Why was Ecco's statement about mutual desire incorrect? Why don't you at least try explaining why there is an issue with self gratification regarding consensual acts? What are humans if not flesh and blood organisms? Aside from other organic bodily fluids, tissue and bone? Also I did not use the word "more", I used "other". Please do not change my words to suit your opinion. Laws can be made against subhuman behavior. In what way is the origin of the human species relevant? You are correct. It is irrelevant to your thread. However is there a specific reason you refuse to present which scientific possibilities there are as alternatives? Why is my "request denied"? Also, the problem being that you likely would not suggest the human race appeared out of nothing. For your last answer, you never said anything of the sort. Though your posts suggest you blame the theory of evolution for dehumanization, yet do not see that humans will dehumanize each other just as they always have regardless of the concept of evolution. The lack of it's existence would likely do nothing to prevent this. In addition, I'd like to know on what basis do you come to the conclusion of human "God given" rights? I hope this isn't merely nothing more than part of the Theist Right agenda. Which in fact has been used to relieve the masses of pleasure and personal freedom simply because of Theistic belief. You also haven't answered why evolution is not valid due to lacking absolute scientific proof, yet do not view religions under the same scrutiny when they lack absolute scientific proof. In many places, religion is taught as fact. Just as the theory of evolution has been. Now that you have proven to be more reasonable than ChemEngineer, would you be able to answer my previous questions?: Do you mean to say that you will never change your opinion simply because you want what you believe to be correct? Despite any possible evidence that challenges your beliefs as fact?
You were the one who avoided answering questions. Placing people on an "Ignore List" unfortunately appears to be your method of avoiding having to formulate a comprehensive answer.
I am not to be honest. Though I am happy for all of you. I doubt ChemEngineer is exaggerating his numbers though. ChemEngineer returned to this thread not to argue his point, but only to mock those who believe in evolution. It would seem ChemEngineer "runs" from the things that are hard to explain.
Evidence for transitional fossils has been provided to you multiple times from several people in this forum. You, OTOH, have continuously failed to respond with a scientific rebuttal. That’s where you can "start over".
Correct. Those against the theory of evolution on this thread merely avoid scientific discussion. Let us say we started over this time assuming the theory of evolution is incomplete or incorrect. What other scientific conclusions would they propose? ChemEngineer and others have claimed to be basing their views on science, yet avoid pursuing or explaining an alternative for an unknown reason. It would appear they have another agenda which has nothing to do with science at all.
Yes. They are the opposite. They are not what you like to read because the posters do not share your viewpoint or "stroke the ego" of what may be a Theist disposition. That may be why you ignore forty or fifty people by now.
Creationists/fundamentalists are not looking for scientific alternatives;like evolution it would pose a threat to their belief system.
Is that truly their only reason? It almost sounds rather juvenile if that is the case. Not wanting to search for or discuss other possibilities because you are afraid of being wrong?
Please name all of these alleged "god given rights" that claim exist. And don't forget to cite the relevant holy texts granting these alleged rights. FTR the DofI is NOT a holy text of any religion so it doesn't count. TYIA
The puerile fear of being wrong is their basis for taking the bible literally. Ironically the contradictions in the bible mean that they are constantly wrong!
I see. If ChemEngineer and the others are in fact Christian Fundamentalists, then the purpose of the "discussion" amongst themselves of the Fallacies of Evolution may be to merely appease their wishful thinking, as they do not express any interest in pursuing scientifically, the accuracy of their religion.
Exactly! Not one of them has offered an alternative to the ToE. None of them can use the scientific method to falsify any aspect of the ToE. So yes, this thread is nothing more than a means to vilify the ToE to make them feel good about their science denial by pretending that they have achieved something. To be fair they have managed to stroke their own egos but not in a "good way"!
Getting from point A to point B Scientist: “What possible path could have been taken?” Creationist:: “There was no path, everything was placed at the end by a higher power.” Scientist: “Ok, but lets theoretically ask, “If there were a path, what would that look like, how would it start, and where would it end?” Creationist: “You don’t have the right to ask questions. It happened one way and one way only.” Scientist: “Yea, ok, I get that, but I’m just asking what it would look like and what experiments you could run if a path did exist?“ ”I have some data, it’s not complete or definitive in any way, but it at least may provide some more questions.” Creationist: “You don’t have any evidence, or all your evidence is superficial.” Scientist: “That could be true, but should I stop asking questions and then testing them every time they “may” make you feel like your beliefs are being challenged?” Creationist: “Yes.”
ToE probably has relieved some of the gullible masses of their belief in a Biblical God given Creation Event. Your fear is that more people will become less gullible and realize that the concept of giraffes in an Ark is really, really silly.
On further reflection, the only thing consensual about self gratification is the consent my brain gives to my hand.
Since you are still, for the moment, in ChemEngineer's good graces, you could return to the comments stated in the OP and ask him to show a single school textbook that uses any of the arguments he terms "fallacious". He won't because, like usfan, he can't, because no school textbooks claim "Correlation proves Causation".
Thanks, and here's hoping there are lurkers who got something out of it. One the one hand, I probably have 4-5 times that many, though I've been here longer. On the other, if I'm too quick on the ignore trigger I'll waste the opportunity to use them as foils for my ideas.
Is that all you have done? Ignore what you couldn't explain? There were still several questions you refused to answer.
I'm fed to the teeth with having my eyeballs bounce up and down as I try to figure out what the hell you're responding to, so if your ensuing response isn't properly formatted as a point by point response - which is to say, as mine are - I won't bother reading it. Now then: Maybe I'll go into that some day. Because I don't have a receptive audience. If you have a conscience, you have your answer as well. KMA More to the point, seeing the term is meaningless from an evolutionist perspective, any behavior at all can be labelled subhuman, as it was in the Third Reich. Again, you answered your own question. Because I'm not going to be used by people like you who want to derail this thread. And that's a problem because...? Exactly, which is why your question was retarded. They don't suggest any such thing, obviously. That's just an inference you find it convenient to draw, for an obvious reason. Please, you'd rather be dead. who the hell cares You haven't got a clue as to how I view religion. What I mean to say is precisely what I said.
Adding to what yguy said to someone he quoted: "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." - PierreTeilhard de Chardin
