Fun with Intelligent Design:

[Hotpapa666]

I just saw a Bill O'Rielly interview with Kirk Cameron. The guy who was on TV as a kid and was such a good christian, self ritgeous that he got a co-star fired.

Here's the low down. After O'Reilly spouted off about winning a debate about the exsistence of god with Richard Dawkins (and by debate he means that he talked to Dawkins on The Factor) he introduced Mr. Cameron.

Cameron gave the standard argument that intel. design folks give. "I look at a painting and I see that it was painted by a painter. Just as, I look at humanity and I see the hand of a creator."

This hilarious bending of the rules of logic, in the face of hundreds of thousands of man hours of scientific observation to contrary makes me sad for humanity.

But then, he whipped out his clincher, 'because, if evolution were true, then we would see intermediary species. But we don't. Where is the Duckodile (as he holds up a picture of a duck body with crocodile face)?'

Indeed sir, where is the duckodile...

[Nixon's Head]

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/adult1.gif

[LSU]

I just saw a Bill O'Rielly interview with Kirk Cameron. The guy who was on TV as a kid and was such a good christian, self ritgeous that he got a co-star fired.

Here's the low down. After O'Reilly spouted off about winning a debate about the exsistence of god with Richard Dawkins (and by debate he means that he talked to Dawkins on The Factor) he introduced Mr. Cameron.

Cameron gave the standard argument that intel. design folks give. "I look at a painting and I see that it was painted by a painter. Just as, I look at humanity and I see the hand of a creator."

This hilarious bending of the rules of logic, in the face of hundreds of thousands of man hours of scientific observation to contrary makes me sad for humanity.

But then, he whipped out his clincher, 'because, if evolution were true, then we would see intermediary species. But we don't. Where is the Duckodile (as he holds up a picture of a duck body with crocodile face)?'

Indeed sir, where is the duckodile...



If you have about 15 days free, you should check out the "scientific theory" thread.

[LSU]

I just saw a Bill O'Rielly interview with Kirk Cameron. The guy who was on TV as a kid and was such a good christian, self ritgeous that he got a co-star fired.

Here's the low down. After O'Reilly spouted off about winning a debate about the exsistence of god with Richard Dawkins (and by debate he means that he talked to Dawkins on The Factor) he introduced Mr. Cameron.

Cameron gave the standard argument that intel. design folks give. "I look at a painting and I see that it was painted by a painter. Just as, I look at humanity and I see the hand of a creator."

This hilarious bending of the rules of logic, in the face of hundreds of thousands of man hours of scientific observation to contrary makes me sad for humanity.

But then, he whipped out his clincher, 'because, if evolution were true, then we would see intermediary species. But we don't. Where is the Duckodile (as he holds up a picture of a duck body with crocodile face)?'

Indeed sir, where is the duckodile...


I just wish celebrities would stop with their liberal agenda.


Actually, what I wish is that people that are going to trounce evolutionary theory would at least make an effort to understand the theory before arguing against it.

[Vegas]

I just wish celebrities would stop with their liberal agenda.


Actually, what I wish is that people that are going to trounce evolutionary theory would at least make an effort to understand the theory before arguing against it.

Interesting....I say the same thing in regards to creation. If people want to assume that the science has absolutely proved evolution they should at make an effort to find out whether that is true.

[LSU]

Interesting....I say the same thing in regards to creation. If people want to assume that the science has absolutely proved evolution they should at make an effort to find out whether that is true.



You want people to understand Creation better?

I don't know many people (and I work with a lot of scientists) the view evolution as "absolutely proved".

[Vegas]

You want people to understand Creation better?

I don't know many people (and I work with a lot of scientists) the view evolution as "absolutely proved".

I want people to understand both Creation and evolution better and to understand the science behind both.

And as far as the absolute proof, I was referring to the fact that a lot of uneducated people assume that evolution has been proven. I wasn't very clear.

[LSU]

I want people to understand both Creation and evolution better and to understand the science behind both.

And as far as the absolute proof, I was referring to the fact that a lot of uneducated people assume that evolution has been proven. I wasn't very clear.



If we're to complain about what uneducated people know and don't know, there will be a lot of complaining to do.

And in regards to Creation, I still don't see how it's a science. You've given me a lot of reasons as to why evolution wouldn't be true, but I don't remember any (scientifically) as to why Creation would be true.

[Vegas]

If we're to complain about what uneducated people know and don't know, there will be a lot of complaining to do.

And in regards to Creation, I still don't see how it's a science. You've given me a lot of reasons as to why evolution wouldn't be true, but I don't remember any (scientifically) as to why Creation would be true.

And I say that you haven't given me any reason scientifically why evolution is true.

[LSU]

And I say that you haven't given me any reason scientifically why evolution is true.



Because there is no specific scientific evidence that says evolution is true. There is a ton the supports the theory. You keep asking for proof that a theory is a law.

And actually, I've given quite a few examples that support the theory, but what is there that supports Creation? And something that contradicts evolution does not support Creation.

[Vegas]

Because there is no specific scientific evidence that says evolution is true. There is a ton the supports the theory. You keep asking for proof that a theory is a law.

And actually, I've given quite a few examples that support the theory, but what is there that supports Creation? And something that contradicts evolution does not support Creation.

The "ton" of evidence that supports the theory can be interpreted as supporting creation just as scientifically.

[LSU]

The "ton" of evidence that supports the theory can be interpreted as supporting creation just as scientifically.



I can explain that wind is caused by trees moving rather than the other way around, too.

[Ed Who?]

I just saw a Bill O'Rielly interview with Kirk Cameron. The guy who was on TV as a kid and was such a good christian, self ritgeous that he got a co-star fired.

Here's the low down. After O'Reilly spouted off about winning a debate about the exsistence of god with Richard Dawkins (and by debate he means that he talked to Dawkins on The Factor) he introduced Mr. Cameron.

Cameron gave the standard argument that intel. design folks give. "I look at a painting and I see that it was painted by a painter. Just as, I look at humanity and I see the hand of a creator."

This hilarious bending of the rules of logic, in the face of hundreds of thousands of man hours of scientific observation to contrary makes me sad for humanity.

But then, he whipped out his clincher, 'because, if evolution were true, then we would see intermediary species. But we don't. Where is the Duckodile (as he holds up a picture of a duck body with crocodile face)?'

Indeed sir, where is the duckodile...

You can believe that the DNA strand was a completely random occurrence, but I tend to believe the opposite.

[LSU]

You can believe that the DNA strand was a completely random occurrence, but I tend to believe the opposite.


RNA is believed to be the first nucleic acid involved in "life". Or at least precursors to RNA from what I remember.

[Ed Who?]

I can explain that wind is caused by trees moving rather than the other way around, too.

And I can explain that the wind is caused by a Democratic stump speech.

And I'd probably be right, if it weren't for the fact it wasn't 180 F out.

[LSU]

And I can explain that the wind is caused by a Democratic stump speech.

And I'd probably be right, if it weren't for the fact it wasn't 180 F out.



Right.

[Ed Who?]

RNA is believed to be the first nucleic acid involved in "life". Or at least precursors to RNA from what I remember.

Well, that's if you don't factor in God putting it together.

[Nixon's Head]

Well, that's if you don't factor in God putting it together.It was touched by His Noodly Appendage...

http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster-tm.jpg

[LSU]

Well, that's if you don't factor in God putting it together.


Yeah, I know. Just putting that info out there.

[Hotpapa666]

God is a giant pat of butter.

Prove me wrong.

[pnkpanther]

FOSSIL



that is all

[Vegas]

FOSSIL



that is all

Please explain.

[Ed Who?]

God is a giant pat of butter.

Prove me wrong.

He will. Can't wait.

[Ed Who?]

Please explain.

I think he's saying that because there are fossils in the ground, that must mean that God doesn't exist.

[Jiddy78]

God is a giant pat of butter.

Prove me wrong.


A giant pat of butter will deteriorate.

You lose.

[Jiddy78]

Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_birds_and_the_bees

[LSU]

I think he's saying that because there are fossils in the ground, that must mean that God doesn't exist.


Personally, I don't think the theory should be taken as an attack on the existence of God. I don't think the 2 are related.

[Jiddy78]

Personally, I don't think the theory should be taken as an attack on the existence of God. I don't think the 2 are related.


Pass the bong hippie.

[Ed Who?]

Personally, I don't think the theory should be taken as an attack on the existence of God. I don't think the 2 are related.

They are only related because people who challenge the existence of God consistently use it as their supporting evidence.

[Hotpapa666]

A giant pat of butter will deteriorate.

You lose.

So do old men with long white beards but that doesn't stop believers from believing.

[Hotpapa666]

Please explain.

I think he means that the intermediary species DID exisit and are well documented in the fossil record. Perhaps no Duckodile but you take what nature gives you.

[pnkpanther]

Please explain.

FOSSILS

i believe are dated to older age then bible says earth is

[Nixon's Head]

Pass the bong hippie.http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/z/C/bush_bong.jpg

[Vegas]

FOSSILS

i believe are dated to older age then bible says earth is

1) That doesn't prove evolution.

2) The initial conditions assumed for radiometric dating are impossible to prove.

[Ed Who?]

FOSSILS

i believe are dated to older age then bible says earth is

Assuming that the 7 days of creation depicted in Genesis were really 7 24-hour days.

[Jiddy78]

So do old men with long white beards but that doesn't stop believers from believing.

An artistic rendering is hardly what I was ever taught in my catholic upbringing...Actually, they make it a huge point to stress that the use of "He" in the Bible is strictly for consistency and not to be taken literally, as God is neither he nor she.

So....I guess my point is.....So?

[LSU]

Assuming that the 7 days of creation depicted in Genesis were really 7 24-hour days.


the way I read it, God made light, then he made night and day, and that one night/day period was considered a "day". So, if we're talking in terms of a night/day span on Earth, than 1 day his time does equal 1 day our time.

[Ed Who?]

the way I read it, God made light, then he made night and day, and that one night/day period was considered a "day". So, if we're talking in terms of a night/day span on Earth, than 1 day his time does equal 1 day our time.

That's a good point. I know what I believe, and no fossil discovery is going to change that.

[Hotpapa666]

An artistic rendering is hardly what I was ever taught in my catholic upbringing...Actually, they make it a huge point to stress that the use of "He" in the Bible is strictly for consistency and not to be taken literally, as God is neither he nor she.

So....I guess my point is.....So?


There is also clear contextual evidence that there are mutiple authors with differing concepts of what "God" is in the early chapters of the Bible. And, the Bible's own rendering of God doesn't agree with itself from chapter to chapter.

[LSU]

That's a good point. I know what I believe, and no fossil discovery is going to change that.



That's cool, I'm not out to change beliefs.

[Jiddy78]

There is also clear contextual evidence that there are mutiple authors with differing concepts of what "God" is in the early chapters of the Bible. And, the Bible's own rendering of God doesn't agree with itself from chapter to chapter.

I guess this really depends on whether you think God can be defined or not...

Personally, I find it hard to believe that God would allow us to define him...because, being all-powerful would imply that he has the power to NOT allow himself to be defined. We have borders/paradigms/parameters of logic with which we are bound currently...He does not.

The question is: Is this fair? And the follow-up question is: Does it matter?

[LSU]

I want people to understand both Creation and evolution better and to understand the science behind both.

And as far as the absolute proof, I was referring to the fact that a lot of uneducated people assume that evolution has been proven. I wasn't very clear.



If you find time, I'd still like to read about the science behind Creation.

[Nixon's Head]

Reading this thread takes me back to The Gospel of the FSM. I know many here look at it as a joke, but after reading the book and having some time to reflect on it, there are some things within the text that makes one think. Like has been mentioned in this thread everything is just a theory and no one really knows or can explain why we're here. I think we should all be open to those various theories until someone can come forth with something that is indeed proven and explains all of the mysteries that is this life.

[LSU]

Reading this thread takes me back to The Gospel of the FSM. I know many here look at it as a joke, but after reading the book and having some time to reflect on it, there are some things within the text that makes one think. Like has been mentioned in this thread everything is just a theory and no one really knows or can explain why we're here. I think we should all be open to those various theories until someone can come forth with something that is indeed proven and explains all of the mysteries that is this life.



As long as by "theory" you mean a scientific theory, which by definition is different than your average run-of-the-mill theory or idea.

Because if you're just talking about "theory" in general (not scientific), then "God pooped and the Earth was created" is a "theory".

[Nixon's Head]

As long as by "theory" you mean a scientific theory, which by definition is different than your average run-of-the-mill theory or idea.

Because if you're just talking about "theory" in general (not scientific), then "God pooped and the Earth was created" is a "theory".That is what I meant, but I do like your poop theory.

[LSU]

That is what I meant, but I do like your poop theory.


I've spent years formulating it.

[Jiddy78]

As long as by "theory" you mean a scientific theory, which by definition is different than your average run-of-the-mill theory or idea.

Because if you're just talking about "theory" in general (not scientific), then "God pooped and the Earth was created" is a "theory".


Everything that lives on earth poos in some way
And thats how the cycle happens each and everyday
Just look at the green green grass and the birds up in the sky
Its all here because of poo and now ill tell you why

Grass is eaten by the cattle
Which is eaten by women and men
Defuses with their body, and becomes poo again
And that poo goes through the sewer
which is tucked into the sea
and its eaten by the plankton which becomes the fishes me
We got bigger fish with the poo still inside
Swims up near the shore and gets eaten alive
By a grizzly bear that poos on a dead piece of sand
So that it can spring to the life and become poo for the land!

Its the poo of the antelope, the poo of the giraffe
Which crawls up to the earth, and becomes the blades of grass
The grass is eaten by the cattle, which comes out the other end
To make poo for the humans, and start all over again.

Mr: Hankey You see son? Youre not an insignificate part of life!
You are life!
Cornwallis: But how can I be that blade of grass? Or a human?
I dont control what they do
Mr. Hankey: Just like your heart beets without u thinking about it.
So do your giraffes and humans do what they do. Without you even
thinking about it! But it is all one life form. It is all you.
Cornwallis: I think I see now (deep singinge voice)
Im the poo of the antelope, that flows onto the ground
Mr. Hankey: Which becomes the grass of tomorrow
Cornwallis: Yea
Mr. Hankey: Which the critters turn around
Cornwallis: And I'm the leg of a leopard. And the wings of a hen.
Both: Which becomes the inner part of humans, and turn back to
poo again. Thats the circle, the circle of poooooooooooo.

[pnkpanther]

That's a good point. I know what I believe, and no fossil discovery is going to change that.

open minded guy like you? no way

i'm not saying god and evoloution cant co-exisit.

I just think bible has a few things wrong

[LSU]

open minded guy like you? no way

i'm not saying god and evoloution cant co-exisit.

I just think bible has a few things wrong


I don't know that I'd go as far as to say the Bible is wrong...but that would be dependent on whether or not you believe the Bible is meant to be completely literal.

[LSU]

For those interested, here is the youtube clip of the Cameron interview.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQHCVaYNr9c

[LSU]

For those interested, here is the youtube clip of the Cameron interview.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQHCVaYNr9c



Cameron's argument is basically "there is something as complex as the eye and if I see a painting, I know there's a painter."


Basically, stuff happened that is too complex, in his mind, to have just happened by chance. The "too complex" argument still baffles me to this day.

But the thing that really puts it over the top is that he has a picture of a crocoduck...and evolution could not have happened because there has not been a crocoduck fossil found.

Brilliant!


As for his "debate" on nightline, I have not seen it, but I wonder who the "atheists" were that he debated and what qualifications they had in the study of such things as the cosmos and evolutionary theory...that is, are they qualified to debate on science's behalf or were they just atheists that were found that wanted to debate? Anybody catch that one?

[Jiddy78]

Cameron's argument is basically "there is something as complex as the eye and if I see a painting, I know there's a painter."


Basically, stuff happened that is too complex, in his mind, to have just happened by chance. The "too complex" argument still baffles me to this day.

But the thing that really puts it over the top is that he has a picture of a crocoduck...and evolution could not have happened because there has not been a crocoduck fossil found.

Brilliant!


As for his "debate" on nightline, I have not seen it, but I wonder who the "atheists" were that he debated and what qualifications they had in the study of such things as the cosmos and evolutionary theory...that is, are they qualified to debate on science's behalf or were they just atheists that were found that wanted to debate? Anybody catch that one?


There is little foundation to an argument where a guy states that life is too complex for his mind to comprehend....Of course, that argument may carry a little bit more merit if one states life is too complex for ANY mind to understand or ALL MINDS PUT TOGETHER to understand.


That is, if we are arguing the whether or not an evolutionary "theory" can be proven valid or not.

[LSU]

There is little foundation to an argument where a guy states that life is too complex for his mind to comprehend....Of course, that argument may carry a little bit more merit if one states life is too complex for ANY mind to understand or ALL MINDS PUT TOGETHER to understand.


That is, if we are arguing the whether or not an evolutionary "theory" can be proven valid or not.



Understanding and explaining/proving are quite different though. The way Kirk goes about arguing against evolution directly leads me to believe he doesn't stand any of the science behind it.

And if what you say is true, then to simply explain what is so complex by saying "God", then either way, you're doing it injustice.

[LSU]

There is little foundation to an argument where a guy states that life is too complex for his mind to comprehend....Of course, that argument may carry a little bit more merit if one states life is too complex for ANY mind to understand or ALL MINDS PUT TOGETHER to understand.


That is, if we are arguing the whether or not an evolutionary "theory" can be proven valid or not.



And, as I've said, I don't think evolutionary theory will be "proven" (that is to say made law) at any point in my lifetime.

[LSU]

And, as I've said, I don't think evolutionary theory will be "proven" (that is to say made law) at any point in my lifetime.


However, I guess the flipside of that may be to say that nothing should be "law" because it's all based on what we know, and as we know, we don't know much. Our knowledge is limited by our knowledge.

[Jiddy78]

However, I guess the flipside of that may be to say that nothing should be "law" because it's all based on what we know, and as we know, we don't know much. Our knowledge is limited by our knowledge.

Assumptions are for assholes.

See you at church.

[LSU]

Assumptions are for assholes.

See you at church.



Been there 5 weeks in a row now.

[Jiddy78]

Been there 5 weeks in a row now.

I'm still on the layaway plan...I went twice a week for 18 years and once for the next 4...I figure I'm due 18 years of leeway...I'm on year 7 now...It's like early church retirement IMO. One day I'll sneak back in and steal some young pup's job...err...weekly place in the pew.

[LSU]

I'm still on the layaway plan...I went twice a week for 18 years and once for the next 4...I figure I'm due 18 years of leeway...I'm on year 7 now...It's like early church retirement IMO. One day I'll sneak back in and steal some young pup's job...err...weekly place in the pew.


I was once a week for about 17 years. But that doesn't include summers between 1976 and 1985 because Dad had too much fishing to do on Sundays.

Then I had about a 13 year layoff. Now I'm back in the saddle. Once a week.

[Jiddy78]

I was once a week for about 17 years. But that doesn't include summers between 1976 and 1985 because Dad had too much fishing to do on Sundays.

Then I had about a 13 year layoff. Now I'm back in the saddle. Once a week.


If it makes you feel better, I used to watch Mr. Wizard after I went....to balance my chi.

[LSU]

If it makes you feel better, I used to watch Mr. Wizard after I went....to balance my chi.



I used to watch Mr. Wizard all the time. That old bastard ruled.

[Jiddy78]

I used to watch Mr. Wizard all the time. That old bastard ruled.

He looked very much like an artist rendering of God...as does Jean-Luc Picard. I claim conspiracy.

[IBC]

All this talk about Mr. Wizard has made me remember a real American hero:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Bnsg2.jpg

[Jiddy78]

All this talk about Mr. Wizard has made me remember a real American hero:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Bnsg2.jpg


That penisnose is no Mr. Wizard.

[Reagan Smash]

He looked very much like an artist rendering of God...as does Jean-Luc Picard. I claim conspiracy.

See, I always pictured God like Jaga from Thundercats, but again, that's just me.

[LSU]

I googled "God" and looked at the images.

On the first page, albeit not one of the first hits, was this:

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/god_hates_fags.jpg

[IBC]

I googled "God" and looked at the images.

On the first page, albeit not one of the first hits, was this:

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/god_hates_fags.jpg

I can't believe they call themselves Christians. Sick.

[Reagan Smash]

I can't believe they call themselves Christians. Sick.

Alot of sick things have been done in the name of religion, but I wouldn't want to see a world without it. I think, despite the problems that have been associated with religion, it does more good then bad.

[LSU]

Alot of sick things have been done in the name of religion, but I wouldn't want to see a world without it. I think, despite the problems that have been associated with religion, it does more good then bad.

I tend to agree.

[Nixon's Head]

Cameron's argument is basically "there is something as complex as the eye and if I see a painting, I know there's a painter."


Basically, stuff happened that is too complex, in his mind, to have just happened by chance. The "too complex" argument still baffles me to this day.

But the thing that really puts it over the top is that he has a picture of a crocoduck...and evolution could not have happened because there has not been a crocoduck fossil found.

Brilliant!


As for his "debate" on nightline, I have not seen it, but I wonder who the "atheists" were that he debated and what qualifications they had in the study of such things as the cosmos and evolutionary theory...that is, are they qualified to debate on science's behalf or were they just atheists that were found that wanted to debate? Anybody catch that one?http://www.geocities.com/anuragvit/cross/crocoduck.jpg

[LSU]

http://www.geocities.com/anuragvit/cross/crocoduck.jpg




Looks like Mad's made a few visits around the swamp.

[Nixon's Head]

Looks like Mad's made a few visits around the swamp.There are some more interesting animals here (http://www.geocities.com/anuragvit/morefunny.htm).

[LSU]

There are some more interesting animals here (http://www.geocities.com/anuragvit/morefunny.htm).



Hybrid vigor at it's best.

[Vegas]

I can't believe they call themselves Christians. Sick.

I don't call them Christian. Those people make me sick.

[Jiddy78]

I don't call them Christian. Those people make me sick.


Welp...I'm going into the judgmental pit of hell for Rush...You get the anti-gays.

Maybe we'll be close. I'll say hello sometime.

[hannitykillspuppies]

you guys do realize that you are arguing in favor for an idea/theory/belief/whatever you want to call it that can never be proven, right?

[LSU]

you guys do realize that you are arguing in favor for an idea/theory/belief/whatever you want to call it that can never be proven, right?


you mean like somebody arguing that the conspiracy theorists are correct in believing the 9/11 stuff was an elaborate plot formed by the government?

[hannitykillspuppies]

you mean like somebody arguing that the conspiracy theorists are correct in believing the 9/11 stuff was an elaborate plot formed by the government?
exactly.

[Ed Who?]

you guys do realize that you are arguing in favor for an idea/theory/belief/whatever you want to call it that can never be proven, right?

You do realize that the whole point of Christianity is that salvation is based on faith alone?

See, I'd probably lump myself in with the Evangelicals, but I also know when people aren't ready to hear stuff. And I don't know any of you well enough to know whether you are believers at any level.

In my worldview, it will be proven, someday. In your worldview, we will all die without an afterlife. I have hope. Whether that be a blind hope that never comes about, that's neither here nor there. Everyone can adopt that hope of eternal life, but they have to believe.

[hannitykillspuppies]

You do realize that the whole point of Christianity is that salvation is based on faith alone?

See, I'd probably lump myself in with the Evangelicals, but I also know when people aren't ready to hear stuff. And I don't know any of you well enough to know whether you are believers at any level.

In my worldview, it will be proven, someday. In your worldview, we will all die without an afterlife. I have hope. Whether that be a blind hope that never comes about, that's neither here nor there. Everyone can adopt that hope of eternal life, but they have to believe.

i understand that. however, faith is believing without truly knowing. thus until you die or the rapture you cannot say that god does in fact exist and that creation truly took place.

you sir, have no idea what my worldview is. for someone claiming to be a believer, you're pretty damn judgemental of others. wait that's the m.o. for a large % of believers.

[IBC]

you sir, have no idea what my worldview is. for someone claiming to be a believer, you're pretty damn judgemental of others. wait that's the m.o. for a large % of believers.

Have you no decency sir, at long last, have you no decency?

[BoredWithNoSB]

Duck-o-dile has been found!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080212/sc_livescience/newduckbilleddinodiscoveredinmexico

[IBC]

Duck-o-dile has been found!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080212/sc_livescience/newduckbilleddinodiscoveredinmexico

Well, that settles it. :D

[the greatest poster alive]

I'd have no problem with intelligent design, if they stopped trying to push it into a science curriculum...

There is absolutely no science behind it, and that's what really bothers me. Can anyone argue why intelligent design should be taught side by side with evolution?

[Jiddy78]

As much as it makes no sense, whenever I tell my wife, an atheist, to go to hell...I never get a pass.

Shenanigans on this whole concept.

[thrasymachus]

They are only related because people who challenge the existence of God consistently use it as their supporting evidence.
Wrong. They are related because Christians were afraid that people would get wind of evolutionary theory and stop believing in God because it explained things a hell of a lot better than they did. So they made it illegal to teach evolution.

[Hotpapa666]

Duck-o-dile has been found!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080212/sc_livescience/newduckbilleddinodiscoveredinmexico

FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!

They found the motherfucking Duck-o-dile!!!

Now will Mr. Cameron go on O'reilly so they can both look each other in the eye and say, "We were wrong."?

Of course not, because from the beginning he had a safety net. He didn't say, "I won't lend any credence to evloution until they find the duck-o-dile, at which point I throw all of my support behind it." What these crafty manipulators of truth did is say "No duck-o-dile, no evolution," now that a duck-o-dile has been found, they will wait, then require a different, yet to be discovered intermediary species (sic). Sigh.

I'm still pumped they found the duck-o-dile thoughl perhaps this is a croc-o-duck though, since it starts crocodile and ends duck.

[Ed Who?]

Duck-o-dile has been found!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080212/sc_livescience/newduckbilleddinodiscoveredinmexico

The nice thing about bones is that you can construct them to make whatever shape you want. Plaster also makes a good substitute when you can't find the ones that support your hypothesis.

[Jiddy78]

The nice thing about bones is that you can construct them to make whatever shape you want. Plaster also makes a good substitute when you can't find the ones that support your hypothesis.

"In the beginning, God created the media then put his feet up and let them handle the rest."

[IBC]

The nice thing about bones is that you can construct them to make whatever shape you want. Plaster also makes a good substitute when you can't find the ones that support your hypothesis.

My God, said the atheist. I am no scientist, but you just ignore science all together. I know how sick you are of hearing it, but there is fact man. Sometimes you just have to go with ... "hey, maybe my God could've had a hand in evolution, and his hands off role is something I can accept." I can accept that from people. After a while though, you have to look at how this sounds man.

[V]

Have any of you watched the History of God on the History Channel?

[Vegas]

My God, said the atheist. I am no scientist, but you just ignore science all together. I know how sick you are of hearing it, but there is fact man. Sometimes you just have to go with ... "hey, maybe my God could've had a hand in evolution, and his hands off role is something I can accept." I can accept that from people. After a while though, you have to look at how this sounds man.

So you're telling a guy that makes his living in science that he's ignoring science? Interesting.

But once again, they find a fossil that has fully formed features and call it a trasitional. What is it transitional between? There has never been any sequence of fossils to show transition between forms. The mantra of the evolutionists is still "Our evidence didn't fossilize."

[IBC]

So you're telling a guy that makes his living in science that he's ignoring science? Interesting.

But once again, they find a fossil that has fully formed features and call it a trasitional. What is it transitional between? There has never been any sequence of fossils to show transition between forms. The mantra of the evolutionists is still "Our evidence didn't fossilize."

I think I scientist claiming that these scientists are faking these discoveries by making up bones with plaster is a bit over the edge, yes.

[thrasymachus]

I think I scientist claiming that these scientists are faking these discoveries by making up bones with plaster is a bit over the edge, yes.
Remember that episode of the Simpsons with the fossil of the angel?

[Ed Who?]

I think I scientist claiming that these scientists are faking these discoveries by making up bones with plaster is a bit over the edge, yes.

Scientists are people too.

You accuse me of being an over-the-edge Christian zealot, yet you cannot acknowledge that a scientist with an agenda could go to the same lengths?

[Hotpapa666]

Scientists are people too.

You accuse me of being an over-the-edge Christian zealot, yet you cannot acknowledge that a scientist with an agenda could go to the same lengths?

There are three people on this board who have made, currently do make or will make their living as a scientists and each of us knows what happens to people who fake data. They get caught, rather quickly, they are outed and their career is destroyed along with their theories.

Calling these people 'fakers' right out of the gate skips the VERY important step of putting their theory up to the test. If they are put to the test and pass. It's good science, if not, it's bad science. Of course, there are all of those skeletons in all of those museums and all of those universities which have been put to the test and passed muster. You aren't convinced so I've concluded that your agenda doesn't allow you to be convinced. That is your right, I suppose, but that doesn't make you right.


Not to Ed,

BTW, didn't I say that creationists wouldn't be swayed by the discovery of what they set as their own standard for evolution? They said until scientists discovered a duck-o-dile, evolution wasn't convincing. Now that a duck-o-dile has been discovered the misguided discrediting of the duck-o-dile begins. How tightly people are willing to grip onto the notion of god, his powers, his importance,..., in the face of libraries and museums full of real, tangible infomation to the contrary is stunning.

[Ed Who?]

Interesting:

V. coahuilensis, one of the first dinosaurs to be named from Mexico, was discovered in the early 1990s in a rock unit known as the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, which dates from about 71.5 to 72.5 million years ago, in the late Cretaceous.

Of course, it takes 15 years to decide that the thing has a duck bill.

Someone wants to see a duck billed dinosaur, poof it falls into scientists' laps. I'm not only less-than-convinced, I'm unconvinced. But again, use it however you want. You have seen it in person as many times as I have, but then again, it wasn't in some Republican/Christian rag, so it must be fully verifiable.

Just like the Haditha atrocities.

[Hotpapa666]

Interesting:



Of course, it takes 15 years to decide that the thing has a duck bill.

Someone wants to see a duck billed dinosaur, poof it falls into scientists' laps. I'm not only less-than-convinced, I'm unconvinced. But again, use it however you want. You have seen it in person as many times as I have, but then again, it wasn't in some Republican/Christian rag, so it must be fully verifiable.

Just like the Haditha atrocities.


Why are you unconvinced?

[Ed Who?]

Why are you unconvinced?

Why are you unconvinced of an age-old book?

[Hotpapa666]

Why are you unconvinced of an age-old book?

Well, first off, you can't answer a question with a question. Second, we aren't talking about an old book.

But, I'm in a good so I'll you anyway. The Bible is self contradictory. It has obviously been written by several people, some of whom disagree on pretty basic stuff. It has been edited countless times with little regard for the original text. It does a lousy job of explaining existence. It doesn't even mention modern concepts like, space, elements, cells, photons, DNA,.... It can't be bothered to follow it's own rules toward morality. I could go on.

Now, why are you unconvinced by fossil data?

[the greatest poster alive]

Interesting:



Of course, it takes 15 years to decide that the thing has a duck bill.

Someone wants to see a duck billed dinosaur, poof it falls into scientists' laps. I'm not only less-than-convinced, I'm unconvinced. But again, use it however you want. You have seen it in person as many times as I have, but then again, it wasn't in some Republican/Christian rag, so it must be fully verifiable.

Just like the Haditha atrocities.


15 years to decide it had a duck bill goes to support the incredible amount of fact-checking in the scientific community. They waited until they were sure that this species had the duck bill... before they went public by it...

Would you rather they have rushed the data to the press, only to have to back-track 10 years later when new data is discovered?


That's the difference between Science and Religion. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, it doesn't claim that everything it says is absolutely true. It only states what they have observed, and what they have tested so far. They don't speak in absolutes, which allow them to adapt when things change... Change is something religion has failed miserably in.

[Hotpapa666]

15 years to decide it had a duck bill goes to support the incredible amount of fact-checking in the scientific community. They waited until they were sure that this species had the duck bill... before they went public by it...

Would you rather they have rushed the data to the press, only to have to back-track 10 years later when new data is discovered?


That's the difference between Science and Religion. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, it doesn't claim that everything it says is absolutely true. It only states what they have observed, and what they have tested so far. They don't speak in absolutes, which allow them to adapt when things change... Change is something religion has failed miserably in.

Couldn't agree more. However, this isn't the first time that Ed has been told this. He refuses to view it as the truth...

[Ed Who?]

15 years to decide it had a duck bill goes to support the incredible amount of fact-checking in the scientific community. They waited until they were sure that this species had the duck bill... before they went public by it...

Similarly to the way they waited 15 years to begin touting global warming.

[the greatest poster alive]

Similarly to the way they waited 15 years to begin touting global warming.

are you so dense that you can't see the difference between the theory of evolution, and global warming?

There is no negative affects of waiting with the Duckodile discovery. while Global warming would have been a huge scandal had scientists sat on data that suggested we could be bringing ourselves to a climate change.

The reason scientists went to the press before all the data was in, was because If they are right, and a climate change is eminent, it's in our best interests to start changing our behavior as quickly as possible. Fifteen years from now, it's POSSIBLE that the majority of the coastal areas would be underwater.

[Hotpapa666]

Similarly to the way they waited 15 years to begin touting global warming.

So how about responding to this post:

Well, first off, you can't answer a question with a question. Second, we aren't talking about an old book.

But, I'm in a good so I'll you anyway. The Bible is self contradictory. It has obviously been written by several people, some of whom disagree on pretty basic stuff. It has been edited countless times with little regard for the original text. It does a lousy job of explaining existence. It doesn't even mention modern concepts like, space, elements, cells, photons, DNA,.... It can't be bothered to follow it's own rules toward morality. I could go on.

Now, why are you unconvinced by fossil data?

[Vegas]

Now, why are you unconvinced by fossil data?

Just because a fully formed fossil of an extinct animal is found, that hardly proves evolution. Extinction proves extinction as predicted by the law of increasing entropy.

If there were a series of fossils showing the changes between species, that would be far different. Nobody has even come close.

[Ed Who?]

are you so dense that you can't see the difference between the theory of evolution, and global warming?

There is no negative affects of waiting with the Duckodile discovery. while Global warming would have been a huge scandal had scientists sat on data that suggested we could be bringing ourselves to a climate change.

The reason scientists went to the press before all the data was in, was because If they are right, and a climate change is eminent, it's in our best interests to start changing our behavior as quickly as possible. Fifteen years from now, it's POSSIBLE that the majority of the coastal areas would be underwater.

Of course, if it has nothing to do with our emissions, we'll be flooded anyway. And instead they will have put a huge burden on industry and our economy...the same of which can't be said for real polluters like China and India. But, then again, China's a beloved Communist nation, so more power to the peop...er, government.

[Hotpapa666]

Just because a fully formed fossil of an extinct animal is found, that hardly proves evolution. Extinction proves extinction as predicted by the law of increasing entropy.

If there were a series of fossils showing the changes between species, that would be far different. Nobody has even come close.

Then what are those "itermediary species" (sic) that we see in fossils if not fossils showing changes between species, or evolution?

[the greatest poster alive]

Of course, if it has nothing to do with our emissions, we'll be flooded anyway. And instead they will have put a huge burden on industry and our economy...the same of which can't be said for real polluters like China and India. But, then again, China's a beloved Communist nation, so more power to the peop...er, government.

There's an overwhelming majority of scientists that believe that at the very LEAST, man has had a role in accelerating the process.

America needs to move towards energy independence, and cut back it's own pollution before it's in a position to criticize the governments of other nations. How easily do you think we could be called hypocrites if we didn't make any effort on our end to improve the conditions, and started talking about China/India, who I don't disagree are the biggest problems. But that doesn't mean America isn't contributing to the problem as well.

Does it really bother you that much, that you're getting lightbulbs that will last longer, and will save you money over the course of a few years? Are appliances that are more energy efficient, which save you money, that bad?

Are cars that use less gas, and omg... save you money, really that big of inconvenience that you oppose it, due to it "making it hard for the industry"

Big fucking deal, the auto industry survived mandatory seatbelts, airbags, and the current emmissions standards, It will survive this one as well.

[Vegas]

Then what are those "itermediary species" (sic) that we see in fossils if not fossils showing changes between species, or evolution?

If evolution is true, the fossil record should have produced thousands of transitional forms. That's not what we see. There is a regular and systematic absence of transitional forms between higher categories as well as an absence of the common ancestors that should be there.

The "intermediary species" are appear just as abruptly and fully formed as everything else in the fossil record as does most every animal alive today.

[Vegas]

There's an overwhelming majority of scientists that believe that at the very LEAST, man has had a role in accelerating the process.



There is not an overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that manmade activities are responsible for global warming. That's a myth thrown out there by people who have latched onto the issue as it fits their political agenda.

[Vegas]

are you so dense that you can't see the difference between the theory of evolution, and global warming?



What kind of debate are you trying to have making a post like this?

[Hotpapa666]

If evolution is true, the fossil record should have produced thousands of transitional forms. That's not what we see. There is a regular and systematic absence of transitional forms between higher categories as well as an absence of the common ancestors that should be there.

The "intermediary species" are appear just as abruptly and fully formed as everything else in the fossil record as does most every animal alive today.

How do you determine "what should be there"? Is there a model that you can link me to?

Of course they appear fully formed; they wouldn't be viable as partially formed animals. The fact that as you go up in strata in the fossil record contains speicies that don't exist in lower, older, levels is compelling enough evidence that evolution is reality.

[the greatest poster alive]

There is not an overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that manmade activities are responsible for global warming. That's a myth thrown out there by people who have latched onto the issue as it fits their political agenda.

I never said man-made activities were responsible. I said most scientists believe man-made activities are PARTIALLY responsible...

You can continue to ignore scientific evidence if you wish... as it fits your political agenda...

[Vegas]

How do you determine "what should be there"? Is there a model that you can link me to?

Of course they appear fully formed; they wouldn't be viable as partially formed animals. The fact that as you go up in strata in the fossil record contains speicies that don't exist in lower, older, levels is compelling enough evidence that evolution is reality.

"What should be there" is what's predicted by the evolution model. It's all about the gradual change. But the fossil record doesn't show any of the transitional forms. And if they weren't viable, how did they survive long enough to produce the gradual change? That's not a small problem for evolution.

And in the pre-Cambrian rocks, there are no fossils. There is an abrupt explosion of fully formed species (including virtually everything still alive today) in the Cambrian rocks and NOTHING prior to that. The steps between invertebrates and vertebrates are completely missing. That's another huge problem for evolution.

[Vegas]

I never said man-made activities were responsible. I said most scientists believe man-made activities are PARTIALLY responsible...

You can continue to ignore scientific evidence if you wish... as it fits your political agenda...

OK, but I'm not ignoring anything. I believe that man's contribution to global warming is immeasurable.

[Jiddy78]

There is not an overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that manmade activities are responsible for global warming. That's a myth thrown out there by people who have latched onto the issue as it fits their political agenda.


LA is gaining on Mexico City...Seeing is believing...and that bigass cloud of cancer sitting over the city is good enough for me.

That said, I'll run for the hills when I see the tide come in more than the natural ebb and flow...It's the developers down here that are killing our beaches and causing erosion-but even that is minimal...I look forward to the tide coming in 10 miles due west to my crib....I'm sure I'll have ample warning to caulk the wagon.

[Hotpapa666]

"What should be there" is what's predicted by the evolution model. It's all about the gradual change. But the fossil record doesn't show any of the transitional forms. And if they weren't viable, how did they survive long enough to produce the gradual change? That's not a small problem for evolution.

And in the pre-Cambrian rocks, there are no fossils. There is an abrupt explosion of fully formed species (including virtually everything still alive today) in the Cambrian rocks and NOTHING prior to that. The steps between invertebrates and vertebrates are completely missing. That's another huge problem for evolution.

So can you link me to a model that says what should be there?

I never said any species wasn't viable. They have to be viable, to fullfil a niche, to survive. Evolution happens as selections pressures change, for a variety of reasons.

1st the Cambrian period is a long period of time, it lasted from roughly 540 Million years ago to 490 Million years ago. A pretty long time.

It appears you are wrong about precambrian fossils.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm

[Vegas]

So can you link me to a model that says what should be there?

I never said any species wasn't viable. They have to be viable, to fullfil a niche, to survive. Evolution happens as selections pressures change, for a variety of reasons.

1st the Cambrian period is a long period of time, it lasted from roughly 540 Million years ago to 490 Million years ago. A pretty long time.

It appears you are wrong about precambrian fossils.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm

Darwin laid out the map of how one species evolved into another. He said that in order to prove the theory, that the transitional fossils needed to be found. That's the whole point.

But the viable species that you assume was there didn't fossilize. That's the point. There should be thousands of times more transitionals than there are finalized species. There have been incredible numbers of fossils categorized and all of those thousands and thousands of steps in between the fully formed species are nowhere to be found.

[Vegas]

It appears you are wrong about precambrian fossils.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm

As far as the pre-Cambrian fossils you linked, I believe there are serious questions as to whether they were actually pre-Cambrian. But regardless, whatever forms have been found there don't explain the Cambrian explosion and the fully formed species including the vertebrates and invertebrates. The transitionals in the Cambrian rocks are missing. Once again, you believe in untold numbers of species none of which fossilized. And then you want to insult people who believe in something different.

[thrasymachus]

Darwin laid out the map of how one species evolved into another. He said that in order to prove the theory, that the transitional fossils needed to be found. That's the whole point.

But the viable species that you assume was there didn't fossilize. That's the point. There should be thousands of times more transitionals than there are finalized species. There have been incredible numbers of fossils categorized and all of those thousands and thousands of steps in between the fully formed species are nowhere to be found.
There are two (or possibly more) theories behind evolution, most notably gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Perhaps both occur.

[thrasymachus]

"What should be there" is what's predicted by the evolution model. It's all about the gradual change. But the fossil record doesn't show any of the transitional forms. And if they weren't viable, how did they survive long enough to produce the gradual change? That's not a small problem for evolution.

And in the pre-Cambrian rocks, there are no fossils. There is an abrupt explosion of fully formed species (including virtually everything still alive today) in the Cambrian rocks and NOTHING prior to that. The steps between invertebrates and vertebrates are completely missing. That's another huge problem for evolution.
Where does the bulk of the evidence lie?

[Vegas]

Where does the bulk of the evidence lie?

I don't understand your question.

[Hotpapa666]

Darwin laid out the map of how one species evolved into another. He said that in order to prove the theory, that the transitional fossils needed to be found. That's the whole point.

But the viable species that you assume was there didn't fossilize. That's the point. There should be thousands of times more transitionals than there are finalized species. There have been incredible numbers of fossils categorized and all of those thousands and thousands of steps in between the fully formed species are nowhere to be found.

Except that there are. The reason I keep putting "transitional species" (sic) in quotes and following it with a (sic) is because it is kind of a nonsense term. Evolution does't progress with an end result in mind, each species is out there competeing for it's existence. Evolution happens by random chance.

And, it appears you are wrong about no "transitional species" (sic) found in teh fossil record as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

[thrasymachus]

I don't understand your question.
Nevermind. This topic is pointless to discuss.

[Vegas]

There are two (or possibly more) theories behind evolution, most notably gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Perhaps both occur.

But there is no real evidence for either.

[Vegas]

Except that there are. The reason I keep putting "transitional species" (sic) in quotes and following it with a (sic) is because it is kind of a nonsense term. Evolution does't progress with an end result in mind, each species is out there competeing for it's existence. Evolution happens by random chance.

And, it appears you are wrong about no "transitional species" (sic) found in teh fossil record as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

It depends on how you define transitional. Nobody has ever shown a sequence of fossils with one species evolving into another. The evidence is simply not there.

[thrasymachus]

But there is no real evidence for either.
I don't know what you mean by evidence.

We have this great faculty known as reason. One theory makes a lot more rational sense than the other. That is why religious authority has always been afraid of science.

[Hotpapa666]

As far as the pre-Cambrian fossils you linked, I believe there are serious questions as to whether they were actually pre-Cambrian. But regardless, whatever forms have been found there don't explain the Cambrian explosion and the fully formed species including the vertebrates and invertebrates. The transitionals in the Cambrian rocks are missing. Once again, you believe in untold numbers of species none of which fossilized. And then you want to insult people who believe in something different.

First. I haven't insulted anyone. You continue to accuse me of insulting people and I continue to not insult people. Please stop accussing me of doing things that I don't do.

The bold section is true. But there are compelling explainations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

[Vegas]

I don't know what you mean by evidence.

We have this great faculty known as reason. One theory makes a lot more rational sense than the other. That is why religious authority has always been afraid of science.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there.

And reasonable scientists can question evolution. There are some serious scientific issues. Entropy, the first life cell, the ecosystem, symbiosis, etc.

[Hotpapa666]

It depends on how you define transitional. Nobody has ever shown a sequence of fossils with one species evolving into another. The evidence is simply not there.

If that's not enough for you explain to me in as much detail as possible what it would take to convince you.

[Vegas]

If that's not enough for you explain to me in as much detail as possible what it would take to convince you.

How would you respond to me if I asked what it would take for you to believe in Creation?

[Vegas]

First. I haven't insulted anyone. You continue to accuse me of insulting people and I continue to not insult people. Please stop accussing me of doing things that I don't do.

The bold section is true. But there are compelling explainations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion.

Maybe there are explanations, but they're a lot more compelling to someone who is already convinced of evolution. They're also putting theory on top of theory. They're offering possible explanations, but again no evidence. None.

[thrasymachus]

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there.

And reasonable scientists can question evolution. There are some serious scientific issues. Entropy, the first life cell, the ecosystem, symbiosis, etc.
That is fine that there are general problems with the theory, because it is not a fully functional and comprehensive theory. There is an abundant lack of evidence to fully support it.

However, what you are doing is trying to find problems with a theory that simply makes more sense (in a broad and general way) than intelligent design.

But before I attack intelligent design too much, why don't you explain the theory to me in full detail?

[Hotpapa666]

How would you respond to me if I asked what it would take for you to believe in Creation?

A bunch of things would satisfy me. How about some footage. How about god (sic) knocking on my door and telling me he did it. Stuff along those lines.

Now your turn. What will satisfy you?

[Vegas]

That is fine that there are general problems with the theory, because it is not a fully functional and comprehensive theory. There is an abundant lack of evidence to fully support it.

However, what you are doing is trying to find problems with a theory that simply makes more sense (in a broad and general way) than intelligent design.

But before I attack intelligent design too much, why don't you explain the theory to me in full detail?

The theory of evolution makes more sense if you're already convinced of the truth of it.

I'm not a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. I believe in special Creation.

[thrasymachus]

The theory of evolution makes more sense if you're already convinced of the truth of it.

I'm not a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. I believe in special Creation.
Ok. So what is Special Creation? A link explaining it would be acceptable.

[Hotpapa666]

.

Maybe there are explanations, but they're a lot more compelling to someone who is already convinced of evolution. They're also putting theory on top of theory. They're offering possible explanations, but again no evidence. None.

No, the explainations, the evidence are why I believe (sic) in evolution.

What do mean no evidence? The fossil data IS the evidence. The oxygen levels in the soil samples IS the evidence. That article that I linked is full of evidence.

[Vegas]

A bunch of things would satisfy me. How about some footage. How about god (sic) knocking on my door and telling me he did it. Stuff along those lines.

Now your turn. What will satisfy you?

In all honesty, I'm a person of small faith. I studied the science of this stuff for several years before I really formed a strong opinion. If I could be convinced that evolution was a better scientific explanation than Creation, I could turn around quicker than you think.

[thrasymachus]

The theory of evolution makes more sense if you're already convinced of the truth of it.

I'm not a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. I believe in special Creation.
By the way, can you prove to me that you exist? Because whatever you tell me, it will probably be persuasive since I already believe you exist, but it will not be real evidence, according to your standards.

[Vegas]

Ok. So what is Special Creation? A link explaining it would be acceptable.

Here's a good site with a lot of scientific information:

http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm

[thrasymachus]

Here's a good site with a lot of scientific information:

http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm
Is that a link to a site about Special Creation? The site name "Evolution-Facts" seems to suggest otherwise. I don't want to sift through a bunch of material anti-evolution when I could read the core beliefs of a belief system.

[Vegas]

Is that a link to a site about Special Creation? The site name "Evolution-Facts" seems to suggest otherwise. I don't want to sift through a bunch of material anti-evolution when I could read the core beliefs of a belief system.

I'll try to find a better one.

[Vegas]

Is that a link to a site about Special Creation? The site name "Evolution-Facts" seems to suggest otherwise. I don't want to sift through a bunch of material anti-evolution when I could read the core beliefs of a belief system.

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

[thrasymachus]

I'll try to find a better one.
You realize the site you first linked me to makes this statement:

"Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years."

[thrasymachus]

You realize the site you first linked me to makes this statement:

"Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years."
I guess so, since the second link makes the same claim.

[Vegas]

I guess so, since the second link makes the same claim.

And that's not a scientific problem as there are ways that the earth can be dated very young. The decay of the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric helium, salt content of the ocean, etc.

[thrasymachus]

And that's not a scientific problem as there are ways that the earth can be dated very young. The decay of the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric helium, salt content of the ocean, etc.
The argument for the earth's magnetic field is made from pure ignorance. The magnetic field reverses every few thousand years, as indicated by the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. The argument is based on a small sample size of 150 years and doesn't take into consideration a wide range of other evidence for the sole purpose of trying to date the Earth at 10,000 years of age.

[thrasymachus]

And that's not a scientific problem as there are ways that the earth can be dated very young. The decay of the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric helium, salt content of the ocean, etc.
The problem is: this is the nature of science. I've taken some time now to look at the arguments for the age of the Earth being 10,000 years old. Many of them have been absolutely shot down. But the nature of science is that if you throw enough problems at it, it's going to reach something it hasn't proven yet.

Most of the arguments are completely bogus. That should be an indication to you of how desperate these "scientists" are to defend Christianity.

[Vegas]

The problem is: this is the nature of science. I've taken some time now to look at the arguments for the age of the Earth being 10,000 years old. Many of them have been absolutely shot down. But the nature of science is that if you throw enough problems at it, it's going to reach something it hasn't proven yet.

Most of the arguments are completely bogus. That should be an indication to you of how desperate these "scientists" are to defend Christianity.

Just because someone writes a possible explanation doesn't mean something is absolutely shot down. There are rebuttals on both sides. And when you refer to someone as a "scientist" you're overlooking their credentials.

[KinjaKahn]

Which came first, the laws of physics or the big bang?

[Hotpapa666]

Which came first, the laws of physics or the big bang?

Easy. The Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, followed in the following very short period of time.

[ryr8828]

Something from nothing.

[Roy Munson]

So you're telling a guy that makes his living in science that he's ignoring science? Interesting.


I've tried to hammer this point home repeatedly. What an interesting scientific method that must be...

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

[ryr8828]

I've tried to hammer this point home repeatedly. What an interesting scientific method that must be...

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

This does not necessarily have to deter someone from a religious viewpoint.

[Roy Munson]

This does not necessarily have to deter someone from a religious viewpoint.
at some point, I'd think scientific evidence would for one who supposedly also prays to the god of science.

[ryr8828]

at some point, I'd think scientific evidence would for one who supposedly also prays to the god of science.

How many people do you know that try to prove a hypothesis to an unknown end with no leaning as to the outcome?

There is no scientific evidence against God, nor will there ever be.

[Roy Munson]

How many people do you know that try to prove a hypothesis to an unknown end with no leaning as to the outcome?

There is no scientific evidence against God, nor will there ever be.
No evidence for or against god, though there is evidence against the big book.

[ryr8828]

No evidence for or against god, though there is evidence against the big book.

There was evidence that OJ Simpson was innocent.

[thrasymachus]

How many people do you know that try to prove a hypothesis to an unknown end with no leaning as to the outcome?

There is no scientific evidence against God, nor will there ever be.
That's why it amazes me why religious believers are so afraid of science.

If they embraced science, they wouldn't alienate nearly as many people from their views.

[ryr8828]

That's why it amazes me why religious believers are so afraid of science.

If they embraced science, they wouldn't alienate nearly as many people from their views.
I'm not afraid of science. I also don't have to believe every thing I read.

It amazes me why some people are so hellbent on disproving God when they can't.

[Vegas]

I'm not afraid of science. I also don't have to believe every thing I read.

It amazes me why some people are so hellbent on disproving God when they can't.

And religious people aren't all anti-science. The majority aren't IMO.

[MTVike]

And religious people aren't all anti-science. The majority aren't IMO.

*raises hand*

Please don't take away my MS degree.

Though I am just a speck on a grain of sand on a beach on a world that is in a solar system that is just a speck in a universe that is just .....

Yep, we know it all.

[Hotpapa666]

My take on the science vs. religion debate.

Noone is anti-science, maybe the people who live on that island off of Kawaii are, maybe the folks who live in the Jungle of the Amazon, or Papau/New Guinee, I digress... People are selectively anti-science. They are all for science when it puts DVD players in their cars, when they hurt themselves and have to go to the doctor, when they want to get on the internet, turn on the lights, drive to work, etc... However, when science begins to raise questions about long held beliefs, people get defensive, which is a perfectly natural reaction. People get really defensive about Religion, God and long held notion about how humanity got here; I'm sure the Romans had a difficult time adjusting to the notion that some character named God was the new creator and not the old guy Juno. Hence, a great deal of defensiviness and resistence to change; understandable, but not justified.

Science doesn't purport to have answered every and all questions; science is a work in progress. However, this doesn't mean that it is logical to dismiss everything that humanity has discovered through science in the field of evolution, any more that we should throw out our computers because they aren't quantum computers.

The arguements against evolution are always arguments in shadows: 'you don't have this so you haven't proven evolution', like the arguement that began this thread. Of course, the people who introduce these standards aren't willing to subject their own beliefs to the same standards: Where is the garden of Eden? Where is Noah's Ark? etc.. Dispite thousands of years of searching they are nowhere to be found. Evolutionary biologists have only been at it in earnest for a hundred years or so and already have pieced together an extremely compelling history of the species on Earth. It will only draw the picture into sharper and sharper focus.

[Ed Who?]

In response to hotpapa's post...

I don't blame scientists for the religion vs. science thing. There are certain brands of people, on both sides of the discussion, who have it in their will to create more of this unrest. From what I've experienced, those people tend not to be religious figures or scientists. Yes, there are outspoken pastors/priests/rabbis, and there are outspoken scientists. But usually there is someone there spinning it to the public...an ideologue.

Hotpapa is an ideologue, on the side of wanting to disprove religion with a fervor. I am an ideologue, but my ideology is more that I will never doubt my belief in Christ, and believe that the scientific findings will be explained properly in the long run. I will probably be skeptical of bone finds and such, but even if they are verifiable they fit into God's universe around us.

I get the impression that Hotpapa hates religion, specifically Christianity. I don't hate science; in fact, science puts food on my table. I wouldn't do this myself, but I have been around science long enough to know of scientists who "fudged" data for various reasons. Perhaps they ran out of time before their thesis was due, or they thought a better yield in an experiment would make a paper publishable...these are theoretical but typical examples of things I've heard about. It happens. And when it happens, every time there's a reason.

That's why I say that, when there's a find that directly addresses a concern raised by a skeptical community, you must be skeptical. Let's say I went with a friend to a garbage dump and told him I'd give him a million dollars if I came back tomorrow and he'd pulled a 1920 nickel from the dump. If I came back the next day and he had that exact nickel, would I be sane to accept that the person found it in the dump and didn't go down to a collectable's shop and purchase one for the going price?

[Hotpapa666]

In response to hotpapa's post...

I don't blame scientists for the religion vs. science thing. There are certain brands of people, on both sides of the discussion, who have it in their will to create more of this unrest. From what I've experienced, those people tend not to be religious figures or scientists. Yes, there are outspoken pastors/priests/rabbis, and there are outspoken scientists. But usually there is someone there spinning it to the public...an ideologue.

Hotpapa is an ideologue, on the side of wanting to disprove religion with a fervor. I am an ideologue, but my ideology is more that I will never doubt my belief in Christ, and believe that the scientific findings will be explained properly in the long run. I will probably be skeptical of bone finds and such, but even if they are verifiable they fit into God's universe around us.

I get the impression that Hotpapa hates religion, specifically Christianity. I don't hate science; in fact, science puts food on my table. I wouldn't do this myself, but I have been around science long enough to know of scientists who "fudged" data for various reasons. Perhaps they ran out of time before their thesis was due, or they thought a better yield in an experiment would make a paper publishable...these are theoretical but typical examples of things I've heard about. It happens. And when it happens, every time there's a reason.

That's why I say that, when there's a find that directly addresses a concern raised by a skeptical community, you must be skeptical. Let's say I went with a friend to a garbage dump and told him I'd give him a million dollars if I came back tomorrow and he'd pulled a 1920 nickel from the dump. If I came back the next day and he had that exact nickel, would I be sane to accept that the person found it in the dump and didn't go down to a collectable's shop and purchase one for the going price?

Ed, why don't you just respond to my post on it's merits rather than writing paragraphs placing people into little catagories and me along with them? I'm an ideologue now? Who cares what my motivation is? Respond to arguements with arguements, not personal BS.

Yes, people fudge data. And you know what happens when people fudge data? They get caught. So either a vast conspiracy has been under way for a century to "fudge data" to undermine Creationism (Those fucking 5 Jewish Bankers again I'm sure) or the theory of evolution is pretty rock solid.

The problem with your last paragraph is that it is a terrible fucking analogy. There is no million dollar prize. Scientists haven't made up the Muesums and Universities full of fossils. They aren't making up the genetic data today.

[swordfish]

Ed, why don't you just respond to my post on it's merits rather than writing paragraphs placing people into little catagories and me along with them? I'm an ideologue now? Who cares what my motivation is? Respond to arguements with arguements, not personal BS.

Yes, people fudge data. And you know what happens when people fudge data? They get caught. So either a vast conspiracy has been under way for a century to "fudge data" to undermine Creationism (Those fucking 5 Jewish Bankers again I'm sure) or the theory of evolution is pretty rock solid.

The problem with your last paragraph is that it is a terrible fucking analogy. There is no million dollar prize. Scientists haven't made up the Muesums and Universities full of fossils. They aren't making up the genetic data today.

At least they don't lie about cloning in South Korea. That would really hurt stem cell research.

[ryr8828]

At least they don't lie about cloning in South Korea. That would really hurt stem cell research.

Headlines over that doctor's success-infinite
Headlines over his admission of fakery-there were a few

[Hotpapa666]

Swordfish, like I said, you fudge data you get caught. Keep arguing in shadows. Of course, you have proof that all of the world's museums and univeristies have faked their fossils. I look forward to reading it.

Ryr, the news of that Korean guy faking his data was at least as big of news as his discoveries. It was a lead story in every major publication. It was huge in the scientific press, it was all over the radio and TV. What more do you want?

[IBC]

In response to hotpapa's post...

I don't blame scientists for the religion vs. science thing. There are certain brands of people, on both sides of the discussion, who have it in their will to create more of this unrest. From what I've experienced, those people tend not to be religious figures or scientists. Yes, there are outspoken pastors/priests/rabbis, and there are outspoken scientists. But usually there is someone there spinning it to the public...an ideologue.

Hotpapa is an ideologue, on the side of wanting to disprove religion with a fervor. I am an ideologue, but my ideology is more that I will never doubt my belief in Christ, and believe that the scientific findings will be explained properly in the long run. I will probably be skeptical of bone finds and such, but even if they are verifiable they fit into God's universe around us.

I get the impression that Hotpapa hates religion, specifically Christianity. I don't hate science; in fact, science puts food on my table. I wouldn't do this myself, but I have been around science long enough to know of scientists who "fudged" data for various reasons. Perhaps they ran out of time before their thesis was due, or they thought a better yield in an experiment would make a paper publishable...these are theoretical but typical examples of things I've heard about. It happens. And when it happens, every time there's a reason.

That's why I say that, when there's a find that directly addresses a concern raised by a skeptical community, you must be skeptical. Let's say I went with a friend to a garbage dump and told him I'd give him a million dollars if I came back tomorrow and he'd pulled a 1920 nickel from the dump. If I came back the next day and he had that exact nickel, would I be sane to accept that the person found it in the dump and didn't go down to a collectable's shop and purchase one for the going price?

If thousands of thousands of people had replicated the same act under the clsoe supervision of others then you would be insane, yes.

[IBC]

And religious people aren't all anti-science. The majority aren't IMO.

When you say fossils are faked, with all that evidence, that is anti-science.

[Vegas]

When you say fossils are faked, with all that evidence, that is anti-science.

Fossils have been faked. It's a fact. If I point that out, it doesn't make me anti-science.

I was tired of those insults from you a long time ago.

[IBC]

Fossils have been faked. It's a fact. If I point that out, it doesn't make me anti-science.

I was tired of those insults from you a long time ago.

I am not insulting you. However, to deny the existence of fossils does not agree with science.

[IBC]

Fossils have been faked. It's a fact. If I point that out, it doesn't make me anti-science.

I was tired of those insults from you a long time ago.

How was I even insulting you? To suggest that science tells us that there are fossils of dinosaurs is not an insult. It is a fact.

[IBC]

One more thing dude, you have been riding the insult train on me lately, and I for one am sick and tired of being respectful to your views while having my views laughed at, satirized and generally pissed on by you. Take it how you want bro, but I am expected to respect the fact that hundreds of thousands of fossil records have been faked, but you can't respect the fact that I believe the attacks on Obama have ramped up and there are people that are making strange allies right now? I mean, shit man, really?

[Jiddy78]

Fossils have been faked. It's a fact. If I point that out, it doesn't make me anti-science.

I was tired of those insults from you a long time ago.

???

http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex72k.jpg


Why would Field Museum in Chicago have Sue if fake fossils were a fact? Doesn't fact at least have to be indisputable?

[IBC]

???

http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex72k.jpg


Why would Field Museum in Chicago have Sue if fake fossils were a fact? Doesn't fact at least have to be indisputable?

There have been faked fossils, but there is a mountain of ones that are real. Most of teh ones that were "faked" were mistakes, later corrected. A few were actual hoaxes put on to attract attention and fame to a scientist.

[Vegas]

I am not insulting you. However, to deny the existence of fossils does not agree with science.

When did I deny the existence of fossils? Quite the contrary, pal. I've stated more than once that there have been billions of fossils found but that there aren't any transitionals. Nobody has shown any sequence of fossils, which should be there if evolution is true. They don't exist.

[Vegas]

???

http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex72k.jpg


Why would Field Museum in Chicago have Sue if fake fossils were a fact? Doesn't fact at least have to be indisputable?

I'm talking about faked transitionals. I have never disputed the existence of fossils.

[Jiddy78]

I'm talking about faked transitionals. I have never disputed the existence of fossils.

I was about to say...Sue would be pissed.

[IBC]

When did I deny the existence of fossils? Quite the contrary, pal. I've stated more than once that there have been billions of fossils found but that there aren't any transitionals. Nobody has shown any sequence of fossils, which should be there if evolution is true. They don't exist.

You just deny their age is accurate. Sorry if I misrepresented you. Others here have claimed them as fakes, still others have called them tricks by the devil. Sorry man.

[Vegas]

You just deny their age is accurate. Sorry if I misrepresented you. Others here have claimed them as fakes, still others have called them tricks by the devil. Sorry man.

I don't deny that their age can be dated as they have been either. I just point out that the assumptions that are required to be true to date them that old are impossible to prove and are highly questionable.

[IBC]

I don't deny that their age can be dated as they have been either. I just point out that the assumptions that are required to be true to date them that old are impossible to prove and are highly questionable.

Fair enough.

[Hotpapa666]

Fossils have been faked. It's a fact. If I point that out, it doesn't make me anti-science.

I was tired of those insults from you a long time ago.

I'm sure then you can give evidence of faked fossils. I hope you aren't refering to Piltdown man again. Because, that wasn't a fossil, it was two pieces of different animals' skulls; bone not fossil.

[Vegas]

I'm sure then you can give evidence of faked fossils. I hope you aren't refering to Piltdown man again. Because, that wasn't a fossil, it was two pieces of different animals' skulls; bone not fossil.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_16_159/ai_74981870

[Hotpapa666]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_16_159/ai_74981870

I'll try and read that later tonight. I have to go to work.

Happy fighting everyone.

[Vegas]

I'll try and read that later tonight. I have to go to work.

Happy fighting everyone.

Enjoy your work. And here are some quotes from prominent evolutionists regarding the fossil record:

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."

Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39.

"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."

Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist (Vol. 108; December 5, 1985), p. 67. Dr. Kemp is Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University.

"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831. Dr. Ridley is Professor of Zoology at Oxford University.

[thrasymachus]

When did I deny the existence of fossils? Quite the contrary, pal. I've stated more than once that there have been billions of fossils found but that there aren't any transitionals. Nobody has shown any sequence of fossils, which should be there if evolution is true. They don't exist.
How do you know what would or should be there if evolution is true?

Answer: You don't.

[swordfish]

So were back to either God made fake fossils to trick us, or the world is more than 10,000 years old. Do I have to choose sides now or can I wait for the rapture?

[Vegas]

So were back to either God made fake fossils to trick us, or the world is more than 10,000 years old. Do I have to choose sides now or can I wait for the rapture?


Where do you get that God made fossils to trick us or that fossils prove the world is more than 10,000 years old?

[IBC]

Where do you get that God made fossils to trick us or that fossils prove the world is more than 10,000 years old?

Previous debate here, I am sure. The other side is there is no god, ever, no how. :rolleyes:

[swordfish]

Where do you get that God made fossils to trick us or that fossils prove the world is more than 10,000 years old?

I don't think God made fossils to tricks us. I have heard the argument before. The Earth is 7000 years old or whatever and that fossils were put here to give more reasons not to believe in God. As far as fossils proving the Earth is greater than 10,000 years I can't do it. It would seem the large variety of sea dinosaurs would have survived any kind of catastrophe and still be alive today. Unless they lived in Sodom or Gomorrah.

[Hotpapa666]

Enjoy your work. And here are some quotes from prominent evolutionists regarding the fossil record:

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."

Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39.

"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."

Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist (Vol. 108; December 5, 1985), p. 67. Dr. Kemp is Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University.

"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831. Dr. Ridley is Professor of Zoology at Oxford University.

I did enjoy my work; it's pretty hard not to enjoy teaching kids P.E.; it's often seems like a dream that I am paid for such things...

As for the quotes. You and I both know that context is cement into which the pebbles of sound bites are set. One or two 20-30 year old sentences from a few scientists, completely ripped from their context doesn't really do much to make a case.

I know a little bit about science and research and one thing that I know is that Journals are really shitty about back dating their catalogue on-line. I'm writing this, real time, I'll check, these quotes for on-line sources:

1: The first appears to be a text book or a popular version of evolution wriiten for the masses (I can't find a picture of it, it's from 1979) written from the perspective of puntucated evolution. It hasn't been revised as far as I have seen. It is interesting to note, that adults who read this book on 1979 would have grown up not being taught things as basic to us today as the double-helical structure of DNA, in H.S., amoung other well established stalworths of genetics.

2: The New Scientist web site has no information about this quote that I can find so I can't comment on it; it could be completely fabricated, or rock solid, I don't know. Apearantly they don't back date...

3. Again, NewScientist doesn't have a link to the article on their web-site. I had some fun and look around on Google and some other methods to find the author. I found a link to this: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260. A creationist web site.

I did a little more poking around and Dr. Kemp seems to be pretty firmly evolutionary in his thinking. Here's a link to a much more recent pub: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.01076.x

It says right on the cover "Journal of Evolutionary Biology".


Lest anyone think otherwise. I am doing this research very quickly as I sit here. I have been typing and searching for less than 20 minutes so far and any research I've done is real time and using simple search engines like google.

Quote #3 doesn't show up on the NewScientist web-site either. I did find that Dr. Mark Ridley of Oxford Univeristy edited a book written by one of the Four Horseman, Dr. Richard Dawkins and has written many books on Evolution himself.

Have a look:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-8196242-8280048?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Mark%20Ridley

All in, I've spent about 40 minutes, between all of the minutia of life, pisses, kissing the wife good night, answering the phone... maybe 15 minutes of real work. And these quotes are pretty well shown to be taken out of context and not representative of the thinking of the people who are supposed to have spoken them.

There is often a motive for writers to use old journals as references, they are hard to track down. If someone wants to track down a quote, they have to go to a University, find the right library (find a place to park), find when they are open, find the publication (hope it isn't in binding) and find the quote. If the journal is on-line (say post 95) it's easy to be found to be misquoting sources. So they don't want to use those.

But in this modern day, we can still take the intellectually inauthentic down with great ease. I'm sorry Vegas, but, to Borrow a term from a T.V. show, "These quotes (myths) have been busted".

[KinjaKahn]

Easy. The Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, followed in the following very short period of time.
Funny how the religion of math and matter kinda doesn't let on about the laws of physics not existing at the "big bang" all the while citing observations & calculations based on the laws of physics as "proof".

[Hotpapa666]

Funny how the religion of math and matter kinda doesn't let on about the laws of physics not existing at the "big bang" all the while citing observations & calculations based on the laws of physics as "proof".

We've been through this Kinja. You'v been educated at least three times as to the difference between believing in a ghost in the sky who will make everything ok in the end-Religion- and evidence based discovery-science.

You will continue to prop up this phony argument because you have no other arguments...

[KinjaKahn]

We've been through this Kinja. You'v been educated at least three times as to the difference between believing in a ghost in the sky who will make everything ok in the end-Religion- and evidence based discovery-science.

You will continue to prop up this phony argument because you have no other arguments...
LOL. The argument stands, big bang is a belief, not a factual truth. Try explaining the big bang without any reference to the "Laws of Physics" as they were no "laws of physics" at the "moment" of the big bang. Then again I gave a diagram showing 6 different plausible "ideas" that offer an explanation for the univverse and or the "observed" expansion of the universe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/kinjakahn/theory1.jpg

So which one is true, not which one won the popularity contest?

Big Bang is a belief, subject to change. It should be taught in a philosophy class not a science class. It is not a settled fact.

