Evolution is stupid

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:40 am

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:49 pm

Well, why should I believe it? You act as if there is so much to choose from that you need to figure out just what I want before you can give me some. The fact is, there is none. Just one peice of evidence that we come from a different kind than a human. How about that.

You have stated previously that you reject the fossil record. That limits us to what is here right now. Sorry but evolution generally does not work in the time scales you are trying to limit it to. Again you are not trying to find evidence of evolution, given the constraints you have placed for acceptable evidence. If you would accept the fossil record this would be a different story but you have stated when shown pictures even of such things that all you see are a bunch of bones, or you question whether all the original pieces are there.

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:10 pm

This is an example of Bacteria LOSING information. That is the opposite for evolution friend. Need something better than that to make me believe I came from a rock.

Opposie evolution? Evolution just means change. What would the opposite of evolution be? I dont understand? None-Change?

You seem to believe that Evolution means "improving" ir "gain", am i right in suspecting this? Ask Harv about it, i have no doubt he will waste time rying to explain what Evolution actually is.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:12 pm

Scrotum wrote:Ask Harv about it, i have no doubt he will waste time rying to explain what Evolution actually is.

You mean because I always waste my time trying to explain evidence to atheists who aren't listening or open minded?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:17 pm

and only Juliod provided any evidence for evolution, and you did respond to that

If you can call it a response. I mean, he proved he doesn't know what evolution is (again), doesn't know what information is, and didn't even look at the link I posted (since the title of it is "evidence for macroevolution").

He's not reading our posts, just coming back with another uninformed low-brow creationist spew.

And we find he is a King-James-Onlyist. As if god spoke to the Israelites in Elizabethan English! Woo hoo!

...move along... nothing to see here...

DanZ

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:21 pm

BigChrisfilm wrote:Just a few.

This is interesting but a bit off topic. Why don't we continue this line of argument in The Authorized Version of 1611?

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:29 pm

harvey1 wrote:
Scrotum wrote:Ask Harv about it, i have no doubt he will waste time rying to explain what Evolution actually is.
You mean because I always waste my time trying to explain evidence to atheists who aren't listening or open minded?

No, because you insited on calling atheism a ´Philosophy´ with specific doctrines... You remind me of him Harv, sure its no YOU having fun? He is of the Hovind school, to the LETTER, exact word actually, i bet he just seen the seminars.

I love does Hovind Seminars, they are good.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:40 pm

Scrotum wrote:No, because you insited on calling atheism a ´Philosophy´

Atheism is a philosophy.

Scrot wrote:You remind me of him Harv.

What a coincidence, because you remind me of him. If he comes upon a piece of evidence that makes him an atheist, then he'll be you. Scary thought, huh? Two of you...

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:00 pm

harvey1 wrote:
Scrotum wrote:No, because you insited on calling atheism a ´Philosophy´
Atheism is a philosophy.

Scrot wrote:You remind me of him Harv.
What a coincidence, because you remind me of him. If he comes upon a piece of evidence that makes him an atheist, then he'll be you. Scary thought, huh? Two of you...

I dount it, im an elitist Facist atheist (realist). The only master he ever has is "God", and IF God owuld appear, he would never follow him because he wants "freedom", thats irony for you.

Anyway, You want a hug Harv?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:00 pm

harvey1 wrote:Atheism is a philosophy.

Two points:

I see nothing in the posted link that states that atheism is a philosophy. Atheism has philosophical implications as the linked article quite well points out. Atheism is a belief. It is the denial of the belief of sophisticated monotheism, according to these philosophers. However, I would deny that atheism, by itself, is complete enough to be a philosophy as such. Since the Stanford site seems to be missing an actual entry for philosophy, I will cite another source.
Philosophy -
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
This has nothing to do with "Evolution is stupid."

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:22 pm

McCulloch wrote:I see nothing in the posted link that states that atheism is a philosophy.

Most of the topics in the SEP say that the article is about a philosophy, however if you look at the entry content: guidelines and policies it says the following:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is intended to serve as an authoritative reference work suitable for use by professionals and students in the field of philosophy, as well as by all others interested in authoritative discussions on philosophical topics... Entries should be objective/neutral analyses/surveys that offer a broad perspective of the topic rather than advocate a point of view (no matter whether it is widespread or controversial). Authors should see their task as that of introducing advanced undergraduates (or grad students and colleagues), who may have no special knowledge of the topic, to the main issues and the most important pieces of literature on the topic, so as to bring them to a state where they can read the secondary literature with insight and understanding. Clarity of substance and style should also be one of the most important goals.

Now, I'm sure there are religious, sociological, psychological, aspects to atheism that is not a philosophy per se, but as a belief system about what is true of the world it is a philosophy.

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Bingo.

McCulloch wrote:This has nothing to do with "Evolution is stupid."

This is a correction to something that was said in the course of debate. If someone cites incorrect information, the correct information should be posted where others can see that the information provided was in error.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Evolution is stupid

Evolution driving me BONKERS!