS! nac

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:31:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a reminder to all Creationists: EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE NOR DOES IT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE NOR DOES IT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!!!

Believe it or not, people actually think that evolution=the big bang or evolution=abiogenesis -- or both! I heard my Sunday School teacher on Wednesday tell me that evolution is flawed because it cannot account for the origin. What utter BS. If you cannot tell the difference between astronomy and biology; evolution and abiogenesis, then you are NOT qualified to try to destroy the cornerstone of modern biology and you are certainly not qualified to force kids to learn your "hypothesis in crisis."

(Note, this is a link where the Creationist actually thinks evolution=big bang http://contenderministries.org... he states:

If you think evolutionists have all the answers, try a few of the following questions on 'em.

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man"s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory " it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
)

Again, this is all irrelavent to evolution. *FACEPALM*!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 12:02:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Egads, not another one.

I think you should change your screen name to Rainman.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
eZminT
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 3:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution has less answers, but is backed up by EVIDENCE and FACTS. This is why all creationist outlooks of the universe will, in due time, not exist. Simply because there are no facts backing it up.

--- Nearly forms of life come from carbon.
--- The genetic connection between the ape species and the human species has been made. Look it up.
---Life has no purpose, quit pretending there is a future with fairies and angels and an invisible man in the sky.

And BTW "evolution is the basis for all of life science. If you dont believe it, its a lot like doing geography without tectonic plates." --Bill Nye

Religion prevents scientific progression, real answers. I wish you people would come to your senses.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So basically it doesn't answer any of the real questions theists ask? Lots of Christians accept evolution, they just question some of the other things you brought up such as where did matter come from.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:18:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 4:30:52 PM, stubs wrote:
So basically it doesn't answer any of the real questions theists ask? Lots of Christians accept evolution, they just question some of the other things you brought up such as where did matter come from.

Which again, is irrelavent to evolution!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:43:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Microsuck

Your sunday school teacher has a point.

It is correct that abiogenesis is considered separate from evolution in scientific domain. However if atheists use evolution to claim things can develop on their own, then abiogenesis also becomes part of the discussion.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:51:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 7:43:31 AM, baggins wrote:
@ Microsuck

Your sunday school teacher has a point.

It is correct that abiogenesis is considered separate from evolution in scientific domain. However if atheists use evolution to claim things can develop on their own, then abiogenesis also becomes part of the discussion.

Then obviously the atheist also has a misunderstanding of evolution.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 8:44:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 7:51:41 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/14/2012 7:43:31 AM, baggins wrote:
@ Microsuck

Your sunday school teacher has a point.

It is correct that abiogenesis is considered separate from evolution in scientific domain. However if atheists use evolution to claim things can develop on their own, then abiogenesis also becomes part of the discussion.


Then obviously the atheist also has a misunderstanding of evolution.

Agreed.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 10:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 11:31:36 AM, Microsuck wrote
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man"s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory " it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

What if i told you I can answer each and evereone of those and walk you through this understanding step by step?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 5:22:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it'd be silly so consider either creationism or evolution absolute. My father is a pastor of church and i grew up going to church my entire life. The only thing I can take away for that part of my life is that a God exist. In what way shape or form, i do not know. I only say that because before evolution and the big bang, something had to have came from nothing. I will say that evolution itself does not prove or disprove all of science discoveries and theories. For example string theory and quantum mechanics don't really aim to explain evolution but the existence of things. All religion really have are ancient books written by man. And I don't really think anything man made can be trusted. Maybe there's room for both God and science who knows.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I actually had a creationist tell me that Evolution is flawed because it doesn't explain The Big Bang lol I understand the OP's frustration.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 3:56:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that many creationists think that abiogenesis is a necessary precondition for evolution to take place, as there are no other alternatives (that I know of).

The thought is if they can disprove abiogenesis, they thus disprove evolution, or at least evolution as it is currently conceived.

