I think the only people left who occasionally post anti-evolution blogs are the ones that blocked me for fact-checking them ages ago, and even they seem to be far and few between. Have the evolution deniers on xanga changed their minds or just gone into hiding? I’m genuinely curious.
-
Archives
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
-
Meta
agnophilo 
fight fight fight fight
We could always ask Dan.
I wholeheartedly reject Evolution and I think it’s a pile of crap. Seann William Scott is such a shit actor.
There’s no need to block anyone who subscribes to the utterly preposterous theory that we came from monkeys. The mere fact that anyone would profess to believe in such nonsense makes him or her a laughable fool. The best way to win a debate with evolutionists is just to let them talk. The minute they open their mouth they’ve lost the argument and have managed to convince their audience only that they’re insane, gullible, stupid, or some combination thereof.
I reject the idea that evolution couldn’t possibly be the result of a deliberate act simply because it is beyond our current technological capabilities and ability to reason.I am not religious in the least. I don’t believe in a God, but from my experiences and understanding of the workings of the universe, I could not comfortably say evolution couldn’t have been a deliberate (or perhaps even accidental) creation at some point in the future or the past.Evolution does not disprove creation if that’s the undertone to your argument (or perhaps you’re just arguing that change occurs over time and there are people out there who deny that fact). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Spontaneous generation wasn’t disproved until evidence was found that without flies, maggots don’t appear in meat. So far there is no evidence that evolution doesn’t have a first cause. We simply haven’t found it yet.Evolution is merely an observation that change occurs over time and nothing more. In this sense, I’m sure everyone would agree that evolution occurs. For the most part, the implications of evolution are what are disagreed upon and for good reason.EFFECT, n. The second of two phenomena which always occur together in the same order. The first, called a Cause, is said to generate the other — which is no more sensible than it would be for one who has never seen a dog except in the pursuit of a rabbit to declare the rabbit the cause of a dog. – Ambrose Bierce
Maybe they realized that they’re never changing anyone’s mind and decided to give up fighting about it. You know… since there are better things to blog about. Like my cats.
I challenge you to actually write a post that can make your readers feel like evolution is probable, all you do is just argue for the sake of arguing, and act the victim, it is no wonder you get blocked.
I’m in a different category altogether. I don’t reject evolution but I think evolution has rejected me. I haven’t evolved in ages. 😛 Seriously, I don’t know the answer to your question. I appreciate you and those who debate the anti-science crowd. My battles lie elsewhere.
The culture war has shifted to different fronts– gays, guns, and obama-hate.
I agree with @RulerofMasons. I’ve told you multiple times to watch your language. It isn’t welcome on my site and shows a lack of civility. Once I deleted a post of yours because it contained swear words and you exploded. That you deny the Creator has nothing to do with why I’d block you, should I have to.
The parts of evolution I disagree with, I’ve never written blog posts about. I’ve never blocked you either. So I’m not sure I’m the type of person you’re addressing?Either way, I think people probably block you because you don’t agree to disagree when a conversation/debate reaches that point and just keep going.
The existence of man disproves evolution as a general theory of life.Why would nature evolve a creature that could destroy the entire planet?Also, man does not occupy an ecological niche. That means if man went extinct, the ecosystem wouldn’t notice.Those are but two items that disprove evolution as a general theory of life. There is something else going on that evolution doesn’t and cannot explain.I bring this up every time there’s a discussion on evolution and the pro-evolution people call me bad names and continue to hallucinate alternative realities.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – There are various fossil records of humanoids. Neathandral, cro magnum, homo erectus and australopithecus. I suppose you consider them like baboons, Chimpanzees and gorillas?”Also, man does not occupy an ecological niche.” Ha, ha you do not understand ecological niche. If a creature exists a scientist could examine and name an ecological niche. Basically human beings are able to occupy a variety of ecological niche but since man is not strong in the arms, he is more of a savanaha type creature( does not live in trees like orangatans)
Well, I want to say that you personally have convinced me that evolution did not happen. It’s the fact that you don’t believe in god that did it, really. How can a godless biology possibly be true? Don’t you know that 1=1 is an identity. therefore proving god?Where would we be if 1=2?
@PPhilip – You said absolutely nothing in many words. You did not address the content of my post except to exhibit the logical fallacies called circular thinking and false attribution.Just because some nameless scientists say something doesn’t mean it’s true. Mankind has not occupied an ecological niche for thousands of years.We live in cities and homes with flush toilets, not the savanna.And fossils don’t prove evolution.You just parroted what you were programmed to parrot like you always do. In other words you hallucinated an alternative reality.
