For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.

  • 23 Replies
  • 2577 Views
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« on: December 01, 2010, 11:46:15 AM »
Alright now, we all have witnessed the strength with what TruthSeeker argues against evolution. So I am throwing a question here:
- If evolution is not valid, then what is?

I would like to see alternative theories, other points of views, different explanations for the biodiversity we have in the world nowadays, how it came to be, if it changes, etc etc., and more precisely, I am asking:
TruthSeeker, in what you believe, if not evolution to explain the current biodiversity? Show back up if possible.

Hope we can have a pleasant debate here.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2010, 11:49:04 AM »
Is the alternative not intelligent design? I don't know what else you could be looking for.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2010, 11:50:47 AM »
I don't know, maybe, I'm taking anything I can get; i think it's not fair to just argue against one viewpoint!
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2010, 11:59:20 AM »
I like your intent, but I don't think you will find much else. I used to participate in the great evolutionary war, alongside General Dawkins and Field Marshall Hitchens, but soon realized that it was a battle of scientific truth v mythic truth. In other ways, this debate is an interesting one. But on the pure face of Evolutionary Biology v _________ it's pretty boring.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2010, 12:01:35 PM »
Well, I'll tell you something when I see the turn this thread takes alright? Not my first time either :)
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2010, 12:18:33 PM »
Alright now, we all have witnessed the strength with what TruthSeeker argues against evolution. So I am throwing a question here:
- If evolution is not valid, then what is?

Evolution is valid as a religion/faith/worldview but not as a science. I've met some honest evolutionists who admit the former, but unfortuantly they are the minority.

Quote
I would like to see alternative theories, other points of views, different explanations for the biodiversity we have in the world nowadays, how it came to be, if it changes, etc etc., and more precisely, I am asking:
TruthSeeker, in what you believe, if not evolution to explain the current biodiversity? Show back up if possible.

Observation shows all animals are suited to specific environments, as everyone agrees. Evolutionists believe they evolved or adapted to those regions, however if you put a camel in the arctic ice or a polar bear in the hot desert it would die, not evolve or adapt. I would argue therefore that every living creature was designed and placed in a specific environment. This cannot be observed or proved however, as if it did happen it would have happened sometime in the past. So this would be a religious view, statement of faith.

I seperate faith/religion from science.
Believing is not the same as knowing.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2010, 12:20:36 PM »
lol, did you just reason that because a camel can't adapt to the arctic that adaptive evolution is false? silly boy.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2010, 12:24:04 PM »
Alright now, we all have witnessed the strength with what TruthSeeker argues against evolution. So I am throwing a question here:
- If evolution is not valid, then what is?

Evolution is valid as a religion/faith/worldview but not as a science.
Wrong.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2010, 12:42:41 PM »
Observation shows all animals are suited to specific environments, as everyone agrees. Evolutionists believe they evolved or adapted to those regions, however if you put a camel in the arctic ice or a polar bear in the hot desert it would die, not evolve or adapt. I would argue therefore that every living creature was designed and placed in a specific environment. This cannot be observed or proved however, as if it did happen it would have happened sometime in the past. So this would be a religious view, statement of faith.

Ok, thanks for colaboration.
First, you have come to argue against evolution with people like us who consider it a science, from your religious viewpoint. I don't think that's even compatible. What would you say if we argued religion from science?
Actually I'm doing that through more questions:
- You say "design" and "placed", do you imply some kind of intelligence or being doing that? If not, what it would be? Some kind of enegry? Please, if you can be more specific about the designer, and provide evidence if possible.

Also, you admit that that process would be unobservable and unprovable, pretty much what you use to argue against evolution, then, are you OK if we classify it like another fairytale, based solely on faith, and therefore not valid as an explanation? If not, why?
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2010, 01:09:21 PM »
Wrong.

It's the truth. It might question your faith in it, but that's reality.

First, you have come to argue against evolution with people like us who consider it a science, from your religious viewpoint. I don't think that's even compatible. What would you say if we argued religion from science?

My definition of science comes from the dictionaries, nothing religious.

Definitions are here, which repeat the same thing:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

''the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and (known) physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement''

Evolution however has never been observed, cannot be tested, experimented or measured. See quote:

Theodosius Dobzhansky [on how evolution is not a science]: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''

Quote
Actually I'm doing that through more questions:
- You say "design" and "placed", do you imply some kind of intelligence or being doing that? If not, what it would be? Some kind of enegry? Please, if you can be more specific about the designer, and provide evidence if possible.

I'm saying God created all kinds of animals and placed them in specific regions on the earth. I can't prove this though, its based on my belief, worldview, faith. I admit this though, evolutionists don't admit their theory is.

Quote
Also, you admit that that process would be unobservable and unprovable, pretty much what you use to argue against evolution, then, are you OK if we classify it like another fairytale, based solely on faith, and therefore not valid as an explanation? If not, why?

No, because i have historical evidence to support my views. In contrast, there is no historical evidence for the theory of evolution. Man has never witnessed evolution since he began recording his history around 3000BC. Evolution is pure faith, not even with a historical foundation. Its far worse off than creationism.
Believing is not the same as knowing.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2010, 01:25:51 PM »
Wrong.

It's the truth. It might question your faith in it, but that's reality.
I've debated Evolution with people much more intelligent than you; it never goes anywhere. I refuse to waste my time.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2010, 01:28:22 PM »
My definition of science comes from the dictionaries, nothing religious.

Definitions are here, which repeat the same thing:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

''the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and (known) physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement''

Evolution however has never been observed, cannot be tested, experimented or measured. See quote:

Theodosius Dobzhansky [on how evolution is not a science]: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''

Not an answer, my question was "What would you say if we argued religion from science?", but it's a minor subject.

I'm saying God created all kinds of animals and placed them in specific regions on the earth. I can't prove this though, its based on my belief, worldview, faith. I admit this though, evolutionists don't admit their theory is.

That YOU personally don't accept something as a science, it's respectable, but not that you try to impose your belief and your name-assignation to the millions of people who have their own ideas with a greater base than yours.
Live and let live, TruthSeeker, we do no try to drag you to evolution or science, it's you creationists who come mocking, trying to debunk something that is worldwide accepted by millions of people and scientists, and that has been arrived at by REASON, not by faith.
You can share your ideas with the people who think alike, but to try and impose or change something, you need something more solid than faith alone.

No, because i have historical evidence to support my views. In contrast, there is no historical evidence for the theory of evolution. Man has never witnessed evolution since he began recording his history around 3000BC. Evolution is pure faith, not even with a historical foundation. Its far worse off than creationism.

That's pure hypocrisy, why is historical evidence valid for creationism, but not for evolution? I thought creationism was based in faith, and that you didn't have evidences (you yourself said that), and now you bring up history? Please, be consistent. Either you have faith in something, or you can prove it, both are impossible at the same time, and that's a rule for religion.
If history is valid for one side, being evidence for the unobservable, it is valid for the other too, and we have tons of phossils, DNA studies and other stuff to contradict your only source, which is a book of uncertain procedence.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 01:31:52 PM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2010, 03:06:28 PM »
Quote
That YOU personally don't accept something as a science, it's respectable, but not that you try to impose your belief and your name-assignation to the millions of people who have their own ideas with a greater base than yours. Live and let live, TruthSeeker, we do no try to drag you to evolution or science, it's you creationists who come mocking, trying to debunk something that is worldwide accepted by millions of people and scientists, and that has been arrived at by REASON, not by faith. You can share your ideas with the people who think alike, but to try and impose or change something, you need something more solid than faith alone.

1. Evolution is not accepted ''worldwide by millions''. The public polls show most people do not believe in evolution. So as far as numbers are concerned the theory of evolution is completely failing to gain support. Leading evolutionists admit this, which is why Dawkin's books always start by equating creationists to bizarre things, such as flat-earthers, mass murderers or holocaust deniers to gain support. Evolutionists are that desperate.

2. Reasoning is subjective, therefore by your own statement there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. It is based not on factual evidence but mans personal judgement and conclusions.

