The World is Flat! The Emperor has his clothes on! Such are the battle crys of all the unscientific believers in Evolution.
When so many Physical laws would be violated if Evolution was true, when common sense is denied, when NO one has ever seen it take place.. yep true science..
Regardless of what many may think of origins, one has to admit that the Establishment of Evolution as the "Scientific" way to view origins is a crock. It goes against all sound reason, ALL general laws of Science and relies upon assumptions and rumors exceptions and of course beneficial mutations and all sorts of time, which is simply not possible either as the world could not possibly been in a state to support life for nearly as long as Evolutionary theory would require.. think of the moons orbit and what would happen to the tides since it is moving away from the earth, how much closer it must have been a short while ago, or the size of the Sun just a Hundred Thousand years or so again would have made current fears of global warming pale in comparison.
How can anyone who adheres to Evolution in the only real sense discussed the Macro sense, especially in light that micro is just mislabled Genetic Variation, make any claims to believe in the Scientific Method or any claims to being a "true" scientist when they are a believer in a false religion and not science?
Can anyone on this board persuade me otherwise? Didn't think so.
Keep your eyes shut, don't question So called Scientific Authority, go with those in charge who proclaim the world is flat or that the Emperor, who is walking around with no clothes, has his clothes on.. The Flat Worlders did this, and so did the Nazi's in following Hitler, who was a believer in Evolution by some counts, meanwhile Albert Einstein believed in Creation, but many now say such a belief would disqualify him from being a "true" scientist. Yet it could be argued Hitler would be welcomed by todays Evolutionist.
This Establishment of a False Religion of Macro Evolution needs to be stopped, it is dangerous to all and not the least bit Scientific.
Anyone who believes the assumptions asserted to support Evolution does true Science no favors and simply perpetuates a myth.
The Stain
When so many Physical laws would be violated if Evolution was true, when common sense is denied, when NO one has ever seen it take place.. yep true science..
Regardless of what many may think of origins, one has to admit that the Establishment of Evolution as the "Scientific" way to view origins is a crock. It goes against all sound reason, ALL general laws of Science and relies upon assumptions and rumors exceptions and of course beneficial mutations and all sorts of time, which is simply not possible either as the world could not possibly been in a state to support life for nearly as long as Evolutionary theory would require.. think of the moons orbit and what would happen to the tides since it is moving away from the earth, how much closer it must have been a short while ago, or the size of the Sun just a Hundred Thousand years or so again would have made current fears of global warming pale in comparison.
How can anyone who adheres to Evolution in the only real sense discussed the Macro sense, especially in light that micro is just mislabled Genetic Variation, make any claims to believe in the Scientific Method or any claims to being a "true" scientist when they are a believer in a false religion and not science?
Can anyone on this board persuade me otherwise? Didn't think so.
Keep your eyes shut, don't question So called Scientific Authority, go with those in charge who proclaim the world is flat or that the Emperor, who is walking around with no clothes, has his clothes on.. The Flat Worlders did this, and so did the Nazi's in following Hitler, who was a believer in Evolution by some counts, meanwhile Albert Einstein believed in Creation, but many now say such a belief would disqualify him from being a "true" scientist. Yet it could be argued Hitler would be welcomed by todays Evolutionist.
This Establishment of a False Religion of Macro Evolution needs to be stopped, it is dangerous to all and not the least bit Scientific.
Anyone who believes the assumptions asserted to support Evolution does true Science no favors and simply perpetuates a myth.
The Stain
Instead of flaming with no support for the Evolutionary position, why not instead tell us what persuades you that we owe our origins to evolution?
Why do you believe in Macro Evolution?
How did it take place? How much time was needed? What climate and environmental conditions are required for life?
And.. please answer me how we have enough time for this to take place?
In light of what most Scientist agree in regards to the Second Rule of Thermodynamics or in regards to how far the moon was away from the earth, if the moon and earth existed 6,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 or 1 Million years ago?
or.. How big was the Sun and what would have conditions on the earth been like if both Sun and Earth existed 10,000, 100,000 or a Million years ago?
Or, considering worldwide erosion rates.. why not more at mouths of rivers, in delta areas than there is?
Please tell me how we have enough time?
Please tell me how given enough time chance occurances of beneficial mutations can lead to different species?
Does a single follower of Evolution on this board have the guts and nuts to go on record for why he or she believes what he or she believes?
The Stain
Why do you believe in Macro Evolution?
