> > is it just me or do things like this make
> > old-earth, macro-evolution theories harder
> > to swallow?"
>
> It's just you.
drat. that's not good news. thanks for the heads up though!
> (Though I can't help but pause in passing to
> wonder why you suppose a frog many millions of
> years old makes it harder to believe in an old
> earth...)"
i wonder why you wonder... don't pause long though, i doubt it's worth your time.
> > of course, i'm not sure how much an ugly
> > purple thing like that helps out the
> > intelligent-design theorists either."
>
> Nothing's going to help those losers, except the
> clueless fundamentalists who buy their books.
ah, the insult. ever the friend of Anonymous Cowards and fools!
"break out the ad hominems, boys! there's a dissenter in the ranks!"
> > when are people gonna start to admit that
> > we just really don't know much about how we
> > (and that frog) got here."
>
> Never considered looking at evidence to figure
> that kind of thing out?
but that sounds like it'd take time and effort! it's so much easier to just say, "you're wrong, you ugly, bed-wetting moron!" of course, that wouldn't be nice.
"All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge..." -Jeremiah 51:17a (NASB)
heh. make of that whatever you will! but know that philosophers and scientists can be friends. you just can't be afraid to open your mind. trust me, it won't hurt...much.:)
why is it that everyone assumes that anyone who questions traditional evolutionary theory is either A. an idiot or B. a religious zealot or C. both?
i've spent more than my fair share of time on talkorigins.org and trueorigins.org and a bazillion other evolution, young-earth creation, old-earth creation, intelligent design, and whatnot websites. i've read plenty of books, been in plenty of debates, watched plenty of debates, and so on and so forth.
if don't you think there aren't both very smart people and very strong arguments on both sides, then frankly, you are either A. an idiot or B. ignorant or C. both!
and to save you the trouble of guessing, i am not an idiot. so according to popular (mis)conceptions, i am clearly a religious zealot to be so knowledgeable and yet still not willing to accept that evolution is a proven theory/fact/whatever-the-hell-term-you-like!
i suggest you folks take your 1920's stereotypes, unfounded assumptions, and miscellaneous pigeonholes and shove 'em.
From what you've posted to this story, I'd be willing to wager that you slept through whatever your school tried to teach you about evolution.
ok. how much?
"Ah, there's that new creationist party line. When the evidence doesn't support your views, deny the validity of supporting views with evidence!"
there's nothing new about philosophy and debates over the sum and substance of reality. in fact, those debates have been around a hellufa lot longer than the traditional evolutionary theories. as far as creationists using such arguments against evolution goes, they've done it from the start!
if you'd pull your head out of your ass you'd see that the creationists finally started to get the hint this last decade and began to suplement those philosophical arguments for...scientific ones! after all, it's become pretty evident that most diehard evolutionists don't give a rat's ass about philosophy and can't think outside the box (the material world). might as well try and speak their language...
What competing [theories] were those then? Raelism? Last Thursdayism?
and if you can't think of a major category of theories that compete with materialistic evolution, then clearly we don't share a common definition of "compete" and there's no use in arguing the point.
ever heard of Michael Behe? how about William Dembski? look 'em up before you start blabbing on about there being no scientific contention with traditional evolutionary theory....but then again, you seem like you've made up your mind and can't take any opposition. so never mind about doing the research, go live in your happy little world and don't bother questioning the reality you've been taught.
well, gosh, you've convinced me. those theories aren't hard to swallow, and macro-evolution and the age of the earth have been scientifically verified.
thank you for that stunning display of wit, logic, and evidence. how humble of you to post such brilliance anonymously!
now, don't hold back anymore! with this information, we could put the whole debate and all of its angles to rest. then we'll all go watch the World Series together in perfect harmony. beers all around! hurrah!
good point about the rarity of these "living fossils."
though i'm not so sure how i feel about "sticking with the best theory..." i suppose it depends on what you mean by that, but i got pretty fed up with the evolutionary dogma shoved down my throat in the public school system when i was growing up. so many things presented to me were obviously based on the assumptions of philosophical materialism (read: atheism). but worst of all, there was never another theory presented. i think that's poor policy. i'm definitely in favor of keeping the strongest theory in the mix, but not at the exclusion of competing ones.
so they're trying to tell me that this frog has been pretty much the same for all these millions of years, and meanwhile the earth has undergone all sorts of climate changes and most other species have radically evolved.
is it just me or do things like this make old-earth, macro-evolution theories harder to swallow? of course, i'm not sure how much an ugly purple thing like that helps out the intelligent-design theorists either. when are people gonna start to admit that we just really don't know much about how we (and that frog) got here.
Slashdot Mirror
> > is it just me or do things like this make > > old-earth, macro-evolution theories harder > > to swallow?" > > It's just you. drat. that's not good news. thanks for the heads up though! > (Though I can't help but pause in passing to > wonder why you suppose a frog many millions of > years old makes it harder to believe in an old > earth...)" i wonder why you wonder... don't pause long though, i doubt it's worth your time. > > of course, i'm not sure how much an ugly > > purple thing like that helps out the > > intelligent-design theorists either." > > Nothing's going to help those losers, except the > clueless fundamentalists who buy their books. ah, the insult. ever the friend of Anonymous Cowards and fools! "break out the ad hominems, boys! there's a dissenter in the ranks!" > > when are people gonna start to admit that > > we just really don't know much about how we > > (and that frog) got here." > > Never considered looking at evidence to figure > that kind of thing out? but that sounds like it'd take time and effort! it's so much easier to just say, "you're wrong, you ugly, bed-wetting moron!" of course, that wouldn't be nice.
actually, wait a minute. i take that back...
...much. :)
i *am* an idiot!
"All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge..."
-Jeremiah 51:17a (NASB)
heh. make of that whatever you will! but know that philosophers and scientists can be friends. you just can't be afraid to open your mind. trust me, it won't hurt
why is it that everyone assumes that anyone who questions traditional evolutionary theory is either A. an idiot or B. a religious zealot or C. both?
i've spent more than my fair share of time on talkorigins.org and trueorigins.org and a bazillion other evolution, young-earth creation, old-earth creation, intelligent design, and whatnot websites. i've read plenty of books, been in plenty of debates, watched plenty of debates, and so on and so forth.
if don't you think there aren't both very smart people and very strong arguments on both sides, then frankly, you are either A. an idiot or B. ignorant or C. both!
and to save you the trouble of guessing, i am not an idiot. so according to popular (mis)conceptions, i am clearly a religious zealot to be so knowledgeable and yet still not willing to accept that evolution is a proven theory/fact/whatever-the-hell-term-you-like!
i suggest you folks take your 1920's stereotypes, unfounded assumptions, and miscellaneous pigeonholes and shove 'em.
From what you've posted to this story, I'd be willing to wager that you slept through whatever your school tried to teach you about evolution. ok. how much? "Ah, there's that new creationist party line. When the evidence doesn't support your views, deny the validity of supporting views with evidence!" there's nothing new about philosophy and debates over the sum and substance of reality. in fact, those debates have been around a hellufa lot longer than the traditional evolutionary theories. as far as creationists using such arguments against evolution goes, they've done it from the start! if you'd pull your head out of your ass you'd see that the creationists finally started to get the hint this last decade and began to suplement those philosophical arguments for ...scientific ones! after all, it's become pretty evident that most diehard evolutionists don't give a rat's ass about philosophy and can't think outside the box (the material world). might as well try and speak their language...
What competing [theories] were those then? Raelism? Last Thursdayism?
and if you can't think of a major category of theories that compete with materialistic evolution, then clearly we don't share a common definition of "compete" and there's no use in arguing the point.
ever heard of Michael Behe? how about William Dembski? look 'em up before you start blabbing on about there being no scientific contention with traditional evolutionary theory. ...but then again, you seem like you've made up your mind and can't take any opposition. so never mind about doing the research, go live in your happy little world and don't bother questioning the reality you've been taught.
well, gosh, you've convinced me. those theories aren't hard to swallow, and macro-evolution and the age of the earth have been scientifically verified.
:)
thank you for that stunning display of wit, logic, and evidence. how humble of you to post such brilliance anonymously!
now, don't hold back anymore! with this information, we could put the whole debate and all of its angles to rest. then we'll all go watch the World Series together in perfect harmony. beers all around! hurrah!
(when i'm sarcastic, you'll know!
good point about the rarity of these "living fossils."
though i'm not so sure how i feel about "sticking with the best theory..." i suppose it depends on what you mean by that, but i got pretty fed up with the evolutionary dogma shoved down my throat in the public school system when i was growing up. so many things presented to me were obviously based on the assumptions of philosophical materialism (read: atheism). but worst of all, there was never another theory presented. i think that's poor policy. i'm definitely in favor of keeping the strongest theory in the mix, but not at the exclusion of competing ones.
so they're trying to tell me that this frog has been pretty much the same for all these millions of years, and meanwhile the earth has undergone all sorts of climate changes and most other species have radically evolved.
is it just me or do things like this make old-earth, macro-evolution theories harder to swallow? of course, i'm not sure how much an ugly purple thing like that helps out the intelligent-design theorists either. when are people gonna start to admit that we just really don't know much about how we (and that frog) got here.