PROOF that evolution is FALSE!!!!!

[c4ts]

Just kidding. But here's a chick tract for you:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Enjoy.

[BillyJoe]

It's probably a waste of time refuting that bible thumper.
On the other hand, if anyone would like to support any of his points.......

[sorgoth]

Riiiiiiigggggghhhhttttt........ What a load of crapola. I mean, the guy DID bring up a few good points, but none of them disproved evolution. Just a few theories. He started getting wonky and proofless near the end, though.,

This should probably be posted in the Religion section.

Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Whodini
This should probably be posted in the Religion section.
Evolution v Creationism is, I think, more properly a Science topic than a Religion And Philosophy topic.
At the very least it could be in either. Toss a coin. Heads Science wins. Tails Religion loses.
Sounds about right. :)
Originally posted by Whodini
Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one. Sounds about right. :D
(Except perhaps it should be "nontheist" rather than "athesit" depending on your definitions)

regards,
BillyJoe

[ChrisH]

[
(Except perhaps it should be "nontheist" rather than "athesit" depending on your definitions)

Er... that's what 'atheist' means, isn't it?

Originally posted by ChrisH

(Except perhaps it should be "nontheist" rather than "athesit" depending on your definitions)

Er... that's what 'atheist' means, isn't it?

Quick! Get over to the Religion and Philosophy forum! Franko is waiting!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Denise


Quick! Get over to the Religion and Philosophy forum! Franko is waiting!

Franko is the other reason I posted this topic here instead of R&P.

Originally posted by c4ts


Franko is the other reason I posted this topic here instead of R&P.

I must say that you are very wise.:D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

This should probably be posted in the Religion section.

Given that this thread is about evolution, and pseudo-scientific claims against it, I would say it belongs here as much as anywhere else.

Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one.

Oh please. :rolleyes: Even most Christians think that Biblical Creationism is pure nonsense, and accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. Please quit trying to turn every discussion into a theism vs atheism one.

Dr. Stupid

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Except perhaps it should be "nontheist" rather than "atheist" depending on your definitions.
Originally posted by ChrisH
Er... that's what 'atheist' means, isn't it? As I said, it depends on your definitions

Theist: Someone who believes that God exists.
Atheist: Someone who believes that God does not exist.
Nontheist: Someone who does not believe that God exists.

By these definitions, neither theism nor atheism are sceptical positions because there is no evidence that "God exists" and no evidence that "God does not exist"

A nontheist takes the sceptical position that he will believe in something only if there is evidence for this belief (and his belief will be in proportion to the evidence). Therefore he "does not believe that God exists" because there is no evidence for this position. This is very different from believing that "God does not exist"


However, some do not recognize the term "nontheist" and split "atheist" into "strong atheist" (equivalent to the definition for "atheist" above) and "weak atheist" (equivalent to the definition for "nontheist" above)

As I say, it depends on your definitions but I personally much prefer "nontheist" to "weak atheist"

Originally posted by Whodini
This should probably be posted in the Religion section.

Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one.

Evolutionary theory properly belongs in the biological sciences. Therefore, discussion of evolution properly belongs in the Science forum. Please quit trying to equate science with atheism. Please quit trying to turn rational discourse into balderdash.

Cheers,

[espritch]

This should probably be posted in the Religion section.

Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one.


Evolution is a scientific theory, not a theist vs. atheist issue. Creationists try to portray evolution as a religious (or anti-religious) belief exactly because they cannot effectively argue against the science behind it. Religiously motivated attacks on legitimate science are of obvious interest to those concerned with science and this issue clearly belongs on the science forum.

[neutrino_cannon]

Indeed, all that needs be said here can be found at the talk origin archives. www.talkorigins.org. Creationism is primarily motivated by religion and nuttiness, but there are those who battle creationists and are theists of some sort or another.

Oh yeah, and none of the "points" brought up there have any merit, as you shall see at talkorigins. Creationism on the whole is a rather odd blotch on the US (primarily US), and, to quote Stephen Jay Gould, "[A]s patriotic Americans, we should cringe in embarrassment that, at the dawn of a new, technological millennium,... our heartland has opted supress one of greatest triumphs of human discovery." Perhaps creationism will not go away in the near future, and that would surely be because of a lack of proper scientific instruction rather than the resilience of pseudoscience.

Whichever turns out ot be the case, there should be a concerted effort to drive not only creationism, but all other parasitic nonsense from the world. Leaving such poisonous lies out as truth for the world surely does great diservice to our attempts to better the world, and for that reason must be dealt in an honest and straightforeward way, else is to our loss.

(end pitiful attempt at Gould-esque writing)

----
Please quit trying to turn every discussion into a theism vs atheism one.
----


I guess Stimpy is talking to me again.

[jj]

Originally posted by Whodini
This should probably be posted in the Religion section.

Please quit trying to turn a skeptic board into an atheist one.

One more jeer.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is falsifiable, etc.

Creation "science" is a silly form of religion that can not be falsified, has no evidence for it, and that is shoved down our throats by the equivelent of witch-hunters.

