1) Arrogant self delusion. A clear statement that you do not understand the message Jesus wanted you to hear.
2) We already had the thread so we're all well aware of the deliberate lie of the Creationist to redefine the Scientific meaning of the word theory into its more popular common usage.
3) Getoutahere. You just demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
4) Quite a remarkable statement from someone deluded, stupid, ignorant and with a clear intent to lie.
Hello, Im MarcUK, and somethimes I'm not very nice, and seeing as your occupation is "Dictator", I guess you're not here for a discussion anyway. Troll.
I'm smiling.
1) Arrogant? me? Why of course I am.
2) And I argue that the conotative use by the scientific community of the word theory is not the proper use. Scientists are not the declarers of truth, they are mere observers (as all life is) with a particularly refined set of tools. If scientists want to better the world, instead of just purely refining methods on using the laws of nature, then they need to determine how to a) protect it b) stop playing politics (that's someone else's job) this also goes for the church c) speak with and to the vernacular (i.e. don't live in an ivory tower)
3)I know exactly what I am talking about. Do I expect anyone else to understand. Nope. I just like poking the bear (i.e. people who take themselves way too seriously)
4)Lie? me? everyday, I think. It's so hard to keep track of what I say. Though I try not to, it causes me stomach pangs. About this however, I am adamant, I did not lie. I stated my clear and subjective opinion. Wonderful, in countries as ours that we can do that without being afraid that either the Evolutionary or the Creationary Gestapo will shoot us.
Hello, you are MarcUK and sometimes you are not nice. Well, the whole human race is sometimes not nice, nice to see you're honest about it. Me I try to be not nice all the time, polite yes, nice no. It's not completely honest.
Troll? Me? Maybe? If trying rile up both Creationists and Evolutionists into an argument qualifies, yes I am. "Dictator"? Only in my mind. How unfortunate for me, oh pooh, I'm gonna go sulk now.
P.S. I really do hope that you were really riled up by my post, I think we came close to some honesty there, but I feel you may have been still filtering yourself. If, however, you have been joshing me, I'd be impressed, yet dissappointed, yet still impressed.
P.P.S. I don't think of myself as a Troll, just a swine and a prankster, hence my handle on this board.
I'll put more stock in the creationism argument when the people that justify it by saying there just isn't the solid science to back up evolution realize the utter hypocricy of that line of thinking.
I'll put more stock in the creationism argument when the people that justify it by saying there just isn't the solid science to back up evolution realize the utter hypocricy of that line of thinking.
Sciences is based upon observations. It's not a dogma and is subject to change. The bible will never change.
You canno't compare a dogma : religion, with sciences.
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Do you seriously think that's how evolutionary theory works? That animals spontaneously transmogify into other animals? Puppys one day came out of snake eggs? Those are the lies creationists feed unsuspecting people to ridicule evolution and make it seem like complete fantasy bullshit and to distract from idiotic YEC theries they themselves push.
Do you seriously think that's how evolutionary theory works? That animals spontaneously transmogify into other animals? Puppys one day came out of snake eggs? Those are the lies creationists feed unsuspecting people to ridicule evolution and make it seem like complete fantasy bullshit and to distract from idiotic YEC theries they themselves push.
I'm not trying to make it simplistic...but I am asking a valid question.
Science is based on observation. Where are the observations that demonstrate this process?
fair enough, but the examples you cited are contrary to real evolutionary theory.
Well not really, right? I mean the ultimate theory suggests that everything (all of the diverse plants and animals we observe today) has evolved from some common, base, root thing(s). Perhaps over millions...or billions...or trillions of years or whatever. But that is the basic statement of the theory, am I correct?
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Every observation in the earth and life sciences is consistent with species emerging from others. DNA, anatomy, geology, botany, etc. etc.
Every observation in the earth and life sciences is consistent with species emerging from others. DNA, anatomy, geology, botany, etc. etc.
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer. But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
(Actually, I would say that the observations might be consistent with the existence of many similarities among various species...but that one has evolved to another is merely one possible way to explain those similarities.)
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
Examples of this exist in other fields as well...architecture, art, film making, writing, etc.
2) And I argue that the conotative use by the scientific community of the word theory is not the proper use. Scientists are not the declarers of truth, they are mere observers (as all life is) with a particularly refined set of tools. If scientists want to better the world, instead of just purely refining methods on using the laws of nature, then they need to determine how to a) protect it b) stop playing politics (that's someone else's job) this also goes for the church c) speak with and to the vernacular (i.e. don't live in an ivory tower)
Ahem. The definition of scientific theory is defined by scientist to allow for use of such a term as compared to hypothesis and law within the fields of science-- would I trust a layman to define conjecture and proof for a mathematician?
Politics is directly incorporated into science as it always has been, most of the US' founding fathers were scientists in the definition of the time (it was only by way of time and unfortunate precedent that the two became separate in the eyes of others). Why should I or any other scientist not care about everything that politics affects? We are citizens, no? And the descisions of the government affect our ability to do our work.
