creationists... debunked..?

[undergroundpanther]

I think so...

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Those scientists have some nerve making discoveries that fly in the face

of intelligent design!!!!!

[LostInAnomie]

2. Time to move the goal post again.

They can stuff their fingers in their ears pretty far and yell "la la la la I can't hear you!" pretty loud. They will never be convinced because they refuse to be convinced.

[Mz Pip]

3. It's a trick

It was planted by the Devil to draw us all away from the truth. THe world is 6000 years old and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. :sarcasm:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[acmavm]

4. I have absolute faith in a Supreme Being (for lack of a better word) and

I also have absolute faith in . That's how I see 'God' as creating life. Logically and scientifically. Nothing I have ever seen or heard negates the existence of God.

Don't care what any of you non-believers have to say. You system of beliefs (or non-beliefs) are up to you. I respect that. I'm just wondering who here will be the first one here to come up with something derrogatory to say about what I believe.

[Atman]

7. Depends upon whether you're serious or flame-baiting.

You didn't even address the issue being discussed, you only alerted the board to your "absolute faith."

Sounds a bit more like "baiting" to me. Maybe you'll catch a big fish...with legs.

[acmavm]

11. Uh no, you're wrong there. And I think that your tone is rather arrogant

and high-handed.

Creationalism is associated with religion. So is intelligent design. And I totally addressed the issue. I said that I believe that evolution is how life would begin. And I qualified that statement with the fact that I believe that is exactly how life would be set in motion by 'God'.

The original post sounds like a total slam at any belief in a higher 'intelligence', you know, as in 'intelligent design' which is fundie associated.

Apparently I used the right bait.

[Lolivia]

13. The OP was a slam at a belief in creationism

not in the general belief in a "higher intelligence."

Creationism has been disproven by evolution. No one on this thread has said anything beyond that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. You may want to edit your post #4

because it says "I also have absolute faith in ." I suspect you missed out the word 'evolution' there, because you didn't mention it anywhere else in post #4. That will make a lot of difference to your message. :-)

[acmavm]

21. You're right, I did inadvertently leave out the word evolution. That is

exactly what I meant by logically and scientifically. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Karmakaze]

16. Yours is far MORE arrogant!

"The original post sounds like a total slam at any belief in a higher 'intelligence'"

So what? Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you have to spark a flame war because some random poster SOUNDED like they were criticising your beliefs?

"Apparently I used the right bait."

Or maybe the OP did!

[Atman]

18. Wow, I'm so glad I waited before I replied

I had a rebuttal all typed out, then decided not to post it. I'm happy I didn't.

You call me "high handed" and "arrogant" for my beliefs. Hmmm.

Quite frankly, I am fed up with this notion that one (or a group of "ones" otherwise known as a religion) can dismiss anything they disagree with simply by declaring their faith. Faith in WHAT?

Science is based upon demonstrable evidence. Faith is based upon...well...faith. If a St. Bernard squeezes out a turd that looks like the Virgin Mary, people from around the globe will flock to see it, take pictures of themselves with it, pray and hold vigils with it until the turd decomposes, as basic science said it would do. Because science builds upon facts already proved. Pinch a loaf, and it WILL decompose. Over and over again, it will happen the same way. Science knows what happens to organic matter.

Faith, though, tries to explain Mary's face in that tapered turd as being a divine vision handed down by your "God." No chance it could be chance. A great floating ghost in the sky, the same floating ghost who doesn't have the time to stop the deaths in Rwanda, the same floating ghost who doesn't have time for the people of New Orleans, the same floating ghost who can't be bothered to bitch-slap George W. Bush upside the head for using his name as an excuse for his war crimes, somehow had the time to emanate the face of the Virgin Mary in a dog turd.

But wait. You're not asserting that God has his hands in everything. You're saying God -- floating somewhere, apparently -- set the wheels in motion, then retired. This omnipotent being was apparently a one-trick pony, who created heaven and earth in seven days, then took the rest of infinity off, satisfied that everything would all work out in the end time.

Talk about ME being arrogant! Oh, wait...God can't really be arrogant, can he? He's God. If anyone has a right to claim superiority, I suppose he's the man. Er, God.

I'm sorry (not really), but I simply do not accept "faith" as an explanation for my being here. And I think it is a total intellectual cop-out to use "intelligent design" and "Nothing I have ever seen or heard negates the existence of God" as explanations for same. Nothing I have ever seen PROVES the existence of God, yet I have seen plenty which negates it, especially the fundamentalist view of a 6000 year history of the world. Therein lies the problem.

Science is based upon PROOF. A scientist in Schenectady can say he PROVED something, but unless every scientist from New York to Nepal can repeat his experiments and reach the same conclusions, his proof is considered bupkiss. On the other hand, you want to claim the elbowed fish which was just discovered was the work of a divine being who snapped his fingers 6000 ago, then sat back to see how it would all work out, and your only supporting "proof" is faith. Your ultimate faith that there is/was a floating ghost somewhere who did the finger-snapping, then moved on to other projects, I suppose.

That is the problem here. Faith is self-affirming. If you can't explain something, you can say "God works in mysterious ways," and vindicate yourself. But science, when it cannot prove something, is discounted, sent back to the drawing board. There is no "TRUST ME!" in science. And until someone can offer me some explanation which trumps science, which goes beyond "TRUST ME! HAVE FAITH!" then I'll be on the side of that which is PROVABLE. I refuse to accept the mystical in lieu of the demonstrable.

Call it arrogance if you must, if such a denunciation comforts you and helps you deal with that which you otherwise cannot explain. But don't call ME arrogant for disagreeing with you.

I simply disagree with you.

[acmavm]

22. Listen, first off the original post was a slam at anyone who has any

religious beliefs. There were a bunch of them here, and apparently that's all right. Certain people here seem to believe that they should be able to denigrate and ridicule anyone who's viewpoints don't coincide with theirs. I just headed these remarks off at the pass. In some ways this place is all too predictable.

Second, don't confuse all of us who do have faith with those who see Mary in a piece of toast, or to use your so very classy example, a St Bernard's turd. Apparently you must think that everyone of faith is a simpleton.

I admit that I most certainly didn't make myself plain in my first post. I forgot to explain that I believe that the logical and scientific way that life originated was by evolution. And I believe that's exactly how God, or whomever, would have created life. Not like some cheesey Amazing Kreskin.

You have no faith in anything you can't see? Do you possibly believe there might be life out there somewhere in the Cosmos? If so, some people might think that would qualify you for a padded cell somewhere. I think that not only is this possible, it's more than likely. But prove it I can't. And you cannot prove that there isn't a higher power although you would make it seem that you are the last word on the subject.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. The text of the original post:

creationists... debunked..?

I think so...

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Perhaps you can elucidate exactly HOW that constitutes a "slam on anyone who has any religious beliefs"

...

[Warren DeMontague]

19. If you choose to affiliate your beliefs with the creationIST crowd---

That's your problem.

I sincerely hope you enjoy the fight with those mean ol' religion-bashing Atheists (if it ever turns up) that you're so desperately trying to find.

[Submariner]

10. As Sister Perpetual Agony taught me

The universe and everything in it was created only 6000 years ago. That is neither scientific or logical. However, the church is now stuck with that premise or logic, since they say that is their God's truth, and that line of church logic obviously cannot be changed except by God him/herself showing up and making the change.

[movonne]

5. They are not listening to this stuff..there heads are set in stone and

all the fossils they find, don't make any different..

[electron_blue]

6. um, creationists were never "bunked" in the first place

cool discovery, though!

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Creationists were debunked when the science of geology was founded

in the early 19th century. See eg Charles Lyell.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Wow! Christian evangelicals and fundies took a beating recently!

This fish, the Judas manuscript showing Judas was a good guy, lots of stuff!

[gatorboy]

12. Why do you pick on the underdog?

[EstimatedProphet]

17. That chart, though funny, shows the problem we have clearly

Fundamentalists look at that chart and say "See? Separation of Church and State is unfair, because the majority of people don't believe in it!"

[rurallib]

15. Just another diversion planted by GOD to throw the lberals

into a tizzy. GOD is laughing. (hahahahaha) SHE is also laughing at our Prez.

[pinto]

20. I think, to be fair, the scientists' objective was science, not

a debunk of creationism. Some may read it as a rebuttal of religious dogma, but that's their agenda, imho, not the scientists'.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Sure. But if the 6,000 year old Earth, "Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark" crowd

wants to try to palm their gibberish off as 'science' -and they do-, then this kind of thing becomes a de facto debunking of creationism, as does any other physical evidence dealing with the facts around the history of this Planet. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If they can't handle the rules of the game, they should keep their balls, as it were, off the court.

Just like photos from space debunk flat Earthers.

[petronius]

25. It's a no win situation

Every time a 'missing link' is identified, creationist types just point out that there are now two missing links - one on either side of the new species. Furthermore, there a no 'transition fossils' leading to or from the new discovery, therefore the new find actually debunks evolution...

;)

[ladjf]

26. The Creationists are "self-debunkers".

[rman]

27. Never had any credibility to begin with

There's no need for additional evidence in support of evolution in order to debunk creationism.
Credibility of creationism does not depend on lack of evidence for evolution (of which there is no lack), rather credibility of creationism depends on evidence supporting creationism - of which there is none, which is why creationists/ID-ers limit themselves to attacking evolution instead of proving creationism.

Beyond that, of course new scientific findings are always nice to have.