When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
Right, because that isn't the most biased poll ever. All the answers say the same thing!QUOTE
When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
We DO know evolution. We DON'T know creation. All your poll choices make evolution seem like a scam. Not ONE choice offers a sane alternative.
I pooped out HIV. Seriously!
^^^as provable as some divine being creating everything
evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE. Believe whatever you want about how life started, there is a mountain of evidence showing how it got the way it is now.
QUOTE (dad1+)
When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
Except evolution isn't about the origin of life, as you Pro-CS'ers would like some to think. It's about what happened after life began. And as far as that goes, we do know. Evolution has been tested and has withstood all tests up to this date. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. Evolution involves real science, and has been backed up by the fossil record, genetic studies and biochemical studies, scientific observations, and logic. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. So yes, evolution should be taught in schools, not Creationism. Sorry.
BTW - Congratulations on starting the most incredibly biased poll ever.
Except evolution isn't about the origin of life, as you Pro-CS'ers would like some to think. It's about what happened after life began. And as far as that goes, we do know. Evolution has been tested and has withstood all tests up to this date. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. Evolution involves real science, and has been backed up by the fossil record, genetic studies and biochemical studies, scientific observations, and logic. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. So yes, evolution should be taught in schools, not Creationism. Sorry.
BTW - Congratulations on starting the most incredibly biased poll ever.
Zerkoff is going to be miffed now. With the return of dud1, Flexi's title of stupidest member of physorg is back in hot contention 
He does make a good point though...
The Pond slime stuff is just guesswork, and if it should be presented, then competing theories would need to be presented as well. Best to just stay out I would think. Teach what we DO know.
The Pond slime stuff is just guesswork, and if it should be presented, then competing theories would need to be presented as well. Best to just stay out I would think. Teach what we DO know.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 2 2008, 10:14 PM)
When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
And when we do know, then we should teach what we know.
What we do know is that Evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies change, genes drift and flow, speciation occurs. We know this, and so we should teach it.
The Theory of Evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms and driving forces behind those changes. We know what the Theory of Evolution is, and so we should teach it.
Should we teach that it is "just" a theory, and that it should be approached with a critical mind? Absolutely, as should all scientific theories, including Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, etc.
Putting forth a poll as biased as this one does "your side" absolutely no favors.
And when we do know, then we should teach what we know.
What we do know is that Evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies change, genes drift and flow, speciation occurs. We know this, and so we should teach it.
The Theory of Evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms and driving forces behind those changes. We know what the Theory of Evolution is, and so we should teach it.
Should we teach that it is "just" a theory, and that it should be approached with a critical mind? Absolutely, as should all scientific theories, including Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, etc.
Putting forth a poll as biased as this one does "your side" absolutely no favors.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 2 2008, 11:21 PM)
The Pond slime stuff is just guesswork, and if it should be presented, then competing theories would need to be presented as well. Best to just stay out I would think. Teach what we DO know.
And I agree, we should NOT be teaching about the origins of life, since we do not know yet.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not about the origins of life, they are about the diversity of life. We understand a great many things about evolution, and what we do know should absolutely be taught. What we don't know should also be highlighted as areas that the students could one day provide answers for.
And I agree, we should NOT be teaching about the origins of life, since we do not know yet.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not about the origins of life, they are about the diversity of life. We understand a great many things about evolution, and what we do know should absolutely be taught. What we don't know should also be highlighted as areas that the students could one day provide answers for.
QUOTE (N O M+)
Zerkoff is going to be miffed now. With the return of dud1, Flexi's title of stupidest member of physorg is back in hot contention
With DavidD, StevenA and Farsight around, it was always in hot contention.
With DavidD, StevenA and Farsight around, it was always in hot contention.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
He does make a good point though...
Dare I direct you to his posting history?
Right, because that isn't the most biased poll ever. All the answers say the same thing!
We DO know evolution. We DON'T know creation. All your poll choices make evolution seem like a scam. Not ONE choice offers a sane alternative.
I never gave an alternative, I simply did a little poll. By the way, you have no idea about creation, from science, so you neither know it, or not.
As for evolution, I agree, things evolved, but from the original creation of Jesus 6000 years ago. I think evolution was a created trait. So, why would anyone buy the imaginary lifeform, in the imaginary pond stuff??
Dare I direct you to his posting history?
QUOTE (Dabeer+)
And when we do know, then we should teach what we know.
What we do know is that Evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies change, genes drift and flow, speciation occurs. We know this, and so we should teach it.
The Theory of Evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms and driving forces behind those changes. We know what the Theory of Evolution is, and so we should teach it.
Should we teach that it is "just" a theory, and that it should be approached with a critical mind? Absolutely, as should all scientific theories, including Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, etc.
Putting forth a poll as biased as this one does "your side" absolutely no favors.
Just thought I'd make this more visible.
What we do know is that Evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies change, genes drift and flow, speciation occurs. We know this, and so we should teach it.
The Theory of Evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms and driving forces behind those changes. We know what the Theory of Evolution is, and so we should teach it.
Should we teach that it is "just" a theory, and that it should be approached with a critical mind? Absolutely, as should all scientific theories, including Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, etc.
Putting forth a poll as biased as this one does "your side" absolutely no favors.
Just thought I'd make this more visible.
Frankly, if dud1 wants to put his own kids at a disadvantage by teaching them the sort of rubbish that he believes in, fine let him. There are plenty of schools that do just this.
dud1 forgets (even though he has been reminded plenty of times ) that his religion is not the majority of the world'd population and that his fundamentalist viewpoint is only supported by a tiny minority of his own religion.
dud1 forgets (even though he has been reminded plenty of times
) that his religion is not the majority of the world'd population and that his fundamentalist viewpoint is only supported by a tiny minority of his own religion.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 3 2008, 02:49 AM)
Right, because that isn't the most biased poll ever. All the answers say the same thing!We DO know evolution. We DON'T know creation. All your poll choices make evolution seem like a scam. Not ONE choice offers a sane alternative.
I never gave an alternative, I simply did a little poll. By the way, you have no idea about creation, from science, so you neither know it, or not.
As for evolution, I agree, things evolved, but from the original creation of Jesus 6000 years ago. I think evolution was a created trait. So, why would anyone buy the imaginary lifeform, in the imaginary pond stuff??
QUOTE
evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE. Believe whatever you want about how life started, there is a mountain of evidence showing how it got the way it is now.
Evidence for what I agree with only!! Not for any evolving from anything but created kinds. Science has no evidence for that foolish fable, and you ought to know that??
Oh yikes, Dad1, are you really asserting a 6000 year age for the universe?
The scientific objective hard facts are more than conclusive, that would seem to me to be ridiculous.
What we KNOW is that the unioverse is CERTAINLY far older than that, and teaching otherwise is foolish.
I am religious myself, but certainly I find it hard to believe you support that view.
The scientific objective hard facts are more than conclusive, that would seem to me to be ridiculous.
What we KNOW is that the unioverse is CERTAINLY far older than that, and teaching otherwise is foolish.
I am religious myself, but certainly I find it hard to believe you support that view.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 3 2008, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (dad1+)
When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
Except evolution isn't about the origin of life, as you Pro-CS'ers would like some to think. It's about what happened after life began. And as far as that goes, we do know. Evolution has been tested and has withstood all tests up to this date. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. Evolution involves real science, and has been backed up by the fossil record, genetic studies and biochemical studies, scientific observations, and logic. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. So yes, evolution should be taught in schools, not Creationism. Sorry.
BTW - Congratulations on starting the most incredibly biased poll ever.
False! The so called theory of evolution starts somewhere. Does it not??? Would you mind if it started at Eden, with creatures that were created, doing any evolving? Well, if you do mind, then tell us where it starts. More specifically, where science can prove it started!!!
That won't be the pond. Be sure of that. So it is high time to stop teaching weird nighmares as if they were science!
Except evolution isn't about the origin of life, as you Pro-CS'ers would like some to think. It's about what happened after life began. And as far as that goes, we do know. Evolution has been tested and has withstood all tests up to this date. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. Evolution involves real science, and has been backed up by the fossil record, genetic studies and biochemical studies, scientific observations, and logic. Creationism and Intelligent Design have not. So yes, evolution should be taught in schools, not Creationism. Sorry.
BTW - Congratulations on starting the most incredibly biased poll ever.
False! The so called theory of evolution starts somewhere. Does it not??? Would you mind if it started at Eden, with creatures that were created, doing any evolving? Well, if you do mind, then tell us where it starts. More specifically, where science can prove it started!!!
That won't be the pond. Be sure of that. So it is high time to stop teaching weird nighmares as if they were science!
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 3 2008, 03:47 PM)
I am religious myself, but certainly I find it hard to believe you support that view.
dud1 is several orders of magnitute stupider, even than you.
He is, himself, the best argument ever put against evolution. After several billion years, one wouldn't expect a life form to have evolved that was dumber than the original slime, but there he is
dud1 is several orders of magnitute stupider, even than you.
He is, himself, the best argument ever put against evolution. After several billion years, one wouldn't expect a life form to have evolved that was dumber than the original slime, but there he is
QUOTE (dad1+)
I never gave an alternative, I simply did a little poll.
Yeah, a little biased poll
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
from science, so you neither know it, or not.
Creationism has no science to offer. And neither does Intelligent Design, as rpenner pointed out in this thread.
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary, you idiot!
Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...".
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary, you idiot!
Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...".
Evidence for what I agree with only!!
Wrong.
Wrong again.
Wrong again.
and you ought to know that??
You ought to know that by now we're not gullible enough to buy your Creationism Claptrap. So stop playing the fool, and learn something about evolution for a change.
Yeah, a little biased poll
QUOTE
By the way, you have no idea about creation
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, you have no idea about creation |
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
from science, so you neither know it, or not.
Creationism has no science to offer. And neither does Intelligent Design, as rpenner pointed out in this thread.
QUOTE
As for evolution, I agree, things evolved, but from the original creation of Jesus 6000 years ago. I think evolution was a created trait. So, why would anyone buy the imaginary lifeform, in the imaginary pond stuff??
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary, you idiot!
Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for evolution, I agree, things evolved, but from the original creation of Jesus 6000 years ago. I think evolution was a created trait. So, why would anyone buy the imaginary lifeform, in the imaginary pond stuff?? |
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary, you idiot!
Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...".
Evidence for what I agree with only!!
Wrong.
QUOTE
Not for any evolving from anything but created kinds. Science has no evidence for that foolish fable
Wrong again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not for any evolving from anything but created kinds. Science has no evidence for that foolish fable |
Wrong again.
and you ought to know that??
You ought to know that by now we're not gullible enough to buy your Creationism Claptrap. So stop playing the fool, and learn something about evolution for a change.
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 3 2008, 03:26 AM)
We understand a great many things about evolution, and what we do know should absolutely be taught. What we don't know should also be highlighted as areas that the students could one day provide answers for.
Creationists know there is diversity! If you want to talk about diversity as it now happens, fine. If you want to tell stories that there was no diversity to start with when the evolving started, you are making stuff up!
QUOTE
And I agree, we should NOT be teaching about the origins of life, since we do not know yet.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not about the origins of life, they are about the diversity of life.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not about the origins of life, they are about the diversity of life.
Creationists know there is diversity! If you want to talk about diversity as it now happens, fine. If you want to tell stories that there was no diversity to start with when the evolving started, you are making stuff up!
QUOTE (dad1+)
False!
Truth.
No. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
No. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Would you mind if it started at Eden, with creatures that were created, doing any evolving? Well, if you do mind, then tell us where it starts.
Yes, I would mind if it "started at Eden". There's no proof for Eden, no proof for Creation, no proof for God starting it all (I am agnostic BTW).
Abiogenesis hypothesis
Abiogenesis hypothesis
So it is high time to stop teaching weird nighmares as if they were science!
It's also high time that you Fundies stop passing off stuff in a book written by men as fact.
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
Evolution in a nutshell:
We know squat, let's pretend we do, and fool as many as possible.
Creationism has no science to offer. And neither does Intelligent Design, ..
Do to, nya nya.
Do to, nya nya.
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary..
Then why call it imaginary? If it wasn't a fable, you could prove it. If you could do that, you would have some science. You don't. See if you can grow some.
Science is too much of a pipsqueak to be able to prove either was false or true. If you had proof, you could talk. You got squat, except stories.
Science is too much of a pipsqueak to be able to prove either was false or true. If you had proof, you could talk. You got squat, except stories.
You ought to know that by now we're not gullible enough to buy your Creationism Claptrap. So stop playing the fool, and learn something about evolution for a change.
I did. It is a creation trait. Nothing science can say about that, obviously, now is there!? What else matters?
Truth.
QUOTE
The so called theory of evolution starts somewhere. Does it not???
No. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The so called theory of evolution starts somewhere. Does it not??? |
No. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Would you mind if it started at Eden, with creatures that were created, doing any evolving? Well, if you do mind, then tell us where it starts.
Yes, I would mind if it "started at Eden". There's no proof for Eden, no proof for Creation, no proof for God starting it all (I am agnostic BTW).
QUOTE
More specifically, where science can prove it started!!!
Abiogenesis hypothesis
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More specifically, where science can prove it started!!! |
Abiogenesis hypothesis
So it is high time to stop teaching weird nighmares as if they were science!
It's also high time that you Fundies stop passing off stuff in a book written by men as fact.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 3 2008, 03:54 AM)
Creation in a nutshell:
God created everything in a week. The End.
Evolution in a nutshell:
We know squat, let's pretend we do, and fool as many as possible.
QUOTE
Creationism has no science to offer. And neither does Intelligent Design, ..
Do to, nya nya.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Creationism has no science to offer. And neither does Intelligent Design, .. |
Do to, nya nya.
Because you haven't proved that the "imaginary lifeform" was really imaginary..
Then why call it imaginary? If it wasn't a fable, you could prove it. If you could do that, you would have some science. You don't. See if you can grow some.
QUOTE
Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...".
Science is too much of a pipsqueak to be able to prove either was false or true. If you had proof, you could talk. You got squat, except stories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now follow this closely: If Creationism was proven to be true, evolution would go "God created everything, and from there things started to develop and adapt and blah blah blah...". But Creationism hasn't been proven to be true. In fact, not a single shred of solid evidence has been put forth for CS. And because of this, evolution doesn't go "God created everything, and then blah blah blah...". |
Science is too much of a pipsqueak to be able to prove either was false or true. If you had proof, you could talk. You got squat, except stories.
You ought to know that by now we're not gullible enough to buy your Creationism Claptrap. So stop playing the fool, and learn something about evolution for a change.
I did. It is a creation trait. Nothing science can say about that, obviously, now is there!? What else matters?
QUOTE (dad1+)
Evolution in a nutshell:
We know squat, let's pretend we do, and fool as many as possible.
So you're blatantly lying now? Suffice to say, that won't help your argument...
How mature of you.
How mature of you.
Then why call it imaginary? If it wasn't a fable, you could prove it. If you could do that, you would have some science.
If Creation wasn't a fable, you would be able to prove it too. I have yet to see you put up one shred of hard evidence for CS.
Elaborate.
Elaborate.
You got squat, except stories.
This is hysterically funny coming from someone who asserts, without any proof whatsoever, that God created everything in six/seven days,
It wasn't my idea. Someone put a timeline from the bible together.
It wasn't my idea. Someone put a timeline from the bible together.
The scientific objective hard facts are more than conclusive, that would seem to me to be ridiculous.
Not at all. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in science that begins to support a thing against the bible. I figure it is like the new heavens. We cannot apply present rules of this temporary universe there. If the past also was different, in the universe fabric, we cannot apply present laws there either. Really. Decay, present life spans, light, etc etc etc! Since science only deals in this nature, any different nature is out of the reach of pitiful, physical only present science. It needs to stick to what it knows here in this present state!!
We know squat, let's pretend we do, and fool as many as possible.
So you're blatantly lying now? Suffice to say, that won't help your argument...
QUOTE
Do to, nya nya.
How mature of you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do to, nya nya. |
How mature of you.
Then why call it imaginary? If it wasn't a fable, you could prove it. If you could do that, you would have some science.
If Creation wasn't a fable, you would be able to prove it too. I have yet to see you put up one shred of hard evidence for CS.
QUOTE
See if you can grow some.
Elaborate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See if you can grow some. |
Elaborate.
You got squat, except stories.
This is hysterically funny coming from someone who asserts, without any proof whatsoever, that God created everything in six/seven days,
QUOTE
Oh yikes, Dad1, are you really asserting a 6000 year age for the universe?
It wasn't my idea. Someone put a timeline from the bible together.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh yikes, Dad1, are you really asserting a 6000 year age for the universe? |
It wasn't my idea. Someone put a timeline from the bible together.
The scientific objective hard facts are more than conclusive, that would seem to me to be ridiculous.
Not at all. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in science that begins to support a thing against the bible. I figure it is like the new heavens. We cannot apply present rules of this temporary universe there. If the past also was different, in the universe fabric, we cannot apply present laws there either. Really. Decay, present life spans, light, etc etc etc! Since science only deals in this nature, any different nature is out of the reach of pitiful, physical only present science. It needs to stick to what it knows here in this present state!!
QUOTE
What we KNOW is that the unioverse is CERTAINLY far older than that, and teaching otherwise is foolish.
As explained, science knows nothing of the sort. It is ALL based on assuming what may be false, that this temporary universe was the original, and true created nature.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What we KNOW is that the unioverse is CERTAINLY far older than that, and teaching otherwise is foolish. |
As explained, science knows nothing of the sort. It is ALL based on assuming what may be false, that this temporary universe was the original, and true created nature.
I am religious myself, but certainly I find it hard to believe you support that view.
It gets easier, when you see where they messed up.
I am religious myself, but certainly I find it hard to believe you support that view.
It gets easier, when you see where they messed up.
QUOTE (dad1+)
Not at all. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in science that begins to support a thing against the bible.
Lying again, eh?
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
It is ALL based on assuming what may be false
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
Ad Hominem is not an appropriate method of argument
Instead of quoting generalizations, cite specifics.
Dad1, so what is your position on carbon dating? You believe that method to be inaccurate?
No need, except for the extrapolations into the unknown state of the past or future, they are fine, thanks. Real science is not an issue at all.
No need, except for the extrapolations into the unknown state of the past or future, they are fine, thanks. Real science is not an issue at all.
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
It is presented as the communication from God to man, not as some science of the present, that needs to have it's feet held to the fire in all the rigors of the scientific method. This is news?
So was the Koran, and the New New testament of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
I wish they had kept those gold tablets I surely would have loved to see them for myself.
I just love it when a plan comes together!
g.
Lying again, eh?
QUOTE
As explained, science knows nothing of the sort.
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As explained, science knows nothing of the sort. |
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
It is ALL based on assuming what may be false
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 3 2008, 04:41 AM)
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
Ad Hominem is not an appropriate method of argument
Instead of quoting generalizations, cite specifics.
Dad1, so what is your position on carbon dating? You believe that method to be inaccurate?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 3 2008, 04:41 PM)
Lying again, eh?
dud1 does a lot of that.
dud1 does a lot of that.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 2 2008, 11:54 PM)
...making stuff up!
Does the irony get any sweeter
Does the irony get any sweeter
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 2 2008, 11:05 PM)
Science is too much of a pipsqueak to be able to prove either was false or true. If you had proof, you could talk. You got squat, except stories.
Does anyone else find that bolded section as hilarious as I do?
For evolution it matters not a whit. Some divine being could have pooped out a single celled organism for all I care. If you want to believe that something created the first life form, be my guest. To turn around and use some creator as proof that evolution cannot exist is laughable and absurd. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as the force behind the diversification of species.
But you can continue jabbing fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs in an effort to maintain your sheer ignorance. It makes for entertaining reasoning.
Also um...wasn't Jesus born 2000 years ago? Not 6000?
I can't believe I accidentally clicked "positive"
Does anyone else find that bolded section as hilarious as I do?
QUOTE
Would you mind if it started at Eden, with creatures that were created, doing any evolving? Well, if you do mind, then tell us where it starts.
For evolution it matters not a whit. Some divine being could have pooped out a single celled organism for all I care. If you want to believe that something created the first life form, be my guest. To turn around and use some creator as proof that evolution cannot exist is laughable and absurd. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as the force behind the diversification of species.
But you can continue jabbing fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs in an effort to maintain your sheer ignorance. It makes for entertaining reasoning.
Also um...wasn't Jesus born 2000 years ago? Not 6000?
I can't believe I accidentally clicked "positive"
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way.
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
deadbeat(and Bats, if you're listening)
You will now be exposed to a true religious nutter who is famous on the internet for his absolute BULL S___!!!
Wait 'til he gets to his theories on time and space(with transparent Gold, for Pete's sake).
For entertainment(and to expose just how insane he is) ask him why the universe appears more than 6000 years old!!!
If you sometimes wonder why we show so little patience for religiously based pseudo-science, dud1 is a perfect example of how religious belief can rot the brain.
While the disease he carries is not really that contagious(only those who are intellectually challenged are susceptible), I would treat him like a rabid dog if he approached any child I was responsible for, and consider any child he has influenced to have been abused in ways every bit as bad as sexual abuse, scarring them for life.
It is this kind of belief based reasoning which Dawkins points out(correctly) that the modern world can not afford.
Enjoy!!!
Grumpy
You will now be exposed to a true religious nutter who is famous on the internet for his absolute BULL S___!!!
Wait 'til he gets to his theories on time and space(with transparent Gold, for Pete's sake).
For entertainment(and to expose just how insane he is) ask him why the universe appears more than 6000 years old!!!
If you sometimes wonder why we show so little patience for religiously based pseudo-science, dud1 is a perfect example of how religious belief can rot the brain.
While the disease he carries is not really that contagious(only those who are intellectually challenged are susceptible), I would treat him like a rabid dog if he approached any child I was responsible for, and consider any child he has influenced to have been abused in ways every bit as bad as sexual abuse, scarring them for life.
It is this kind of belief based reasoning which Dawkins points out(correctly) that the modern world can not afford.
Enjoy!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 3 2008, 07:03 AM)
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way.
Given that OP has over 1600 posts, one could probably safely say the right way was already tried. Look how much good it did.
Given that OP has over 1600 posts, one could probably safely say the right way was already tried. Look how much good it did.
rpenner
Excellent references!!! In my opinion this is valid, solid, evidence of evolution occurring right before our eyes, at it's most basic and purist form.
Nobel Prize??? They get my vote!!!
Thanks!!!
Excellent references!!! In my opinion this is valid, solid, evidence of evolution occurring right before our eyes, at it's most basic and purist form.
Nobel Prize??? They get my vote!!!
Thanks!!!
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 3 2008, 04:41 AM)
QUOTE
Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time.
No need, except for the extrapolations into the unknown state of the past or future, they are fine, thanks. Real science is not an issue at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Feel free to prove hundreds of years of work in physics and astronomy wrong. You may start at any time. |
No need, except for the extrapolations into the unknown state of the past or future, they are fine, thanks. Real science is not an issue at all.
And Creationism, with it's claims that every single thing in this universe was created in a week, isn't based on assumptions?
It is presented as the communication from God to man, not as some science of the present, that needs to have it's feet held to the fire in all the rigors of the scientific method. This is news?
Since you do the claim, you need to support it, big time, six ways from Sunday.
Since you do the claim, you need to support it, big time, six ways from Sunday.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 3 2008, 06:09 AM)
Evolution happens.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2...innovations.php
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_...n_evolution.php
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...ying_evolution_
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/24/9107
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Great. I agree. So? Try to apply that evolving, at current rates to the past, and you are on your way to a point!
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2...innovations.php
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_...n_evolution.php
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...ying_evolution_
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/24/9107
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Great. I agree. So? Try to apply that evolving, at current rates to the past, and you are on your way to a point!
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 01:19 PM)
It is presented as the communication from God to man, not as some science of the present, that needs to have it's feet held to the fire in all the rigors of the scientific method. This is news?
So was the Koran, and the New New testament of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
I wish they had kept those gold tablets I surely would have loved to see them for myself.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 3 2008, 12:03 PM)
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way.
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
I accept it within reason, within about 3500 years. The reason for that is that the past, if it was, as I deduce, a different state, cannot be held to today's amounts of carbon, or life processes. That means that trees may have grown in a week, for example, and used carbon in somewhat of a different manner than the process of today, and today's light, and laws. That also means that tree rings only represent a year in this present state. Stick here, and you are fine. Try to impose today's rules on tomorrow, or the far past, and you are in la la land.
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
I accept it within reason, within about 3500 years. The reason for that is that the past, if it was, as I deduce, a different state, cannot be held to today's amounts of carbon, or life processes. That means that trees may have grown in a week, for example, and used carbon in somewhat of a different manner than the process of today, and today's light, and laws. That also means that tree rings only represent a year in this present state. Stick here, and you are fine. Try to impose today's rules on tomorrow, or the far past, and you are in la la land.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 01:23 PM)
Great. I agree. So? Try to apply that evolving, at current rates to the past, and you are on your way to a point!
You agree, good for you!
But even 'IF' the highly diverse and highly COMPLEX forms of life evolved in 3500 yrs
Wouldn't that make Adam and Eve closer to Bacteria than Human
Hmm..now for your next trick, (Drum roll please) Explain the Geological evidence?
PS: And the Dinosaurs, Doh!
You agree, good for you!
But even 'IF' the highly diverse and highly COMPLEX forms of life evolved in 3500 yrs
Wouldn't that make Adam and Eve closer to Bacteria than Human
Hmm..now for your next trick, (Drum roll please) Explain the Geological evidence?
PS: And the Dinosaurs, Doh!
What To Teach In School About Creation?
Answer, the truth.
Answer, the truth.
QUOTE (philip347+Jun 3 2008, 09:12 AM)
Answer, the truth.
That the religious "scientists" are too afraid to not know something?
Radioactive decay of carbon-14 has not changed, it is a constant. Even if your ridiculous idea were true, given that you believe that fossils are, at the oldest, 6000 years old, and Carbon dating predicts they are millions of years old, such an astronomical change in radioactive decay rate would absolutely have been noticed by scientists over the course of even twenty years.
The growth rate of a tree is completely irrelevant. Single cells contain the same carbon ratio as complex life forms, and you cannot possibly sit and say that the life process of a single cell somehow magically changed because that would make it fit into your ludicrous model of the Earth.
That the religious "scientists" are too afraid to not know something?
QUOTE
That means that trees may have grown in a week, for example, and used carbon in somewhat of a different manner than the process of today, and today's light, and laws.
Radioactive decay of carbon-14 has not changed, it is a constant. Even if your ridiculous idea were true, given that you believe that fossils are, at the oldest, 6000 years old, and Carbon dating predicts they are millions of years old, such an astronomical change in radioactive decay rate would absolutely have been noticed by scientists over the course of even twenty years.The growth rate of a tree is completely irrelevant. Single cells contain the same carbon ratio as complex life forms, and you cannot possibly sit and say that the life process of a single cell somehow magically changed because that would make it fit into your ludicrous model of the Earth.
dud
Another ironic turn of phrase!!!
I suggest we go on with our lives according to the science, and leave dud to wallow in his ignorance and delusions. After all...
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll
Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.” Ayn Rand
All of which particularly apply to dud!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
Since you do the claim, you need to support it, big time, six ways from Sunday.
Another ironic turn of phrase!!!
I suggest we go on with our lives according to the science, and leave dud to wallow in his ignorance and delusions. After all...
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll
Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.” Ayn Rand
All of which particularly apply to dud!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 01:29 PM)
I accept it within reason, within about 3500 years. The reason for that is that the past, if it was, as I deduce, a different state, cannot be held to today's amounts of carbon, or life processes. That means that trees may have grown in a week, for example, and used carbon in somewhat of a different manner than the process of today, and today's light, and laws. That also means that tree rings only represent a year in this present state. Stick here, and you are fine. Try to impose today's rules on tomorrow, or the far past, and you are in la la land.
The world and everything was created last thursday.
Trying to apply todays rules before that is just living in lala land.
The world and everything was created last thursday.
Trying to apply todays rules before that is just living in lala land.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 3 2008, 09:14 AM)
The world and everything was created last thursday.
Trying to apply todays rules before that is just living in lala land.
Nope, it was created this morning, will be destroyed next monday, and recreated again next tuesday. This cycle continues every week, for all time.
Trying to apply todays rules before that is just living in lala land.
Nope, it was created this morning, will be destroyed next monday, and recreated again next tuesday. This cycle continues every week, for all time.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 3 2008, 07:03 AM)
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way.
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
You know how a vampire can't come into your house unless you invite them in...
You had to ask.
Hang on - it gets good.
Dad1, again with the Carbon-14 dating, do you accept that? Or no? If not why?
You know how a vampire can't come into your house unless you invite them in...
You had to ask.
Hang on - it gets good.
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Jun 3 2008, 04:44 PM)
Nope, it was created this morning, will be destroyed next monday, and recreated again next tuesday. This cycle continues every week, for all time.
Heresy, pure heresy.
I bet the OP doesn't know why I went off on this tangent.
But I bet most of the rest do.
Heresy, pure heresy.
I bet the OP doesn't know why I went off on this tangent.
But I bet most of the rest do.
What the hell kinda dishonest dumb idiot designs a poll where ya can't actually disagree with the point he's tryin to make by puttin up the poll in the first place? 
In answer to the question asked by the name o this thread: The damn truth. What would anyone here prefer their kids to think?
A. That their whole life is laid out for em already an there ain't nothin they can do about it cause it's all part a God's plan, an none of it matters anyways cause gettin to heaven is all that counts.
or...
B. That they can be whatever they've got the talent, ambition and dedication to be, an their actions have real consequences which can't be shrugged off just cause you can still get into heaven, cause this life is the important one.
Which one o them two philosophies is gonna make mature, thoughtful kids, and which is gonna make idiotic sheep who wanna kill each other over what Jesus meant when he said this or that?
Yeah, I know that evolution ain't atheism, so don't go jumbin on my back about it. I'm just exxageratin a bit t make my point.
In answer to the question asked by the name o this thread: The damn truth. What would anyone here prefer their kids to think?
A. That their whole life is laid out for em already an there ain't nothin they can do about it cause it's all part a God's plan, an none of it matters anyways cause gettin to heaven is all that counts.
or...
B. That they can be whatever they've got the talent, ambition and dedication to be, an their actions have real consequences which can't be shrugged off just cause you can still get into heaven, cause this life is the important one.
Which one o them two philosophies is gonna make mature, thoughtful kids, and which is gonna make idiotic sheep who wanna kill each other over what Jesus meant when he said this or that?
Yeah, I know that evolution ain't atheism, so don't go jumbin on my back about it. I'm just exxageratin a bit t make my point.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 4 2008, 08:36 AM)
What the hell kinda dishonest dumb idiot designs a poll where ya can't actually disagree with the point he's tryin to make by puttin up the poll in the first place?
Ah, dud1 has been away since before you joined. I had hoped he had died, but unfortunately he hasn't. So you wouldn't be familiar with his style of retarded redneck ignorance. This git thinks fundies are too liberal.
Unfortunately the English language doesn't have a word for his level of stupidity.
Ah, dud1 has been away since before you joined. I had hoped he had died, but unfortunately he hasn't. So you wouldn't be familiar with his style of retarded redneck ignorance. This git thinks fundies are too liberal.
Unfortunately the English language doesn't have a word for his level of stupidity.
I just love it when a plan comes together!
g.
Dad1, I am pretty sure I have asked this before, but IF (its a big IF, but lets see where it goes) it is infact true that the scientific laws we have formulated now aren't applicable to the past or the future, where do we have to start using new rules? Can I not predict that the sun will rise tomorrow? I will bet you $1 000 000 it will rise tomorrow!
If you are going to claim that the laws don't work, you need very good evidence to support this. "I suspect" is not enough. Basically what you are doing is tossing out 500 years of acquired human knowledge on a whim. I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you demand evidence from us, yet you don't require yourself to support anything with more than a gut feeling.
I don't know why I even bothered typing this. I know Dad1 is somehow going to justify to himself (no one else could be convinced by his illogical ramblings) that his dismissing of real science is ok.
If you are going to claim that the laws don't work, you need very good evidence to support this. "I suspect" is not enough. Basically what you are doing is tossing out 500 years of acquired human knowledge on a whim. I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you demand evidence from us, yet you don't require yourself to support anything with more than a gut feeling.
I don't know why I even bothered typing this. I know Dad1 is somehow going to justify to himself (no one else could be convinced by his illogical ramblings) that his dismissing of real science is ok.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 01:23 PM)
Great. I agree. So? Try to apply that evolving, at current rates to the past, and you are on your way to a point!
The assumption of uniformity is required to turn "evolution rates" into a calibrated clock, and experiments with evolution demonstrate it is not that uniform over a single organisms genome, let alone crossing kingdoms between unicellular prokaryotes and multi-cellular diploid metazoans.
Actual uniform-rate processes would seem to make better clocks.
But since my point was "evolution happens" and you agreed with that point, I am content. Now I don't have to address the truly idiotic phrasing of the poll question and example answers.
The assumption of uniformity is required to turn "evolution rates" into a calibrated clock, and experiments with evolution demonstrate it is not that uniform over a single organisms genome, let alone crossing kingdoms between unicellular prokaryotes and multi-cellular diploid metazoans.
Actual uniform-rate processes would seem to make better clocks.
But since my point was "evolution happens" and you agreed with that point, I am content. Now I don't have to address the truly idiotic phrasing of the poll question and example answers.
Guess which option I selected in the voting=)
QUOTE (Steveo+Jun 3 2008, 10:25 PM)
Dad1, I am pretty sure I have asked this before, but IF (its a big IF, but lets see where it goes) it is infact true that the scientific laws we have formulated now aren't applicable to the past or the future, where do we have to start using new rules? Can I not predict that the sun will rise tomorrow? I will bet you $1 000 000 it will rise tomorrow!
Can I take that bet?
I bet it doesn't.
I bet the Earth rotates and gives the illusion of the Sun rising.
AFAIK there are people who base their faith on be sure that the Sun will rise tommorrow.
Can I take that bet?
I bet it doesn't.
I bet the Earth rotates and gives the illusion of the Sun rising.
AFAIK there are people who base their faith on be sure that the Sun will rise tommorrow.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 3 2008, 06:34 PM)
AFAIK there are people who base their faith on be sure that the Sun will rise tommorrow.
Not only their faith, but their calendars. For example, most of the dominant South American empires used the apparent motion of the sun and the stars to develop an extremely accurate calendar.
That couldn't happen if the laws were changing in order to fit dud's crackpot timeline.
Not only their faith, but their calendars. For example, most of the dominant South American empires used the apparent motion of the sun and the stars to develop an extremely accurate calendar.
That couldn't happen if the laws were changing in order to fit dud's crackpot timeline.
QUOTE (dad1+)
No need
Wrong. There is plenty of need. If you're going to make statements as bold as the ones you're making, you need to back them. So far you haven't.
A lie. You're challenging the accuracy of evolutionary theory and the accepted age of the universe. Both of those things involve real science, and to disprove them, you need to use real science.
A lie. You're challenging the accuracy of evolutionary theory and the accepted age of the universe. Both of those things involve real science, and to disprove them, you need to use real science.
It is presented as the communication from God to man, not as some science of the present, that needs to have it's feet held to the fire in all the rigors of the scientific method.
You're failing to live up to your own standards. You demand that we prove evolution right, but when similarly challenged on the accuracy of Creationism you say that you don't have to? Hilarious.
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you come up with the proof. The ball's in your court.
You agree, good for you!
But even 'IF' the highly diverse and highly COMPLEX forms of life evolved in 3500 yrs
Wouldn't that make Adam and Eve closer to Bacteria than Human
No, because they started from created creatures, like Adam. The process of evolving had a starting point, that was creation.
Dinosaurs seem to have been a victim of our advance as well, maybe we ate their eggs, with the "we" here being some of Eden's creatures, moving in, and taking over territory. But it is all a long story, too long for one post, sis.
Wrong. There is plenty of need. If you're going to make statements as bold as the ones you're making, you need to back them. So far you haven't.
QUOTE
Real science is not an issue at all.
A lie. You're challenging the accuracy of evolutionary theory and the accepted age of the universe. Both of those things involve real science, and to disprove them, you need to use real science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Real science is not an issue at all. |
A lie. You're challenging the accuracy of evolutionary theory and the accepted age of the universe. Both of those things involve real science, and to disprove them, you need to use real science.
It is presented as the communication from God to man, not as some science of the present, that needs to have it's feet held to the fire in all the rigors of the scientific method.
You're failing to live up to your own standards. You demand that we prove evolution right, but when similarly challenged on the accuracy of Creationism you say that you don't have to? Hilarious.
QUOTE
Since you do the claim, you need to support it, big time, six ways from Sunday.
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you come up with the proof. The ball's in your court.
QUOTE (TheDoc to dud1+)
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you come up with the proof. The ball's in your court.
dud1 has been told that same thing hundreds of times in other threads. Not once has he ever shown any proof. He has been given planty of substantiated proof against his idiotic theories, but he is too stupid to understand it.
But dud1 does play a valuable role in the physorg community. By comparison:
dud1 has been told that same thing hundreds of times in other threads. Not once has he ever shown any proof. He has been given planty of substantiated proof against his idiotic theories, but he is too stupid to understand it.
But dud1 does play a valuable role in the physorg community. By comparison:
- dud1 makes Neil Farbstein appear honest
- dud1 makes Zerkoff appear informed
- dud1 makes StevenA appear concise
- dud1 makes philip109 appear sane
- dud1 makes KKris appear intelligent
- dud1 makes Samantha Hildreth appear reasonable
QUOTE (N O M+)
dud1 makes Samantha Hildreth appear reasonable
Ok, now you've gone too far
Ok, now you've gone too far
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 4 2008, 03:14 PM)
Ok, now you've gone too far
I nearly said "dud1 makes Samantha Hildreth appear attractive"
but I realised that was going too far
I nearly said "dud1 makes Samantha Hildreth appear attractive"
but I realised that was going too far
Edit.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 3 2008, 01:26 PM)
So was the Koran, and the New New testament of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
I wish they had kept those gold tablets I surely would have loved to see them for myself.
You might do better to stop worrying about sacred things, and holy books, and concern yourself with science things. Who cares what people believe, what matters is false science claims here.
I wish they had kept those gold tablets I surely would have loved to see them for myself.
You might do better to stop worrying about sacred things, and holy books, and concern yourself with science things. Who cares what people believe, what matters is false science claims here.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 02:06 AM)
Not only their faith, but their calendars. For example, most of the dominant South American empires used the apparent motion of the sun and the stars to develop an extremely accurate calendar.
That couldn't happen if the laws were changing in order to fit dud's crackpot timeline.
Show me one South American 'empire' that is dated older than the flood, about 4500 years ago!? Then, show us the basis for the dates, and watch your claim get washed away like a cork on a river.
That couldn't happen if the laws were changing in order to fit dud's crackpot timeline.
Show me one South American 'empire' that is dated older than the flood, about 4500 years ago!? Then, show us the basis for the dates, and watch your claim get washed away like a cork on a river.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 3 2008, 10:57 PM)
The assumption of uniformity is required to turn "evolution rates" into a calibrated clock, and experiments with evolution demonstrate it is not that uniform over a single organisms genome, let alone crossing kingdoms between unicellular prokaryotes and multi-cellular diploid metazoans.
Actual uniform-rate processes would seem to make better clocks.
But since my point was "evolution happens" and you agreed with that point, I am content. Now I don't have to address the truly idiotic phrasing of the poll question and example answers.
If the rates in a different state universe will be, and were different than present rates, that snuffs your assumption, now doesn't it!
Actual uniform-rate processes would seem to make better clocks.
But since my point was "evolution happens" and you agreed with that point, I am content. Now I don't have to address the truly idiotic phrasing of the poll question and example answers.
If the rates in a different state universe will be, and were different than present rates, that snuffs your assumption, now doesn't it!
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 3 2008, 01:33 PM)
You agree, good for you!
But even 'IF' the highly diverse and highly COMPLEX forms of life evolved in 3500 yrs
Wouldn't that make Adam and Eve closer to Bacteria than Human
No, because they started from created creatures, like Adam. The process of evolving had a starting point, that was creation.
QUOTE
Hmm..now for your next trick, (Drum roll please) Explain the Geological evidence?
Piece of cake. One of the big things was the rapid continental separation, about the time of the universe state change. A lot of mountain building, and uplift happened then as well. Fortunately for life on earth, true state matter does not get or stay hot as long as physical matter we are familiar with today. The fossil record, is largely a record of the planet at large creatures dying, later to be joined by the migration from Eden, of Eden's creatures. Evolving along the way, some of them as needed, for example, if they needed to traverse land and water.Dinosaurs seem to have been a victim of our advance as well, maybe we ate their eggs, with the "we" here being some of Eden's creatures, moving in, and taking over territory. But it is all a long story, too long for one post, sis.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 3 2008, 02:16 PM)
That the religious "scientists" are too afraid to not know something?
Radioactive decay of carbon-14 has not changed, it is a constant. Even if your ridiculous idea were true, given that you believe that fossils are, at the oldest, 6000 years old, and Carbon dating predicts they are millions of years old, such an astronomical change in radioactive decay rate would absolutely have been noticed by scientists over the course of even twenty years.
The growth rate of a tree is completely irrelevant. Single cells contain the same carbon ratio as complex life forms, and you cannot possibly sit and say that the life process of a single cell somehow magically changed because that would make it fit into your ludicrous model of the Earth.
No, that is absurd, and not at all something I suggested. NO decay in the created state, I would think is what we are looking at. All the better to last forever, really, that way. NOT accelerated present state decay!!!! The parent materials, and daughter materials were present, most likely, but engaged in something productive, not in a state of decay. The change had to be right down to the fundamental forces, the atomic level, the laws, like gravity, and etc. Oh, and, of course, light.
The way life processes worked was different. In the case of carbon 14, that is also affected by the amount of carbon, and ratio, and levels. No? Can you prove that the levels were present levels? Seems to me all you do is guess, assume, and make stuff up.
Radioactive decay of carbon-14 has not changed, it is a constant. Even if your ridiculous idea were true, given that you believe that fossils are, at the oldest, 6000 years old, and Carbon dating predicts they are millions of years old, such an astronomical change in radioactive decay rate would absolutely have been noticed by scientists over the course of even twenty years.The growth rate of a tree is completely irrelevant. Single cells contain the same carbon ratio as complex life forms, and you cannot possibly sit and say that the life process of a single cell somehow magically changed because that would make it fit into your ludicrous model of the Earth.
No, that is absurd, and not at all something I suggested. NO decay in the created state, I would think is what we are looking at. All the better to last forever, really, that way. NOT accelerated present state decay!!!! The parent materials, and daughter materials were present, most likely, but engaged in something productive, not in a state of decay. The change had to be right down to the fundamental forces, the atomic level, the laws, like gravity, and etc. Oh, and, of course, light.
The way life processes worked was different. In the case of carbon 14, that is also affected by the amount of carbon, and ratio, and levels. No? Can you prove that the levels were present levels? Seems to me all you do is guess, assume, and make stuff up.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 3 2008, 08:36 PM)
What the hell kinda dishonest dumb idiot designs a poll where ya can't actually disagree with the point he's tryin to make by puttin up the poll in the first place?
In answer to the question asked by the name o this thread: The damn truth. What would anyone here prefer their kids to think?
A. That their whole life is laid out for em already an there ain't nothin they can do about it cause it's all part a God's plan, an none of it matters anyways cause gettin to heaven is all that counts.
or...
B. That they can be whatever they've got the talent, ambition and dedication to be, an their actions have real consequences which can't be shrugged off just cause you can still get into heaven, cause this life is the important one.
Which one o them two philosophies is gonna make mature, thoughtful kids, and which is gonna make idiotic sheep who wanna kill each other over what Jesus meant when he said this or that?
Yeah, I know that evolution ain't atheism, so don't go jumbin on my back about it. I'm just exxageratin a bit t make my point.
Strawman.
No need to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and 'no God included' drivel.
If you claim that the pond slime is provable, get to it. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
In answer to the question asked by the name o this thread: The damn truth. What would anyone here prefer their kids to think?
A. That their whole life is laid out for em already an there ain't nothin they can do about it cause it's all part a God's plan, an none of it matters anyways cause gettin to heaven is all that counts.
or...
B. That they can be whatever they've got the talent, ambition and dedication to be, an their actions have real consequences which can't be shrugged off just cause you can still get into heaven, cause this life is the important one.
Which one o them two philosophies is gonna make mature, thoughtful kids, and which is gonna make idiotic sheep who wanna kill each other over what Jesus meant when he said this or that?
Yeah, I know that evolution ain't atheism, so don't go jumbin on my back about it. I'm just exxageratin a bit t make my point.
Strawman.
No need to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and 'no God included' drivel.
If you claim that the pond slime is provable, get to it. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
The ultimate hypocrisy.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 01:31 AM)
If you claim that the pond slime is provable, get to it. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
Prove creation, prove eden, prove the flood, prove that quantum mechanics changed 4500 years ago (a date arbitrarily chosen by psychotic fundies)
The Bible is NOT proof, you have absolutely no basis for your claims and not a shred of evidence. Your claims hold no more weight, according to YOUR logic, than your ignorant interpretation of ours.
Proof.
Proof.
The parent materials, and daughter materials were present, most likely, but engaged in something productive,
Proof.
Proof.
Proof.
Dinosaurs seem to have been a victim of our advance as well, maybe we ate their eggs
Proof.
Long story? It's only 6000 years. The Greek and Roman empires alone take up nearly 2500, and we have a pretty concise accounting of them. Fall of the Byzantine empire to now takes up another 600. That's half the story, already told there chief.
Long story? It's only 6000 years. The Greek and Roman empires alone take up nearly 2500, and we have a pretty concise accounting of them. Fall of the Byzantine empire to now takes up another 600. That's half the story, already told there chief.
Seems to me all you do is guess, assume, and make stuff up.
Right, and what are you doing? You cherry pick scientific theories only when they suit your ridiculous world view, and throw them out as "guesses," "assumptions," "lies," etc. when they don't, refusing to accept otherwise. Terrible science, terrible debating, and complete ignorance.
Grumpy
Grumpy
Your feeble, defeated past efforts in other threads, to establish a same state in the cosmos in the past are old news. Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really.
Redshift, for example, would be expected as the universe, and light ended up in another state, so one cannot start off assuming it was caused by only what now shifts present state light! Obviously. Yet every you ooze out, when you ooze anything at all, which is seldom, since you spend most time whining, is firmly on a same state belief system foundation!!! That is where you are. Lurkers, take note, watch and see if this is so, with this poster.
Prove creation, prove eden, prove the flood, prove that quantum mechanics changed 4500 years ago (a date arbitrarily chosen by psychotic fundies)
The Bible is NOT proof, you have absolutely no basis for your claims and not a shred of evidence. Your claims hold no more weight, according to YOUR logic, than your ignorant interpretation of ours.
QUOTE
The way life processes worked was different.
Proof.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The way life processes worked was different. |
Proof.
The parent materials, and daughter materials were present, most likely, but engaged in something productive,
Proof.
QUOTE
One of the big things was the rapid continental separation
Proof.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the big things was the rapid continental separation |
Proof.
Dinosaurs seem to have been a victim of our advance as well, maybe we ate their eggs
Proof.
QUOTE
But it is all a long story, too long for one post, sis.
Long story? It's only 6000 years. The Greek and Roman empires alone take up nearly 2500, and we have a pretty concise accounting of them. Fall of the Byzantine empire to now takes up another 600. That's half the story, already told there chief.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But it is all a long story, too long for one post, sis. |
Long story? It's only 6000 years. The Greek and Roman empires alone take up nearly 2500, and we have a pretty concise accounting of them. Fall of the Byzantine empire to now takes up another 600. That's half the story, already told there chief.
Seems to me all you do is guess, assume, and make stuff up.
Right, and what are you doing?
You cherry pick scientific theories only when they suit your ridiculous world view, and throw them out as "guesses," "assumptions," "lies," etc. when they don't, refusing to accept otherwise. Terrible science, terrible debating, and complete ignorance.
excaza
Science cannot tell us what the state and fabric of the universe was like at the time of the flood, and shortly after. Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science! If, on the other hand, you want to maintain, and claim that it does, you will have to prove it to us. I say it can't. That should be obvious, to any intelligent person!
All our science can do is assume it was the same as we now know, and observe, and work from there. But that does not make it the same, that does not make it different, that does not make it anything at all but belief, that cannot ever be supported.
There is no need for you or me, or anyone else to prove any state of the future, or far past, that is unknown. You may not sit there pretending that any particular state of the universe is science, and build up a fantasy world on that foundation, and that foundation alone.
I know that is hard to take for some, tough. Get used to it, to know is one thing, to yap on not knowing, pretending you know, by science, no less, is another.
You really are busted.
As far as your strange citing of Roman history going back 2500 years, and then some centuries before that for other ones, I am not sure of the point???? Or was there one? That had what to do with pre flood time? (or even pre Peleg time, when the split likely happened)?
Science cannot tell us what the state and fabric of the universe was like at the time of the flood, and shortly after. Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science! If, on the other hand, you want to maintain, and claim that it does, you will have to prove it to us. I say it can't. That should be obvious, to any intelligent person!
All our science can do is assume it was the same as we now know, and observe, and work from there. But that does not make it the same, that does not make it different, that does not make it anything at all but belief, that cannot ever be supported.
There is no need for you or me, or anyone else to prove any state of the future, or far past, that is unknown. You may not sit there pretending that any particular state of the universe is science, and build up a fantasy world on that foundation, and that foundation alone.
I know that is hard to take for some, tough. Get used to it, to know is one thing, to yap on not knowing, pretending you know, by science, no less, is another.
You really are busted.
As far as your strange citing of Roman history going back 2500 years, and then some centuries before that for other ones, I am not sure of the point???? Or was there one? That had what to do with pre flood time? (or even pre Peleg time, when the split likely happened)?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 3 2008, 02:28 PM)
Grumpy
Grumpy
Your feeble, defeated past efforts in other threads, to establish a same state in the cosmos in the past are old news. Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really.
Redshift, for example, would be expected as the universe, and light ended up in another state, so one cannot start off assuming it was caused by only what now shifts present state light! Obviously. Yet every you ooze out, when you ooze anything at all, which is seldom, since you spend most time whining, is firmly on a same state belief system foundation!!! That is where you are. Lurkers, take note, watch and see if this is so, with this poster.
dud
All I have to say to you will be in your feedback.
You are a useless waste of protoplasm.
Grumpy
All I have to say to you will be in your feedback.
You are a useless waste of protoplasm.
Grumpy
I don't understand how you can spout this garbage without realizing how unbelievably hypocritical you're being. You ramble on and on about not knowing, yet make up stories about what YOU THINK it was like, and pass them off as science-killers. You are doing EXACTLY what you're harping against.
Long story? It's only 6000 years. And isn't you know, your BIBLE, the story? That's not very long.
QUOTE
But it is all a long story, too long for one post, sis.
Long story? It's only 6000 years. And isn't you know, your BIBLE, the story? That's not very long.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 08:13 AM)
Science cannot tell us what the state and fabric of the universe was like at the time of the flood, and shortly after.
Yes it can - the state and fabric of the universe is exactly as it is now. Science cannot differentiate between pre- and post-flood because the flood never happened. There is no evidence to support the idea of a global flood, period.
Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science! If, on the other hand, you want to maintain, and claim that it does, you will have to prove it to us. I say it can't. That should be obvious, to any intelligent person!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, much less extraordinary evidence.
To everyone, myself included... please stop feeding this troll.
Yes it can - the state and fabric of the universe is exactly as it is now. Science cannot differentiate between pre- and post-flood because the flood never happened. There is no evidence to support the idea of a global flood, period.
There you have it, folks, someone out and made the claim!!!! Now, watch this!!
Hey Dabeer, please support your claim that science knows the state of the far past, and how it was the same!!!!!!!!!
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Dabeer
HA!!! Look at that, one punch, and you are down for the count!!! YOU said science said such and such about the past state of the universe!!! I did not. I simply know about it a little from other sources.
You are hereby shown up, and exposed for making so called science claims that cannot be supported as science at all!!
You heard it here, folks.
Astounding.
Guess all you have left to do is dawhine
QUOTE (dad1+)
Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science! If, on the other hand, you want to maintain, and claim that it does, you will have to prove it to us. I say it can't. That should be obvious, to any intelligent person!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, much less extraordinary evidence.
To everyone, myself included... please stop feeding this troll.
Whoo HOO! and the cradle will rock... I had heard about dad1, but had never actually read any of his posts... I am impressed!
So tell me dad1. You believe in an omnipotent loving caring being that created the universe and all of earth and its divine creatures in 6 days, yes? (Until I get confirmation of that, I will withhold any further comments)
MM
So tell me dad1. You believe in an omnipotent loving caring being that created the universe and all of earth and its divine creatures in 6 days, yes? (Until I get confirmation of that, I will withhold any further comments)
MM
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 12:24 PM)
Grumpy
Your feeble, defeated past efforts in other threads, to establish a same state in the cosmos in the past are old news. Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really.
All you have is a badly translated book.
Science is all about reproduciability.
We can reproduce experiments or verify facts that theories are based on.
Can you get a fresh copy of the Ten Commandments? I"ve seen two different versions listed on the web. Which one is right? Let me know when you find the burning bush and get a fresh copy.
Your feeble, defeated past efforts in other threads, to establish a same state in the cosmos in the past are old news. Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really.
All you have is a badly translated book.
Science is all about reproduciability.
We can reproduce experiments or verify facts that theories are based on.
Can you get a fresh copy of the Ten Commandments? I"ve seen two different versions listed on the web. Which one is right? Let me know when you find the burning bush and get a fresh copy.
I've found that using the Theory of Evolution, I've been able to make predictions. Those predictions were then borne out using experimentation. Over and over, we use the theory to make accurate predictions.
The Theory is not merely the best explanation of the data we have, it's the best tool we have to make accurate predictions.
The Theory is not merely the best explanation of the data we have, it's the best tool we have to make accurate predictions.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jun 4 2008, 04:01 PM)
I've found that using the Theory of Evolution, I've been able to make predictions. Those predictions were then borne out using experimentation.
And if I say you faked those experiments or made mistakes I can check them out for myself.
And if I did manage to find a flaw in your procedure, you would probably thank me for pointing out the error, rather than launch a Jihad.
But I have a theory, Scientists are people too.
And if I say you faked those experiments or made mistakes I can check them out for myself.
And if I did manage to find a flaw in your procedure, you would probably thank me for pointing out the error, rather than launch a Jihad.
But I have a theory, Scientists are people too.
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 4 2008, 12:55 PM)
Yes it can - the state and fabric of the universe is exactly as it is now. Science cannot differentiate between pre- and post-flood because the flood never happened. There is no evidence to support the idea of a global flood, period.
There you have it, folks, someone out and made the claim!!!! Now, watch this!!
Hey Dabeer, please support your claim that science knows the state of the far past, and how it was the same!!!!!!!!!
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 11:58 AM)
Hey Dabeer, please support your claim that science knows the state of the far past, and how it was the same!!!!!!!!!
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Stop being a delusional hypocrite. Please support your claim that it was not.
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Stop being a delusional hypocrite. Please support your claim that it was not.
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Dabeer
HA!!! Look at that, one punch, and you are down for the count!!! YOU said science said such and such about the past state of the universe!!! I did not. I simply know about it a little from other sources.
You are hereby shown up, and exposed for making so called science claims that cannot be supported as science at all!!
You heard it here, folks.
Astounding.
Guess all you have left to do is dawhine
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 12:03 PM)
You are hereby shown up, and exposed for making so called science claims that cannot be supported as science at all!!
And what exactly are you doing?
And what exactly are you doing?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jun 4 2008, 01:22 PM)
Whoo HOO! and the cradle will rock... I had heard about dad1, but had never actually read any of his posts... I am impressed!
So tell me dad1. You believe in an omnipotent loving caring being that created the universe and all of earth and its divine creatures in 6 days, yes? (Until I get confirmation of that, I will withhold any further comments)
MM
Yes. I also believe Jesus came in the flesh, and was the Son of God, and rose again.
So tell me dad1. You believe in an omnipotent loving caring being that created the universe and all of earth and its divine creatures in 6 days, yes? (Until I get confirmation of that, I will withhold any further comments)
MM
Yes. I also believe Jesus came in the flesh, and was the Son of God, and rose again.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 12:06 PM)
Yes. I also believe Jesus came in the flesh, and was the Son of God, and rose again.
Sorry, the universe changed to not allow rising again about 15 years before Jesus was born.
Sorry, the universe changed to not allow rising again about 15 years before Jesus was born.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 01:03 PM)
HA!!! Look at that, one punch, and you are down for the count!!!
Because 5 minutes is really enough time to expect someone to see your post and formulate a response, AMIRITE?
Because 5 minutes is really enough time to expect someone to see your post and formulate a response, AMIRITE?
QUOTE (dad1+)
YOU said science said such and such about the past state of the universe!!! I did not.
Bullshit. You're the one that said the state changed about 4500-6000 years ago, my response was that it never changed. The statement that there was no change is more logical, given that there is no evidence of a change. Once again, your claim is the more extraordinary, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Bullshit. You're the one that said the state changed about 4500-6000 years ago, my response was that it never changed. The statement that there was no change is more logical, given that there is no evidence of a change. Once again, your claim is the more extraordinary, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
QUOTE (dad1+)
You are hereby shown up, and exposed for making so called science claims that cannot be supported as science at all!!
Looked in the mirror lately?
If you need time, and are not just BSing, and stalling, take a bit, get back to us when you can back up your claims!!! Some people can back up stuff before they say it, rather than scrambling afterward. Work on that.
If you need time, and are not just BSing, and stalling, take a bit, get back to us when you can back up your claims!!! Some people can back up stuff before they say it, rather than scrambling afterward. Work on that.
Bullshit. You're the one that said the state changed about 4500-6000 years ago, my response was that it never changed.
No, I won't let you worm out of your own claims right here. In case your memory fails, here is what you said, when I pointed out science cannot know the state of the universe in the far past.
"Yes it can - the state and fabric of the universe is exactly as it is now. "
Now, let's be honest. Support it, or remain exposed for being what you are.
QUOTE (excaza+)
And what exactly are you doing? rolleyes.gif
Shhh, the hypocrisy isn't real if no one talks about it
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 05:06 PM)
Yes. I also believe Jesus came in the flesh, and was the Son of God, and rose again.
Never mind, that's just immoderately severe brain damage for you.
Never mind, that's just immoderately severe brain damage for you.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 01:03 PM)
HA!!! Look at that, one punch, and you are down for the count!!!
It's been 5 minutes, where's your response? By your logic, you've just admitted defeat...
It's been 5 minutes, where's your response? By your logic, you've just admitted defeat...
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 4 2008, 05:23 PM)
It's been 5 minutes, where's your response? By your logic, you've just admitted defeat...
I fear this psychotic delusional retard was talking to himself again - he'll reply when he wakes up from the self-inflicted blow.
I fear this psychotic delusional retard was talking to himself again - he'll reply when he wakes up from the self-inflicted blow.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 05:06 PM)
Yes. I also believe Jesus came in the flesh, and was the Son of God, and rose again.
What is the difference between following your parents religion and pulling a name out of a hat and following that one?
What is the difference between following your parents religion and pulling a name out of a hat and following that one?
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 4 2008, 05:34 PM)
What is the difference between following your parents religion and pulling a name out of a hat and following that one?
You are more likely to be duped into believing something your parents tell you.
g.
You are more likely to be duped into believing something your parents tell you.
g.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 05:08 PM)
Sorry, the universe changed to not allow rising again about 15 years before Jesus was born.
Funny no one noticed it but you. Work on that. The real change would have occurred at the dawn pr present civilization. People had resorted to drawing in pictures, you know, Babel, and all.
Funny no one noticed it but you. Work on that. The real change would have occurred at the dawn pr present civilization. People had resorted to drawing in pictures, you know, Babel, and all.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 06:02 PM)
Funny no one noticed it but you. Work on that. The real change would have occurred at the dawn pr present civilization. People had resorted to drawing in pictures, you know, Babel, and all.
So you can arbitrarily change the universe but I can't?
I'm not sure if it's possible for you to even GET more hypocritical.
So you can arbitrarily change the universe but I can't?
I'm not sure if it's possible for you to even GET more hypocritical.
QUOTE
Because 5 minutes is really enough time to expect someone to see your post and formulate a response, AMIRITE?
If you need time, and are not just BSing, and stalling, take a bit, get back to us when you can back up your claims!!! Some people can back up stuff before they say it, rather than scrambling afterward. Work on that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because 5 minutes is really enough time to expect someone to see your post and formulate a response, AMIRITE? |
If you need time, and are not just BSing, and stalling, take a bit, get back to us when you can back up your claims!!! Some people can back up stuff before they say it, rather than scrambling afterward. Work on that.
Bullshit. You're the one that said the state changed about 4500-6000 years ago, my response was that it never changed.
No, I won't let you worm out of your own claims right here. In case your memory fails, here is what you said, when I pointed out science cannot know the state of the universe in the far past.
"Yes it can - the state and fabric of the universe is exactly as it is now. "
Now, let's be honest. Support it, or remain exposed for being what you are.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 12:30 AM)
...there is nothing whatsoever in science that begins to support a thing against the bible. I figure it is like the new heavens. We cannot apply present rules of this temporary universe there. If the past also was different, in the universe fabric, we cannot apply present laws there either. Really. Decay, present life spans, light, etc etc etc! Since science only deals in this nature, any different nature is out of the reach of pitiful, physical only present science. It needs to stick to what it knows here in this present state!!
I believe this is the first mention of a "different universe", and guess what - it came from you, not from me.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe changed in the manner you suggest at any time in the universe's history. This lack of evidence is the basis for my statement that the universe has not changed in this manner. While lack of evidence does not necessarily imply lack of occurrence, lack of occurrence is the more logical conclusion by Occam's Razor.
Your suggestion is in violation of Occam's Razor, and is therefore the more extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have defended my statement. Let's see you defend yours. What evidence is there to suggest that the universe did change in the manner you suggest? It's time for you to start scrambling to back it up, since you certainly did no such thing when making the claim in the first place...
I believe this is the first mention of a "different universe", and guess what - it came from you, not from me.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe changed in the manner you suggest at any time in the universe's history. This lack of evidence is the basis for my statement that the universe has not changed in this manner. While lack of evidence does not necessarily imply lack of occurrence, lack of occurrence is the more logical conclusion by Occam's Razor.
Your suggestion is in violation of Occam's Razor, and is therefore the more extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have defended my statement. Let's see you defend yours. What evidence is there to suggest that the universe did change in the manner you suggest? It's time for you to start scrambling to back it up, since you certainly did no such thing when making the claim in the first place...
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 05:52 AM)
You might do better to stop worrying about sacred things, and holy books, and concern yourself with science things. Who cares what people believe, what matters is false science claims here.
At one time I couldn't shop on Sundays but my car works.
So I think I will worry what people do with those sacred texts (most of which contradict other ones) more so than what science says.
BTW read up about Last Thursdayians.
When you understand that you will undestand when we don't know something go with the evidence.
What reproducable evidence do you have that there was this change of universal laws that you claim?
At one time I couldn't shop on Sundays but my car works.
So I think I will worry what people do with those sacred texts (most of which contradict other ones) more so than what science says.
BTW read up about Last Thursdayians.
When you understand that you will undestand when we don't know something go with the evidence.
What reproducable evidence do you have that there was this change of universal laws that you claim?
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 4 2008, 11:21 PM)
While lack of evidence does not necessarily imply lack of occurrence, lack of occurrence is the more logical conclusion by Occam's Razor.
Your suggestion is in violation of Occam's Razor, and is therefore the more extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carefull there, Occam was a monk.
Are you suggesting he listen to a man of the cloth?
Your suggestion is in violation of Occam's Razor, and is therefore the more extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carefull there, Occam was a monk.
Are you suggesting he listen to a man of the cloth?
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 11:06 PM)
So you can arbitrarily change the universe but I can't?
I'm not sure if it's possible for you to even GET more hypocritical.
I didn't change the universe, nor will I in the future. Your two bit phony claim is observed to be false, many of us were here to see that is simply not true.
In the days after the flood, few were here, and language was also scattered, so the observers are not there. The history they did give us fits better in a different universe such as moving the big pyramid blocks.
I'm not sure if it's possible for you to even GET more hypocritical.
I didn't change the universe, nor will I in the future. Your two bit phony claim is observed to be false, many of us were here to see that is simply not true.
In the days after the flood, few were here, and language was also scattered, so the observers are not there. The history they did give us fits better in a different universe such as moving the big pyramid blocks.
Prove.
It.
It.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 4 2008, 11:27 PM)
Carefull there, Occam was a monk.
Are you suggesting he listen to a man of the cloth?
If you didn't pretend to be religious in those days some nice fellow set you on fire!
Perhaps some people still live in a similar kind of fear?
g.
Are you suggesting he listen to a man of the cloth?
If you didn't pretend to be religious in those days some nice fellow set you on fire!
Perhaps some people still live in a similar kind of fear?
g.
QUOTE (dad1+)
You might do better to stop worrying about sacred things, and holy books, and concern yourself with science things. Who cares what people believe, what matters is false science claims here.
You mean the false science claims of Creationism, that challenges anything and everything scientific but fails to prove any of it's assertions correct?
Strawman.
Strawman.
If the rates in a different state universe will be, and were different than present rates, that snuffs your assumption, now doesn't it!
No, it doesn't, because you haven't provided even one shred of evidence to support your argument.
Really? Prove it.
Really? Prove it.
No need to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and 'no God included' drivel.
Then there is also no need for
you to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and "no evolution included" drivel. You're failing to live up to your own standards again.
How many times do I have to say it?
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you claim that Creationism is true, you claim the flood happened, you assert that the earth is 6000 years old, so you back up those claims.
How many times do I have to say it?
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you claim that Creationism is true, you claim the flood happened, you assert that the earth is 6000 years old, so you back up those claims.
Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
Is anyone else as amused as I am at the hypocrisy in this statement?
That's because the flood hasn't been proven.
That's because the flood hasn't been proven.
Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science!
Except that we do accept science's limitations. You see, unlike religion, science isn't afraid to say "We don't know". We don't immediately resort to saying "Goddidit!" for something we can't explain. You do.
Wrong again, and a shining example of your hypocrisy. Knowing is one thing, pretending to know by using God's name as a crutch is another.
Wrong again, and a shining example of your hypocrisy. Knowing is one thing, pretending to know by using God's name as a crutch is another.
You really are busted.
Epic Fail #2 from dad1...
It's funny how you claim that Grumpy is wrong, when you have yet to cite even one source or offer one shred of proof for your claims so far.
Get it?? You failed. Again.
It's funny how you claim that Grumpy is wrong, when you have yet to cite even one source or offer one shred of proof for your claims so far.
Get it?? You failed. Again.
Hey Dabeer, please support your claim that science knows the state of the far past, and how it was the same!!!!!!!!!
dad1, please support your claims that Creationism, Eden, and the flood are true.
Ahhhhh, so you can't prove your claims, but you still want us to prove ours? Sorry bozo, it doesn't work that way. You made the challenges, now it's your responsibility to back them up.
You mean the false science claims of Creationism, that challenges anything and everything scientific but fails to prove any of it's assertions correct?
QUOTE
Show me one South American 'empire' that is dated older than the flood, about 4500 years ago!?
Strawman.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Show me one South American 'empire' that is dated older than the flood, about 4500 years ago!? |
Strawman.
If the rates in a different state universe will be, and were different than present rates, that snuffs your assumption, now doesn't it!
No, it doesn't, because you haven't provided even one shred of evidence to support your argument.
QUOTE
No, because they started from created creatures, like Adam. The process of evolving had a starting point, that was creation.
Really? Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, because they started from created creatures, like Adam. The process of evolving had a starting point, that was creation. |
Really? Prove it.
No need to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and 'no God included' drivel.
Then there is also no need for
you to dictate to us your preferred philosophies, and "no evolution included" drivel. You're failing to live up to your own standards again.
QUOTE
If you claim that the pond slime is provable, get to it.
How many times do I have to say it?
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you claim that Creationism is true, you claim the flood happened, you assert that the earth is 6000 years old, so you back up those claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you claim that the pond slime is provable, get to it. |
How many times do I have to say it?
You made the challenges on accepted scientific theory, you claim that Creationism is true, you claim the flood happened, you assert that the earth is 6000 years old, so you back up those claims.
Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
Is anyone else as amused as I am at the hypocrisy in this statement?
QUOTE
Science cannot tell us what the state and fabric of the universe was like at the time of the flood, and shortly after.
That's because the flood hasn't been proven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science cannot tell us what the state and fabric of the universe was like at the time of the flood, and shortly after. |
That's because the flood hasn't been proven.
Try and accept the limitations inherit in present nature science!
Except that we do accept science's limitations. You see, unlike religion, science isn't afraid to say "We don't know". We don't immediately resort to saying "Goddidit!" for something we can't explain. You do.
QUOTE
I know that is hard to take for some, tough. Get used to it, to know is one thing, to yap on not knowing, pretending you know, by science, no less, is another.
Wrong again, and a shining example of your hypocrisy. Knowing is one thing, pretending to know by using God's name as a crutch is another.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know that is hard to take for some, tough. Get used to it, to know is one thing, to yap on not knowing, pretending you know, by science, no less, is another. |
Wrong again, and a shining example of your hypocrisy. Knowing is one thing, pretending to know by using God's name as a crutch is another.
You really are busted.
Epic Fail #2 from dad1...
QUOTE
Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really.
It's funny how you claim that Grumpy is wrong, when you have yet to cite even one source or offer one shred of proof for your claims so far.
Get it?? You failed. Again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Get it?? You failed. You talk a good talk, but you got nothin, as much as you seem to like to pretend you do. Really. |
It's funny how you claim that Grumpy is wrong, when you have yet to cite even one source or offer one shred of proof for your claims so far.
Get it?? You failed. Again.
Hey Dabeer, please support your claim that science knows the state of the far past, and how it was the same!!!!!!!!!
dad1, please support your claims that Creationism, Eden, and the flood are true.
QUOTE
Really. Or tuck in the tail, and scoot.
Ahhhhh, so you can't prove your claims, but you still want us to prove ours? Sorry bozo, it doesn't work that way. You made the challenges, now it's your responsibility to back them up.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 4 2008, 05:55 AM)
Show me one South American 'empire' that is dated older than the flood, about 4500 years ago!? Then, show us the basis for the dates, and watch your claim get washed away like a cork on a river.
QUOTE (dad1+Jun 3 2008, 02:14 PM)
When we know we don't know, we should not teach it like we do know.
This poll is stupidly biased.
And there's a simple answer.
Teach Evolution in the science classroom.
Teach Creationism in the Religous education classroom (or something similar).
Let the student make up their on mind on the balance of the evidence, their religous belief
This poll is stupidly biased.
And there's a simple answer.
Teach Evolution in the science classroom.
Teach Creationism in the Religous education classroom (or something similar).
Let the student make up their on mind on the balance of the evidence, their religous belief