farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 09:10 pm
aw gunga , Talk origins is like Scientific American whereas Answers in Genesis is like the National Enquirer.
I was attempting to be fair and honest about the data presented on T/O., and there are some errors. Answers in Genesis is a friggin scientific joke. If you believe AIG , you must believe that Lord of the Rings is true also.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 09:14 pm
On abiogenesis. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 09:21 pm
The above link is all inclusive; it also includes links to "evolution" and includes data to prove their thesis.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 09:30 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Thomas wrote:
As I understand Brandon's posts, he has asked you several times for links that might support these claims. You have not been forthcoming.



As I understand his posts, he basically lacks any real qualifications to be making such arguments and is trying to substitute attitude for the lack of knowledge.

You quoted a statement by some researcher and I merely asked a couple of follow-up questions which for some reason you will not answer. When you refer to my background or attitude, you are referring to the irrelevant. Our lines of argument must stand on their own merit, and any attempt to bring their origin into the discussion is simply a distraction. If I say, "Yes, but that solution is not x squared, it's x cubed," you cannot then answer by saying that I am unqualified. If my argument is correct it doesn't matter what my personal qualities are, and the same if it is incorrect. Now answer the two questions I asked you, which I shall thoughtfully reprint below.

Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.
...in order for the theories about life arising out of this stuff by chance to have any shot, this soup would have been thick and consisted of tarry elements which would have impregnated any rocks they came into contact with the same way in which bituminous elements impregnated the remains of ancient forests to create coal.

Nonsense. Cite your source.

gungasnake wrote:
The evidence this would have left would be very, very obvious; nonetheless as Denton notes, there is no such evidence on this planet.

Answer my previous question about what compounds they have looked for, and in what age of rocks they do first appear.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:49 am
gungasnake wrote:
Denton does not cite anything on the question of "dawn rocks" and so I assume he believes this one to be common knowledge, at least amongst people who study such things.

Let me get this straight: You were betting your argument on what you assume somebody believes? If so, this strikes me as lightheaded. No, this one isn't common knowledge among people who study those things. Possibly because "dawn rocks" are not a prediction of evolutionary biology.

gungsasnake wrote:
One other site I notice which discusses the topic without exclusive reference to Denton is this

... and like the other sites, it gives us no reason to expect that traces of this primordial soup would be present in the geological record billions of years later. Your sources are refuting a prediction evolutionary theory does not make, for all the evidence you have cited so far.

On a more general note, have you ever read a book on evolutionary biology that was actually written by an evolutionary biologist? Or are you going exclusively by creationist summaries of what evolutionary biologists are arguing? If so, would you also ask a Ford salesman for a description of General Motors' vehicles, and choose your car based on his account taken at face value?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:05 am
Thomas wrote:

On a more general note, have you ever read a book on evolutionary biology that was actually written by an evolutionary biologist? Or are you going exclusively by creationist summaries of what evolutionary biologists are arguing? If so, would you also ask a Ford salesman for a description of General Motors' vehicles, and choose your car based on his account taken at face value?


I regard the entire field of "evolutionary biology" as BS and the perpetrators thereof as quacks and charlatons of the worst sort. I am generally familiar with all of the major tenets of the theory of evolution from any number of sources but as to the question of whether I've ever made any sort of a deep study of "evolutionary biology", the answer is no. Why should I want to?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:24 am
gungasnake wrote:
I regard the entire field of "evolutionary biology" as BS and the perpetrators thereof as quacks and charlatons of the worst sort. I am generally familiar with all of the major tenets of the theory of evolution from any number of sources but as to the question of whether I've ever made any sort of a deep study of "evolutionary biology", the answer is no. Why should I want to?

For the same reason you would want to test-drive that GM for yourself, rather than taking the Ford dealer's word on what it's like to drive it. Or, less metaphorically, because you might want to know what someone is actually saying before you accuse him of charlatanery. When making charges like this, you might find it useful to actually know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:08 am
Hear hear Thomas.....It is rather futile though, arguing with people that have only one eye, as they will never see out of the other.
Total waste of energy really.
The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to teach the young to have an enquiring mind. To always ask questions, and more importantly, to fully digest the answers.
Then they can come to their own conclusions.
Anyone past school age, in this modern world, that refuses to acknowledge the reality of evolution, is probably beyond conversion. Their minds were cleverly closed during their formative years, I'm afraid.
I have to go now, my Tail bone is playing me up again.
Ellpus.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 06:52 am
Quote:
I am generally familiar with all of the major tenets of the theory of evolution from any number of sources but as to the question of whether I've ever made any sort of a deep study of "evolutionary biology", the answer is no. Why should I want to?


I have to go now and get my brainpan power- washed, because this makes no sense to me at all.

Lord Ellpus, might I proffer a warm welcome from the former colony of Pennsylvania . I hope we may all benefit from your obvious gift of years of wisdom. Whats in the glass?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:41 pm
Hello, farmerman.......small world isnt it? I live very near to Penn (buckinghamshire), named after William Penn (ring any bells?), and I believe, where his family originated from. Its about three miles away, and has a wonderful Pub called The Crown. I frequently go there for a pint (when I'm not being Lord Ellpus...he only drinks Cognac you know)...and a drinking pal of mine is named Penn, his family has been in the area for generations, and when he is sober enough, he works on his family tree but no U.S.connection yet.
Now there's a useless set of facts for you.
See you around......but dont get your blood pressure up on the old evolution thingy, you will never win. If you notice, 99% of all these threads are started by creationists. It is an ideal opportunity to get people (unwittingly) to talk about God. And we fall for it every time. Very crafty.
Ellpus.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:48 pm
Lord Ellpus, I doubt very much we "unwittingly" talk about god. If anything, most of our arguments are supported by facts/science, while the other side relies too heavily on the 'bible.' People with common sense and logic on their side should see it clearly; otherwise they already belong to the religious group.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:21 pm
I absolutely agree.....its just that I am sure that half of these threads are started with the INTENTION of possibly winning someone over.
It would be interesting to do a survey of how many threads there are on, say several large forums....and then see how many of those are started by an evolutionist.
You wont find many I'll bet.
Ellpus.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:47 pm
Lord Ellpus, It may be true that most of these threads are originated most likely by creationists, but people who know anything about logic and science will not allow creationists to misrepresent evolution. Therein lies the rub.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 06:08 pm
Yes, I suppose you're right. If you saw someone crossing over from the 1500's into our time zone, the first instinct would be to show them around a bit, tell them what developments have taken place.
You've got a tough job on your hands though. Plenty of deep breaths and counting to ten, thats what I say.
Good luck out there.
Ellpus.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 07:25 pm
Quote:
If you believe AIG , you must believe that Lord of the Rings is true also.


Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Darwinian Doubts
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/29/2020 at 12:33:06