Personally I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion either way. Nor do I think it is relevant as to whether or not God exists. In short, I do not care if evolution is true or not unless evolution somehow disproves theism/Christianity.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 9:35:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 2:19:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I actually had a creationist tell me that Evolution is flawed because it doesn't explain The Big Bang lol I understand the OP's frustration.

So evolution is how life once it began "evolved" is that right?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:19:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
God- A persons definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:47:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 7:43:31 AM, baggins wrote:
@ Microsuck

Your sunday school teacher has a point.

It is correct that abiogenesis is considered separate from evolution in scientific domain. However if atheists use evolution to claim things can develop on their own, then abiogenesis also becomes part of the discussion.

No it doesn't.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:52:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 9:35:37 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 9/22/2012 2:19:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I actually had a creationist tell me that Evolution is flawed because it doesn't explain The Big Bang lol I understand the OP's frustration.

So evolution is how life once it began "evolved" is that right?

Not merely "once it began" but "regardless of how it began." It doesn't matter how life got here. It's here and it evolves and evolution describes that process.

Semantically, even Christians believe in a form of abiogenesis: God created life from non-life. I say semantically because this follows from the meaning of the word abiogenesis (creation of life from non-life) but is not what is usually meant in the scientific realm.

The point is, it doesn't matter to evolution whether life formed from a primordial soup, primordial sandwich, from outerspace, or was magiced into existence by a bearded sky-fairy. Life is here, it evolves, and evolution describes the process.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 6:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, it is interesting to note that not only creationists view things this way, but noted scientists too. "There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
"Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
http://creation.com...
and
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear " There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That"s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.
http://creation.com...

Therefore it is unfair to say or imply that this is a creationist definition, as leading scientists and evolutionary proponents have these as their definition. Certainly not all of them, but a large majority accept this definition.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 6:50:09 PM, Muted wrote:
Well, it is interesting to note that not only creationists view things this way, but noted scientists too. "There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
"Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
http://creation.com...
and
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear " There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That"s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.
http://creation.com...

Therefore it is unfair to say or imply that this is a creationist definition, as leading scientists and evolutionary proponents have these as their definition. Certainly not all of them, but a large majority accept this definition.

In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/20/2012 6:50:09 PM, Muted wrote:
Well, it is interesting to note that not only creationists view things this way, but noted scientists too. "There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
"Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
http://creation.com...
and
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear " There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That"s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.
http://creation.com...

Therefore it is unfair to say or imply that this is a creationist definition, as leading scientists and evolutionary proponents have these as their definition. Certainly not all of them, but a large majority accept this definition.

In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

This is known as argumentum ad populum. Also see, "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 10:16:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

This is known as argumentum ad populum. Also see, "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...

Alright, you petty creationist who doesn't understand the principles behind scientific consensus.... let me enlighten you. But first, post your own actual damn argument instead of copy and pasting from a fringe hack website, mmk?

Scientific consensus works like this:

A hypothesis is proposed.
The hypothesis is tested.
Dependent on the results, the hypothesis is either modified or kept the same.
It is tested again.
And again.
And tested by scientists from the other side of the globe.
That is, when a brobdignagian amount of scientists have tested and confirmed the hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note: a theory is not a half-as$ed guess that a scientist came up with in his basement; it is an objective framework dependent on tested and confirmed fact).
When it is overwhelmingly conceded that the hypothesis is true, virtually all non-hack scientists accept it.

Hundreds of examples of natural evolution have been seen (ex. white peppered moth), hundreds of lab experiments proved that mutations lead to natural selection (26 year E.Coli experiment http://en.wikipedia.org...) and thousands of transitional fossils have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Evolution has been tested and observed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times. That is why the scientific community accepts it; it is not some elaborate secular conspiracy. We have the means, in this modern age, to actually confirm hypothesis beyond a doubt with all of the technology available. Thus, when something is accepted by 99.85% scientists, you can be damn well sure that it's correct.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Anti-atheist
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abiogenesis is taught in the evolutionary biology courses.
Anti-atheist

Registered genius
Certified butt-f*cker

imabench for fuhrer '13
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 12:58:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 10:16:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

This is known as argumentum ad populum. Also see, "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...

