Evolution v Creationism

[Adrian II]

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.

Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?

That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.



I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.

[Adrian II]

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.



I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest.

If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.

[Kadagar_AV]

*yawn* Is this thread still alive?

Has it moved forward since my post on page 1 explaining there is no way to debate evolution vs creation as one is based on facts and the other on faith?

No?

If all the combined evidence of evolution still does not satisfy the people who prefer to believe a 2000 year old book rather than modern scientifical research, then I am quite sure a topic in the backroom wont either.

You can never beat someone religious by using logic, as they don't see the world in a logical way.

And if you open up for a non-logical argumentation they already won.

[Adrian II]

If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.

I don't want to debate, I want an answer from Sigurd because I appreciate his views. Sigurd never takes the easy way out and we never needed a moderator to keep us honest. So thanks for the offer. Besides, you'd kill us with your jokes and charades before we got to round three. You're quite an asset to this forum, Pizzameister.

[Sigurd]

Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.

I know you said that you should be wary of "private interpretations", but I would then ask; What authority do you need to make correct interpretations? Is there a correct interpretation? And why does 35 000 Christian denominations claim they have the correct interpretation? And finally, which one of them is right?
Your "God made many humans beside Adam and Eve out of dust" is not Biblical and is perhaps a private interpretation or a workaround on the question of how the human race came from Adam and Eve and their incestuous children?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...enome_released

And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?

Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?

That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.

I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.
The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet. You know I am an agnostic and like to jump of the fence now and then to stir the pot so to speak, especially on topics like these. The Cars, in case anyone still wonders, can't have offspring and are all created by a creator. I am not saying that I discard evolution and uphold the Creationist view. I made the analogy to illustrate my point of similarity does not prove descent.

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest.

A debate between me and ATPG would result in walls of text and me crying : Argumentum Verbosium, Argumentum ad Plurium interrogationum and Argumentum ad Nauseam before my head exploded.

[CBR]

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?

It appears to be around 75% of the worldwide population so it can be considered a common trait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerant has a list of specific percentages in different parts of the world. I guess it is such a minor trait that it is not worth thinking in terms of a subspecies.

The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet.

Hmm I'd say endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) are pretty good. Of course the die hards can still claim that their god just made it look like evolution was at work.


CBR

[Adrian II]

I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.

I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'

Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.

This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.

I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over precious forms

Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.

Transitional features don't necessarily need to be improvements, just differences which accumulate to the point where they make a distinction between one gene pool and another and eventually one succeeds and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.

[Adrian II]

Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.

It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.

[..]and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.

You are just the tonic that this forum needed.

[Tribesman]

If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.

It was a rush job, there is only so much you can do in a week , after all god isn't infallible is she.

Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

Give him a chance will ya , OK perhaps he can't answer that from the KJV of scripture but given enough time and enough versions of the one book an answer will be forthcoming.