The first guy is some idiot from Boston.
And another one, this time from Britain:You may not call yourself a creationist, but by your words, you are one. What "gaping holes in the theory" of evolution do you refer to? Are you aware that evolution is both theory AND fact? How much of my website have you actually read, since your statements are clearly refuted within? And are you aware that the "moral high ground" has nothing to do with logic and factual accuracy, ie- the only criteria relevant to a discussion of scientific validity?James Roche wrote:Name: James Roche
E-Mail: professorjohnnycash@yahoo.com
Comments: Hello, I found your site on portal of evil(ha) and while the whole star wars vs. trek thing is entirely uniteresting to me, I did take note of the 'creationism vs. science' rant.
I'd like to point out that science is far from having the moral high ground on this issue. (So you don't mismiss me out of hand, as I wouldn't entirely blame you for, I'm not a creationist) They aggressively present evolution as solid, scientific fact, which it simply is not. That's why it's still a theory, and until they find proof, and much more proof than simply the missing link, it will remain as such. I won't bother going into detail, as you can figure out some of the gaping holes in the theory by yourself.Wrong. Evolution is both fact and theory. It is the only scientifically valid theory, and Darwin's deathbed confession (a creationist LIE, by the way) has no bearing on that fact (something you would understand if you had theIs there any wrong with that? No, but aggressively enforcing a theory that's own inventor renounced before his death as firm, 100% fact, simply because it's the first good argument against Biblical scholars that science got it's hands on, there is something wrong with that. Quite frankly, both are far, far away from being even remotely conclusive, and neither should be taught alone in schools, although the seperation of church and state would obviously not allow both.
foggiest grasp of scientific methods). It is the only theory which should be taught in science class because it is the only theory which is justifiable based on logic and our observations of objective reality.Scientific "flip-flopping", as you call it, is proof that the scientific method works. The scientific community can change its positions because it is capable of questioning them. In fact, it is REQUIRED to constantly question them because that is how the scientific method works.While religion has been pretty consistent over the years, science is not nearly as infamous as it should be for it's flip-flopping.It's amazing that you can contradict yourself so easily. First you say that scientists "flip-flop", then you insist that they dogmatically cling to outmoded theories despite contradictory evidence! Are you even TRYING to THINK while you type this nonsense? Sadly, your failure to present a logically self-consistent argument is typical of creationists.The first strong theory that comes along is declared as fact, and anyone, scientist, bible-thumper, or what have you, that comes along arguing against it, no matter how many facts they might have, is usually declared a crack-pot, his evidence dismissed out of hand, and his reputation as muddied as the scientific community can manage.
By the way, I challenge you to provide one example of the scientific community permanently rejecting a scientific theory which can be shown to be scientifically valid and superior to an existing theory. Brief resistance is normal and an inevitable result of human nature, but I defy you to
demonstrate ONE example of such a theory which is not eventually accepted by the entire scientific community.Your ignorance of both science and history astounds me. it was CHRISTIANS who threatened to kill people for declaring that the Earth is round or that it resolves around the Sun, not scientists. Find me ONE historical reference source showing a mob of scientists conducting their own version of a witch hunt. Do you even TRY to verify these kinds of stories before spouting them in public?This is, after all, a descendant of the same scientific community that threw people out of towers for being stupid enough to declare the earth round.Why do you say that? Evolution theory, geological theory, astrophysical theory, and thermodynamics all debunk Genesis. That is a fact, and your fallacious "appeal to motive" (that's the name of a logical fallacy; look it up) will not erase it.The fact that science even declares that the evolutionary theory debunks religions is a sign that alot of scientists ranting are doing so out of spite, rather than conviction.You are ASSUMING that evolution is planned. You are ASSUMING that animal adaptation to its environment is "perfect". Worse yet, you are ASSUMING that adaptation requires sentient intervention, even though the mechanism of natural adaptation has been observed in nature and tested in experiment. And finally, you are ASSUMING that high levels of complexity are indicative of deliberate design rather than undirected activity, when in reality, deliberate design always favours simplicity and elegance, not chaos and complexity.If a natural plan as complex as evolution exists, a huge, integral framework in which every thing affects everything, and that animals adapt perfectly to their surroundings as according to their needs doesn't sound like an intentional idea that was created by a sentient entity, I dont know what does. The almost ludicrously complex natural order that science suggests doesn't simply happen.