3. There is no direct concrete evidence whatsoever for evolution. It is pure faith.

Quote
That's pure hypocrisy, why is historical evidence valid for creationism, but not for evolution? I thought creationism was based in faith, and that you didn't have evidences (you yourself said that), and now you bring up history? Please, be consistent. Either you have faith in something, or you can prove it, both are impossible at the same time, and that's a rule for religion.
If history is valid for one side, being evidence for the unobservable, it is valid for the other too, and we have tons of phossils, DNA studies and other stuff to contradict your only source, which is a book of uncertain procedence.

History debunks the theory of evolution in the sense it presents man as having been intelligent, designed as so forth from the beginning. Classical civilization was advanced, and it sprung from nowhere. There was no gradualistic development to civilization, this is something that first baffled archeologists in the mid 19th century when the oldest settlements in the historic region of mesopotamia were unearthed. History is fully consistant with the creation model, that man was created smart with a fully functioning brain - as a builder, writer, craftsman, farmer as so forth, not a fish, ape or savage raping caveman as evolutionists imagine.
Believing is not the same as knowing.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2010, 03:19:39 PM »
1. Evolution is not accepted ''worldwide by millions''. The public polls show most people do not believe in evolution. So as far as numbers are concerned the theory of evolution is completely failing to gain support. Leading evolutionists admit this, which is why Dawkin's books always start by equating creationists to bizarre things, such as flat-earthers, mass murderers or holocaust deniers to gain support. Evolutionists are that desperate.

Show me those polls and numbers, your words are no value because they can be made up, bring evidences. And DO NOT QUOTE MINE", bring full texts, and their correspondent polls.
Besides, I doubt we are "desperate" or not worlwide spread, when you are the ones always crying about having creation being taught in school, and seeing how 3/4 of the world make fun of you.
But good luck, some day you might be something more than a planetary joke.

2. Reasoning is subjective, therefore by your own statement there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. It is based not on factual evidence but mans personal judgement and conclusions.

Judgements and conclusions are retrieved by reasoning. And reasoning is not opinions or valorations. If your concepts are wrong it ain't nobody's prob but yours, but reasoning is universal (leaving out creationists)

3. There is no direct concrete evidence whatsoever for evolution. It is pure faith.

There is. But when you are given some, you just claim "eeeeeeh, that microevolution! I meant macroevolution!", well, it keeps being EVOLUTION at the end of the day, it's in the name. And when you are given macroevolution, you claim "eeeeeeeh, that's adaptation!", it's all semantics, and it can go on forever, therefore this arguments fails.

History debunks the theory of evolution in the sense it presents man as having been intelligent, designed as so forth from the beginning.

History speaks of Neanderthals, Cromagon, and others, quite less intelligent than us, and having an intelligence that went developing, as we can see comparing the complexity of their tools.

Classical civilization was advanced, and it sprung from nowhere.

What classical civilization? Because depending on what you mean, I can give you how they appeared. Greeks? Latins? Persians? Be specific.

There was no gradualistic development to civilization, this is something that first baffled archeologists in the mid 19th century when the oldest settlements in the historic region of mesopotamia were unearthed.

Evidence, and I repeat, full texts, not isolated quotes.

History is fully consistant with the creation model, that man was created smart with a fully functioning brain - as a builder, writer, craftsman, farmer as so forth, not a fish, ape or savage raping caveman as evolutionists imagine.

Prove it... Oh, wait, no, you said you couldn't previously. Stop contradicting yourself.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 03:23:08 PM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2010, 03:36:59 PM »
On behalf of FES, I'd like to welcome TruthSeeker as our new resident fundie. May he bring much lulz in the future.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2010, 03:59:59 PM »
This thread is full of fail. I had to take a break after the camel argument.

Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2010, 04:30:54 PM »
Show me those polls and numbers, your words are no value because they can be made up, bring evidences. And DO NOT QUOTE MINE", bring full texts, and their correspondent polls.
Besides, I doubt we are "desperate" or not worlwide spread, when you are the ones always crying about having creation being taught in school, and seeing how 3/4 of the world make fun of you.
But good luck, some day you might be something more than a planetary joke.