We speak with the lay people all the time -- do you read the new york times science/technology sections? The problem is that because of politics the educational level/understanding level of the lay person is often not sufficient for us to get everything across. All of our journals are public, you can read them -- we hide nothing that we don't hide from other scientists.
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
Sure. I think it would be wrong to ever completely dismiss a theory, no matter how implausible. But this intelligent designer would have to have made it look like life evolved according to the principles of biological evolution.
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer. But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
(Actually, I would say that the observations might be consistent with the existence of many similarities among various species...but that one has evolved to another is merely one possible way to explain those similarities.)
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
Examples of this exist in other fields as well...architecture, art, film making, writing, etc.
What you discribe with your software analogy is a limited intelligent design. A true genius should be able to write orginal code, the best suited to all situations at any times. The fact you find so much similiraties in all your work just demonstrated that you are a limited intelligence (read an human one, like all the posters here. )
In an another note, the most intelligent idears or design are the simpliest ones. The evolution can be considered like an intelligent design. A simple law, wich has allowed life to evolve from a simplistic pattern, to a fantastic diversity and an ever increasing complexity.
Read (if you believe in god) : god made life in all his diversity and complexity out of a single law : the evolution.
A true genius should be able to write orginal code, the best suited to all situations at any times. The fact you find so much similiraties in all your work just demonstrated that you are a limited intelligence
I say that because the world sure appears as if biological evolution occurred. Therefore, if an intelligent designer did it, he must have done it in such a way that it appears to us as if it was biological evolution. Pretty sneaky.
Comments
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
If God wants to play hard to get then why should I beleive?
If only He was. If only He was.
Originally posted by pig
I proclaim that those who would promote the exclusivity of either idea is only promoting their own personal or political agenda.
Do you believe your view on this matter is exclusively right or that it must be combined with others not to turn into a political crusade?
And if you believe you hold the only truth, why do you believe so?
1) Arrogant self delusion. A clear statement that you do not understand the message Jesus wanted you to hear.
2) We already had the thread so we're all well aware of the deliberate lie of the Creationist to redefine the Scientific meaning of the word theory into its more popular common usage.
3) Getoutahere. You just demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
4) Quite a remarkable statement from someone deluded, stupid, ignorant and with a clear intent to lie.
Hello, Im MarcUK, and somethimes I'm not very nice, and seeing as your occupation is "Dictator", I guess you're not here for a discussion anyway. Troll.
I'm smiling.
1) Arrogant? me? Why of course I am.
2) And I argue that the conotative use by the scientific community of the word theory is not the proper use. Scientists are not the declarers of truth, they are mere observers (as all life is) with a particularly refined set of tools. If scientists want to better the world, instead of just purely refining methods on using the laws of nature, then they need to determine how to a) protect it b) stop playing politics (that's someone else's job) this also goes for the church c) speak with and to the vernacular (i.e. don't live in an ivory tower)
3)I know exactly what I am talking about. Do I expect anyone else to understand. Nope. I just like poking the bear (i.e. people who take themselves way too seriously)
4)Lie? me? everyday, I think. It's so hard to keep track of what I say. Though I try not to, it causes me stomach pangs. About this however, I am adamant, I did not lie. I stated my clear and subjective opinion. Wonderful, in countries as ours that we can do that without being afraid that either the Evolutionary or the Creationary Gestapo will shoot us.
Hello, you are MarcUK and sometimes you are not nice. Well, the whole human race is sometimes not nice, nice to see you're honest about it. Me I try to be not nice all the time, polite yes, nice no. It's not completely honest.
Troll? Me? Maybe? If trying rile up both Creationists and Evolutionists into an argument qualifies, yes I am. "Dictator"? Only in my mind. How unfortunate for me, oh pooh, I'm gonna go sulk now.
P.S. I really do hope that you were really riled up by my post, I think we came close to some honesty there, but I feel you may have been still filtering yourself. If, however, you have been joshing me, I'd be impressed, yet dissappointed, yet still impressed.
P.P.S. I don't think of myself as a Troll, just a swine and a prankster, hence my handle on this board.
Nope. I just like poking the bear (i.e. people who take themselves way too seriously)
Keep them wagons trollin', trollin', RAWHIDE!
Originally posted by rageous
I'll put more stock in the creationism argument when the people that justify it by saying there just isn't the solid science to back up evolution realize the utter hypocricy of that line of thinking.
Well put
Why muddy the waters with such a trifle?
I subscribe to the Capitalistic OJ version of winning my arguments, Dolla Dolla bils, y'all!!
Seriously, who gives a flip. Creationists can't disprove Evolution and Evolutionists can't disprove Creation.
I don't see why people's feelings are getting hurt over something outside of their control.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Sciences is based upon observations. It's not a dogma and is subject to change. The bible will never change.
You canno't compare a dogma : religion, with sciences.