Alright, you petty creationist who doesn't understand the principles behind scientific consensus.... let me enlighten you. But first, post your own actual damn argument instead of copy and pasting from a fringe hack website, mmk?

Scientific consensus works like this:

A hypothesis is proposed.
The hypothesis is tested.
Dependent on the results, the hypothesis is either modified or kept the same.
It is tested again.
And again.
And tested by scientists from the other side of the globe.
That is, when a brobdignagian amount of scientists have tested and confirmed the hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note: a theory is not a half-as$ed guess that a scientist came up with in his basement; it is an objective framework dependent on tested and confirmed fact).
When it is overwhelmingly conceded that the hypothesis is true, virtually all non-hack scientists accept it.

Hundreds of examples of natural evolution have been seen (ex. white peppered moth), hundreds of lab experiments proved that mutations lead to natural selection (26 year E.Coli experiment http://en.wikipedia.org...) and thousands of transitional fossils have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Evolution has been tested and observed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times. That is why the scientific community accepts it; it is not some elaborate secular conspiracy. We have the means, in this modern age, to actually confirm hypothesis beyond a doubt with all of the technology available. Thus, when something is accepted by 99.85% scientists, you can be damn well sure that it's correct.

LordKnukle, Off-topic and non sequitur in regards to what I said previously. Anti-Atheist, exactly!
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:20:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 11:53:49 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
Abiogenesis is taught in the evolutionary biology courses.

That's because the existence of life is a necessary condition for evolution to take place. It is a significant link to evolution because as soon as abiogenesis takes place, evolution can and will.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 12:32:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 12:58:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 10:16:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

This is known as argumentum ad populum. Also see, "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...

Alright, you petty creationist who doesn't understand the principles behind scientific consensus.... let me enlighten you. But first, post your own actual damn argument instead of copy and pasting from a fringe hack website, mmk?

Scientific consensus works like this:

A hypothesis is proposed.
The hypothesis is tested.
Dependent on the results, the hypothesis is either modified or kept the same.
It is tested again.
And again.
And tested by scientists from the other side of the globe.
That is, when a brobdignagian amount of scientists have tested and confirmed the hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note: a theory is not a half-as$ed guess that a scientist came up with in his basement; it is an objective framework dependent on tested and confirmed fact).
When it is overwhelmingly conceded that the hypothesis is true, virtually all non-hack scientists accept it.

Hundreds of examples of natural evolution have been seen (ex. white peppered moth), hundreds of lab experiments proved that mutations lead to natural selection (26 year E.Coli experiment http://en.wikipedia.org...) and thousands of transitional fossils have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Evolution has been tested and observed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times. That is why the scientific community accepts it; it is not some elaborate secular conspiracy. We have the means, in this modern age, to actually confirm hypothesis beyond a doubt with all of the technology available. Thus, when something is accepted by 99.85% scientists, you can be damn well sure that it's correct.

LordKnukle, Off-topic and non sequitur in regards to what I said previously. Anti-Atheist, exactly!

Not at all. You were somehow implying that a consensus of scientists is nothing more than ad populum. I destroyed your arguments about that.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 6:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 12:32:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/21/2012 12:58:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 10:16:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

This is known as argumentum ad populum. Also see, "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...

Alright, you petty creationist who doesn't understand the principles behind scientific consensus.... let me enlighten you. But first, post your own actual damn argument instead of copy and pasting from a fringe hack website, mmk?

Scientific consensus works like this:

A hypothesis is proposed.
The hypothesis is tested.
Dependent on the results, the hypothesis is either modified or kept the same.
It is tested again.
And again.
And tested by scientists from the other side of the globe.
That is, when a brobdignagian amount of scientists have tested and confirmed the hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note: a theory is not a half-as$ed guess that a scientist came up with in his basement; it is an objective framework dependent on tested and confirmed fact).
When it is overwhelmingly conceded that the hypothesis is true, virtually all non-hack scientists accept it.