I have already compiled these from elsewhere.

UK:

Majority of Britons say creationism should be taught in schools
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ce-classes.html

Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-evolution.html

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb...vey-creationism
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Half_of_Br...0&RefPageID=110

Britons Unconvinced on Evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Half of us think creationism should be taught alongside evolution
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle6889918.ece

America:

Gallup Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Believe God Created Them
http://www.icr.org/article/gallup-poll-two...ieve-god-creat/

Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/...n/evol-poll.htm

High Level Government Support for Creationism
http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html

On Darwin's 200th Birthday, Americans Still Divided About Evolution
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-e...ion-creationism

Americans still hold faith in divine creation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/j...8-111826-4947r/

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism
http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/readclips.cfm

Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153

Majority reject evolution
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/...ain965223.shtml

Enjoy.

Quote
There is. But when you are given some, you just claim "eeeeeeh, that microevolution! I meant macroevolution!", well, it keeps being EVOLUTION at the end of the day, it's in the name. And when you are given macroevolution, you claim "eeeeeeeh, that's adaptation!", it's all semantics, and it can go on forever, therefore this arguments fails.

Adaptation and micro have been observed. They can also be experimented and tested. That's science. Macro on the other hand hasn't, and this is the fairytale i.e that fish evolved into land walking creatures and man from apes or ape-men. Neither of those have been observed therefore they fall outside of science. You are welcome though to believe in them as a religious worldview or faith (people can believe in what they choose), but its not science.

History speaks of Neanderthals, Cromagon, and others, quite less intelligent than us, and having an intelligence that went developing, as we can see comparing the complexity of their tools.

By history i meant recorded history, which is documentated, undeniable and is confirmed by ancient eyewitness testimony. Anything else is speculation, guessing, assuming etc and is not genuine history but pseudo-history (not confirmed, dubious).

Recorded history began around 3000BC.

Quote
What classical civilization? Because depending on what you mean, I can give you how they appeared. Greeks? Latins? Persians? Be specific.

Any classical civilization. There is no evidence that they developed into those states, but that man at the beginning of his creation (or appearance if you prefer) was at that level.

Quote
Evidence, and I repeat, full texts, not isolated quotes.

I can't paste full texts here, only quotes, but if you read any book on classics you will see the evidence against the theory of evolution. One thing that is obvious is that the theory of evolution is modern, yet if man evolved why did he never write he was evolving or of his primate ancestry? There was no ''ancient theory of evolution'', man has always believed he was designed or created.

Quote
Prove it... Oh, wait, no, you said you couldn't previously. Stop contradicting yourself.

I said creation cannot be observed. However the fact man has never observed himself to evolve, nor anything else and the fact ancient history tells us no civilization evolved, certianly lends support to creationism over evolution.

As to your comment on Neanderthals etc, they were just humans with different shaped heads. Carleton S. Coon the prominent anthropologist (an evolutionist) wrote of how he discovered living races across Asia (and Europe) with Neanderthal skulls.

There was also a medieval burial tomb whith a neanderthal corpse in it, which proves these were just people.

Late Survival of Neanderthal Type
Nature (London) April 23, 1908, Vol. 77, p. 587

"In the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr. K. Stolyhwo describes a human skull dating from the historic period which presents strong indications of close affinity with the Spy-Neanderthal type, the so-called Homo primigenius, of the Paleolithic epoch. The skull, it appears, formed part of a skeleton from a tomb in which was also buried a suit of chain-armour, together with iron spear-heads, &c. In the great development of the supra-orbital ridges and of the notch at the root of the nasals, the skull, which was found at Nowosiolka, closely approximates to the Neanderthal type. It may be added that, in view of Prof. Solla's recent reference to the latter to the Australian stock, the occurrence in eastern Europe of a late survival of the same type is a matter of profound interest."

Believing is not the same as knowing.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2010, 04:43:41 PM »
Creationism should totally be taught in schools.

























...You know, in history/religion classes. Where it belongs.




Quote
Majority of Britons say creationism should be taught in schools
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ce-classes.html

Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-evolution.html

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb...vey-creationism
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Half_of_Br...0&RefPageID=110

Britons Unconvinced on Evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Half of us think creationism should be taught alongside evolution
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle6889918.ece

America:

Gallup Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Believe God Created Them
http://www.icr.org/article/gallup-poll-two...ieve-god-creat/

Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/...n/evol-poll.htm

High Level Government Support for Creationism
http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html

On Darwin's 200th Birthday, Americans Still Divided About Evolution
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-e...ion-creationism

Americans still hold faith in divine creation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/j...8-111826-4947r/

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism
http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/readclips.cfm

Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153

Majority reject evolution
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/...ain965223.shtml
Oh lawd is dat sum logical fallacy I see dere

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2010, 06:52:22 PM »
A good portion of America also believes the President was born in Kenya. Your point?

Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2010, 07:21:01 PM »
One thing that is obvious is that the theory of evolution is modern, yet if man evolved why did he never write he was evolving or of his primate ancestry?

If the camel thing wasn't enough, this is. You sir, are not, in fact, 'for real'. But you are hilarious!

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2010, 07:43:20 PM »
I tried to tell Kira...just wouldn't believe me
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2010, 02:26:25 AM »
I have already compiled these from elsewhere.

UK:

Majority of Britons say creationism should be taught in schools
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ce-classes.html

Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-evolution.html

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb...vey-creationism
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Half_of_Br...0&RefPageID=110

Britons Unconvinced on Evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Half of us think creationism should be taught alongside evolution
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle6889918.ece

Only the BBC news one works. But thanks for the try, I am honestly surprised of what I read there.

America:

Gallup Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Believe God Created Them
http://www.icr.org/article/gallup-poll-two...ieve-god-creat/

Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/...n/evol-poll.htm

High Level Government Support for Creationism
http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html

On Darwin's 200th Birthday, Americans Still Divided About Evolution
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-e...ion-creationism

Americans still hold faith in divine creation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/j...8-111826-4947r/

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism
http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/readclips.cfm

Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153

Majority reject evolution
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/...ain965223.shtml

Enjoy.

Done, 4 of those aren't working either, btw.
Now, although I reiterate I'm surprised because it's higher than I was expecting, I don't find it significative, world's bigger than US and UK, and in those places there are a LOOOOOT of people, so the percentage of "weird ones" is higher, but at least you presented something that I could read, thanks.

Adaptation and micro have been observed. They can also be experimented and tested. That's science.

So evolution is real, right? You only don't like it when the terms is applied to more complex organisms, this will make history, a creationist admiting evolution is real, I can't hold my happiness.

Macro on the other hand hasn't, and this is the fairytale i.e that fish evolved into land walking creatures and man from apes or ape-men. Neither of those have been observed therefore they fall outside of science.

Irrelevant, as always, we're all creatures, and we all have common feautures, like eating, reproducing, growing and so on, if "micro" exists, there's a high possibility that "macro" does too, it takes more time, but it's the same principle at a different scale.

You are welcome though to believe in them as a religious worldview or faith (people can believe in what they choose), but its not science.

You really love to say "not observable = not science", well, scientific method is NOT ONLY observation, it also counts on falsability, and you cannot falsify evolution, therefore it can be science still.
But if you can produce an experiment to falsify it, I'll be enthrilled to read it. All that you do is replace one belief (according to you, not me) that's evolution, with another one, creation. Pretty much a dead end.

Any classical civilization. There is no evidence that they developed into those states, but that man at the beginning of his creation (or appearance if you prefer) was at that level.

It can take me a while, and I don't wanna paste a lot of text here, but I am a linguistic, and one of the things I had to study is how languages influence each other, how English appeared from Germanic, and how it was influenced by French, how the slavic languages got their alphabets and so on, and I can explain who talked Proto-indoeuropean, how they moved through Europe and how they settled and moved through countries, so if you want to believe in Adam and Even, and a talking snake, it's fine by me, but classics civilizations come from ancient ones, and those ones come from nomad tribes, who spread from Africa and bla bla bla.
You can say the first man and woman appeared as you like, but do no take that into the classic civilizations 'cause it's not true. Not only writing and recorded history are testominy, languages teach a lot about the history of their speakers.

if man evolved why did he never write he was evolving or of his primate ancestry?
You know evolution says it takes millions of years in complex organism cases, so do not play silly on us. You know they couldn't write about their evolution, because they didn't know it. For science, we are evolving nowadays (people is losing the wisdom teeth, for example) but we are not writing about it because we cannot see it. We can only guess how we will get to look like, and look at the past to compare ourselves to them, but ancient people didn't have the ways for that.

There was no ''ancient theory of evolution'', man has always believed he was designed or created.

Yes, and Egyptians believed the Sun was a God, and the Indians believe cows are sacred beings, Christians believe there's a Heaven to go after dying, and Budists believe in reincarnation until reaching the Kharma. You know what that is? You know what is the prime objective of religion? Filling up gaps caused by fear to death and to the unknown. Creationism is something that appear because of the lack of a science to give an answer.

I said creation cannot be observed. However the fact man has never observed himself to evolve, nor anything else and the fact ancient history tells us no civilization evolved, certianly lends support to creationism over evolution.

Creation cant be observed, or tested, or falsified, or worked with tools, or anything. It's just reading a book and saying: This is true!
Evolution is MORE than direct observation, Cass, it's phossils and DNA and Languages. You people dismiss phossils because "it ain't a complete chain", but science is trying to complete that chain, it never stops looking for an answer and a process. Religious beliefs like yours, stuck in the pages of a book, and never want to move ahead, or look outside the picture. And that, my friend, it's sad.
 
As to your comment on Neanderthals etc, they were just humans with different shaped heads. Carleton S. Coon the prominent anthropologist (an evolutionist) wrote of how he discovered living races across Asia (and Europe) with Neanderthal skulls.

There was also a medieval burial tomb whith a neanderthal corpse in it, which proves these were just people.

I thing you should read a bit more of biology before saying such things... Really, it sounds nice put like this, but do you know what a different size of the head means for the brain? and how this affects cognition? And saying "only different shape in the head" is oversimplification, there are more differences in the squeletons, and in the way of moving and using tools, all pointing to evolution.
Anyway, this "neanderthals" living among most advanced people, reminds me a lot of the genes we share with apes nowadays, and we asked you in the other other, but I'll ask here again:

Why were we created to look like if we have evolved? Genes shared with apes, vestigies of people having skelletons ressembling the older ones...
It ain't such an intelligent designer, given that he could've created us unique and different to everything...
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 02:32:46 AM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2010, 04:44:35 AM »
I believe very strongly that animals on Earth were neither evolved, no designed by a single designer:

The small gods of the local geographic regions created their own little blobs of protolife and instructed them how to grow, for instance the god of the sea, grew most of his animals into fish, the god of the sky made irds, the god of the desert made camels.

****

Life is actually a result of a circular temporal paradox, in the year 10,004 an experiment with a time-machine under Switzerland accidently opens a temporal void sucking in all the animals on earth. The void expands so it grabs the nearest creatures first and sends them back the least far (humans, tigers etc) then expands to cover the wilder areas of 11th millenium Switzerland (dinosaurs etc) then to the nuclear-war ravaged remains of earth (the precambrian monstrosities).

The scientists, realising their horror attempted to shut the machine down by blowing it up, unfortunately the explosion was also taken back in time and wiped out the dinosaurs.

****

The world is actually a bizarre dreamscape created by a chartered accountant in Milton Keynes who ate too much cheese before bedtime, all animals and plants are the result of dairy-based hallucinations while humans are the various aspects of a mind damaged by a combination of accountancy and Milton Keynes.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: For TruthSeeker, and alternatives for evolution.
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2010, 04:52:48 AM »
Oh, and if you're wondering where the 11th millenium got extinct animals from, it's a result of the same temporal loop. The time-machine was built over a huge zoo, so naturally the animals in the zoo were sent the least far back in time, to about the year 9500.