Forgive me for making an unasked-for observation, but:
Why are you all still responding to webman?
Clearly, illogical and factually incorrect claims must be responded to and debunked to prevent the spread of ignorance, but it seems equally clear to me that this has been done. No rational being reading this thread would consider webman’s statements to be of any importance.
Given that this is so, why bother allotting precious resources to this thread? If anyone wishes to post further, let them – here’s little point in responding.
Ben, an insightful moderator or admin shouldn’t ban someone for a first time so-called bad turn posting. If they did, it would be pretty extreme. I think you are trying to get me banned just because you don’t like what I did which is very trivial anyway. So what if I did what I did. I made a mistake. Don’t make a big deal of it and talk of banning people. Good thing you are not a moderator.
As for MPSIMS, maybe that’s where it should have been posted. I didn’t realize that at the time.
Stop it. I am Christian. I take as my first priority the truth, in my own heart and elsewhere. Has the fact that several posters have said this mean nothing to you? We are saying this because your own posts indicate a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory, in that you keep attributing ideas and hyptheses to Biology that are not, in fact, part of Biological theory. I can just as easily declare that all the history of the French political system is based on Gaullism, but that would mean I don’t understand French politics. Even if I were right in one small part, I would have missed the forest for a small shrub, not even inside the acual forest.
Go read your own posts. You have not once responded to contrary evidence except to reiterate, without any change or explanation in argument, of your one “fact”, which is in and of itself the thing challenged most.
I was responding off-the-cuff. If you would actually respond to US for a change, then perhaps we would use different argument. The ball has been in your court since the start. You are just holding it while accusing us of stopping the game.
And when we pointed out that your counter-argument was not based in logic you used strawmen, ad hominems, and “You Too!” attacks.
And that would be fine with us if you would do one of these two thing:
Not post about it.
Back up your post with something more than one strawman.
You did not. Your whole “discussion” here has been about you witnessing with no logic. We find that irritating. Notice that you’ve had no defenders thus far. This is the Straight Dope. Freakin STALINISTS can get defenders here. It is a testament to how poor your arguments are.
webman, am I correct in assuming your entire objection to evolution is based on improbability? That you do not think it is likely due to a calculation of the odds? If so, were I to outline an experiment that you could perform personally which would demonstrate an equally unlikely event occurring, would you be willing to retract your objection? Perhaps even approach the topic of evolution with an open mind?
webman - yes, please post your SBC thread in MPSIMS. There are a lot of nice people here who will enjoy chatting with you about lots of non religious-oriented things.
I’m sorry to disappoint everyone who loves a good debate. I posted something that I was really not ready to get heavy into. It seems some people here really love to debate and then sorta get upset when the person posts and then decides not to play the game. Oh well, what can I say? You’ll just have to forgive me if you can.
I believe the impossible odds speak for themselves, but you can think what you will—it’s your own free will to do so.
I’m sure some other newbie to this forum will stumble into here and perhaps give you some entertainment. Have a good day and peace debaters… carry on without me.
Zap! I think we’ve found the true test of webman’s character. Mangetout points out an embarassing bit of hypocrisy on webman’s part- and rather than apologize, he insults Mangetout.
My God, dude, the same could be said about you. In your thread, you insisted that the only dudes who could post there are those that agreed with you- which hardly makes for a “debate”. :rolleyes: Sure, this guy relies on faith instead of facts, but so what? You guys need someone to poke fun at & kick around. He was “debating”, although hardly in a effective or winning way. Even saying “I disagree” is a “debate” of sorts. He at least said “I disagree, and here is why”. Sure, after a while he thought that the arguement was like beating his head against a wall- although not as productive. I am sure others here felt the same, in fact they posted as much. Ban them, too?
So to answer the OP question- I asked my Bro. He said “Exactly like the Evolutionary scientists say, with a small nudge from God now and then, and the addition of a soul at the right evolutionary point”. Hmm, hard to find holes in that, although it takes some amount of faith. He also said some of the greatest Scientific minds accept the existance of some sort of “God”, even Einstein & Darwin. I am not sure what that proves, but…
But as I pointed out before- how do Muslims explain the evolution of Man? How about Hindus? Pagans? In point of fact, just about every major & minor religion has some sort of “creation” myth. And, they are just that. And, most faiths have “fundies” that accept only the “Word” and say that “Yes, God did create man by baking him in an oven” or whatever. Most of the Faithful do not go so far. Why single out the Christians? Some of the other “primitive” creation myths are a real hoot, let’s poke fun at them, eh?
webman, do you care to take my challenge and do an experiment to prove your “impossible odds” argument wrong, or have you suddenly realized you are in the deep end of the pool, and you need to take swimming lessons first?
It doesn’t prove anything, since it’s not true. See here (bottom of the page, the last response) for a discussion about Einstein, and here for a discussion about Darwin.
Just one point. Say that webman’s odds of life being randomly create is true. Also, let’s assume that all natural cohesion in organics (which would greatly lower the odds, and as someone else, was proven in a lab) does not exist.
Now let’s consider the number of stars. How many do you think there are? How many of those stars have planets within a similar distance as earth? Lots I’m guessing. Maybe a million. Maybe a billion. Maybe a few trillion. I think even the purely mechanical odds are in favour of life forming at least once on one of these planets in the last few billions of years.
Also, weren’t traces of frozen bacteria found in the poles of Mars? Either God put them there for fun, or the odds of life forming in even remotely favourable conditions are better than you might think.
OH really? Do you think Evolution is taught much at those Fundamentalist Muslim “schools”, where the only book is the Koran?:dubious: You think the “Abo’s” are teaching their kids Darwin? Some American Indian tribes are making a point of only teaching their myths, or so I have heard.
Davidm- Well, a MB isn’t much of a source. But even in the quote attibuted to him, Einstein says he doesn’t accept a “personal” God, which leads one to an idea that he indeed "accepted the existance of SOME sort of “God”. And, yes, we all know Darwin didn’t recant his “Theory” on his deathbed, but that site makes not mention of what actual religious views he DID hold. I thought he was some sort of vague “Deist”, and a doubting member of the CoE? Note, there is a vast difference between someone being a rabid member of the faithful, and someone who accepts & hopes that there may just be some sort of “god” and something in the way of an afterlife. I am in that group, although I have only a vague hope & belief. I don’t know about a “supreme being”, but I just “need” to beleive that there is something after death.
OK; you may be right, although not much of that seems to go on here where I live. Anyway, perhaps then, Christian creationism singles itself for derision here on the SDMB out because it seems to be the one that most frequently stumbles in here making wild assertions.
How many of those “Koran only” fundamentalist Muslim schools are operating in the U.S.? And are those fundamentalist Muslims trying to force other non-Muslim schools to teach their way? The creationists certainly are. And that’s why they get singled out. Once the fundamantalist Muslims start trying to push their Koran-only teaching into public schools, you can bet there will be an outcry.
He was “debating”, although hardly in a effective or winning way. Even saying “I disagree” is a “debate” of sorts. He at least said “I disagree, and here is why”. Sure, after a while he thought that the arguement was like beating his head against a wall- although not as productive. I am sure others here felt the same, in fact they posted as much. Ban them, too?