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Do you seriously think that's how evolutionary theory works? That animals spontaneously transmogify into other animals? Puppys one day came out of snake eggs? Those are the lies creationists feed unsuspecting people to ridicule evolution and make it seem like complete fantasy bullshit and to distract from idiotic YEC theries they themselves push.
Originally posted by Outsider
Do you seriously think that's how evolutionary theory works? That animals spontaneously transmogify into other animals? Puppys one day came out of snake eggs? Those are the lies creationists feed unsuspecting people to ridicule evolution and make it seem like complete fantasy bullshit and to distract from idiotic YEC theries they themselves push.
I'm not trying to make it simplistic...but I am asking a valid question.
Science is based on observation. Where are the observations that demonstrate this process?
It's just a question. Should be easy to answer.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not trying to make it simplistic...but I am asking a valid question.
Science is based on observation. Where are the observations that demonstrate this process?
It's just a question. Should be easy to answer.
fair enough, but the examples you cited are contrary to real evolutionary theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You can skip sections 1-4 and go strait to section 5.
Originally posted by Outsider
fair enough, but the examples you cited are contrary to real evolutionary theory.
Well not really, right? I mean the ultimate theory suggests that everything (all of the diverse plants and animals we observe today) has evolved from some common, base, root thing(s). Perhaps over millions...or billions...or trillions of years or whatever. But that is the basic statement of the theory, am I correct?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You can skip sections 1-4 and go strait to section 5.
I will try to read it. (Have you read this paper...and understand it?) If it were in english it might help.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Regarding "Sciences is based upon observations" and the theory of evolution...explain this...are there any repeatable, documented scientific experiments (and observations) that validate the theory of the emergence of one species from another (e.g., A snake becoming a dog...a fish becomign a bird...or whatever)?
Every observation in the earth and life sciences is consistent with species emerging from others. DNA, anatomy, geology, botany, etc. etc.
Originally posted by BRussell
Every observation in the earth and life sciences is consistent with species emerging from others. DNA, anatomy, geology, botany, etc. etc.
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer. But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
(Actually, I would say that the observations might be consistent with the existence of many similarities among various species...but that one has evolved to another is merely one possible way to explain those similarities.)
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
Examples of this exist in other fields as well...architecture, art, film making, writing, etc.
Originally posted by pig
2) And I argue that the conotative use by the scientific community of the word theory is not the proper use. Scientists are not the declarers of truth, they are mere observers (as all life is) with a particularly refined set of tools. If scientists want to better the world, instead of just purely refining methods on using the laws of nature, then they need to determine how to a) protect it b) stop playing politics (that's someone else's job) this also goes for the church c) speak with and to the vernacular (i.e. don't live in an ivory tower)
Ahem. The definition of scientific theory is defined by scientist to allow for use of such a term as compared to hypothesis and law within the fields of science-- would I trust a layman to define conjecture and proof for a mathematician?
Politics is directly incorporated into science as it always has been, most of the US' founding fathers were scientists in the definition of the time (it was only by way of time and unfortunate precedent that the two became separate in the eyes of others). Why should I or any other scientist not care about everything that politics affects? We are citizens, no? And the descisions of the government affect our ability to do our work.
We speak with the lay people all the time -- do you read the new york times science/technology sections? The problem is that because of politics the educational level/understanding level of the lay person is often not sufficient for us to get everything across. All of our journals are public, you can read them -- we hide nothing that we don't hide from other scientists.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
Sure. I think it would be wrong to ever completely dismiss a theory, no matter how implausible. But this intelligent designer would have to have made it look like life evolved according to the principles of biological evolution.
Originally posted by BRussell
Sure. I think it would be wrong to ever completely dismiss a theory, no matter how implausible.
Which is why those who believe in intelligent creation as the explanation for the origins of the universe shouldn't dismiss the theories of evolution.
Originally posted by BRussell
But this intelligent designer would have to have made it look like life evolved according to the principles of biological evolution.
What makes you say that?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer. But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
(Actually, I would say that the observations might be consistent with the existence of many similarities among various species...but that one has evolved to another is merely one possible way to explain those similarities.)
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
Examples of this exist in other fields as well...architecture, art, film making, writing, etc.
What you discribe with your software analogy is a limited intelligent design. A true genius should be able to write orginal code, the best suited to all situations at any times. The fact you find so much similiraties in all your work just demonstrated that you are a limited intelligence (read an human one, like all the posters here. )
In an another note, the most intelligent idears or design are the simpliest ones. The evolution can be considered like an intelligent design. A simple law, wich has allowed life to evolve from a simplistic pattern, to a fantastic diversity and an ever increasing complexity.
Read (if you believe in god) : god made life in all his diversity and complexity out of a single law : the evolution.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
A true genius should be able to write orginal code, the best suited to all situations at any times. The fact you find so much similiraties in all your work just demonstrated that you are a limited intelligence
Never written much code I guess?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What makes you say that?
I say that because the world sure appears as if biological evolution occurred. Therefore, if an intelligent designer did it, he must have done it in such a way that it appears to us as if it was biological evolution. Pretty sneaky.