Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/16/2017 7:45:36 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No difference. He thinks it's assumptions then building on that.

Science starts with hypotheses which are then tested.

Which answers your question as well. If it can't be tested, and independently verified, and hence used to predict, it's speculation, not science.

No matter how long or hard or brilliantly you think about it.


Which makes the Big Bang Theory, speculation and not science, as it is NOT testable.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/16/2017 7:54:56 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Since this is junior high school science . . .

Dude.

As for astrophysics, I'll refer you to Richard Feynman, who pointed out we learn from the observation of effects in those instances.

And--science never "proves" anything . . . another misconception. It notes what's likely given what we know so far, and continues to test and expand knowledge by so doing. When a better explanation comes along, science changes. That's a key difference between your "assumption" model and testing hypotheses.

Speculation is a dead end. You have your belief. And that's where your "learning" stops.

A theory, in the scientific sense, can be used to accurately predict occurrences. If it works . . . it's a possibility, for now, until someone explains it better.

Gravity is "just a theory" by your logic. In fact, physicists didn't understand what it was. But as Newton noted, when you drop shit, it still falls. Now we know that it's really space-time curved toward the earth that appears to attract things at the rate of 16 ft/sec/sec. But with that update -- shit still falls.

"What you think" is useless in science. It's what do you think, based on observation, might explain the phenomenon, that you can test and verify and then use to predict.

What can Creationism predict? It's one and done.

Evolution is a couple of different theories. But that there's a fossil record showing a gradual change as we move through millions of years of geological strata -- that we know well enough to predict the kinds of life we'd find at a certain place, for example.

That evolution happens in some species in abrupt jumps in response to environmental changes (punctuated equilibrium) -- like pepper moths and galapagos finches -- has been observed and studied already.

Not because someone believes it, or because someone has assumptions that favor it -- but because available data supports it, can be independently verified, and can be used to predict what we'll find in similar circumstances.

And not because someone has decided it's true, because that's not how science works. When we know more, and it works better, science updates.

Incidentally, string theory is one of many models to explain the universe, and it's an older one. Check out Carlo Rovelli's books for an entertaining and fascinating explanation of these (I won't try to explain them -- it's interesting stuff, though, and he shows why these are favored, in terms of better explaining the universe).


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/16/2017 7:58:32 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No difference. He thinks it's assumptions then building on that.

Science starts with hypotheses which are then tested.

Which answers your question as well. If it can't be tested, and independently verified, and hence used to predict, it's speculation, not science.

No matter how long or hard or brilliantly you think about it.


Which makes the Big Bang Theory, speculation and not science, as it is NOT testable.

Neither is Creationism, come to that.

But we can measure the expanding universe, for example, which is consistent with a big bang theory.

I.e., given what we know, it's consistent. When we find more galaxies, they are also moving apart.

Now, if we found galaxies going the other way -- that would kill big bang right there. But given what we know, it's consistent -- and that's how science works.

It's not about "proving" anything. It's about observation, testing, testing predictions, and independent verification through repetition. It's a mode of inquiry. And along the way, new information comes along, new hypotheses are formed and tested, and so on.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/16/2017 8:07:53 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since this is junior high school science . . .

Dude.

As for astrophysics, I'll refer you to Richard Feynman, who pointed out we learn from the observation of effects in those instances.

And--science never "proves" anything . . . another misconception. It notes what's likely given what we know so far, and continues to test and expand knowledge by so doing. When a better explanation comes along, science changes. That's a key difference between your "assumption" model and testing hypotheses.

Speculation is a dead end. You have your belief. And that's where your "learning" stops.

A theory, in the scientific sense, can be used to accurately predict occurrences. If it works . . . it's a possibility, for now, until someone explains it better.

Gravity is "just a theory" by your logic. In fact, physicists didn't understand what it was. But as Newton noted, when you drop shit, it still falls. Now we know that it's really space-time curved toward the earth that appears to attract things at the rate of 16 ft/sec/sec. But with that update -- shit still falls.

"What you think" is useless in science. It's what do you think, based on observation, might explain the phenomenon, that you can test and verify and then use to predict.

What can Creationism predict? It's one and done.

Evolution is a couple of different theories. But that there's a fossil record showing a gradual change as we move through millions of years of geological strata -- that we know well enough to predict the kinds of life we'd find at a certain place, for example.

That evolution happens in some species in abrupt jumps in response to environmental changes (punctuated equilibrium) -- like pepper moths and galapagos finches -- has been observed and studied already.

Not because someone believes it, or because someone has assumptions that favor it -- but because available data supports it, can be independently verified, and can be used to predict what we'll find in similar circumstances.

And not because someone has decided it's true, because that's not how science works. When we know more, and it works better, science updates.

Incidentally, string theory is one of many models to explain the universe, and it's an older one. Check out Carlo Rovelli's books for an entertaining and fascinating explanation of these (I won't try to explain them -- it's interesting stuff, though, and he shows why these are favored, in terms of better explaining the universe).



Dude, I'm using your words to show your inconsistencies. Sorry if that hurts you.

Perhaps now you'll get on topic.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/16/2017 8:31:21 PM   
WickedsDesire


Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline
all you show is you howling away in your mums basement like some mad cunt squatting over your bucket of plob jobbies

do you slop out 49 times a day or do you shit faster than you can mop up

_____________________________

wE arE tHe voiCes,
We SAtuRaTe yOur aLPHA brain WAveS, ThIs is nOt A DrEAm The wiZaRd of Oz, shoES, CaLcuLUs, DECorAtiNG, FrIDGE SProcKeTs, be VeRy sCareDed – SLoBbers,We DeEManDErs Sloowee DAnCiNG, SmOOches – whisper whisper & CaAkEE

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 1:18:17 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith.
In fact, partial evidence is probably less beneficial since at least someone of faith acknowledges it is faith and doesn't assume they have all necessary information to make conclusions.

What an interesting claim. Let's apply this claim - "Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith." and see what the results are:
Firstly I hope we can all agree that no branch of knowledge, science or faith has infinite knowledge. All knowledge systems are partial systems and I am unable to think of a single exception to this.

Applying the claim to for example the medical domain, as medical science does not have infinite knowledge, the claim asserts that knowledge generated by medical science will be "no more beneficial" than knowledge generated by faith. Does anyone believe this? Does anyone think that knowledge generated by faith healers is at least as "beneficial" as that generated by medical science? Perhaps the acid test would be a person's own health - if you fall ill, are you going to seek the advice of a qualified practitioner of medical science or some faith based healer? Would the person who advanced this idiotic claim - Nnanji - choose the local faith healer or the local doctor?

One could go on applying this claim to other areas of knowledge - say engineering, or car design, or what you will - who would you trust to engineer a bridge or design a car for you? - but I think the outcome is pretty clear.

This claim is absolute bullshit, a claim that can only be advanced in flagrant disregard for all the advances that rigourous scientific approaches to generating knowledge, always conducted in conditions of less than infinite knowledge, have produced for humans since the Enlightenment. It takes a particular distastehatred for knowledge to advance this type of nonsense, based in pure prejudice and superstition as it can only be.

The claim that scientifically generated knowledge is" no more beneficial to make conclusions from than [that of] faith" is grounded in ignorance superstition and an almost criminal disregard for the advances of recent centuries. In this sense, it is a true reflection of the state of Nnanji's feeble mind.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 7/17/2017 1:22:33 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 2:58:34 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"The Scientific Case Against Evolution"


Do you think, or expect anyone else to think, that an entity known as "the institute for creation research" is going to be anything like 1% independent?

Be fucking serious willya?
If you had posted something form an actual scientific journal, it might have credence.

Well then show a dat or a cog in a fossil record. That's all you have to do. You don't need to be insulting.

1. I think you might have some typos. Pls elaborate.

2. If one wishes to be taken seriously, one might use sources that don't have orders of magnitude less journalistic integrity than Vox or The Washington Times.
The source used makes the National Enquirer look like the Wall Street Journal.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 4:59:05 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No difference. He thinks it's assumptions then building on that.

Science starts with hypotheses which are then tested.

Which answers your question as well. If it can't be tested, and independently verified, and hence used to predict, it's speculation, not science.

No matter how long or hard or brilliantly you think about it.


Which makes the Big Bang Theory, speculation and not science, as it is NOT testable.


quote:

The information we have considered throughout this book has shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind it there is another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.


http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/science_materialism.html

a great site by the way for all you godless and/or god-hating comrades.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:01:11 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since this is junior high school science . . .

Dude.

As for astrophysics, I'll refer you to Richard Feynman, who pointed out we learn from the observation of effects in those instances.

And--science never "proves" anything . . . another misconception. It notes what's likely given what we know so far, and continues to test and expand knowledge by so doing. When a better explanation comes along, science changes. That's a key difference between your "assumption" model and testing hypotheses.

Speculation is a dead end. You have your belief. And that's where your "learning" stops.

A theory, in the scientific sense, can be used to accurately predict occurrences. If it works . . . it's a possibility, for now, until someone explains it better.

Gravity is "just a theory" by your logic. In fact, physicists didn't understand what it was. But as Newton noted, when you drop shit, it still falls. Now we know that it's really space-time curved toward the earth that appears to attract things at the rate of 16 ft/sec/sec. But with that update -- shit still falls.

"What you think" is useless in science. It's what do you think, based on observation, might explain the phenomenon, that you can test and verify and then use to predict.

What can Creationism predict? It's one and done.

Evolution is a couple of different theories. But that there's a fossil record showing a gradual change as we move through millions of years of geological strata -- that we know well enough to predict the kinds of life we'd find at a certain place, for example.

That evolution happens in some species in abrupt jumps in response to environmental changes (punctuated equilibrium) -- like pepper moths and galapagos finches -- has been observed and studied already.

Not because someone believes it, or because someone has assumptions that favor it -- but because available data supports it, can be independently verified, and can be used to predict what we'll find in similar circumstances.

And not because someone has decided it's true, because that's not how science works. When we know more, and it works better, science updates.

Incidentally, string theory is one of many models to explain the universe, and it's an older one. Check out Carlo Rovelli's books for an entertaining and fascinating explanation of these (I won't try to explain them -- it's interesting stuff, though, and he shows why these are favored, in terms of better explaining the universe).



Dude, I'm using your words to show your inconsistencies. Sorry if that hurts you.

Perhaps now you'll get on topic.

* shrug *

It's all stuff you can readily learn yourself. Or not.

It's exactly the topic as other posters have made it.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:09:19 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"The Scientific Case Against Evolution"


Do you think, or expect anyone else to think, that an entity known as "the institute for creation research" is going to be anything like 1% independent?

Be fucking serious willya?
If you had posted something form an actual scientific journal, it might have credence.

Well then show a dat or a cog in a fossil record. That's all you have to do. You don't need to be insulting.

1. I think you might have some typos. Pls elaborate.

2. If one wishes to be taken seriously, one might use sources that don't have orders of magnitude less journalistic integrity than Vox or The Washington Times.
The source used makes the National Enquirer look like the Wall Street Journal.

One of the standard lies used to "debunk" the theory of evolution is that there are no fossils of transitory species. The really funny thing about this is that the academics who insist that evolution is not a thing seem to be fifty or sixty years behind on paleontology, insisting that fossils don't exist because they've been discovered since the 'fifties, when the texts they refer to were written.
If there are no transitory species (and there are several surviving ones, never mind those like zeuglodons or archeopteryx that are famously documented in the fossil record), that argument would be a sound one, but as things stand, it's pretty equivalent to somebody putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalala not listening!" to avoid being told something they refuse to accept.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:22:06 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No difference. He thinks it's assumptions then building on that.

Science starts with hypotheses which are then tested.

Which answers your question as well. If it can't be tested, and independently verified, and hence used to predict, it's speculation, not science.

No matter how long or hard or brilliantly you think about it.


Which makes the Big Bang Theory, speculation and not science, as it is NOT testable.


quote:

The information we have considered throughout this book has shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind it there is another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.


http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/science_materialism.html

a great site by the way for all you godless and/or god-hating comrades.


Well, I'm neither godless nor god-hating.

I'm pointing out that your railings are based on misunderstandings. Even evolution is not one thing, but a topic area with a variety of theories. That evolution happens is supported well, challenged only by the faction that maintains that's just an opinion and therefore creationism is equal science (when it's not science at all). How evolution happens is a different set of theories (there are multiple approaches to this, all with some support -- hypotheses and testing them continues).

Your link is self-serving doggerel. For example:

quote:

Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest beliefs in the world, and assumes the absolute and exclusive existence of matter as its basic principle. According to this view, matter has always existed, and everything that exists consists of matter. This makes belief in a Creator impossible, of course, because if matter has always existed, and if everything consists of matter, then there can be no supramaterial Creator who created it.


For example, in Hinduism, there is no Creation -- the Universe has always existed. And yet the Upanishads open with "In Brahman is all things that are; In Brahman is all things that are not." From this central divinity flows the many manifestations of God in the Hindu pantheon.

Many Christian scientists see not this dichotomy you assume. That's because they understand what science is. And using a mode of inquiry, a way of learning (what science is), does not preclude spiritual beliefs for these scientists. Why, for example, can't evolution be one of God's creations? Several other natural processes are presumed to be. What singles out this one?

There is a conflict when Creationists insist on literal interpretations of the Bible, maintaining the Universe is only 6000 years old, when evidence suggests otherwise. Much Scripture of all faiths isn't necessarily literal. When the Bible says "40 days" for example, it's an ancient convention, meaning "a very long time." And to take some parts of the Bible literally and yet gloss over Leviticus (or choose it selectively) is hypocrisy.

What to take it literally? I wish all believers would tack this one on their walls: Jesus said "Those who are not against us are for us." NOT those who are not for us are against us. That gives Christianity a lot of allies. Under that, post "Love your enemies." And "put up your sword."

Want to preach the merits of a spiritual life? Stop getting so riled up by the meaningless ripples of this world. His kingdom is not of this world. And in God all things are possible. Trust. And Love your neighbor as yourself.

The confused and tortured John Lennon's of this world aren't your enemy -- they, in their own hearts, still offer "All we are saying is give peace a chance." "Love is all you need."

"Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."

If that kind of "material philosophy" is the enemy, then we're all going to be just fine.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:31:19 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
Living Creatures Were Clearly Designed

quote:

Some of the same attributes seen in man-made tools are also found in living organisms. When parts fit well together, depend on each other, and interact to achieve a purpose, they can be recognized as a designed system. It is this recognition that enables the practice of archaeology and forensics. Generally, the more specified and complex the parts of a system are, the more numerous they are, and the more efficient the system is, the more engineering skill and knowledge were required to form that system.

Some of the same attributes required of the designer of a man-made machine such as a camera—intelligence, purposeful intent, knowledge of the materials and physical principles involved, etc.—must also be required of the One who designed complex biological features like the vertebrate vision system. Scripture confirms that enough of the attributes of God are known to all men through what He has made that “they are without excuse” if they choose to ignore Him (Romans 1:20).

Clear examples abound of design in living creatures. One is the tendon that emerges from a chest muscle in most birds. It is threaded through a hole in the bird’s bone, wraps around a “pulley,” and then is attached to the top of the humerus bone. This way, when the muscle flexes, the wing moves up. Each specification involved is exactly fitted to perform its needed function. If only one of them failed to work, the bird would not fly.

In recent decades, the incredible world of tiny machines inside living cells has been revealed. It demonstrates a supremely efficient, and in many cases perfectly specified, collection of parts upon which each living cell depends. Large creatures were clearly designed, but it is even more certain that single cells must have had a Designer of unsurpassed engineering genius. There is no such thing as a simple living organism.


http://www.icr.org/life-designed

I know---we look at something, we take something apart and study it, we find out how intricate and complex it is, and we think, ah, this must have developed on its own!

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:34:24 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
or course, it took hundreds of millions of years for that to occur through natural selection and mutations...

quote:

The Natural Direction of Life Is Degeneration, Not Evolution

Mutations in the genomes of organisms are typically nearly neutral, with little effect on the fitness of the organism. However, the accumulation of deleterious (harmful) mutations does occur and the accumulation of these mutations leads to genetic degeneration.

Mutations lead to the loss of genetic information and consequently the loss of genetic potential. This results in what is termed “genetic load” for a population of organisms. Genetic load is the amount of mutation in a kind of organism that affects its fitness for a particular environment. As genetic load increases, the fitness decreases and the organism progresses towards extinction as it is unable to compete with other organisms for resources such as food and living space.

An increase in genetic potential through mutation has not been observed, while the increase in genetic load via mutation is observable in all organisms and especially in man.


http://www.icr.org/mutation

oh darn!

and after all that time, pepper moths are STILL pepper moths and Galapagos finches are STILL Galapagos finches. what can that mean??

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 7/17/2017 5:35:19 AM >

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:47:21 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
so the fossil record doesn't show the thousands of transitional species it should---so we have to come up with a new theory!!

quote:

In an earlier pages, we examined how the fossil record clearly invalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist theory. We saw that the different living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly, and stayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes. This great discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist with no evolutionary processes behind them.

This fact was ignored for many years by paleontologists, who kept hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would one day be found. In the 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an unfounded hope and that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as a reality. However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish the theory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying the theory. And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution, which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects.

This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basic characteristics:

1. Stasis

2. Sudden appearance

In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.

This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s. Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neo-Darwinism had proposed, gradually over time through small mutations, but suddenly through giant ones. When giving examples of his theory, Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in history had emerged from a reptile egg by a huge mutation-in other words, through a giant, coincidental change in genetic structure.173 According to this theory, some land animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales through a comprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory of Schindewolf's was taken up and defended by the Berkeley University geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. But the theory was so inconsistent that it was quickly abandoned.

The factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theory again was, as we have already established, that the fossil record is at odds with the Darwinistic notion of step by step evolution through minor changes. The fact of stasis and sudden emergence in the record was so empirically well supported that they had to resort to a more refined version of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain the situation. Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statement of this obligatory step back.

Gould and Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastic theory, of course. In order to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, they tried to develop some kind of mechanism for these sudden evolutionary leaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated equilibrium," they chose for this theory is a sign of this struggle to give it a scientific veneer.) In the years that followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory was taken up and expanded by some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution was based on even more contradictions and inconsistencies than the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.


http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/equilibrium.html

oh darn!!

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:52:35 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

Living Creatures Were Clearly Designed


http://www.icr.org/life-designed



No they weren't clearly designed. if they were designed, they would be a hell of a lot more efficient.

Once again, ICR is printing things only based on an ancient, oft translated incomplete document.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 5:55:21 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
fr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 6:13:32 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Your fingers are in your ears.

In "answer" to the fundamental problem that your perceived--in fact, invented--conflict stems from your misunderstanding of what science is and does, you simply post a round of "reasoning" based on that same fundamental misunderstanding. You can do that all day long, and it won't change that misunderstanding.

There's a lot we don't know about gravity. Does that mean it doesn't actually exist, that the theory of gravity is wrong, that things don't actually move toward a large mass like the earth?

You're moving on to the perfectionist fallacy. That's not the same as noting that the evidence we have supports an evolution of species, by whatever means. If you want to postulate that God step in and fine-tuned His handiwork, OK. If you want to pretend it never happened, the evidence suggests you're mistaken.

If you want to pretend evolution is one flawed theory, and ignore that it's actually separate theories, fine -- but again, you'll just be talking through your hat.

I know you've got all your usual stump speeches ready to go.

But they aren't going to provide the evidence that people rode dinosaurs a couple thousand years ago.

Nor is there this big war on religion you're anxious to fight.

Are there some antagonists? Sure. Just like the vast majority of Christians take all this in stride.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 6:19:05 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

No they weren't clearly designed. if they were designed, they would be a hell of a lot more efficient.

Who in their right minds would have ever designed humans the way we are .....?

Stephen Fry talks of a bug that only lives in the eyes of children, blinding them. Is that the creation of an intelligent designer? Or a deranged vicious cosmic psychopath?

_____________________________



(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 6:28:33 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith.
In fact, partial evidence is probably less beneficial since at least someone of faith acknowledges it is faith and doesn't assume they have all necessary information to make conclusions.

What an interesting claim. Let's apply this claim - "Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith." and see what the results are:
Firstly I hope we can all agree that no branch of knowledge, science or faith has infinite knowledge. All knowledge systems are partial systems and I am unable to think of a single exception to this.

Applying the claim to for example the medical domain, as medical science does not have infinite knowledge, the claim asserts that knowledge generated by medical science will be "no more beneficial" than knowledge generated by faith. Does anyone believe this? Does anyone think that knowledge generated by faith healers is at least as "beneficial" as that generated by medical science? Perhaps the acid test would be a person's own health - if you fall ill, are you going to seek the advice of a qualified practitioner of medical science or some faith based healer? Would the person who advanced this idiotic claim - Nnanji - choose the local faith healer or the local doctor?

One could go on applying this claim to other areas of knowledge - say engineering, or car design, or what you will - who would you trust to engineer a bridge or design a car for you? - but I think the outcome is pretty clear.

This claim is absolute bullshit, a claim that can only be advanced in flagrant disregard for all the advances that rigourous scientific approaches to generating knowledge, always conducted in conditions of less than infinite knowledge, have produced for humans since the Enlightenment. It takes a particular distastehatred for knowledge to advance this type of nonsense, based in pure prejudice and superstition as it can only be.

The claim that scientifically generated knowledge is" no more beneficial to make conclusions from than [that of] faith" is grounded in ignorance superstition and an almost criminal disregard for the advances of recent centuries. In this sense, it is a true reflection of the state of Nnanji's feeble mind.

I read about a paragraph or so and then your women's studies thought process screamed so much ignorance I had to stop.

Let's take, for instance, that you don't know what you're freaking talking about first. Perhaps you'll go back and read the context of the statement and then try to apply your women's studies to actually what was being discussed.

Second, I don't think any cancer specialist MD will tell you he knows everything about cancer. But does that mean he won't apply what he does know. No, it means he'll do a radical mastectomy rather than heal you in his office was a gizmo.

I don't know what other nonsense you were spouting and I don't care to know more than that it was nonsense. You really should stick to topics like feminism.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/17/2017 6:35:12 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1533
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
...
I believe that the way this nation is set up, one central government shouldn't be dictating what the entire nation learns in the classroom. If parents want to teach that life climbed out of a lightning struck mud pool or was divinely created a few thousand years ago they should have access to the people who dictate the curriculum.
...


So the ignorants who have no knowledge about any matters should and do dictate the curriculum?
No more questions ...

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109