A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 03:43 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:39 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm gonna go smoke first but I'll be back to pick apart your webpage. Tongue My hunch is that everything you think you know about thermodynamics, molecular biology, and Darwin was learned from ID, creationist, or Christian sources.
Be careful not to cut yourself in the sharp contrast between fact and fiction! Enjoy your reading!
Your hunch is wrong. I thought them up myself, after being taught by someone else much smarter than me, of course.Smile
Well I'm glad that you chose to seek out information form someone more learned than you but I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn. Evolution doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. No theory does. But it does explain the origin of species and quite elegantly. Is it possible that it's not true? Sure. But that possibility is so, so very unlikely.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:00 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 03:58 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:43 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Be careful not to cut yourself in the sharp contrast between fact and fiction! Enjoy your reading!
Your hunch is wrong. I thought them up myself, after being taught by someone else much smarter than me, of course.Smile
Well I'm glad that you chose to seek out information form someone more learned than you but I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn. Evolution doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. No theory does. But it does explain the origin of species and quite elegantly. Is it possible that it's not true? Sure. But that possibility is so, so very unlikely.
cue Tudor with another condescending comment. Something about how you'll understand when you read his blog if you've got the brains. Pompous git.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:02 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 04:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:58 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Well I'm glad that you chose to seek out information form someone more learned than you but I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn. Evolution doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. No theory does. But it does explain the origin of species and quite elegantly. Is it possible that it's not true? Sure. But that possibility is so, so very unlikely.
cue Tudor with another condescending comment. Something about how you'll understand when you read his blog if you've got the brains. Pompous git.

I already went through his blog. It's nothing but misunderstandings of the mechanisms of evolution coupled with endless reusage of the argument from ignorance fallacy, as per my last post.

EDIT: Or the post before that, anyway. Herp

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
29-03-2012, 04:06 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 04:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:58 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Well I'm glad that you chose to seek out information form someone more learned than you but I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn. Evolution doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. No theory does. But it does explain the origin of species and quite elegantly. Is it possible that it's not true? Sure. But that possibility is so, so very unlikely.
cue Tudor with another condescending comment. Something about how you'll understand when you read his blog if you've got the brains. Pompous git.
I kinda like him.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
29-03-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 03:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Or have you not heard of Human echolocation?
I have heard of it, and seen it in a documentary. Some blind man was using his tongue (clicking it somehow) and, listening to the echo the sound made, figured out his approximate surroundings. Yet, the precision was so poor that it could hardly qualify as echolocation. You're going to argue that in time we could become better probably just as good as bats, if we only allocate more brain activity to this. My immediate question is, are our ears going to grow too? If we really strive to listen and develop this adaptation, are our ears going to follow suit and aid the process? Some species of bats have huge ears compared to their body. How did those ears grow so large? Oh, I'll tell you how. When "nature" realized what the bat-to-be was trying to do, it said, let's help the little guy and grow its ears, gradually, generation after generation, of course. You call it natural selection and stop thinking. To you the process of "favoring the bat that had bigger ears as opposed to the one that had smaller years" automatically leads to the ears of the bat growing over millions of years. And by saying this you think you have won the argument. But have you ever wondered why bats ears grow in the first place? Because you base your theory on the idea that the ears are supposed to grow by default, and then natural selection takes over and makes then as big as you want. Your stupid natural selection theory only justifies improvements from something that is already there. Tell me how ears appear in the first place and then we can have a logical uninterrupted explanation of the bat's big years. Don't use something that is already there, change it a little and then claim you solved the mystery of how it got to be the way it is! Please!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:11 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Or have you not heard of Human echolocation?
I have heard of it, and seen it in a documentary. Some blind man was using his tongue (clicking it somehow) and, listening to the echo the sound made, figured out his approximate surroundings. Yet, the precision was so poor that it could hardly qualify as echolocation. You're going to argue that in time we could become better probably just as good as bats, if we only allocate more brain activity to this. My immediate question is, are our ears going to grow too? If we really strive to listen and develop this adaptation, are our ears going to follow suit and aid the process? Some species of bats have huge ears compared to their body. How did those ears grow so large? Oh, I'll tell you how. When "nature" realized what the bat-to-be was trying to do, it said, let's help the little guy and grow its ears, gradually, generation after generation, of course. You call it natural selection and stop thinking. To you the process of "favoring the bat that had bigger ears as opposed to the one that had smaller years" automatically leads to the ears of the bat growing over millions of years. And by saying this you think you have won the argument. But have you ever wondered why bats ears grow in the first place? Because you base your theory on the idea that the ears are supposed to grow by default, and then natural selection takes over and makes then as big as you want. Your stupid natural selection theory only justifies improvements from something that is already there. Tell me how ears appear in the first place and then we can have a logical uninterrupted explanation of the bat's big years. Don't use something that is already there, change it a little and then claim you solved the mystery of how it got to be the way it is! Please!
If you really are interested I recommend part 2 of this series. It's explains how our bodies know to grow legs, eyes, ears, etc. It's quite interesting. It focuses on genes and why our bodies develop the way they do. Also explains why and how humans for example know not to grow antennae or thoraxes.

