19 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseKJ goes through cycles of this drivel, a few more days and he will disappear again. But I agree this sort of crap should be left in the Spirits forum......
You are one of the millions who don't have a real interest in science, only in bending the will of people to match your dogma.
So why do you come here with specious arguments, putting up straw men left and right and making statements as if they were fact. You are not interested in real debate, only in the attempt to force hundreds of years of real science ...[text shortened]... w to have us believe in fairy god mothers who run every atom in the universe. THAT is pathetic.
Unless of course KJ is actually willing to learn something, but I doubt it......
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoI do not know how old the earth is that is what I accept, you want to
Then as long as you accept.
- The earth is over 4 Billion years old
- Living organisms can change slightly from generation to generation
- Even The longest lived animals rarely have ages over 75 years.
The how many generations of this organism have there been in the last billion years, tiny changes = small increments, separate populations will increment ...[text shortened]... don't accept 4.5 billion..... Maybe somewhere around 10,000? If so, How was this age acquired?
tell me it is billions of years old, fine by all means do so.
Living organisms can change, not denying that; however, seeing small
changes does not mean that large ones occur, it only really means
that we see small changes. If you want to believe more than that is
true, like the age of the earth you can believe whatever you want. You
want to believe a lot of things that is completely up to you, and by all
means preach it! If you want to show me something along the lines of
what I asked for several pages ago, than we can talk about moving
out of the realm of beliefs into something we all can accept. I am not
saying your math is wrong, only that reality may not go along with what
you believe occured during that time you believe in that you were
telling me about.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedYes, I have to go away for times, my chess moves suffer for it too,
KJ goes through cycles of this drivel, a few more days and he will disappear again. But I agree this sort of crap should be left in the Spirits forum......
Unless of course KJ is actually willing to learn something, but I doubt it......
it is because I have a life outside of this place. I'm not bringing any
thing up that must go to the spiritual form, I'm attempting to stick to
just that stuff we see in the here and now. Let me know when you see
me say something that does not fit that.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedYou have evidence that no God is required? That is a spiritual form
I totally agree with you, but as a scientist I always like to try and explain to the best of my knowledge (I'm sure you are the same). I have all the time in the world for anyone who is genuinely willing to learn, questioning evidence is good and healthy for science....... but being obtuse does test my patience.
I'm sure there is no amount of evidence ...[text shortened]... r make those who have faith in god, believe that life does not need a creator.
Good day :0)
sort of statement isn't it? I mean I don't know what you could show me
or anyone that says this shows that no God is required. I don't know
you have something that shows us how you get something from
nothing? Personally, I believe that those that reject God can be just
as pig headed with the other point of view too, it is more of a human
trait than a 'theist' trait in my opinion, do you agree?
Kelly
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have been thinking a lot about this statement of late. Do you think
The thought of Intelligent Design is not other than the religious Creationism.
It has nothing to do with science.
ID addresses evolution or just simply abiogenesis? After thinking
about it, I don’t think ID even touches the question of evolution as
much as it does abiogenesis. Mainly because evolution is an on going
process and can be true if any number of beginning scenarios were
true, it could be true even if creation were true, or ID is true, space
cockroaches using their droppings to mold all life into existence could
still have evolution true, if atheists are correct no designer of any kind
is required god or otherwise we, and we could still see evolution as
true. The only difference would be the starting block.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI think that ID can be compatible with evolution only if the 'design' we speak of is of the natural forces of our universe (e.g. gravity). The theist can still believe in evolution, but in one where the initial conditions were such that it would be inevitable for the Homo Sapiens to evolve.
I have been thinking a lot about this statement of late. Do you think
ID addresses evolution or just simply abiogenesis? After thinking
about it, I don’t think ID even touches the question of evolution as
much as it does abiogenesis. Mainly because evolution is an on going
process and can be true if any number of beginning scenarios were
true, it could ...[text shortened]... d we could still see evolution as
true. The only difference would be the starting block.
Kelly
If God is omnipotent and omniscience why would he need to 'fine-tune' his work billions of years after its creation and BEFORE the beings to whom he'll allegedly give free-will are born? You see, libertarian free-will (if such a thing exists) is the only reason why any OO God would need to fine-tune.
In that sense, the God does not intervene neither in in the processes of abiogenesis nor in evolution. It doesn't make sense that he should even NEED to do so.
Edit - Theists should then not see evolution as an enemy, nor ID as an alternative to it. They should refer to different things, ID referring to the basic setup of the rules of our universe and evolution the way by which generations of organisms evolve and change in such a universe.
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI will not go so far as saying 'Theists should see..." depending on how
I think that ID can be compatible with evolution only if the 'design' we speak of is of the natural forces of our universe (e.g. gravity). The theist can still believe in evolution, but in one where the initial conditions were such that it would be inevitable for the Homo Sapiens to evolve.
If God is omnipotent and omniscience why would he need to 'fine-t evolution the way by which generations of organisms evolve and change in such a universe.
you view the beginning and what is being discussed, because "atheist"
also see creation and ID as something other than the 'a possible way
it all could have begon' and therefore do not ever give either of the
other possible beginnings a chance either. I think where people start
parting ways is when they start discussing things that they have to
give an opinion over, they cannot say here look at what we see in front
of us! We see X, therefore Y is true... when infact the only thing that
is real is X, whatever X and Y are.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayOk. Feel free not to care about what I said and get stuck in semantics.
I will not go so far as saying 'Theists should see..." depending on how
you view the beginning and what is being discussed, because "atheist"
also see creation and ID as something other than the 'a possible way
it all could have begon' and therefore do not ever give either of the
other possible beginnings a chance either. I think where people start
par ...[text shortened]... e Y is true... when infact the only thing that
is real is X, whatever X and Y are.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou really are being difficult here. As far as science is concerned the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, this isn't a belief, this based on a whole lot of independently correlated information and predictions. Since we're trying to operate in a scientific manner then your forced to do one of the following.
I do not know how old the earth is that is what I accept, you want to
tell me it is billions of years old, fine by all means do so.
Living organisms can change, not denying that; however, seeing small
changes does not mean that large ones occur, it only really means
that we see small changes. If you want to believe more than that is
true, like the ag ...[text shortened]... hat
you believe occured during that time you believe in that you were
telling me about.
Kelly
a) Accept the age as fact and then we can move on,
b) Go present me with information (scientific) that says otherwise.
c) Stop being evasive and admit that if science doesn't agree with your imaginary friend then you'll disregard and undermine the science.
We can see development of morphological variation and speciation within a few generations (days) of fruit flies. Take this and apply it to 2 million years of days (generations) I can very very easily see the branching nature of speciation resulting in the billions of species of fly we see today. that's one example. If your truly interested I will go and find some papers on the evolution of circulatory systems. But you don't really want to know do you? You just want to undermine evolution....
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoThere is plenty of scientific data out there to support a young earth theory. I don't happen to agree with it, but I certainly don't dismiss it out of hand. The population of the earth not being in the trillions is one argument; the fact that the track record of carbon (and other "scientific" dating methods, shall we say.....sucks? And as for evolution---well, take your pick: no missing link, hoaxes out the wazoo, the Platypus?!
You really are being difficult here. As far as science is concerned the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, this isn't a belief, this based on a whole lot of independently correlated information and predictions. Since we're trying to operate in a scientific manner then your forced to do one of the following.
a) Accept the age as fact and then we can move on,
b) ...[text shortened]... ystems. But you don't really want to know do you? You just want to undermine evolution....
Yes, I find the 4.5 billion year age for earth compelling enough for me, but I damn sure don't FORCE it on others as fact. That you see, would be INtolerant.
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydActually there is very little if an credible scientific data supporting a young earth, what you gave here was circumstantial and bears little scrutiny. The population of the earth isn't even vaguely relevant to the age of the earth since we've only been here an extremely short period of time. Carbon dating isn't used to gather the date of the earth, and actually couldn't be used since its a short term system anyway. Which other scientific dating methods have bad track records. U/Pb dating is perfectly reliable as long as you understand how the concordia diagrams work, and what the likely errors are. What missing links would you like for evolution? Granted there have been hoaxes, but that occurs from the other side of the argument too and actually has no bearing on its scientific validity. Actually if anything the Platypus and Akidna (egg laying mammals) are evidence for evolution rather than against it.
There is plenty of scientific data out there to support a young earth theory. I don't happen to agree with it, but I certainly don't dismiss it out of hand. The population of the earth not being in the trillions is one argument; the fact that the track record of carbon (and other "scientific" dating methods, shall we say.....sucks? And as for evolution- ...[text shortened]... r me, but I damn sure don't FORCE it on others as fact. That you see, would be INtolerant.
Those that argue these various nonsense pseudo-scientific theories would want to pull their heads in and start presenting some real information.
Its not intolerance to make sure someone understands the facts when they are arguing within science.
19 Apr 08
Science is scientists playground. If anyone want to play scientist, he has to know the rules of science.
Religion is the religious playground. If anyone what to play religious, he has to know the rules of religion.
When creationists or IDists pretend to be scientists, they have to play by the scientists rules. Firstly if they want to dispute evolution, they have to understand evolution. Most creationistsand IDists don't know evolution very well.
I make a fool out of myself if I use 'scientific logic' to 'prove' that god doesn not exist: "God is in heaven and in space there is no air so god has to choke himself in the vacuum." Silly isn't it? Why? Because I can't use science in the religious arena. So please, don't use religion in the arena of science. You make yourselves fools and your petty arguments are silly in the view of science.
Before you criticize evolution, learn something about evolution before you pretend to use scientific methods to dispute it. It's not your arena.
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoYou know "it is people" not some being called science that says the
You really are being difficult here. As far as science is concerned the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, this isn't a belief, this based on a whole lot of independently correlated information and predictions. Since we're trying to operate in a scientific manner then your forced to do one of the following.
a) Accept the age as fact and then we can move on,
b) ...[text shortened]... ystems. But you don't really want to know do you? You just want to undermine evolution....
earth is 4.5 billion years old, you should get at least that little bit
straight in your head before you move on. People not some being
called science 'believe' the earth is what they say it is, that does not
mean it is, it is only accepted by people that is the way it is. You
attempting to make it more than that, by saying 'science says' is
just a smoke screen for "people say"! Come back to earth and live
here with the rest of us will you!
Kelly
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoWhat imarinary friend have I brought up? If you are refering to God
You really are being difficult here. As far as science is concerned the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, this isn't a belief, this based on a whole lot of independently correlated information and predictions. Since we're trying to operate in a scientific manner then your forced to do one of the following.
a) Accept the age as fact and then we can move on,
b) ystems. But you don't really want to know do you? You just want to undermine evolution....
I suggest you take your remarks to the Spiritual form if you don't
mind! Than limit our discussion to those things we say to each other
and not what you think I believe.
Kelly
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasHas anyone here brought up religion to dispute scientific methods?
Science is scientists playground. If anyone want to play scientist, he has to know the rules of science.
Religion is the religious playground. If anyone what to play religious, he has to know the rules of religion.
When creationists or IDists pretend to be scientists, they have to play by the scientists rules. Firstly if they want to dispute evolution tion before you pretend to use scientific methods to dispute it. It's not your arena.
If you dislike questions brought about a pet theory you have, to bad.
Kelly