So, I was up late watching Nick News...

[Preechr]

Bubba, I don't think I want to have another one of those arguments with you where you don't actually read what I write.

In fact, I think I've made my position pretty clear on this, so there's no need to apply anymore effort.

I think I'll go sit on the porch of my trailer, chew some tobacco and pray to Jesus while shooting at rats and watching pit bulls fuck.

[CaptainBubba]

[CaptainBubba]

Wait you believe in Jesus?

Anyway I figure I have again been accused of poor debating on this forum so I should use my end all trump card and copy your style as to avoid complaints!


Look, I'm tired of looking up sources on evolution and we all know its there ok. Heres one www.discovery.com. Its pretty long winded sorry but it makes a good point.

I mean, I know both sides have a good argument and stuff but, well, I'm right sorry.

Ok Ill be a straight shooter. The reason I believe in Evolution is mostly because of the way how when something is believed in science nobody every challenges it ever again because the scientific comunity prides itself on never making mistakes. Religion does that all the time and it really pisses me off how they are constsantly using the religious method to systematically imporve their view of the world and its components.

I mean cmon.

[Preechr]

Wait you believe in Jesus?

Jesus is a figment of the human imagination, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion we are having about Richard Dawson. You suck. You lose. Sorry. Goodbye. You are the weakest link. I am like Brad Pitt in Troy where he takes that guy out right there in the first scene. Bam. I rock.

Anyway I figure I have again been accused of poor debating on this forum so I should use my end all trump card and copy your style as to avoid complaints!

You, your ability to "figure" anything, this forum, trump cards and my style are illusions based in human self-aggrandizement. Obviously this discussion is way over your head, or maybe you are are a retard. If you have complaints, which is a word you used, then they should be about your faulty logic and your improper grammar. Kneel before Zod, mortal.

Look, I'm tired of looking up sources on evolution and we all know its there ok. Heres one www.discovery.com. Its pretty long winded sorry but it makes a good point.

Your argument makes no sense whatever. Are you here just to waste my valuable time? Why are you making me respond over and over to sheer nonsense? Why do you continually refuse to concede to my primacy over everything and everyone? I am Captain Bubba! Where is your Jesus now, Bitch?! Where is he now?!

I mean, I know both sides have a good argument and stuff but, well, I'm right sorry.

Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

[kahljorn]

I like how his entire side of the argument lead up to a theory that took about the time it did to type a reply out to find gigantic faults in. Why do people feel compelled to post evidence that don't prove anything, while excusing other evidences entirely without any real reasoning. See below for more details in a nearly chronological order involving his actual thought proccesses, reasonably based on his tangible actions.


"Well the other side of the argument says this, however it's not true. It's just not true. I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations about this and said it's not true... well, it's not so much that it's not true, I just want to challenge the scientific community so they'll be a little more responsible. I mean, right now they teach evolution in our schools and it hasn't even been proven yet!!! I WONT BELIEVE TILL I METAMORPHHESISH. Well, anyway, after that finale I present another more intellectual one, not only granting me the secret power of ethics but also making me better than you. What about this guy? He stumps alot of scientists.--- Hey wait, maybe I shouldn't insert this into a conversation that prior to this I demanded proofs that prove. I mean, should I really hold steadfast with my values? Am I making a difference here? What am I doing??? I better start acting like an arrogant asshole so nobody realizes how stupid I am for even believing that shit would be relevant in any case, nonetheless by my own standards.'---preech on


And to imagine I gave him a conscience capable of realizing it's own actions. What a kind soul I am.

[ziggytrix]

The both of you need a time out. Intolerably high levels of sarcasm have rendered the comprehensibility of your posts virtually nil.

When ID puts forth some physical evidence and research, and quits offering up logic puzzles, we can call it a science. Until such time, it is a fallacy-laden philosophy at best, and a vague pseudoscience pushing an agenda at worst.

Evolution does not mean there is no God. It does not mean there is no purpose to existence. Real science does not ask those questions, and only a fool looks to science to answer those questions.

[Preechr]

Yet it's used for that purpose. Guess the world is full of fools, huh?

Kal, stop. You've reduced my argument down to something it never was, and you're waiting on me to respond to that. I brought up irreducible compexity as a point to discuss in order to keep the discussion going a bit. As ziggy sort of indicated, it's an interesting logic puzzle. The discussion is not as simple for most folks as: "Wow, that's obviously wrong." Given that your method of explaining your position further has pretty much been: "You cannot remove someone's heart, so you're stupid," I'm confident you never really had a grasp of the not-so-subtle nuances of the discussion.

You need a summary? Fine. There's tons of discussion and controversy on evolution. To pretend that anyone that is skeptical is a Jesus-freak that's just too dumb to get it is disingenuous and furthers the discussion not one bit. I like discussing things. You guys like mocking things. It's two different things.

I suppose my problem was with vain mockery. I suppose that makes me the idiot for having that problem here, right?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Yet it's used for that purpose. Guess the world is full of fools, huh?

Who's doing that, exactly?

[CaptainBubba]

Preechr I don't think anyone on this forum has a problem with being reasonably skeptical with any aspect of science. Science is so respected because it depends on people being skeptical and challenging previously believed ideas.

What makes people think you are a jesus freak is that you don't just say you are skeptical of it. You seem like you genuinely have a disdain for anyone who believes it. Being skeptical doesnt mean you act like everything is wrong. It means you reserve your complete trust in something and maintain doubt. Evolution is as true as the theory of gravity and the conservation of matter/energy but I doubt you would be so worked up over a thread debating either of those scientific "facts".

And posting stuff from another thread in a completely unrelated and out of context way toooootally embarased me and made me look sooo stupid man good show you shouldve been in the mock wars.

[kahljorn]

"I brought up irreducible compexity as a point to discuss in order to keep the discussion going a bit."

It worked, and now you're bitching about it?

"As ziggy sort of indicated, it's an interesting logic puzzle."

Um, sure. So interesting it took five minutes to figure out, which coincidentally is about how long it took for me to see your post and type a response...

""You cannot remove someone's heart, so you're stupid,""

On behe's webpage his explaination for irreducible complexity is as follows: There's a mousetrap, it has three pieces. If you take out any of those three pieces, the mousetrap will no longer work. This proves evolution wrong. In the human body, there's alot of pieces, but a few primary ones. If you take out one of the primary pieces, the human body will no longer work. This proves evolution wrong.
Obviously I was using the exact same logical model to make it look stupid. Essentially i was 'mocking' it, mimicing it, in a way that looked blatantly stupid to show how blatantly stupid the initial claim is. "This wouldn't work if you remove this" "This wouldn't work if you remove this", same syntax, same solution just a differing response (from you) because it's something accepted in everyday life as true, hence my usage of it. All you've really done with your response is to satisfy exactly what i was trying to point out. It's like you work on my team or something.
That wasn't my argument against Behe anyway, you know what it was and it seemed people have agreed with it before, I don't really need to say anything more on that particular topic-- you just need to shield your eyes and pretend nothing happened. So untwist your panties and quit picking out bullshit delusions to throw my way-- they don't work.

[Big Papa Goat]

that argument doesn't work because its based on criticizing christians, but I'm not a christian

[Preechr]

I probably should have spent more time talking with you in this thread. Would've been more fun. I'm reading back through to see how and why I lost my patience, and if I ignore kahljorn's posts and avoid running off to read ziggy's website, I notice that your tangent about Richard Dawson wasn't so off topic. I think I got back into the thread wrong.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Preechr

My point in this thread is NOT to convince any of you that God created the world or that He or She exists or that you should send me money so that I can finish my church on the Moon. My point is that evolutionism SEEMS to be as much a leap of faith as is creationism, and I'm asking for help from those of you who are obviously intellligent enough to have approached this subject at one point as skeptics and were convinced by facts. What's so wrong with asking for summarized data? This has been acknowledged as FACT for 50 years now by the scientific community at large. What's with the "Trust me?" Doesn't that seem odd to you guys?

Let me be clear that I have not one time posted that I believe creationism or intelligent design to be superior to evolutionism. I have consistently maintained that they are, or at least appear to be, on equal footing as they all require the belief in something that I cannot see. Because creationism and intelligent design both stem from Theology, I'm fine with that. I cannot forgive science for similar behavior, however. Evolutionists NEED to sit down and win this fight concretely or else they need to admit that they cannot and concede that any other theories are equally possible.

For me, and this is why I'm actually interested in this debate at all, I see this as a moral issue. There are very specific ramifications for the different types of thought produced within society from the basis of each of these theories, and I have my preferences. I am looking at this debate from a third person point of view, not as one invested in either side. When I see those purporting to be men of science, facts and logic behaving just as petulantly and suspiciously as any other mystic, I question it.

[kahljorn]

granting me the secret power of ethics

[ziggytrix]

I have consistently maintained that they are, or at least appear to be, on equal footing as they all require the belief in something that I cannot see.

There is a fricken mountain of research and study on evolution. There are thousands of books and websites which can give you summaries, or you can delve into the subject and make your own decision. The subject itself is so broad that parts have been rejected, refined, or outright changed, and you could probably have a pretty interesting debate between champions of different types of evolution.

You can't see if you AREN'T LOOKING.

