15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
thanks its abt time someone shut the lid on fantasies generated by pre-historic man......evolution is the closest u can get to explain the development and origin of life on earth.
the only credit i can give to god is one for creating protons ,neutrons and other basic building blocks of the universe and when i say god i dont mean the one decribed by christianity, islam, buddhism,hinduism or any other religions on this planet.
Originally posted by: klee58
Oh boy... still reading the article. I think I'm gonna nuke some popcorn right now to enjoy the show with.
</me tosses klee58 a beer to go with his popcorn>
A quote from my school newspaper: "There are no good arguments for Creationism, just bad ones against evolution." So incredibly true.
but we have a vocal minority and many indescive people who are gonna say: "there is no reason both can't be true"
Nope.
God rocks.
I wish I could dispute the arguments but I am going to have to do some more research into it before I can.
Until then I will just say I don't belive any of it.
God rocks.
I wish I could dispute the arguments but I am going to have to do some more research into it before I can.
Until then I will just say I don't belive any of it.
I'm sure you wish you could.
I especially liked the conclusion:
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions
A broadcast version of this article will air June 26 on National Geographic Today, a program on the National Geographic Channel. Please check your local listings
experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
Yup. Lettered in it.
Anyway, where is the fossil record that supports the millons of years of evolution?
Originally posted by: werk
oops, never mind...thinking of a different klee!
you were right the first time. Klee58 is a she, not a he.
Very religious here, and very in favor of evolution. The worst side of creationism are those individuals attempting to strike evolution from public school lesson plans and textbooks. Ranks right up there with trying to censor public school libraries (removing catcher of the rye, Huck Finn, etc.).
yup the minority is always more vocal....
....and Ameesh two negatives in one sentence along with a true or false ....that did heat up my processor.
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: werk
oops, never mind...thinking of a different klee!
you were right the first time. Klee58 is a she, not a he.
Prove it.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
I have an argument against evolution:
If it's survival of the fittest, how come heros (read: the fittest) have a tendancy to place themselves in situations where they're most likely to get creamed?
How come the amount of stupid people is on the rise?
If it's survival of the fittest, how come heros (read: the fittest) have a tendancy to place themselves in situations where they're most likely to get creamed?
How come the amount of stupid people is on the rise?
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
How come the amount of stupid people is on the rise?
Because we're making it easier through advances in medicine and such to live longer and to survive your own stupidity.
Take the helmet for example. People were engaging in activities that were cracking their skulls and killing them. Instead of stopping participation in said activities, someone designed the helmet so we could continue our skull-cracking ways without cracking skulls. Stupidity thrives.
A serious scientist always leaves room for doubt.
John Rennie is too sure of himself.
Scientific theories in the past have been shown to alter their context under the light of new evidence. Sometimes entire scientific concepts needed to be reconceptualised from scratch.
Personally, I am not religious and I will not side with the creationists, but neither will I side with the evolutionists.
They both have shortcomings.
Something is just not quite right on either side. And I am not even sure if the answer is in a combination of the two.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years some new evidence sents us thinking about the issue in ways never thought of before.
John Rennie is too sure of himself.
Scientific theories in the past have been shown to alter their context under the light of new evidence. Sometimes entire scientific concepts needed to be reconceptualised from scratch.
Personally, I am not religious and I will not side with the creationists, but neither will I side with the evolutionists.
They both have shortcomings.
Something is just not quite right on either side. And I am not even sure if the answer is in a combination of the two.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years some new evidence sents us thinking about the issue in ways never thought of before.
The man or woman who briefly brushes against science and philosophy often vehemently protest that God does not exist and outcry the stupidity of religion. And the few who deepen in their understanding of either one, or both are inclined to believe the opposite.
Cheers !
Cheers !
before you even start, why not tell us how your going to research something like that anyway?? the ONLY book I can think of is the bible all from the fake sea scrolls
Originally posted by: LordJezo
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: werk
oops, never mind...thinking of a different klee!
you were right the first time. Klee58 is a she, not a he.
Prove it.
I met her at the Toronto netmeet back in febuary. There's probably a picture or two with both of us in it. Also, everyone who was there can verify it (Soulflare, windogg, eug, eackers, Zimmervolt etc..)
They mention several of the many fossils that support evolution in the article. If you want to see that actual fossils, you'll have to go to the university wehre they are located.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter