Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 140 (569066)
07-20-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:42 PM


Re: intuitive linking
But there is evidence that it has been going on ever since 1859. Darwin didn’t board planes and do book tours, he didn’t get on television and do interviews with CNN, he didn’t get colorful pages on amazon with raving promotions and reviews by scientists. Book promotion was very slow - little more than word-of-mouth in the mid 19th century. But his book still SOLD OUT ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. We’re supposed to believe that’s because of a sudden interest in science by general public. Common sense tells me that it was a long hunger for intellectually fulfilled atheism that caused the book to sell out, for Darwin to be hero to atheists, in 1859, and today.
If you have absolutely no evidence for your fantasies, then attributing them to "common sense" serves, if anything, only to highlight the discrepancy between your daydreams and reality.
Actually, "common sense" has nothing at all to do with your nonsense. Whether the book was (as in your daydreams) an atheist manifesto, or whether it was (as in reality) the most revolutionary book on biology ever written, produced by one of the greatest naturalists of the age, it must still have been promoted in advance in order to sell out on its first day. There is no special atheist magic that would make an atheistic book become an instant best-seller before anyone knew what was in it.
You people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by caffeine, posted 07-20-2010 8:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 140 (569209)
07-20-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
07-20-2010 9:07 PM


Re: intuitive linking
The sun is a really bright thing, the earth is something like 10 or so light-minutes away from it. Suppose science found a new way to measure, completely overcoming that brightness, so that we could actually measure the distance of the sun to the earth in feet, or even inches? Then suppose some unfortunate scientist overcame personal biases, and proclaimed some bad news "guess what Darwinists, it's not possible that earth has gone around the sun millions, or billions of times. It would have been drawn in (or drifted away) after 30 or 40 thousand times, tops. Do you think he would continue to live?
That's the best laugh I've had for a week.
---
Sane people will note an amusing consequence of marc's paranoid fantasies. The fact that to date no creationist clown has been rubbed out by Evil-utionist ninjas must imply that so far not one of them has come up with a single good argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 07-20-2010 9:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 140 (569213)
07-20-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
07-20-2010 9:30 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Is that really what you're saying? Can you point to even a single prominent creationist, or ID proponent, who has been murdered in service of an "evolutionist conspiracy"? Michael Behe is even allowed to keep publishing biochemistry papers. I just linked you to one. How is that even possible if there's this vast conspiracy of evolutionists?
See my previous post.
Marc hypthothesized that if anyone ever comes up with a good creationist argument then our vast evil conspiracy is prepared to strike.
That's why the good argument itself had to be hypothetical, and based on observations not actually made, since so far no-one has come up with a good creationist argument or made any observations contrary to evolution.
If they ever do, then of course the fearsome Ninjas Of Darwin will strike before you can say "paranoid psychosis". But so long as the arguments of creationists continue to be complete crap, we can let them live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 9:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 140 (569493)
07-21-2010 11:06 PM


Closing Statement
Scientists have distinguished between abiogenesis and evolution ever since the terms were first coined.
The creationist desire to muddle them up I attribute to what I think of as ritual wrongness. It's like their pretense that dinosaurs are still walking the earth. Because people who know more than they do take the trouble to correct their error, they think they must have something to gain by being wrong.
They don't, they just look ignorant.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 140 (569496)
07-21-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
07-21-2010 7:47 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Atheism is the conclusion and evolution is the pathway. Just like religion can be a conclusion, and Intelligent design can be a pathway. Either both are true, or both are false. Atheists want to disconnect evolution and atheism, and combine ID and religion. It’s a double standard.
It's a single standard --- the truth.
Of course I understand that the Christian path works the same way. A Darwinist tree can get in the way, and be a problem, and Christians can tend to dance around it and continue on the Christian path. But the continuance on the same ‘worldview’ path is comparable, evolutionists are as guilty as religious people in making their study arrive at a conclusion that they’ve already reached.
There's an old proverb to the effect that the thief thinks everyone else steals.
Just because creationists have no intellectual integrity doesn't mean that no-one else does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2010 7:47 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024