Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[winoman]

I believe that aliens created us.

hahahehehoho!

OK - so know we have the Rat answer....well...I can see why you contend that those who postulate Evolution and natrual selection must be basing their "beliefs" on speculation...because that is entirely hopw you base your "beliefs" aparently. Well at least (Biblical) creationists have some substance to their arguments.

But OK - let us examine this "belief" of yours (this supposed legitimate alternative for having an argument against the accepted Biological Science of the day...) - Aliens created us....OK - lets accept that for a moment - and perhaps it is not even so far fetched...but are you also contending that Aliens created all life on earth as well as the evidence of past fossile life...that they crafted it all - (and should we fear the comming of the Vorgon interstellar bypass? Grab that towel!) ...well I'll let you elaborate on this "belief" of yours that so clearly countermands Evolutionary Science...I am also imagining how you will explain the "facts of Life" to your children one day - "Yes Aliens made us all" - I mean who can argue eh?

Like I said - your argument is not to specifically reject Evolution - as you really have nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion - your claim is essentially that the Supernatural (Aliens or perhaps lets say Angels or Vorgons or what have you) just poofed everything into existance - no real other explanation needed...yeah...like I said before - your belief is no different then the cave man or such who felt comfortable with his "speculation" concerning what the stars were above his head or that the Earth is the center of the Universe and so on and so forth...and that Scientific belief and understanding has no value - this is the ignorance that you put forth as being a legitimate alternative and then you have the gaul - the extreme dimness of thought - to claim that Evolution is untrue - because it is just a belief held by people - - rich.

[winoman]

Everything can be speculative with that kind of mentality and no one can argue against the fact that nothing is 100% certain. I already stated this clearly a while ago.

Exactly - excellent point - and of course...

I think in comparison to a thread I was reading last night on another board we really don't do this topic justice or whatever. Both sides included ...

Well I am no Biologist but I think in this thread and even more in prior threads I have made the case sufficiently and certainly their is not much validity in the counter argument - and not much to really argue against - I mean OK lets argue about the Aliens...so was it the Greys? Bring your evidence.

Like why the fossil record has gaps ... A. Fossilization is extremely rare and B. some animals that have been on the earth for some 70 million years that are still around today have left no fossils. That illustrates two things 1. Some species due to their biological structure do not leave behind anything to become fossilized 2. There can be gaps in the fossil record for species in excess of 70 million years!

Most everything organic that dies returns to the earth. Fossilization is a specific process that involves mineralization of remains due to specific environmental conditions that are only infrequently present. Even such things as wooden structures form not so long ago disapear entirely and it is rare to find remains of many of these things. Should we conclude fopr instance that the Maya built everything from stone becuse their are no surviving wooden structures? Well duh...they all rotted away - but we can clearly see the evidence that they once were there....

Also did you know that biologists make no distinction b/w micro and macro evolution?

Very true - assigning of species and such is a judegement call it is not set in stone. I wouldn't call it arbitrary per se - but it is a human decision on how/where to bin creatures based on characteristics.

If you do nothing else just read the first 3 pages of this thread ... I plan on checking out most of the thread.

here is the link to that forum Good Evo vs. Creationism thread

Thanks for the link - I'll have to check it out.

P.S. I'm not saying that you're a creationist.

No you didn't - he did - he has claimed to be a Creationist right on this thread -

I believe that aliens created us.

[Anonymouse]

Everything can be speculative with that kind of mentality and no one can argue against the fact that nothing is 100% certain. I already stated this clearly a while ago.

I think in comparison to a thread I was reading last night on another board we really don't do this topic justice or whatever. Both sides included ...

Like why the fossil record has gaps ... A. Fossilization is extremely rare and B. some animals that have been on the earth for some 70 million years that are still around today have left no fossils. That illustrates two things 1. Some species due to their biological structure do not leave behind anything to become fossilized 2. There can be gaps in the fossil record for species in excess of 70 million years!

Precisely! Which means, neither you, nor any other evolutionist was there to observe any of these changes. Thus, to spin a web of what supposedly happened is nothing more than conjecture, a guess, a leap of faith, a belief. Remember, my whole point here is not that evolution is wrong or anything, but that, evolutionism, like creationism, is a claim to truth on origins, and as such both are, by the fact themselves, beliefs about the past.

Also did you know that biologists make no distinction b/w micro and macro evolution?

That they do not means nothing. I have touched on this before. It is a matter of semantics, and the elasticity of language. Biologists can make no distinction because it would not fit the bill. It would be deleterious to biologists if they did make a distinction.

here is the link to that forum Good Evo vs. Creationism thread

P.S. I'm not saying that you're a creationist.