How did it take place? How much time was needed? What climate and environmental conditions are required for life?
And.. please answer me how we have enough time for this to take place?
In light of what most Scientist agree in regards to the Second Rule of Thermodynamics or in regards to how far the moon was away from the earth, if the moon and earth existed 6,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 or 1 Million years ago?
or.. How big was the Sun and what would have conditions on the earth been like if both Sun and Earth existed 10,000, 100,000 or a Million years ago?
Or, considering worldwide erosion rates.. why not more at mouths of rivers, in delta areas than there is?
Please tell me how we have enough time?
Please tell me how given enough time chance occurances of beneficial mutations can lead to different species?
Does a single follower of Evolution on this board have the guts and nuts to go on record for why he or she believes what he or she believes?
The Stain
Macroevolution is, quite literally, written in stone. Link
1. Still debated
2. Depends
3. Organisms exist in all sorts of climates
Evolution explains how and the fossil record shows [roughly] how it occured (I assume you are talking about the evolution of humans).
Thats not a coherent question.. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and the only real diffence between the earth and the moon now and the earth and the moon one million years ago is that the moon would have been slightly closer to the earth a million years ago. (See link below for climate differences)
Link
What is the worldwide erosion rate and why do you expect more rivers?
Please learn the basics of the theory of evolution. Evolution
Didn't I already call you an idiot in another thread you made? If you are the slightest bit curious the internet is covered with reams of information about evolution from which you can educate yourself instead of embarassing yourself on these boards. I hope you also know that even if everything you wrote there weren't easily refuted in about 10 seconds with google, even if you were 100% right on everything... it does nothing to prove creationism. It might disprove evolution, but just because evolution was wrong doesn't make your position ANY more credible. You present a false choice. I will admit that this fundamental logical fallacy that creationists engage in is often lost in the bizzard of stupidity that they assault you with, but really it's the most important one.
As I said in another post you are complaining about erosion rates (which are just fine if you read up some on plate techtonics and silt displacement as shown here.. that's your freebee), and then offer up as an alternative your position that the tyrannosaurs were vegetarians until adam and eve ate an apple, and that the geologic column and fossil records are based on --get this guys.. and I swear they are serious about this-- how fast the animals could run away from the onrushing flood waters.
Your position is so obviously dumb, so mind bogglingly stupid, that as I said before... debating you lowers anyone unfortunate enough to engage in it with you. If you were vulnerable to reason in the slightest, and actually interested in learning about how the world works... you wouldn't be posting this drivel here, because you would already know better.
Providing counter-evidence or even a counter-argument is pointless, every scientific debate must require a certain level of understanding of science...an understanding the vast majority of creationists (including you and thestain) apparently do not possess. You simply CAN'T have an intelligent discussion about a scientific topic as complex as evolution without some fairly basic scientific knowledge any more than you can discuss asymmetric cryptography if you don't understand simple multiplication. You folks are so far off the scientific track that any evidence we try and present will be meaningless to you, since you don't have the knowledge (or willingness) to understand it in the first place.
Just as a VERY simple example of what I'm talking about, that crap thestain was mentioning about the sun and the moon is the kind of thing you SHOULD have learned was wrong in basic high school astronomy. While the moon IS moving away from the earth, the current rate does not reflect the rate "a short while ago" (basic Newtonian physics should tell you that), and even if it did, the amount closer it would have been even hundreds of millions of years ago is quite small. Over the course of 100 million years, given the current rate of movement, the moon would have been about 3,000 km closer...less than 1% of its current distance. Even if the rate was extrapolated back to the beginning of the planet, the moon would have been about 75% of the distance away that it is now. That would have been a fairly significant distance, but it would hardly have prevented the emergence of life.
The "size of the Sun" argument is an even more basic scientific error. The Sun is not a pile of burning coal that grows smaller as it consumes itself, the forces involved actually will keep the sun fairly stable in size and output until it enters the red giant phase of its life. The "proof" that the Sun is shrinking comes from data that only suggests it HAS been shrinking over a period of a few hundred years, which does nothing to prove that it has always been shrinking...any more than an observation of the tide going out for a few minutes suggests the ocean level is constantly decreasing over centuries. Of course that assumes the study showing the Sun as shrinking is accurate, when it has been widely discredited for flaws in methodology, and several fully published studies (of which the "sun shrinking" study is NOT) have suggested the results were inaccurate.
You guys are predisposed to believe what you want and hear what you want to hear, argument is entirely useless. Basic math, physics, biology, etc, make your explanations look stupid, yet you persist in using them without even bothering to pick up a high school textbook to verify that you're full of crap. The extrapolation of a current rate backwards and forwards in time, with no data to support this, is a scientific flaw so basic it would be embarrassing if it showed up in a high school science fair. Yet it is at the core of many of the "young earth" arguments. Either you guys are extremely stupid or willfully ignorant, but either way I see no purpose in debating the issue until you show at least SOME desire to even understand the rules of the game.
By the way, if anyone is interested in fairly strong evidence that the earth is in fact quite old, they should look at the half-lifes of various naturally occurring isotopes and their presence (or lack thereof) in nature. Isotopes with a shorter half-life (on the order of 100 million years or so) simply don't exist in nature UNLESS they are the intermediate decay product of some other isotope with a longer half-life. This suggests (although it does not conclusively prove) that the "young earth" idea is virtually impossible, since a young earth should have naturally occurring samples of the shorter lived isotopes. Their absence from nature suggests they all decayed a long time ago, which would only have been possible if they had existed for hundreds of millions of years.
Damn it! I just finished telling you that you were stupid, and then you post this piece of gold!? I can't resist... I just wish I could have put it all into one post. Nice job relating evolution to the Nazis, that was awesome. I laughed out loud when I read that.
Also, you really don't want to bring up Einstein. He believed in a deistic creator god... one that created the universe billions of years in the past. He would not be supportive of your position, in fact he openly mocked it, and there are plenty of deistic scientists that are around today. These are the sorts of half truths that creationism requires to stay alive.
I am concerned with what appears to me to be cult-like attitudes and beliefs by different groups of people.
If Evolution is true, who cares what others might believe?
But if it is false, then it would appear to me to be more dangerous to establish Evolution as true and suppress other viewpoints on Origins.
Rant and Ramble:
The Status Quo can get in the way of progress, of advances and it just seems to me that Evolution and a real old Cosmos and Earth have really been established as though true, but there are some serious problems both in regards to what evolution can and can't do and in the environment, climate and time that would be needed for this process to advance things through adaptation, beneficial mutatation, or any other natural process etc.. relying in a way on exceptions to the general rule to explain how things work and how and when they occur.
Origins is a tough one, but to suppress truth should never be acceptable, by Creationist, by Evolutionist or any other group in regards to origins or any other topic or area of discussion.
If Evolution is true, who cares what others might believe?
But if it is false, then it would appear to me to be more dangerous to establish Evolution as true and suppress other viewpoints on Origins.
Rant and Ramble:
The Status Quo can get in the way of progress, of advances and it just seems to me that Evolution and a real old Cosmos and Earth have really been established as though true, but there are some serious problems both in regards to what evolution can and can't do and in the environment, climate and time that would be needed for this process to advance things through adaptation, beneficial mutatation, or any other natural process etc.. relying in a way on exceptions to the general rule to explain how things work and how and when they occur.
Origins is a tough one, but to suppress truth should never be acceptable, by Creationist, by Evolutionist or any other group in regards to origins or any other topic or area of discussion.
The reason why it is important for other people to accept evolution if it is true, is because people in government and various lobbying groups are attempting to force public schools to teach their children creationism, which is manifestly false. Teaching our children things which are almost certainly untrue is a bad thing for schools to do.
Evolution has certain gaps in the evidence for it, that much is sure. Simply put though, the evidence for evolution is frankly overwhelming. Groups like Answers in Genesis have been able to offer up little other then token opposition papers that are often deliberately misleading and easily debunked by real scientists in the fields. The unanimity in the acceptance of evolution comes from the degree of evidence for it, and the complete lack of a credible alternative.
There is no conflict between evolution, thermodynamics, amount of time needed (billions of years), or anything else like that. Furthermore evolution makes no claims to the origins of life, only to how life changes after it came into existence.
In brief, people don't reject creationism because they are wedded to evolution, they reject it because it is illogical and unsupported by facts.
You seem to be confusing science with religion. In fact, the whole creationist movement seems to be making that mistake. Not in the sense that you're using non-scientific religion as the basis for your theory, but in the sense that you seem to be under the impression that in the world of science, everyone has a right to believe whatever they like and all views are equally valid...that arguing against someone else's scientific idea is equal to arguing against their religious beliefs.
Sorry, but that's not the case. We are having a scientific debate, with two competing theories about the origin of the universe and life on earth. While a creator is not incompatible with the idea of evolution, your theory of creationism (especially young-earth creationism) is NOT compatible with the idea of evolution. In the religious world, we could all just agree with disagree and go our separate ways. But in the world of science, our goal is to find the facts behind the observable world, and BOTH sets of facts can't be true...so our goal is to empirically determine which theory is right.
Young-earth creationism should be given a fair shake, but it HAS been. It's not being repressed without due consideration, it's being rejected as a valid explanation because the set of explanations supporting it do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Your young-earth theory is explained by the size of the sun and the distance of the moon, yet those explanations are not scientifically sound. This does not disprove your theory, but it means you must look elsewhere for support...until you find it, there is no reason to think the young-earth theory is any more valid than the idea of a flat earth. This is not unfair or cultish in any way, it's simply how science works. Any claim you make will be greeted by "that's nice, now prove it" from scientists. If you can prove it, it will probably be accepted...if you can't, your idea will be rejected. This is not only not UNFAIR, it's extremely fair. All ideas have equal chance, but they must be supported by something stronger than pontifications about "suppressing truth".
As for why supporters of evolution should care about what you think, it again goes back to the idea of this being science and not religion. When it is simply a matter of opinion, like in religion, it does me no harm whether you agree with me or not. But when it's a matter of facts, it is an improvement if EVERYONE is aware of the facts, in the same way that we're better off as a society if everyone can read and write and make change at the store. Science is not a matter of belief, choosing ignorance is NOT just as good as choosing to know the facts.
This area needs more humility.
No way can Evolution be proven.
Period.
Let this small group of Creationist try to shed some light on the topic of origins is my position for a variety of reasons.
We can all claim to be Scientific, but how does one go back in time and interpret things without assumptions, without some bias in finding out what they want to find?
Is it really ok to extrapolate decay rates in the orbit of the moon or size or orbit of the earth based on just a couple years of data? What if there are long term cycles involved? Yet it is sometimes all we have, so should it be ignored or thrown out if it makes the time for Evolution to take place impossible?
Expecting such and such amount of lunar dust on the moon is likely based on going back in time and doing some guess work in regards to how things took place in the past, often based on the present, but it is still guess work.
Those that argue that decay rates in isotopes, half lives really tell us anything also are prone to HUGE errors because we do not know, nor could we possibly know the true percentage of Parent/Daughter elements when this or that was formed or created or otherwise came into being. Lots of guesswork, huge standard deviations, yet PRIDE on both sides.
If we cannot truly test things without outs to one side or the other, does Origins belong in Science?
If not, it should be taught as religion and the Anti-Establishment Clause of the Constitution should apply to both groups in my humble opinion.
If Origins is something that is truly testable, lets make it testable, rather than the outs we now see claimed by the Evolutionist, who if confronted that there is something that makes the time for or climate for or other conditions for Evolution ignored or explained around?
Give this group a chance to build their Museum. Keep an open mind, perhaps they will present some truths or a new angle of looking for that will benefit Science.
Evolution true or false has been established as the State religion on Origins imo. According to my reading of the U.S. Constitution this violates the Establishment Clause and the efforts of believers in Evolution to come against another viewpoint on Origins on the grounds that Evolution alone is the only true way to look at things is problematic to me.
The Stain
No way can Evolution be proven.
Period.
Let this small group of Creationist try to shed some light on the topic of origins is my position for a variety of reasons.
We can all claim to be Scientific, but how does one go back in time and interpret things without assumptions, without some bias in finding out what they want to find?
Is it really ok to extrapolate decay rates in the orbit of the moon or size or orbit of the earth based on just a couple years of data? What if there are long term cycles involved? Yet it is sometimes all we have, so should it be ignored or thrown out if it makes the time for Evolution to take place impossible?
Expecting such and such amount of lunar dust on the moon is likely based on going back in time and doing some guess work in regards to how things took place in the past, often based on the present, but it is still guess work.
Those that argue that decay rates in isotopes, half lives really tell us anything also are prone to HUGE errors because we do not know, nor could we possibly know the true percentage of Parent/Daughter elements when this or that was formed or created or otherwise came into being. Lots of guesswork, huge standard deviations, yet PRIDE on both sides.
If we cannot truly test things without outs to one side or the other, does Origins belong in Science?
If not, it should be taught as religion and the Anti-Establishment Clause of the Constitution should apply to both groups in my humble opinion.
If Origins is something that is truly testable, lets make it testable, rather than the outs we now see claimed by the Evolutionist, who if confronted that there is something that makes the time for or climate for or other conditions for Evolution ignored or explained around?
Give this group a chance to build their Museum. Keep an open mind, perhaps they will present some truths or a new angle of looking for that will benefit Science.
Evolution true or false has been established as the State religion on Origins imo. According to my reading of the U.S. Constitution this violates the Establishment Clause and the efforts of believers in Evolution to come against another viewpoint on Origins on the grounds that Evolution alone is the only true way to look at things is problematic to me.
The Stain
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
This can be extended to 'nobody knows anything' and everything and anything can be taught anywhere.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
If you knew anything about science you would know that your claim is immensely impotent. Nothing in science is ever proven. Period. "Proof," as they say, is for mathematics and beverage alcohol.
{snip}
All science must begin with an assumption of methodological naturalism in order for it to be science. Again, your ignorance of basic science is plainly evident.
The time scales required for evolution have been empirically confirmed via a number of independent methods.
Laughable.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
They do not need to be known, Einstein.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...ating.html#isodaughter
No, actually its just ignorance on one side: yours.
Is that English?
{snip}
I think you should focus on learning to write coherently before tackling something as complex as evolution.
I'll believe that when I see it. :roll:
Nobody is saying that Evolution is "the only way to look at things." You can believe that the entire universe was farted into existence last Thursday for all I care. Evolution is simply the only explanation worthy of being called scientific.
Of course, you obviously don't know the first thing about that.
Pleading for fairness is the last refuge of a totally defeated argument.
You are now trying to use arguments that even those idiots at answers in genesis have given up on such as the lunar dust theory. The way it was explained to me years ago is still the best I think, the astronauts didn't sink into the moon dust for the same reason nobody sinks into the beach when they step on it.
I would go pull up some information so you can educate yourself on radioactive decay, but we both know it's pointless. No matter how many of your arguments are shown to be merely the product of your own lack of understanding of basic science, you will always have more. This is because you aren't interested in actually finding out what is true.
Most of your post doesn't even meet the standards for correct grammar, much less correct science so it is hard to figure out what you are really trying to say. If you are referring to origins as the origin of life, well... for about the 5th time evolution makes no claims as to how life came about.
Your claims about religion and science also show that you do not understand either. There is a huge amount of science that is not experimentally verifiable, but available only through observation. For example: pretty much all of geology, meterology, astronomy, etc. This does not make them religions any more then evolution is a religion. They are all based upon empirical observation.
Your attempt to apply the establishment clause to science is simply a petulant swipe at something you feel very strongly should be wrong, but it defeats you at every turn. You know as well as everyone else here why you're wrong there.
thestain
You are a perfect example of why things like this museum should be considered dangerous. They generate ignorance. Ignorant people often make poor choices based on their ignorance. That is fine if it only affects the ignorant ones. But we have people running for office who will make make decisions for all of us based on ignorance.
Every argument I have ever heard that purports to discredit evolution and the "old universe" has been debunked quite thoroughly. I consider many people to be dishonest for spreading the same old crap that has been shown to be wrong so many times.
I question the value of your education, and doubt that you will improve it much considering where you search for knowledge. The truth is out there for all to see.
You are a perfect example of why things like this museum should be considered dangerous. They generate ignorance. Ignorant people often make poor choices based on their ignorance. That is fine if it only affects the ignorant ones. But we have people running for office who will make make decisions for all of us based on ignorance.
Every argument I have ever heard that purports to discredit evolution and the "old universe" has been debunked quite thoroughly. I consider many people to be dishonest for spreading the same old crap that has been shown to be wrong so many times.
I question the value of your education, and doubt that you will improve it much considering where you search for knowledge. The truth is out there for all to see.
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Crap. As if we needed more examples of Alberta being the most 'American' of the Canadian provinces, one of those displays is going to open there also.:roll:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/s...7/05/29/museum-ab.html
*me pukes*
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/s...7/05/29/museum-ab.html
*me pukes*
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,904
- 31,431
- 146
creationism takes you to a point where you MUST cease to ask questions (IE= God created the world, God made evolution "happen." Not only that, creationism rejects acceptable, and necessary concepts of evolution) This is the opposite of science. creationism /= science, and never will. no matter how you may delude yourself
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter