[Biblesmasher]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

PublicAnimalNo9 how old is the earth?

Well it's a hell of a lot more than the 10,000 years old the whackos say it is.
And in that vein, the age of this planet has nothing to do with any of this.
Here's why:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

There's a lot of reading there if you wish to see the REAL science behind debunking evolution. There are even quotes from Darwin himself about how fragile his theory really was.
And you're safe, it's not going to throw God in your face. It's nothing but science.

Dude youre so uneducated about the subject that its cute. I thought they only made you in deep south USA. Or are we being punked/this is hard core "snark"? Please please tell me no one on this site really thinks this way.

[Biblesmasher]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again WATCH DonExodus2's videos. He clears most of these creationist misconception.

If this guys not pulling our collective chains, and really is someone that calls the entire community of biologists, geneticists and geologists "wackos" then sadly DonExodus2 cannot help him.

[Guy_Fawkes]

You’re probably right.

Its just annoying because its people like him that spurs Ben Stein and the other creationists on. Then shit starts to slide farther and farther then we get entire school districts and governments saying that Creationism is better science then Evolution. Then these people get into power and we go from a secular society built on reason to a theocracy.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Wow, molecular biology and chemistry aren't good enough for you? Or is it because it doesn't replace "evolution" with something else. Disproving something has nothing to do with replacing it with something more plausible.
The sciences of mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry and yes geology, all converge to refute evolutionism and yet the "science" of evolution has more credibility to you? With all the fossils we have of species that existed for millions of years, NOTHING shows any sort of evolutionary advancement. You'd think we'd see those traits appearing in the occassional fossil. Science has concluded that there have been several mass extinctions throughout the history of life on Earth. And yet, when new species crop up, it's a quantum leap in biology. Evolutionary theory claims these changes occur over millions of years. So how did the leaps occur? Where are all the evolutionary links between the dinosaurs of the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods? Every missing link to humankind evolutionists have claimed they found have been proven to NOT be the case. IF they can't even find that, how are we supposed to take them seriously about the rest of it. Like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a conclusion based on not having a better theory in place. Actually, it was used as a replacement for Creationism because that theory is just too non-scientific.

Here's the difference between you and I in this respect. I can honestly understand why people have a hard time believing in Creationism, it does seem pretty far-fetched. However, evolutionary theory also has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. I guess it's not as far fetched for you to believe that what was essentially a statistical anomoly developed into this full flourishing world we have today. So some ooze floating somewhere "decided" to become plant life. What's even MORE amazing, another spot of ooze "decided" to become animal life. Nahhh not the least bit far fetched

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again WATCH DonExodus2's videos. He clears most of these creationist misconception.

If this guys not pulling our collective chains, and really is someone that calls the entire community of biologists, geneticists and geologists "wackos" then sadly DonExodus2 cannot help him.

Are you even paying attention to this debate? The whackos I referred to are the extreme right wing religious nuts that claim the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I'll try and speak in more monosyllabic grunts for you so you can understand me better k?

[Guy_Fawkes]

Again, I have watched and read enough about evolution to take it as fact. You have not, you have gone to creationist web sites and have taken what they say as the authority on evolution.

Also do some research on the theory of abiogenisis.

Ugh I know you wont, the theological safty blanket you cling to is much to soft or cuddly to let go.

[Lemmy]

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. But evolution is a fact. To suggest otherwise is exactly like arguing that it's possible to escape death.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wow, molecular biology and chemistry aren't good enough for you? Or is it because it doesn't replace "evolution" with something else. Disproving something has nothing to do with replacing it with something more plausible.
The sciences of mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry and yes geology, all converge to refute evolutionism

Says you. The vast majority of research scientists working in relevant fields disagree with you. Why is that? And no offence, but your statements to date don't do much to raise the confidence of the average reader that, in matters of science, you really know what you're talking about.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Science has concluded that there have been several mass extinctions throughout the history of life on Earth.

Science has also concluded that we evolved. You dismissed that, yet you appeal to science here. One is drawn to conclude that you seem to conveniently select the scientific theories that suit your personal philosophy and discard others. All well and fine for your personal philosophy--but let's not confuse that with science.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a conclusion based on not having a better theory in place.

Ahh, finally--an accurate statement. I guess if you just keep typing random drivel long enough, sooner or later, you're bound to get one right now and then. Every theory is essentially provisional until a beter theory replaces it. If you have a better theory, then have a go. Submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal; if they can't knock it down they'll print it. The theory of evolution itself has changed and been refined profoundly in the last 150 years

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Here's the difference between you and I in this respect. I can honestly understand why people have a hard time believing in Creationism, it does seem pretty far-fetched. However, evolutionary theory also has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

The difference here is that one is science, and the other appeals to a metaphysical being that is not boudn by the laws of science and therefore is not part of science and therefore has no reason being discussed under the auspices of science.

Science is a little thing, a convenient tool we have to organize thought, to apply some systematic approach to the universe around us. Why someone would use such a paltry, limited thing as science to try to explain something as great as God is beyond me.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wow, molecular biology and chemistry aren't good enough for you? Or is it because it doesn't replace "evolution" with something else. Disproving something has nothing to do with replacing it with something more plausible.
The sciences of mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry and yes geology, all converge to refute evolutionism and yet the "science" of evolution has more credibility to you? With all the fossils we have of species that existed for millions of years, NOTHING shows any sort of evolutionary advancement. You'd think we'd see those traits appearing in the occassional fossil. Science has concluded that there have been several mass extinctions throughout the history of life on Earth. And yet, when new species crop up, it's a quantum leap in biology. Evolutionary theory claims these changes occur over millions of years. So how did the leaps occur? Where are all the evolutionary links between the dinosaurs of the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods? Every missing link to humankind evolutionists have claimed they found have been proven to NOT be the case. IF they can't even find that, how are we supposed to take them seriously about the rest of it. Like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a conclusion based on not having a better theory in place. Actually, it was used as a replacement for Creationism because that theory is just too non-scientific.