(15-03-2012 03:54 PM)germanyt Wrote:  [Image: nova355dvd.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 04:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 07:30 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 06:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  Tudor, you are full of derp. I went to see your blog. It's all lots of nose-in-the-air I'm-more-intelligent-than-everyone crap, and the only argument you have there that I can see is what the apostle Paul said to the Romans. And the same post that you posted here about being far away and up close.



I suppose I shouldn't have wasted my time. Nothing grates me more than when an idiot is condescending though, I have to react to it.



Consider this before you make another snooty post. There are a thousand people, many of whom have passed through this very forum, all vending their own brand of reality, all convinced that theirs is the one true way. You are one of them. Of those thousand people, not all of you can be correct. *Are you sure you're not delusional*? If your answer is "obviously not", then you haven't done your background check properly - *every* scientist worries about whether he is correct or not. Only madmen don't.



Did you read the first two parts also? I doubt it. Read those too, buddy, and then comment. When you see Part 3 of something, you start looking for parts 1 and 2 if you're an intelligent creature.
And to answer your question, "Are you sure you're not delusional?" I'll answer this: I believe 2+2=4 not because some smart scientists are telling me this, but because I understand what addition is. I can think for myself. Of course, for you the debate between evolution and creation may not be as clear as 2+2, but it just happens that it is for me. And you know what the bad news is for you, my friend? I don't like what I'm seeing. I wish there was no God. I wish evolution were true. I actually hate God for what he did. Seriously. Then wouldn't it be much easier for me to say, "There is no God after all!" and live "happily" like you atheists do? Then why don't I do that?
If you can answer the questions I asked in the first two parts of my paper (there are going to be more) then you indeed are a genius. But you're not going to be able to answer because much smarter people have been trying unsuccessfully to do that. And instead of realizing the truth (that there is a fucking God, whether we like it or not!) they cling to their evolution theory and invent intricately enough, yet stupid fairy tales so that ignorants like you (the majority of the world's population) would believe them. I really don't like what/who I am (knowing the truth) but I certainly wouldn't want to be in your shoes.


(29-03-2012 06:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Reading the Babble "several times" ?? Hahahahaha. Try a lifetime of scholarship. The fact that human perception is limited to certain wavelengths proves NOTHING. All that "zoom" shit, really ?? Many super-computer simulations have demonstrated how long, (and exactly how) light sensitive cells develop light sensitivity. (Takes about 40 generations). For someone who isn't a Christian, and "doesn't really like to quote the Babble", it sure happened a LOT. !!

I'm going to say to you the same thing I told the other guy: Read parts 1 and 2 and you will see no reference to the Bible whatsoever. Everything in there is based on LOGIC which you people seem to have great lack of. Otherwise you wouldn't need a jerk like me to teach you to think. I'm being rude because you really deserve that.

Sorry, but if it's as bad as Part 3, it's worthless. You say you don't like quoting the bible, then do it for about 1/3 of the post.

And apart from evading the questions, which you obviously are unable to address, (since you have not even tried), you saying that you are logical, is neither an argument, nor does it make you so. There is NOTHING logical about creationism, because you have no creator. THAT is logical. All that nonsense about "zooming" is so ridiculous. Just because humans have EVOLVED 5 senses which can detect the universe in certain small ranges, (light, sound), but HAVE developed technology to detect ranges FAR out side the ranges of the natural ranges of the senses proves NOTHING, and especially, it does NOT prove the "personal god" shit, and thus supports nothing about creationism.

You keep asserting we should listen to you because YOU know the truth. Get in line. Millions of idiots over tens of thousand of years have said the SAME thing. They were ALL wrong.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
I'm copying these from the AiG thread because I feel it's relevant.

[Image: mustardgeneticvariation.png]
[Image: dog-breeds-chart-comparing-breeds.jpg]
[Image: TreeOfLife.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:50 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(27-03-2012 10:33 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Why is this bad news for you, then? Because it simply tells you that your zooming device is not the best in the world as you may think. I know it isn’t, because I have a better one that allows me to see deeper

You do realize that is an example of "delusional" .. seriously, clinically delusional. How far EXACTLY, and I mean EXACTLY, can Mr. Zoom Zoom...zoom ?
Can you see quarks ? Can you see electrons ? Can you see Dark Matter ? You are a serious nut case. Why is it all these creationist nut cases gravitate to this board ?
We'll leave ya to the junior varsity. This is a waste of time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-03-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 03:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Or have you not heard of Human echolocation?
I have heard of it, and seen it in a documentary. Some blind man was using his tongue (clicking it somehow) and, listening to the echo the sound made, figured out his approximate surroundings. Yet, the precision was so poor that it could hardly qualify as echolocation.

Except that that's the definition of echolocation. "Sound-finding".

This isn't something you can argue, tudor. This is fact. Echolocation is just powerful, sophisticated hearing.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  You're going to argue that in time we could become better probably just as good as bats, if we only allocate more brain activity to this.

Yes. Given huge amounts of time and evolutionary pressure which selects for those of us with better hearing, we could. Will we? Probably not. There's no environmental pressure selecting for better hearing among humans today.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  My immediate question is, are our ears going to grow too?

Entirely possible, yes.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Some species of bats have huge ears compared to their body. How did those ears grow so large? Oh, I'll tell you how.

You'll attempt to, anyway. I'm betting you're wrong.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  When "nature" realized what the bat-to-be was trying to do

Nature "realizes" nothing. No one has argued that it does.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  it said, let's help the little guy and grow its ears, gradually, generation after generation, of course. You call it natural selection and stop thinking. To you the process of "favoring the bat that had bigger ears as opposed to the one that had smaller years" automatically leads to the ears of the bat growing over millions of years. And by saying this you think you have won the argument. But have you ever wondered why bats ears grow in the first place? Because you base your theory on the idea that the ears are supposed to grow by default, and then natural selection takes over and makes then as big as you want.

Wow. You really don't understand anything about evolution, do you?

There is no "default" by which the ears are "supposed" to grow. Mutations result in bats with slightly bigger ears, then environmental pressures eliminate the bats with the smaller ears. It's that simple. Either the bats with the smaller ears are subject to a sudden environmental change which causes them to die out, or they're simply outcompeted by the bats with larger ears. This doesn't necessarily happen over a single generation, either. Again, statistics. It's a matter of huge sample sizes and massive amounts of repetition, not a single generation.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Your stupid natural selection theory only justifies improvements from something that is already there.

When you leave out the addition of new features via mutation, yes. But that's why the theory of evolution includes more than just natural selection.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Tell me how ears appear in the first place

Genetic mutation.

(29-03-2012 04:07 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Don't use something that is already there, change it a little and then claim you solved the mystery of how it got to be the way it is! Please!

Wow. You really don't understand what the theory of evolution is about at all, do you?

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: