- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by SmittyTimeWhoa, that I have to disagree with.
People should have to possess at least an undergraduate degree in the sciences before being allowed to post in here.
I have no problem with anyone asking questions and trying to find out about science
and skepticism.
What I take issue with is RJHinds trying to lecture us on his religion in the science forum.
If RJHinds was at all prepared to actually discuss science reasonably then that would be
fantastic.
But RJHinds has one of the most closed minds I have ever encountered, and is totally and
irrevocably indoctrinated into his absurd faith that rejects and contradicts the entirety of
science.
That is why RJHinds has no business being in, or posting in, the science forum.
There is no need for, and many many reasons against, having any qualification requirement
for posting in the science forum.
31 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLife is highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Without life there could
So why does the theory of evolution have to explain something that is irrelevant for evolution?
be no theory of evolution. But if you wish to keep it in the realm of the
science fiction, then there is no need to explain anything that is not
desired. To me that is just fine because I do not believe in the evolution
of life anyway. But to try to explain how life evolved without explaining
life and how it began is unscientific. Only and idiot would not see that.
That little bit of knowledge is from this one that some call an arrogant
son of a b****. 😏
01 Feb 12
4 edits
Pointless argument. There is no arguing against a stance that is constantly deflecting and shifting attention from one meaningless point to the next.
Originally posted by RJHinds
The only scientific theory I am objectiing to is the
theory of evolution.
Originally posted by RJHinds
...to try to explain how life evolved without explaining
life and how it began is unscientific.
01 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsLife is highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Without life there could
Life is highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Without life there could
be no theory of evolution. But if you wish to keep it in the realm of the
science fiction, then there is no need to explain anything that is not
desired. To me that is just fine because I do not believe in the evolution
of life anyway. But to try to explain how life evolved w ...[text shortened]... .
That little bit of knowledge is from this one that some call an arrogant
son of a b****. 😏
be no theory of evolution.
You're right for all of two sentences. Then you say it's somehow relevant how life began, it's not. Life is here, that's pretty obvious and that's all we need for the theory of evolution.
01 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you remember my question: "Where was the first living cell created?"? You invented coordinates pointing at a location 850 km outside the coastline of Somalia. You made fool out of yourself, and refused to comment of it further. You certainly don't know, and have no clue. You rather lie than admit that.
But to try to explain how life evolved without explaining
life and how it began is unscientific. Only and idiot would not see that.
Noy you tell us that "To try to explain how life evolved without explaining
life and how it began is unscientific." And therefore, in analogy to the above, that creationism is unscientific. We know this from before. Creationism ***is*** unscientific. It's religion. Evolution ***is*** true. It's science.
You hold creationism as the truth, but you don't know anything. You hold evolution for false, and you still don't know anything.
When you start to learn things, then you will be aware how you now live in ignorance. Because you don't want to know. You are so afraid of the truth. Why? Because you think that if you believe wrongly you will end up in hell. Well, that's your religious fear. Don't let that hinder you from learning new things.
Don't lie. Not to us. Not to yourself.
01 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo statistics should explain the mating behaviour of moose, otherwise it's "unscientific"?
Life is highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Without life there could
be no theory of evolution. But if you wish to keep it in the realm of the
science fiction, then there is no need to explain anything that is not
desired. To me that is just fine because I do not believe in the evolution
of life anyway. But to try to explain how life evolved w ...[text shortened]... .
That little bit of knowledge is from this one that some call an arrogant
son of a b****. 😏
01 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWell apparently most scientists are idiots in your view. But if you are cleverer than them, why can't you explain it to us, instead you simply state it as obvious and try to use ridicule to force the point.
But to try to explain how life evolved without explaining life and how it began is unscientific. Only and idiot would not see that.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by FabianFnasBefore you dismiss everything as a lie, why don't you find out about Somalia.
Do you remember my question: "Where was the first living cell created?"? You invented coordinates pointing at a location 850 km outside the coastline of Somalia. You made fool out of yourself, and refused to comment of it further. You certainly don't know, and have no clue. You rather lie than admit that.
Noy you tell us that "To try to explain how lif ...[text shortened]... that hinder you from learning new things.
Don't lie. Not to us. Not to yourself.
Maybe you could start with the Wikipedia article referenced below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by BartsOkay, if you are so sure I am a liar, believe what you wish.
[b]Life is highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Without life there could
be no theory of evolution.
You're right for all of two sentences. Then you say it's somehow relevant how life began, it's not. Life is here, that's pretty obvious and that's all we need for the theory of evolution.[/b]
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadMost scientist are not idiots, IMO. Some scientists have been mislead by
Well apparently most scientists are idiots in your view. But if you are cleverer than them, why can't you explain it to us, instead you simply state it as obvious and try to use ridicule to force the point.
their training and some of those have not realized it yet. I don't claim to
be clever than scientist, either. I just accept the truth of the Word of God
and so it is obvious to me that the theory of evolution is wrong. I don't
consider it good teaching technique to start at the end of sa subject and
work backward, especially when the beginning is not sure.
If the scientists make a wrong assumption, like life was not created but
was formed naturally somehow, then it seems to me that this would have
an impact on the way they look at life today as they can see it. I have
already made my explanation many times and nobody that believes in
evolution will believe me, so there is no point in keep repeating myself
for it looks like most everyone here sees me as a liar.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am sure you must know statistics must be interpreted and it depends
So statistics should explain the mating behaviour of moose, otherwise it's "unscientific"?
on the person or persons doing the interpreting as to what it means in
relation to this or that. So yes, I think there must be some very good
explanation to go along with any statistics to make heads or tails of
them. 😏
02 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you say that the location of the first living cell is created 850 km outside the coast of Somalia is (1) true, and (2) this fanstastic fact is to be confirmed by wikipedia about Somalia? Use paste and copy and show us!
Before you dismiss everything as a lie, why don't you find out about Somalia.
Maybe you could start with the Wikipedia article referenced below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
We all know that the legend of Garden of Eden is false, not because it is written in the bible, but the great RJHinds, and bets his good name and honour for it, says that you can found Eden at the bottom of the sea in the Indian Ocean.
Amazing!
Why don't you admit that you don't know anything about it, and that you are dishonest.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeEvolution is absolutely false and to teach it is child abuse.
Assuming this is an asinine attempt to respond to my saying that science can prove things...
Science can't prove that a theory or law is true to 100% certainty, that's not how it works.
Science CAN prove something is false.
Science progresses by slowly whittling away everything that isn't true so that whatever is
left is a closer and closer de ...[text shortened]... wn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=What_is_the_theory_of_evolution%3F&threadid=144770
You say chemicals come together under their own volition and created complex living systems.
Show me a conscious awareness chemical.
Shocking and dishonest and absurd and disgraceful cheating science.
And the creationism you talk about is from false Christian creationism.
Of course Christian creationism is false....... that's obvious and because that is obvious you think you can come in the back door and tell us that chemicals accidentally created everything.....so foolish.
Eternal Vedic teachings explain creation......but you are not qualified to understand it and you have no care to understand it..
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIs that a yes?
I am sure you must know statistics must be interpreted and it depends
on the person or persons doing the interpreting as to what it means in
relation to this or that. So yes, I think there must be some very good
explanation to go along with any statistics to make heads or tails of
them. 😏