[Hotpapa666]

LOL. The argument stands, big bang is a belief, not a factual truth. Try explaining the big bang without any reference to the "Laws of Physics" as they were no "laws of physics" at the "moment" of the big bang. Then again I gave a diagram showing 6 different plausible "ideas" that offer an explanation for the univverse and or the "observed" expansion of the universe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/kinjakahn/theory1.jpg

So which one is true, not which one won the popularity contest?

Big Bang is a belief, subject to change. It should be taught in a philosophy class not a science class. It is not a settled fact.

You were wrong the first time you brought this argument out and you are still wrong.

I wish I had the time and patience to tear your rediculous argument apart again but I don't. I have to get a care-package together for my buddy in Iraq.

[KinjaKahn]

You were wrong the first time you brought this argument out and you are still wrong.

ROFL. You are still... months later, unable to submit your conclusive evidence to the scientific community.

[Hotpapa666]

ROFL. You are still... months later, unable to submit your conclusive evidence to the scientific community.

Yeah, this game again. You ask for evidence, I give evidence, you say 'that's not enough', I give more, you say "that's not enough', somewhere in the middle you throw a link to a Christian web-site that redicules science (well not all science, not the stuff that gets the lights to turn on or gets their backward thinking out into cyberspace)... Boy, that's allot of laughs.

[swordfish]

On a side note I was reading about Galileo Galilei. Here is a wikipedia entry.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[61]
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves, but there is no evidence that he actually said this or anything similarly impertinent.
....

, 1642. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[63] These plans were scrapped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested.[64] He was instead buried in a small room next to the novices' chapel at the end of a corridor from the southern transept of the basilica to the sacristy.[65] He was reburied in the main body of the basilica in 1737 after a monument had been erected there in his honour.[66]


Now I don't want to sound like a hater but here is my problem. I have heard the argument that the pope is the voice of God on Earth. Now I don't know if many Catholics believe this or not but here is the thing. Would God imprison a man for scientific discovery? Or would a zealot who is afraid of losing power do something like this? This is the main problem I have with some religions. They purport to be all knowing and a benefit to mankind. So when is it ok for the church to lie to the people. If the earth is not flat, nor the center of the universe please explain to me how God's messenger told these things and killed/imprisoned people for challenging it.

This story reminds me of the way governments are ran. If you get in their way they will imprison/denounce you and try their hardest to make you go away. Is this something God would condone or something that is just done by regular people who think they are God.

[KinjaKahn]

Yeah, this game again. You ask for evidence, I give evidence, you say 'that's not enough', I give more, you say "that's not enough', somewhere in the middle you throw a link to a Christian web-site that redicules science (well not all science, not the stuff that gets the lights to turn on or gets their backward thinking out into cyberspace)... Boy, that's allot of laughs.

What christian link have I posted that refers to this matter or is this assertion simply the result of anxious bewilderment? The simple reality is that the Big Bang is a belief. The laws of physics collapse tracing back to the big bang, yet quack science touts these laws as a basis for thier fictional creation theory. The beauty of it all is that you can believe what you want to, luckily belief in the big bang is your right. Sciences inability to rule out alternative theories pertaining to the beginning of the universe is lost on you. You have been programmed to believe the result of the popularity contest. How long before you buy into the 11 dimensions of string theory and its prediction that any typical human being can walk through a solid concrete wall if given enough chances and time?

[Hotpapa666]

What christian link have I posted that refers to this matter or is this assertion simply the result of anxious bewilderment? The simple reality is that the Big Bang is a belief. The laws of physics collapse tracing back to the big bang, yet quack science touts these laws as a basis for thier fictional creation theory. The beauty of it all is that you can believe what you want to, luckily belief in the big bang is your right. Sciences inability to rule out alternative theories pertaining to the beginning of the universe is lost on you. You have been programmed to believe the result of the popularity contest. How long before you buy into the 11 dimensions of string theory and its prediction that any typical human being can walk through a solid concrete wall if given enough chances and time?

Ugh. Kinja, you have found a way to make yourself look obtuse into a hypothtical framework of a typical creationist argument on this site. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of you calling names or making generalizations with no supporting data to try and prop up your ghost (or is it Ghost?).

Kinja doesn't name the people who practice what he calls "quack science." he doesn't outline their theories, nor does he offer explainations why the theories are wrong. Pretty convincing right?

[thrasymachus]

To anyone who supports the idea of Intelligent Design: What do you believe is a better system: Capitalism or Communism?

[Jiddy78]

To anyone who supports the idea of Intelligent Design: What do you believe is a better system: Capitalism or Communism?

I believe in God....and Capitalism....I just don't believe Capitalism is possible in a democracy...Too many are communistic in nature to make that happen (and vice versa)...Constant power struggle...So you get some sort of mix between the two....Commonly referred to by me as Babylonianism.

[KinjaKahn]

Ugh. Kinja, you have found a way to make yourself look obtuse into a hypothtical framework of a typical creationist argument on this site. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of you calling names or making generalizations with no supporting data to try and prop up your ghost (or is it Ghost?).

Kinja doesn't name the people who practice what he calls "quack science." he doesn't outline their theories, nor does he offer explainations why the theories are wrong. Pretty convincing right?

Im not trying to disprove the theories, just simply pointing out their weaknesses. They are not settled ideas, and you cant seem to grasp that, whether intentional or not. That being said I enjoy being blunt about it. Like it or not, the Big Bang is a belief, a very popular one, but not a settled factual event. Kind of like the utter bullshit about infinite energy being necessary to break a proton apart into individual quarks. Yet the clowns insist the quarks exist and are happy knowing they cant isolate a single quark. How fucking convenient.

[KinjaKahn]

To anyone who supports the idea of Intelligent Design: What do you believe is a better system: Capitalism or Communism?
Communists are godless garbage.

[Jiddy78]

Communists are godless garbage.

There is some unintentional humor in the fact that you capitalized "communists" but did not "Godless" in that sentence...

[KinjaKahn]

There is some unintentional humor in the fact that you capitalized "communists" but did not "Godless" in that sentence...
I skipped that day in "e"nglish, but "Communists" was the beginning of the sentence, and if I called them dumb "garbage" do I have to capitalize Dumb?

[MTVike]

I believe in God....and Capitalism....I just don't believe Capitalism is possible in a democracy...Too many are communistic in nature to make that happen (and vice versa)...Constant power struggle...So you get some sort of mix between the two....Commonly referred to by me as Babylonianism.

Yur deep dude.

[Jiddy78]

I skipped that day in "e"nglish, but "Communists" was the beginning of the sentence, and if I called them dumb "garbage" do I have to capitalize Dumb?

Here's a funny one you might appreciate....My in-laws were in for Christmas this year...On Christmas morning, I wished my m-i-l a merry Christmas...She sneered at me and responded "Ehhh...I'm half jewish"...Besides not knowing wtf that means, I'll probably never forget that moment...Was my first encounter Christmas morning...I'll never forget it...

[Jiddy78]

Yur deep dude.

If I was a woman, you'd f*ck me.

[KinjaKahn]

Here's a funny one you might appreciate....My in-laws were in for Christmas this year...On Christmas morning, I wished my m-i-l a merry Christmas...She sneered at me and responded "Ehhh...I'm half jewish"...Besides not knowing wtf that means, I'll probably never forget that moment...Was my first encounter Christmas morning...I'll never forget it...
She doesn't get into Christmas, and doesnt care that you do, would be my understanding.

[Jiddy78]

She doesn't get into Christmas, and doesnt care that you do, would be my understanding.

Oh come on...You're always good for a "That heathen will burn in hell" and I need one since if I say it, there could be repercussions.....Fine...I'll find Ed since you won't help a brother out....

[KinjaKahn]

Oh come on...You're always good for a "That heathen will burn in hell" and I need one since if I say it, there could be repercussions.....Fine...I'll find Ed since you won't help a brother out....

Jews aren't heathens.

[Jiddy78]

Jews aren't heathens.

The other half is not god-fearing...She was being a smartass...She's not Jewish...Her parents are.

[ryr8828]

Oh come on...You're always good for a "That heathen will burn in hell" and I need one since if I say it, there could be repercussions.....Fine...I'll find Ed since you won't help a brother out....

Fucking Jew Bastards.

[thrasymachus]

Communists are godless garbage.
Why do you say that?

I could use the same argument that the IDers use against evolution. "Looks like you have bought into a theory that doesn't have conclusive scientific evidence to back it up."

Looks like you have bought into a theory (capitalism) that doesn't have conclusive scientific evidence to back it up and support your claim that capitalism is better than communism.

[Ed Who?]

Here's a funny one you might appreciate....My in-laws were in for Christmas this year...On Christmas morning, I wished my m-i-l a merry Christmas...She sneered at me and responded "Ehhh...I'm half jewish"...Besides not knowing wtf that means, I'll probably never forget that moment...Was my first encounter Christmas morning...I'll never forget it...

That heathen will burn in Hell.

[Jiddy78]

See...Righties do have a sense of humor...It's only the whacko Ron Paul lovers that don't get it...:p

[Jiddy78]

See...Righties do have a sense of humor...It's only the whacko Ron Paul lovers that don't get it...:p

Here's one you'll get a laugh at Kinj....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og4eCQlRxXE

[Ed Who?]

See...Righties do have a sense of humor...It's only the whacko Ron Paul lovers that don't get it...:p

They get it, it just doesn't last as long for them.

[Hotpapa666]

Im not trying to disprove the theories, just simply pointing out their weaknesses. They are not settled ideas, and you cant seem to grasp that, whether intentional or not. That being said I enjoy being blunt about it. Like it or not, the Big Bang is a belief, a very popular one, but not a settled factual event. Kind of like the utter bullshit about infinite energy being necessary to break a proton apart into individual quarks. Yet the clowns insist the quarks exist and are happy knowing they cant isolate a single quark. How fucking convenient.

If you call not actually citing any studies or theories, not presenting any data or anything more than conjecture or any links to the people or articles that hold them, pointing out weakness... The only thing that you point is conjecture. For some reason you have switched to saying "Kind of like the utter bullshit about infinite energy being necessary to break a proton apart into individual quarks." why is it utter bullshit Kinja? How is it convieient? Is it more convenient than saying, "well, god must've done it,"?

BTW, I know a little bit about quarks, not allot mind you, but I have not read anything about infinite energy being required to isolate quarks. I know there is hope of isolating quarks in the new super collider in Switzerland.