NO ONE is saying "trust me" from the scientific side of this. I question your contention that anyone is. The theory of evolution at it simplest is just that "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, results in the development of new species."

Either it happens or it doesn't. You asked for evidence, I point at evidence. You say that's not evidence! I get annoyed. You say I'm acting like a petulant mystic. I decide I've put way too much effort into talking to you.

[Sethomas]

I'm not going to read the previous pages to find out, but what exactly is Preechr's substitution for evolution? The evolution debate tends to dichotomize between science and scripture, and he's rejecting both. So, really, what's your deal, Preechr?

[Preechr]

I did not call you a mystic... and the website I was talking about was the other one, which wasn't as helpful.

I honestly left out the main part of that self-quote where I used "Trust me" just so I wouldn't piss you off again.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I'm not going to read the previous pages to find out, but what exactly is Preechr's substitution for evolution? The evolution debate tends to dichotomize between science and scripture, and he's rejecting both. So, really, what's your deal, Preechr?

Jesus.

Ok. I posted that last bit with the goal of not trying to explain myself one last time. Thanks, Seth.

I feel the creationism vs ID debate is a valid discussion to have.

It pisses me off to see otherwise intelligent folks treating the discussion as always-right scientists vs. inbred hicks.

Throughout my spotty interest in the debate, as I am not a christian nor a parent nor a person that's all that concerned in any way in a direct sense, I have seen the ID folks punch some pretty good holes at least in some of the examples that evolutionists have used, a good example being the Miller experiment.

My direct interest in the debate comes from the point of view that those that treat science as a religion (not all science fans do this, but it is my contention that many folks do) use the admittedly flawed anti-religion aspect of the evolution debate in addition to similar functions of ecological science, some parts of cosmology, psychology and politics (as well as many other parts of modern culture) to create a dysfunctional alternate reality, a religion, for themselves that let's them live entirely free of any sort of moral ties to any of the rest of us.

[Preechr]

Oh, and I thought I might be able to discuss that sort of stuff here.

[Big Papa Goat]

isn't the basic argument for intelligent design the evidence for 'planning' because life is too compex to arise naturally?
I think I said some sarcastic off topic stuff about that earlier, but let me explicitly say now, that complexity and diversity arises spontaneously, not from planning. Thats whats so stupid about that fukin watchmaker analogy. A watch is there to tell time. Thats the purpose, everything about a watch can be traced back to the way the watchmaker wanted it to tell time. If you could point to the same kind of intention and purpose in an organism, then you'd be saying something. Complexity has never been a hallmark of planning, purpose has. Biology has complexity, not purpose.

[Preechr]

Christians obviously believe that life has a purpose. I tend to agree with them on that, NOT THAT I AM A CHRISTIAN.

I'm used to pissing off religious people. I'm new to pissing off those that are going to Hell. If life has a purpose, then it's creator was necessarily looking for something it did not already have, creating to fulfill that goal. A goal oriented creator is imperfect or at best, incomplete.

[Big Papa Goat]

think about languages. language was never planned, and it's complex and diverse. society was never planned either. Am I mistaken to think that you're pro-market, anti-communist? Because then you're probably aware that communist, command economies are planned, and they tend to have a single purpose, and lack diversity or complexity. Market economies have diversity, because they arise from the spontaneous interaction of constituent elements. Kind of like evolution.

And I know you won't tell me that the plan the intelligent entity came up with is so complex that it just approximates spontaneity in all observable ways, and that the purpose He had in mind in designing everything is so infinitely complex that it can't be observed or known either.

I know you're not going to say anything like that, cus thats what some redneck would say.

You may say that it's pretty dumb to base that whole theory seemingly only on human institutions like market and command economies. Seems pretty petty, when talking about such universal issues to use such insignificant examples. Except, supposing there isn't an intelligent design to the entire universe, human beings are in fact the only things to ever intelligently plan things. So the only examples we can reliably have for what planned systems look like have to come from systems we've come up with ourselves.

[Big Papa Goat]

Christians and other people obviously believe life has a purpose, but you might notice that the meaning of life is a remarkably difficult thing to define.
The evolutionary 'prediction' for the purpose of life is self-preservation and propogation, and if you look at how much effort every organism puts into surviving and reproducing, it seems to have some explanatory power.

[Preechr]

In addition, one of the items I latched onto in the ID formulary was the idea that the various cogs and wheels in the watch are as simply designed as they could be to allow the diversity of life we enjoy. Make minute changes to something like the pull of gravity, a weak force, and the window closes.

Look at it backwards. I think they're saying that the universe functions like a watch, so it must have a purpose.

[Preechr]

My purpose for life is to be happy. That's a remarkably difficult thing to do, though, obviously, self-preservation is a big part of that.