----
Creation "science" is a silly form of religion that ....
----


So why post about it in the Science section.

Unless the original poster was promoting atheism.

[rwald]

Anti-creationist != anti-religion

What part of that do you not understand?

----
Anti-creationist != anti-religion

What part of that do you not understand?
----


It is

anti-one-aspect-of-religion.

[rwald]

Belief in religion does not require belief in creationism. If I were Christian, I'd be pissed at creationists for making Christianity look stupid. Your argument is like saying anti-Islamic-fundamentalist = anti-Islam (yea, yea, straw-man argument, but it shows that your part = whole idea is wrong).

If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.

Nothing wrong with that.

[rwald]

No...

If you are anti-creationism, you are anti-literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible. There do exist some sects of Christianity which believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are also sects which believe the Earth is flat, and those which believe that snake-handling is an essential part of religious worship. I don't think disagreeing with their one point is anti-religion so much as it is anti-religious-extremist. If you consider "religious extremists" to themselves be separate religions, then yes, I am against those religions. I am also against religions which advocate human sacrifice. I see no conflict.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Whodini
If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.


I still fail to see how anti-one specific religion = atheism. Surely there exist/existed religions you don't like (human sacrifice, mass suicide, whatever); are you an atheist?

Nothing wrong with that.

Then why did you bother to post anything at all?

[rwald]

Because he feels that anti-creationist thread should be in Religion & Philosophy, not Science.

Any doctrine which wants to have its dogma taught in science class can be debated in the Science forum.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO WHODINI

Did you know that the professor of biology Kenneth Miller is both an orthodox Catholic, and an orthodox Darwinian? I have seen him on TV program here in Sweden; "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" coined by Daniel Dennett, together with both Dennett, and S. J. Gould. He is a very well known critic of the ID' movement!


Finding Darwin's God by professor of biology Kenneth Miller
Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in last night's lottery. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as antithetical to the existence of a Creator; why should we regard similar events in natural history any differently? There is, I would submit, no reason at all. If we can view the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species. The alternative is a world where all events have predictable outcomes, where the future is open neither to chance nor to independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is a world in which we would never be free. To a believer, the particular history leading to us shows how truly remarkable we are, how rare is the gift of consciousness, and how precious is the chance to understand.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

----
I still fail to see how anti-one specific religion = atheism.
----


You are atheistic towards that religion.

This is the atheists' own argument.
("You don't believe in Zeus? You don't believe in Laozi? You don't believe in Athena? You are atheistic towards those gods. I just take it one step further", etc.)


----
Then why did you bother to post anything at all?
----


Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Whodini
If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.

Nothing wrong with that.

I agree with your statement but it's really not a statement that means much since almost every statement you make about the world is "anti-one of the religions".

(As an aside I would point out that the majority Christian view about evolution is that is a scientific theory that may or may not be correct but is in essence not in contradiction with Christian belief.)

But certainly if a "creationist" is making statements about science and the facts that science states then it is totally valid to discuss it in a science forum.

[Andoz]

Come off it fellas,

Evolution is a hand full of nine inch nails in the coffin of religion.
Did I say "nails"? - make that "screws".

Only Deism survives its onslaught and that's not much.

Originally posted by Whodini
[B
----
Then why did you bother to post anything at all?
----


Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree. [/B]

You really put the dash in balder, don't you? You criticized somebody for posting a scientific topic in the science forum, and are now madly tap-dancing to defend that indefensible post. Your other posts get even more illogical, though.

The Pope recently shifted Catholic doctrine by decreeing Catholic acceptance of Darwin. Does that make the Pope and all Catholics now atheists? What kind of whacky definition is that?

Cheers,

[Jon_in_london]

Doesnt anyone have some parodies of chciktracts?

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Doesnt anyone have some parodies of chciktracts?

Seek and ye shall find (http://216.131.88.114/chick/)

Cheers,

[BobM]

nrcan_counts_prev.ppo_zip = nrcan_counts1.ppo_zip
nrcan_counts_prev.make = nrcan_counts1.make
nrcan_counts_prev.vin_gvw = nrcan_counts1.vin_gvw
nrcan_counts_prev.lite_ind = nrcan_counts1.lite_ind
nrcan_counts_prev.count_all = nrcan_counts1.count_allOh damn. Wrong cut & paste.

Here's the one I wantd:
Evolution is a hand full of nine inch nails in the coffin of religion.
Did I say "nails"? - make that "screws".I disagree. Religion is compatible with pretty much everything (except a pure rational scientific method philosophy.)

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Whodini

You are atheistic towards that religion.

This is the atheists' own argument.
("You don't believe in Zeus? You don't believe in Laozi? You don't believe in Athena? You are atheistic towards those gods. I just take it one step further", etc.)


Not my argument. Seems pretty foolish to use atheism that way; it's far from the common usage, and defines everyone to be an atheist.

Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree.

I was merely curious about the purpose of your original post. You certainly have the right to post; I was wondering if you intended to defend your accusation that c4ts' post is not science-related. Or demonstrate that debunking Jack Chick is not a reasonable exercise in skepticism.

[xouper]

bump