Your glaring ignorance of scientific methods and the theory of evolution is becoming ever more clear. You may SAY you're not a creationist, but it's blatantly obvious that despite your denials, you ARE definitely a card-carrying, science-hating dyed-in-the-wool creationist, and a typically
ignorant one to boot.Wrong; the hatred is entirely one-sided. Your religion hates science and wishes to censor it whenever it dares contradict religious dogma. Science, on the other hand, merely needs religion to stop sticking its nose in the business of scientists and insisting that they waste time seriously considering (or worse yet, teaching) theories which haven't a shred of supporting evidence.I'm not arguing for either side, really, as my beliefs are my own. But to my view, both sides are ignoring the fact that their ideas lock together quite nicely, and are simply arguing out of a huge mutual spite that's been boiling up since the dark ages.Finally, you've gotten something right. However, in the context of this particular argument (as opposed to one about religion and morality), it is irrelevant. The point is that religion has no basis or justification in objective reality, hence it is subjective and has no place in schools, except as a subject of anthropological or sociological study. Its history of atrocities is certainly clear disproof of the ridiculous "faith = morality" causality claim, but it has no bearing here.Religion created crusades, jihads, and inquisitions.That is TECHNOLOGY, not science. You obviously don't even know the difference between science and technology. How sad.Science has gifted us with killer bees, the abyssal void of culture that is the internet, global warming and a slew of diseases."Appeal to consequence" fallacy; you are trying to claim that science cannot claim to be accurate because the technology derived from science can be harmful. Obviously, you are not only ignorant of science and history but you are also staggeringly irrational, because you clearly haven't thought this through. These harmful technologies you speak of; does it occur to you that if science was invalid, THEY WOULDN'T WORK? It is irrelevant whether they have been used wisely; the point is that science DOES work, hence its usefulness in designing new technologies, and your attempt to cite the powerful impact of those technologies as disproof of science is simply laughable.I'm not sure where either sides gets off claiming they're perfect.
And finally, some nimrod AOLer:They're frustrated at creationist stupidity. It's a common problem.Chris Groves wrote:Name: Chris Groves
E-Mail: zipfruit@hotmail.com
Comments: I've been debating with evolutionists quite a while now on MB's and I have to say it is the evolutionists that get hot under the collar.Nasty language has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of a logical argument.I can post you plenty of examples if you like, some nasty language involved too.On the contrary, I agree that most creationists try to be superficially polite. It's the only real rhetorical technique they have: ignoring their opponents' arguments and thus infuriating them, and then holding their noses in the air and accusing their opponents of being rude or "desperate" when they inevitably get angry and start insulting them for using an array of logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies (ie- lies).I haven't seen any agression from the creationist. Are you making it up? Or have you seen a couple of examples and have to decided to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know what your mother taught you when you were growing up, but my mother taught me that when people care more about how you say something than what you say, you're dealing with stupid people.Don't be ridiculous. I have never said there was no such thing as a global disaster. I said there was no such thing as the global Flood described in the Bible. This is PRECISELY the sort of thing which elicits angry responses from your debating opponents; you have just shamelessly misrepresented my argument, thus indicating that you were too contemptuous of it to bother reading it fully.Also you said there is no such thing as global disaster. There cannot be is what you said. Was the dinosaur extinction caused by something other than global disaster in your opinion then?No, they won't. They are "points" at all; the first one is a glaring logical fallacy ("style over substance"; the "evolutionists" use foul language so they're wrong) and the second one is a foul misrepresentation of my position ("strawman fallacy").There's a lot more I could say but those 2 points will do for now.
Ah, creationists. Irrefutable proof that the education system doesn't work.Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Try to pay attention.Kim Stalker wrote:Name: Kim Stalker
E-Mail: KBS4439@A)L.COM
Comments: If man evolved from apes, why are the apes still on earth?Wrong. That is a simple-minded creationist distortion of evolution theory. Try to pay attention.Evolution is a theory based upon the belief that we keep geeting better and the fittest survive.No. This prediction results only from your grossly incompetent misinterpretation of evolution theory.Shouldn't every ape be gone because of this?Obviously, your standard for "proof" is very low. Not surprising for a creationist; no doubt you are also woefully ignorant of science and logic.Since they are still here, that is enough proof to me that in no way did man evolve from them.