I’ve been watching videos on this site of late and there is nearly always at least one anti-evolutionist calling each week.http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/
Perhaps they evolved into rational people! 😀
Farmers have rejected evolution in favor of selective breeding, as have many pet owners.
@Lovegrove – The Atheist Experience seems to attract those sorts of people. Their worldwide fame is pretty hard to compete with. 🙂
@dingus6 – Regardless of what “farmers” believe, they are not scientists, and they do not develop the agricultural sciences they (often ignorantly) employ to grow their crops and breed their animals. Agricultural scientists, biochemists, etc. develop the science that farmers use, and ~99.9% of these life scientists accept evolution. And as far as livestock breeders are concerned, most of them are evolutionists, they just don’t understand what evolution is (e.g., they believe in “micro-evolution” but not “macro-evolution,” but fail to understand that the distinction is semantic, not scientific, and that the only difference between the two is their relative time scale). Anyways, this is like arguing “bus drivers have rejected combustion and, instead, now believe that their engines are powered by espers.” The fact laypeople with professions loosely related to science believe X about science doesn’t make X true, nor does it somehow undermine what the actual experts believe. The actual experts with their irrefutable, voluminous evidence trump the unsubstantiated theories of laypeople. That is, it doesn’t matter how many bus drivers reject the principle of combustion, it still powers combustion engines. Not espers.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Flush your statement out because flush toilets have only been around for less than a hundred years.Fossils do not prove evolution? I suppose frozen woolymamonths are just evidence of the great flood? The oldest frozen human is Otzi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi ) and he is over 5,000 years. How old is the oldest human supposed to be?How convenient you don’t have any source to cite.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Your post doesn’t contain any meaningful content.You simply make a few unsubstantiated assertions that are too vague to respond to or EW so clearly wrong that they don’t merit a response. For example: Why would nature evolve a creature that could destroy the entire planet?First, do you assume such a creature wouldn’t evolve? No principles limit evolution in such a way. As a result, there is simply no reason to make this assumption. Further, nature is full of natural phenomena and/or organisms that that “could” obliterate large environments and/or entire populations of organisms. For example, Kudzu, HIV/AIDs, antibiotic resistance bacteria, diatoms (red tide), javelinas in Hawaii, etc. The fact that humans are (recently) capable of greater destruction than any other previous organism on Earth doesn’t somehow disprove evolution. You are going from A to Z while skipping B through Y on that argumentative path.Just because some nameless scientists say something doesn’t mean it’s true. Evolution is supported by “some nameless scientists.” That’s a disingenuous assertion for several reasons. First, more than 99% of life scientists accept evolution (i.e., members of scientific fields most relevant to evolution). Two: the scientists aren’t nameless. It might be beneficial for your competing beliefs if evolution was propped up by a shadowy cabal of unaccountable scientists, but that’s simply not the case. The scientists who support evolution (which is virtually all subject matter experts) discuss their evidence and their support for evolution in lectures and printed publications with their identities clearly indicated. There are tens of thousands of evolutionary biology research papers with the names, contact information, and data of scientists readily available for scrutiny. However, anti-evolutionists conveniently decline addressing that evidence. Mankind has not occupied an ecological niche for thousands of years.Mankind occupies mankind’s niche, as “ecological niche” simply refers to the way a particular species lives. As such, mankind has always “occupied an ecological niche”. You seem to confuse the issue of mankind’s unprecedented/unique standing in the world with the idea that evolution can’t “explain” how mankind got there. There’s no reason to make this logical jump. Many ecologists believe that each species inhabits a unique ecological niche. Thus, the fact that mankind is a unique species doesn’t pose any significant problem to Neo-Darwinian evolution. Moreover, mankind’s unique biological features are readily explainable by the scientific evidence. There are literally thousands of articles articles discussing these issues. And fossils don’t prove evolution.When studied in conjunction with molecular biology, radioisotope dating, ecology, biogeography, biochemistry, paleontology, radiology, physical cosmology, and physics, they sure as hell do according to virtually every subject matter expert.You just parroted what you were programmed to parrot like you always do. In other words you hallucinated an alternative reality.Oh, you’re Curtis. That sure does explain why your arguments are so bad.
@UTRow1 – It is obvious that nature is ordered to procreation. All living things procreate. The definition of “fit” according to Darwin is the ability to procreate.Mankind has the ability to control the very chemistry of procreation in order to shut it down. That is a capability opposite to that of all other creatures who follow the natural order.Mankind has the ability to choose whether or not its procreations come to term. That is opposite of all other creatures who follow the natural order.That mankind can destroy the natural order is opposite to the purpose of evolution whose purpose is to build and expand natural order.Therefore, the existence of man throws huge monkey wrench into the theory of evolution.
@PPhilip – I find it completely amazing that I must continue to explain the obvious.The very fact that flush toilets have been around for such a short time is proof that man commands nature.For evolution to be a viable theory for mankind, mankind would have to be like all the other evolved creatures.That is, he would have to be subservient to nature like all other creatures. It is irrational to cook up a process (evolution) that works for every creature except man and then continue to claim that man has evolved.The existence of man is a repudiation of the theory of evolution as a general theory of life.
It surely seems that evolution plays an important part in the goings on of nature (and in the cosmos if that isn’t what someone thinks about as nature). Plants, animals, insects… etc… even stories evolve. What sometimes bothered me is that people want to claim that changes mean something that can’t be proven… and it bothers me just as much that other people want to claim that they know just exactly how divinity directs nature. We all must have a faith of some sort. There isn’t anything wrong with that in my book. You have shown me that you have yours and I respect that.
@chronic_masticator – I think dan has expressed himself enough for one lifetime.@AutumnStrength – True dat, not the best movie.@SKANLYN – I know you’re just trolling, but for the record evolution science does not say we came from monkeys.@T3hZ10n – Nothing about evolution says that the process could not possibly have been directed by yahweh any more than it says it couldn’t have been directed by bigfoot. These ideas are not hypotheses that are specific enough to be tested, they have nothing to do with science. As for people not accepting evolution – read the other comments.@Garistotle – Or they got tired of losing debates.@RulerofMasons – I’ve written many such blogs, link. Why the hostile attitude?@gabehughes – I rarely lose my temper, you may have caught me on a bad day. And if memory serves you deleted a large response like this one to many people because of one four letter word like I said something was shitty or something.@firetyger – So you’re in the “gone into hiding” category? As for your charge that I don’t “agree to disagree” here’s how debates with creationists go:Creationist: “1+1=4. That 1+1=2 I find absurd, and no one has ever demonstrated that this could be remotely possible.”Me: “Here’s one of something, here’s another one. Now there are two, not four. That one plus one equals two has been accepted for countless centuries by christian and non-christian mathematicians alike and isn’t even debated by anyone but ultra-fundamentalists.”Creationist: “Look, obviously I’m never going to convince someone like you and you’re never going to convince anyone, we’re just too closed-minded. So lets just agree to disagree.”That’s not a call for reasonableness, that’s “la la la la I can’t hear you”.
@agnophilo – How do I fit the “gone into hiding” category? I’ve never written on the subject. It’s not something I’m passionate about debating with complete strangers online. Especially since I’ve seen how futile it is. I enjoy speaking with evolutionists in real life. The conversations tend to be far more civil and there are less misunderstandings on where the other person stands.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – As I said to you the last time you made this argument (and you promptly ignored) a) we do not have the capability of destroying any planet, including earth, which would take far more than out combined nuclear arsenals, and b) evolution is a blind, unconscious process which has no governing consciousness, plan or mechanism for preventing bad things from happening or planning ahead, which often leads to things like extinction and even mass-extinction. It is a mechanism of reaction, not proactive prevention. In no way is a species being capable of self-destructive behavior in a one-off way contrary to the mechanisms of natural selection.@NeverSubmit – This is gibberish to me. What’s your argument? And 1 is an abstract concept like an inch or a pound, not something that exists objectively in nature. And if 1 equaled two (I have no idea what that would even mean) then the world would presumably operate differently, though I have no idea how since it’s not a clear concept to begin with.@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Mankind did not specifically evolve the ability to use birth control and have abortions, they arose as a consequence of intelligence and our ability to work together on a massive scale, build technology etc, which I think has actually helped us more than abortion has hurt us. In nature everything has a downside, having an eye increases your risk of starvation because it takes calories to build and maintain that eye, and it’s tissues are probably more susceptible to injury and infection. But natural selection will still favor an eye (in an environment where it’s useful) because the upside of being able to see predators or prey from far away and navigate much better etc, is far, far more useful than it is harmful. You can’t just isolate one variable and ignore the greater context.@Lovegrove – In general creationists tend not to open themselves up to critique on this issue much any more, I suppose anonymous callers to an atheist show are the exception. Just five years ago there were many creationist/evangelical radio programs on the air that took callers and debated evolution, atheism etc. Now I don’t think there are any left.@holeinyoursoul – Heh : P Wouldn’t that be nice.@dingus6 – I don’t think that’s rejecting evolution so much as hijacking it.@PPhilip – Most young earth creationists believe the first human was created six thousand years ago.@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – I think earthquakes, meteors, tsunamis, etc and many diseases still have quite a bit of influence over us. Do you deny that we used to have very little influence over nature?@Hunt4Truth – “It surely seems that evolution plays an important part in the goings on of nature (and in the cosmos if that isn’t what someone thinks about as nature). Plants, animals, insects… etc… even stories evolve.” Very different sense of the word evolve. The biological sense refers to a specific set of mechanisms.”What sometimes bothered me is that people want to claim that changes mean something that can’t be proven…” Such as?”and it bothers me just as much that other people want to claim that they know just exactly how divinity directs nature.” “Signs” are always arbitrary. Pat robertson said that hurricaine katrina was punishment for the gays in new orleans because they were planning a gay pride parade – the french quarter that was hosting the parade was the least effected by the hurricaine. People can see what they want to in anything – it’s like seeing shapes in clouds.”We all must have a faith of some sort.” I don’t agree.”There isn’t anything wrong with that in my book.” Faith is firm belief without evidence or understanding. A lack of evidence or proof or a lack of understanding to me calls for patience and humility, not “faith”.”You have shown me that you have yours and I respect that.”How exactly?
@firetyger – Talking in person is more interesting I’ll give you that. But you must be on the internet for some reason.
@ShimmerBodyCream – Heh : )
@agnophilo – I enjoy talking about other subjects online? I’m definitely not focused on one single thing. I first came to Xanga to connect with fellow military fiances. After awhile, I branched out more.
@firetyger – I came here to keep in touch with someone I knew from myspace, who I then lost touch with, lol.
I don’t believe we evolved from apes or any critter like that but when you look at people in general we have gotten taller (not me) but most have you can see that our cultured have evolved but no I don’t believe in the ape critter thing
@SisterMae – Ape doesn’t refer to any particular species, the term “ape” refers to a group of species with similar traits – that group includes humans. We are apes right now, in the same sense that we are mammals right now. Ape means the same thing as “primate”. There is no point at which we stopped being primates any more than a poodle stopped being a canid/canine.
@agnophilo – That would suck
@agnophilo – Ok lets get picky you know what I mean human are human and we have evolved as time has gone by and we will evolve until the end of time…just like I am sure monkeys have but they have nothing to do with human evolution
@firetyger – It happens. If we never lost touch with anyone we’d be up to our eyeballs with friends and acquaintances. I have over 400 “friends” on xanga. I would hate to have to actually keep up with all of them. I would have time for nothing else. And it would be emotionally exhausting to be caught up in so many peoples’ lives.@SisterMae – We are cousins to chimpanzees – this is indisputable, they share 95% of their DNA with us. Furthermore we are cousins to basically everything else in nature, just to different degrees. Do me a favor – sometime take a look at a dog or a cat and take a mental inventory of it’s anatomy and try to find something it has that you don’t have some equivalent of, or visa versa. I doubt you’ll be able to find a single thing – I can’t think of anything except maybe some brain structures. Our skeleton, circulatory system, reproductive system, immune system, etc, etc, etc is bone for bone, ligament for ligament almost identical to that of every mammal. It’s less similar to reptiles, less similar to amphibians, less similar to fish etc – but even plants share a large amount of DNA and cell structures with us. The evidence for common ancestry is really remarkable and worth exploring.
@agnophilo – Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Poe’s Law. Rejecting evolutionary theory requires a certain degree of incoherence, so I made sure to pack my comment as full of insane troll logic as I could fit into five lines.
@NeverSubmit – Mission accomplished. And yes, poe’s law strikes again.
@agnophilo – Glad to know I can still confuse people 😀
At this point all evidence points to creation. However, I do not dismiss evolution at all…in fact, the bible says we came from the earth…however the early people figured this out they would definitely lack the knowledge to fully understand the evolution concept back then. To me it sounds like a childs way of describing evolution in a nutshell. We came from the earth ( or the ocean or whatever). Also, no sense of the huge amount of time it would take to complete the evolutionary process, so the ancestors who wrote the bible were like, “F it, it took a day, we will complete this in a step-by-step process we shall” and there we are.Now whether or not its God or if God is Mr. Jim the alien and was like “f it, this is taking to long” and moved on….who the f knows.I am down for science but I still think that we all randomly came from a big bang is nonsense…where did the first big bang come from, literally, infinite does not fit in with our way of reasoning.
@KamaSutraBuddhaPunkMonkey Poorly wrote that I did-
@KamaSutraBuddhaPunkMonkey – “At this point all evidence points to creation.” What evidence? And what do you mean by creation?”However, I do not dismiss evolution at all…in fact, the bible says we came from the earth…however the early people figured this out they would definitely lack the knowledge to fully understand the evolution concept back then.”It says it several ways, god breathed into dirt to make adam and it says god “let the earth bring forth” the plants and animals.”To me it sounds like a childs way of describing evolution in a nutshell. We came from the earth ( or the ocean or whatever). Also, no sense of the huge amount of time it would take to complete the evolutionary process, so the ancestors who wrote the bible were like, “F it, it took a day, we will complete this in a step-by-step process we shall” and there we are.”Early peoples’ knew the connection between water and life and knew that the food that kept them alive comes from the ground. It makes sense they would build this into their worldview.”Now whether or not its God or if God is Mr. Jim the alien and was like “f it, this is taking to long” and moved on….who the f knows.”Why must there be an intelligent being controlling it?”I am down for science but I still think that we all randomly came from a big bang is nonsense…”The big bang is observably occurring right now, the universe is expanding as we speak. That the big bang happened and is happening is a fact. That life evolved and is evolving is also well observed. And we didn’t “come from” the big bang, it’s just something that preceded our existence. The big bang describes the expansion and cooling of the universe, not how the matter/energy involved came to exist in the first place.”where did the first big bang come from, literally, infinite does not fit in with our way of reasoning.”We don’t know. Why is a naturalistic beginning of the universe absurd but a god that just exists or existed forever is not absurd? To my thinking neither make any sense.
@KamaSutraBuddhaPunkMonkey – Are you trying to sound like master yoda or is english not your native language or what?
no really just repeating the same information over and over again.
@agnophilo – What evidence? And what do you mean by creation? *** No, not evidence, lack of evidence. It is natural for us to think we came from something because that is basically the line of thought we follow to explain anything. (This does that or because of that, this is).Why must there be an intelligent being controlling it? *** There does not need to be anything in control. I am thinking a maker with perhaps the ability to manipulate. Science being the tools and parameters put forth to make life and our universe work.The big bang… *** I do not deny the big bang, but the big bang is a step in a process. What was the first step? It is like answering, “Where did we come from?” The earth. Where did the earth come from? eventually leading to the big bang….ok, where did that come from….or better yet, what was the first step?We don’t know. Why is a naturalistic beginning of the universe absurd but a god that just exists or existed forever is not absurd? To my thinking neither make any sense.*** Creationism is an easy concept, simply, Creator is to us as we are to ants…in a sense though the exact measurement may be off because I do not know what the ruler is to tell me the unit of measurement. Natural beginning…to chaper 936 (our current universe) is all too believable as well. :::I think there is a whole lot more to all of this then we can even begin to fathom…if you proceeded in a straight line at beyond astronomical speeds, will you eventually reach a point where nothing is present? Beyond the grasp of the big bang? Is there a wall, or will you fall off the edge of the universe? Maybe the universe is spherical, 1 of many universes and many big bangs. Maybe we are all one big ant farm. Maybe there are multiple dimensions. The big bang sounds intense, what if it creates a totally different kind of universe next time, one beyond our ability to even imagine because it will be so completely different?The point is, however, whatever, or whoever is behind it all – we are no where near to figuring it out, and considering the extremes – it is more logical for me to think that someone or something who knows better is behind it all. Looking at history, listening to people’s experiences and knowing my own, is the best evidence for me to believe what I believe. In the interim, science – we are children with lego blocks and a shovel in the backyard.
@agnophilo – No I am a bit of a rambler, and for a good while, postured my speech and what I write after a psuedo-british accent. Not really doing that anymore but it sort of became a habit. At this point it has just muddled it a bit.