99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

Herein lies the fundamental problem. Evolutionists generally are in agreement because they're drawing from the same body of evidence to establish their position. Creationists on the other hand draw from a wide variety of disparate and mutually exclusive religious traditions, so they almost never can present a unified front.We don't agree because we're colluding to defeat creationists; we agree because there's only one body of evidence, and it points to evolution. Could it be because there aren't any? Who comes to a website looking for what to believe? Anyway, the reason there aren't too many creationists here is because they tend to abscond when they can't defend their positions with evidence.It's not opinion that drives them away. It's the evidence they don't have. If anybody learns anything from this website (sorry Percy, that came out the wrong way) they learn that creationism is not a position supported by evidence (or even logic) but rather dogmatic belief in a very old book.

I think you're mistaking contradiction for honest and health scientific debate. After all, scientists agree that evolution has and does occur. What they don't always agree on is exactly how and in what way it has and does occur. That's why there's always something to talk about. I mean, wouldn't it be a boring theory if we knew everything there was to know about it?When we appear to contradict, it may very well be that we're saying the same thing in different ways. It's not a matter of not responding to every little question. It's a matter of not responding to any questions.I mean, have you seen Booboocruise lately? PhosphoLipidGen? FFGFollower? Inquisitor? Wordswordsman? And those are just the ones since I've been here. They ran off because they couldn't substantiate their points with evidence (or even logic) and it was really starting to show.

Well, why not? Syamsu's been clamoring for creationist response. If you're both creationists shouldn't you agree with each other as much as we evolutionists do?

How does that make sense? I can believe the New York Times is laregly true, but that doesn't mean I believe the claims of the advertisements.The bible could simply be as true as it's authors knew how to make it. That would mean that they were likely wrong about those elements unaccessable to the knowledge of the time. But it wouldn't alter the validity of the real claims of the bible - how individuals should function in society. About that they were quite astute. Oh? So you've sold all your possessions and given all your money to the poor? Whose computer are you typing this on?

See, it depends. Some of us evolutionists are armchair scientists, with only an informal knowledge of the theory. In that respect we're no better educated than most creationists.On the other hand the other evolutionists are actually biologists. And you would be hard-pressed indeed to find a creationist with the credentials of Stephen Jay Gould or Douglas Futayama. Not only do they hold advanced degrees in biology but they have decades of research experience as well. So-called "creation scientists" generally have degrees in law or theology, or engineering - almost anything but biology. A scientific theory, derived by generalization from repeated observation and supported by a vast weight of evidence. Nope. That's not what the theory of evolution says. I challenge you to find a statement of the theory - from a scientific source - that makes that claim. Certainly Darwin never did.Religion is relevatory. Science is not. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science does not. Religion is dogmatic. Science is tentative. I could go on, but it should be obvious to the most casual observer that science is only "religion" if you use a definition of religion that's so broad as to be meaningless.Once again we find a creationist who has never really bothered to find out about the theory he so vehemently opposes. Rather ignorant, don't you think?

It is half and half, like you say. The problem is again that the creationists get so embarrased by their inability to present evidence that they simply can't stick around.

Oh, I see. So, he doesn't really believe in everything the bible says, or at least, he doesn't follow it.That makes much more sense, now. Thanks.

Well, I've only been here for months, and seen it happen over and over again. Creationists leave when they can't substantiate their points. It's not speculation, it's observation.Anyway, if you're so sure I'm wrong, what's your explanation? I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you'd like to start a new topic on some aspect of it you find least supported by evidence? I for one would love to debate it with you. The site is only biased in terms of preferring evidence to unsupported assertion. If they can't handle that kind of bias then what place do they have in intelligent debate?

Percy? To the contrary. It's merely that he's seen all the evidence, judged it fairly, and come down on the side of evolution. At such time as a creationist is able to present an argument he hasn't heard before I'm sure he'll put the open-minded effort into understanding and weighing it in the light of what we already know.That doesn't sound like bias at all to me. What would be bias would be ignoring new evidence when it comes to light. Percy has not to my knowledge ever done so.Just because he comes to different conclusions than you does not mean he's biased. He's simply made a decision. You can't expect him to revisit his decision every time a creationist posts the same tired, erroneous argument? And you can't call it bias to ask for evidence to support your position.Just because I say "the sky is blue", and don't change my mind everytime somebody says "no, it's purple!" without proof that it is, does that mean I'm biased in favor of sky-blue-ism? Or rather doesn't it mean I don't take people's words over my own experience? It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

My wife has a full undergraduate biology degree, and I think evolution constituted a single class. The rest of it was copious lab and field work - the meat and potatoes of biology.How can you get that by mail, or at home, or by attending anything but a school with a well-funded biology program? Without lab time you're just looking at picture-books.Plenty of atheists go to religious schools, like mine. Somehow we turn out atheists at the end, too. If creationists want respectability they're going to have to get their biology degrees at "evolutionary" schools and bite the bullet. At the very least you think they'd relish the opportunity to challenge some beliefs...

Maybe, but we're talking about biology.You can't learn biology except in the lab, and in the field, from people who learned it in the lab and field. You can't learn it from books - not to the degree necessary to actually do biology. Just like you can't learn to be a neurosurgeon from a copy of Gray's Anatomy.Most people's homes don't have biology labs, to my knowledge. You can't homeschool a PH.D in biology.But it's refreshing to see your anti-intellectualism so brazenly stated. We had all suspected it, of course.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-11-2003]

Huh? Are you sure it's me you meant to talk about? I'm not aware of having been derisive to intellectual authority.I fear I may have been the mistaken target of some drive-by sarcasm. Added by edit: I'll leave this post around so that future generations will know what we're talking about. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-11-2003]