4 Hours old too! Watch it before you post next!

[Guy_Fawkes]

Science for the fucking win!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Says you. The vast majority of research scientists working in relevant fields disagree with you. Why is that? And no offence, but your statements to date don't do much to raise the confidence of the average reader that, in matters of science, you really know what you're talking about.

But of course you jumping on the insult bandwagon (among several others) instead of discussing this rationally really shows your sparkling intellectual prowess right?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science has also concluded that we evolved. You dismissed that, yet you appeal to science here. One is drawn to conclude that you seem to conveniently select the scientific theories that suit your personal philosophy and discard others. All well and fine for your personal philosophy--but let's not confuse that with science.

And you're not doing the same how? So because scientists that became Christians have dared to challenge the theory of evolution using science, not theology, they're still wrong about everything? You're playing the very game you accuse me of playing.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ahh, finally--an accurate statement. I guess if you just keep typing random drivel long enough, sooner or later, you're bound to get one right now and then.

You are so right, it's much easier to insult and trash talk people for their opinions/beliefs. Don't strain yourself thinking.[/quote]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The difference here is that one is science, and the other appeals to a metaphysical being that is not boudn by the laws of science and therefore is not part of science and therefore has no reason being discussed under the auspices of science.
Science is a little thing, a convenient tool we have to organize thought, to apply some systematic approach to the universe around us. Why someone would use such a paltry, limited thing as science to try to explain something as great as God is beyond me.

And how do you know that all these great scientific discoveries that we have had, don't each give us a small glimpse into how God did things?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

But of course you jumping on the insult bandwagon (among several others) instead of discussing this rationally really shows your sparkling intellectual prowess right?

It's not an insult, I'm just stating that you've made egregious errors in your reasoning, which means--at least for anyone that understands the underpinnings of scientific epistemology--your conclusions are suspect.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And you're not doing the same how? So because scientists that became Christians have dared to challenge the theory of evolution using science, not theology, they're still wrong about everything? You're playing the very game you accuse me of playing.

The Christians may be right about everything. But we're talking about science. If the creationists want to correct the record, they're going to to have to do through scientific peer-revewied journals, not through blogs and not through the media. It's not enough to say that there's problems with Darwinism; of course there's problems with Darwinism--a whole barrelful of them. But you have to develop a superior scientific theory, with all that that entails--predictive power, falsifiability, etc. Appealing to a divine creator is not a scientific theory.

$1:

And how do you know that all these great scientific discoveries that we have had, don't each give us a small glimpse into how God did things?

Insight into God--sure. Science has certainly provided me with many metaphysical insights. But gods, by definition, are supernatural and science, by definition, is only concerned with the natural world--and therefore never the twain shall meet.

[Biblesmasher]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again WATCH DonExodus2's videos. He clears most of these creationist misconception.

If this guys not pulling our collective chains, and really is someone that calls the entire community of biologists, geneticists and geologists "wackos" then sadly DonExodus2 cannot help him.

Are you even paying attention to this debate? The whackos I referred to are the extreme right wing religious nuts that claim the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I'll try and speak in more monosyllabic grunts for you so you can understand me better k?

Forgive me I miss read you. But can you blame me? Im paying attention to every one that isnt suggesting that evolution is "just a theory" (sounding like a creationist lunatic) and just skimming over your stuff. Sorry I cant take people seriously that think they know more than scientists that have studied these things in painstaking detail for decades of their lives. K?

[Biblesmasher]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wow, molecular biology and chemistry aren't good enough for you? Or is it because it doesn't replace "evolution" with something else. Disproving something has nothing to do with replacing it with something more plausible.
The sciences of mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry and yes geology, all converge to refute evolutionism and yet the "science" of evolution has more credibility to you? With all the fossils we have of species that existed for millions of years, NOTHING shows any sort of evolutionary advancement. You'd think we'd see those traits appearing in the occassional fossil. Science has concluded that there have been several mass extinctions throughout the history of life on Earth. And yet, when new species crop up, it's a quantum leap in biology. Evolutionary theory claims these changes occur over millions of years. So how did the leaps occur? Where are all the evolutionary links between the dinosaurs of the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods? Every missing link to humankind evolutionists have claimed they found have been proven to NOT be the case. IF they can't even find that, how are we supposed to take them seriously about the rest of it. Like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a conclusion based on not having a better theory in place. Actually, it was used as a replacement for Creationism because that theory is just too non-scientific.

Here's the difference between you and I in this respect. I can honestly understand why people have a hard time believing in Creationism, it does seem pretty far-fetched. However, evolutionary theory also has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. I guess it's not as far fetched for you to believe that what was essentially a statistical anomoly developed into this full flourishing world we have today. So some ooze floating somewhere "decided" to become plant life. What's even MORE amazing, another spot of ooze "decided" to become animal life. Nahhh not the least bit far fetched

HAHA man I wish I had read this first before responding to your other piece of Shakespeare. Haha look at you getting all huffy over "10,000 yrs." Bro, evolution doesn't have huge holes, you're knowledge of how science works does. You also apparently never learned who to trust. Here's a clue, if every last person that understands a theory and has examined enough evidence to earn a degree in the field tells you something, they're probably a better authority then...well...a cult leader or whomever it is feeding you bogus info.

[gonavy47]

God is just a theory too. Does anyone have definitive proof that there is a god? Science can't explain the existence of black holes in the universe either. Religion came about because we know very little about our universe and how it came to be, so we compensate by developing a belief system that makes us comfortable. That's just my theory. Of course, I can't prove any of it, for god's sake!