So many occasions I have witnessed the evolutionists rebuke creationists as if creationists are somehow the stupidest group of people to walk on earth. What really fascinates me, is the most amusing display of the human condition, is the level and vigor with which evolutionists argue against creationism, and it's adherents as if they are on a notch below them. There is almost this feeling of "we are better than them" that pervades among evolutionists. That is not to excuse the creationists for engaging in the same thing, but familiarity with both camps has made me see that the self-absorbed elitism is more the hallmark of the crusaders of scientism, than the creationist Bible thumpers.

[winoman]

...crusaders of scientism...

yeah - enough said...next time you get a serious infection why don't you try leeches...etc

[winoman]

I've never seen a black hole - have you? Yeah - must be just daft to believe in something that no one has ever seen - what could scientists be thinking when they force such unbelievable concepts and theories down our throats...descended from monkeys...really...yeah right who are they kidding...

[winoman]

So which aliens did it...you know...invented life...the universe...everything? I really must know...

[Anonymouse]

Hm I speculate that you are the son of a Turkish xxxxx. Well I guess that proves it eh? Must be...since I questioned it...guess the fact of your birth certificate or what have you is of no signifigance...sure most accept it and there perhaps were witnesses - but I am speculating differently - so well - that means we can't rely on that silly peice of paper - AND ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!

This is the grossest display of a lack of argumentation and logic I have ever seen. I suggested that any form of questioning was ipso facto, speculative. That doesn't mean it is intended to prove or disprove anything. On the contrary, I cannot prove evolution did not occur. I cannot prove a negative. The onus is upon you, and thus so far, all we have seen is scanty figures at best trying to make a case for evolution. In the process, the evolutionists pretend to make themselves believe that, if they cloak themselves in the mantle of science, that they and they alone can, and actually have, surpassed man's finitude.

Yeah the specter of belief.....just like gravity...guess we can believe it or don't...it doesn't matter - according to you if the basis of a "belief" is on fact or pure speculation - does it?...perhaps you should put it to the test - like from the top of the nearest tall building...whoa..that "specter of belief" - quite a concept...should we let the next egineer building a bridge know that his "belief" that his calculations are relevent has been questioned and that perhaps he just shouldn't bother? Should we just question all knowledge because it is based on "belief" ? Get real - stupid.

When humans don't know things, they postulate about certain things, because they do not know. Have you measured gravity for every atom and every star? I think not. All you have observed is that if you throw something, it falls down.

[Anonymouse]

I've never seen a black hole - have you? Yeah - must be just daft to believe in something that no one has ever seen - what could scientists be thinking when they force such unbelievable concepts and theories down our throats...descended from monkeys...really...yeah right who are they kidding...

I have never seen a black hole. That is precisely my point. Science changes over time, i.e. Newtonian physics to modern physics. So that, when conceptual entities such as black holes, or quarks change, you cannot absolve things such as rocks, trees, mountains and seas. There is a difference between real and invented concepts, that anyone but the crusaders of scientism will acknowledge.

[Anonymouse]

I really must know...

No you don't.

[Lamb Boy]

Ok Anon I finally see your point. Typically I would expect to hear a hypothesis sooner but whatever.

Now I have to ask you if you feel that evolution and creationism are on equal footing in regards to validity.

See I feel evolution is provable within a 99.99999_% range ... everything else .0000001%.

It's all about the evidence imo and in the opinions of the vast majority of scientists ...

The analogy I am about to create is not meant to offend anyone I am just trying to illustrate a point.

This quote comes from the very first thread/post ckBejug created/posted titled Allow me to introduce myself, then maybe you can do the same ...

disksoleil was talking about the Armenian genocide ....

... it is very difficult for me to accept the responsibility of all killings because in nature, we are not violent like this... but i accept that, the last ottoman emperors were sick people, and they might have given sick orders like that... but yet we cant prove it 100%

I mean this is how I see ppl you refuse to admit the validity of evolution ... the same as *urks that refuse to believe in the Armenian genocide in the face of all of the evidence. Of course nothing can be proven 100% but does that mean that it isn't true just because of that one juvenile point? Of course not ... none of us were there except for arabaliozian and maybe a couple of others so we really don't know. All we can do is believe in the evidence provided to us from other ppl which we do. Is it similar to blind faith? I think not as there is plenty of evidence to believe or ignore. Plus my grandparents actually lived through it and a lot of other ppl here probably have know an Armenian or two that lived through it as well, but we can also witness evolution first hand as well.

In the same way evolutionists would ask a creationist "What evidence would it take to prove to you the validity of evolution?" I think we should pose the same question to *urks. Really what more will it take to convince them of the truth?

You did admit that "micro" evolution was real, correct me if I am wrong, and although I know you make a distinction b/w "micro" and "macro" evolution, biologists do not (they are not being arrogant). It seems creationists came up with this view of evolution in an effort to have a catalyst for a contrasting "opinion". What I am driving at is that admitting to the validity of "micro" evolution and speciation is really just admitting the validity of evolution as a whole imo, but I already know you don't see it that way ...