Hundreds of examples of natural evolution have been seen (ex. white peppered moth), hundreds of lab experiments proved that mutations lead to natural selection (26 year E.Coli experiment http://en.wikipedia.org...) and thousands of transitional fossils have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Evolution has been tested and observed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times. That is why the scientific community accepts it; it is not some elaborate secular conspiracy. We have the means, in this modern age, to actually confirm hypothesis beyond a doubt with all of the technology available. Thus, when something is accepted by 99.85% scientists, you can be damn well sure that it's correct.

LordKnukle, Off-topic and non sequitur in regards to what I said previously. Anti-Atheist, exactly!

Not at all. You were somehow implying that a consensus of scientists is nothing more than ad populum. I destroyed your arguments about that.

The post that was off-topic was about the scientific method and how the "evolution fact" has proof. This is not the point of my post, or the topic of the thread. The number of people believing in a certain belief does not indicate its truth.

You did not "destroy" ANY of my arguments. You merely noted the scientific method which I agree with. It does not seem like you really know what I was talking about. This wikipedia entry should help. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 7:27:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 6:27:04 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/21/2012 12:32:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/21/2012 12:58:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 10:16:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:48:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 10/20/2012 7:18:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
In fields related to life sciences, 99.85% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

You'll always find retarded people on the fringe of any profession or society.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
http://s8int.com...

Alright, you petty creationist who doesn't understand the principles behind scientific consensus.... let me enlighten you. But first, post your own actual damn argument instead of copy and pasting from a fringe hack website, mmk?

Scientific consensus works like this:

A hypothesis is proposed.
The hypothesis is tested.
Dependent on the results, the hypothesis is either modified or kept the same.
It is tested again.
And again.
And tested by scientists from the other side of the globe.
That is, when a brobdignagian amount of scientists have tested and confirmed the hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note: a theory is not a half-as$ed guess that a scientist came up with in his basement; it is an objective framework dependent on tested and confirmed fact).
When it is overwhelmingly conceded that the hypothesis is true, virtually all non-hack scientists accept it.

Hundreds of examples of natural evolution have been seen (ex. white peppered moth), hundreds of lab experiments proved that mutations lead to natural selection (26 year E.Coli experiment http://en.wikipedia.org...) and thousands of transitional fossils have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Evolution has been tested and observed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times. That is why the scientific community accepts it; it is not some elaborate secular conspiracy. We have the means, in this modern age, to actually confirm hypothesis beyond a doubt with all of the technology available. Thus, when something is accepted by 99.85% scientists, you can be damn well sure that it's correct.

LordKnukle, Off-topic and non sequitur in regards to what I said previously. Anti-Atheist, exactly!

Not at all. You were somehow implying that a consensus of scientists is nothing more than ad populum. I destroyed your arguments about that.

The post that was off-topic was about the scientific method and how the "evolution fact" has proof. This is not the point of my post, or the topic of the thread. The number of people believing in a certain belief does not indicate its truth.

Yes and no. Whether regular uneducated people believe in evolution is irrelevant, because they are borderline retarded. Whether life scientists, who confront this phenomena every single day believe it, is imperative.

You did not "destroy" ANY of my arguments. You merely noted the scientific method which I agree with. It does not seem like you really know what I was talking about. This wikipedia entry should help. http://en.wikipedia.org...

My god... you're a thick-headed retarded petty fellow, aren't you? I showed exactly why argument ad populum doesn't apply in the scientific field; the concept of science, as done by modern day society requires peer-reviewed testing and constant validation. If something has been tested hundreds of thousands of times, then that is why scientists agree with it- not because they just feel like it.

Post an actual argument instead of a Wiki link or a quote by some hack.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."