I for one am not an animal so right away your theory is flawed...

Of these "other animals", can you list another that can reason?

elk hunter wrote:

So just what do you think has made you feel you should live with those morals?

apachelm wrote:

Really ?

enumerate please...

wheelrite wrote:

I suggested creation vs evolution and I am unaware of dozens of creation myths, which if not exaggerated means at least 24. I highly doubt that number.

Lets also keep to topic nowhere was it suggested anything being taught on religious dogma, medical intervention, I also question that many religions don't allow, too vague and nothing to do with any of my points up to date.

What I am seeing here is an unwillingness to entertain any possibility of you may wrong/incorrect in some of your assessments. While I agree with your standing up for your belief's I find it worrisome the appearance of your lack of acceptance that someone else's position may be valid or at least have merit.


Or you could just be arguing for the sake of argument.


Either way we are at a deadlock on the subject no need to beat a dead horse. Cheers!

hank56 wrote:

It's speculative based on all information and evidence we have at out disposal at this time. For example. The similarities between dolphins and cows has been discovered. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I do know from what I've read on the subject that there is much evidence out there supporting connections like this, both genetic and fossil that show these kind of similarities. So it's not just 'speculative' or a 'guess', it's scientific.

The opposing views I am criticizing are religious notions of a god making everything in whatever way your particular myth says it did. In this case I'm assuming the biblical myth, 7 days, literal or not, Adam and Eve on the 6th day, resting on the 7th (like a god needs rest) etc.

Your statement that it is less likely that humans came about by chance the more we learn is preposterous and deserves no comment.

I never said I knew it all, so stop saying I did.

As far as your Darwin quote, I've heard that before. It's used by creationists all the time, and for decades in an effort to make a point that doesn't exist because here's the entire quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Changes the entire meaning So right there, you are a dishonest person, or you simply don't know what you are talking about.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Dishonest?
Fuzz, I'm being very clear and I am ready to discuss the merits/flaws of your stance.
But you keep making this about "Creationism", and I have repeatedly told you that the debate need not be so limited.
I will not be drawn into a false arguement.

Religion and Science are two seperate things.
Many religious folks ignore science, and many scientists scoff at religion.
Both sides are idiots because there is no need to choose one OR the other.

Darwinism is the "best" science we have to explain what we simply don't know.
Yes, living things evolve. But to extrapolate that out to a firm conclusion that life (ALL life) was born from unliving things?

I talk about alternative viewpoints. From Intelligent Design to the fact that any scientific hypothesis that conflicts with or even questions Darwin is viewed as loony.
You counter with Adam and Eve.

Fuzz,
You don't want a serious discussion. And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that you do.

As for the Darwin quote? Read it again. Slowly.
For it's message is much broader than you suggest.
I've already used the "world is flat" analogy, which is akin to his use of the sun orbiting the earth. So Darwin and I agree on at least one thing: That a theory is only as relevant as the next set of facts.
You embrace his theory as the truth, when you should be much more open minded.
Don't let the faith of others impede your ability to think for yourself.

tailgater wrote:

Who is more arrogant. The person who thinks in the millions of years of human evolution

FuzzNJ wrote:

Humans haven't been around for millions of years. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE STUPID!!!!!!


Hehehe....I'm kidding, Fuzz. I just wanted to talk sh*t like everybody else.

borndead1 wrote:

As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.

chiefburg wrote:

As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.

chiefburg wrote:

Interesting, so it might be argued that scientists have "faith" in their conclusions/data? Isn't faith belief in something without supportive facts? To take it another leap, science is therefore their religion? It can be argued that is a logical progression, true?

.

hank56 wrote:

This thread is really funny.

Fuzz, you haven't produced one iota of factual reference to back up ANYTHING you've said.

NADA.

You and the family should check out a service at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's more up your alley. They always go around seeking converts by yelling and talking to people the way you do. They also yell in the aisles of grocery stores about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Who knows, maybe you could be their Pope?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

This is what Fuzz wrote on, Nov 20, 2010


"As for the rest of you, f off. I no longer post here because the grand sum of IQ's here wouldn't be enough to win the average NBA game. "

Do everyone here a favor and go away for another 5 months.

madaxeman wrote:

Hank: You are correct in assuming he's unwilling to entertain the notion that anyone else has a point. As always, Fuzz believes he is right and everyone who doesn't think his way is wrong - no exceptions.

I tend to believe that people have a choice in what they believe and I respect his right to believe the way he does. Unfortunately, he doesn't respect anyone else's right to believe what they believe. In fact, they are all wrong. Personally, I don't necessarily know what is true and what isn't true and I don't believe anyone living fully knows (except for Fuzz). What's worse, he only form of "proof" is to tell someone to "Google it." For some reason, he believes anything on the internet is true and Google is right. Of course, if I find some proof on Google that doesn't support what he believes, then that person is a right wing wacko. Google is only his friend if it supports his theory.

As usual, there is no point in trying to make logical points with Fuzz - he is unwilling and/or unable to accept any other opinion. Luckily, we live in a free country where he is free to believe what he wants to believe and I support his right to do so.

chiefburg wrote:

Dishonest?
Fuzz, I'm being very clear and I am ready to discuss the merits/flaws of your stance.
But you keep making this about "Creationism", and I have repeatedly told you that the debate need not be so limited.
I will not be drawn into a false arguement.

Religion and Science are two seperate things.
Many religious folks ignore science, and many scientists scoff at religion.
Both sides are idiots because there is no need to choose one OR the other.

Darwinism is the "best" science we have to explain what we simply don't know.
Yes, living things evolve. But to extrapolate that out to a firm conclusion that life (ALL life) was born from unliving things?

I talk about alternative viewpoints. From Intelligent Design to the fact that any scientific hypothesis that conflicts with or even questions Darwin is viewed as loony.
You counter with Adam and Eve.

Fuzz,
You don't want a serious discussion. And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that you do.

As for the Darwin quote? Read it again. Slowly.
For it's message is much broader than you suggest.
I've already used the "world is flat" analogy, which is akin to his use of the sun orbiting the earth. So Darwin and I agree on at least one thing: That a theory is only as relevant as the next set of facts.
You embrace his theory as the truth, when you should be much more open minded.
Don't let the faith of others impede your ability to think for yourself.

tailgater wrote:

As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.

chiefburg wrote: