User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:11:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Your post doesn't read like that, man. Theory is a bad word to be tossing around in threads like this using the common meaning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:11:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Intelligent design is just as scientific as the big bang. They are both theories. scientific terms have specific meanings, that are not necessarily the same as everyday language. 'theory' is one of those terms. intelligent design does not meet any of the criteria for a scientific theory. it is--at best--a hypothesis, but in order to be promoted to the level of theory... -it would have to be testable. -it would have to be supported by a substantial body of positive evidence ("we haven't seen..." is negative, not positive). -it would have to cohere with the body of scientific knowledge, or do a better job of explaining other physical phenomena. -it would have to generate accurate predictions about future phenomena. -and it would have to generate new, testable hypotheses. when informed of this, the usual trope for creationists is to refuse to provide scientific support for their own position. instead of digging in and doing the grunt work of scientifically supporting ID, they want to stand on the sidelines and try to bash other viewpoints. they're actually a lot like marxists, who claim that the criteria of science are too rigorous. many marxist scholars actually make this complaint--that the method of science is just a tool designed to promote capitalism. creationists say the same thing, just substitute "atheism", "humanism", or whatever. long story short, ID in its current configuration is not scientific, and cannot qualify as a scientific theory. if you want to change that, get off the sidelines and do some work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:20:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Other then the bible I would like a creationist to cite actual evidence of the creation....because i have never seen any
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:21:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Please look up what "Theory" means in a scientific context. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Intelligent design is just as scientific as the big bang. They are both theories. You never answered my questions. No. Please look up what "Theory" means in a scientific context. I am using the word theory in a general way. Not as a scientific theory. Is the big bang theory a scientific theory? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:26:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
scientific terms have specific meanings, that are not necessarily the same as everyday language. 'theory' is one of those terms. intelligent design does not meet any of the criteria for a scientific theory. it is--at best--a hypothesis, but in order to be promoted to the level of theory... -it would have to be testable. -it would have to be supported by a substantial body of positive evidence ("we haven't seen..." is negative, not positive). -it would have to cohere with the body of scientific knowledge, or do a better job of explaining other physical phenomena. -it would have to generate accurate predictions about future phenomena. -and it would have to generate new, testable hypotheses. when informed of this, the usual trope for creationists is to refuse to provide scientific support for their own position. instead of digging in and doing the grunt work of scientifically supporting ID, they want to stand on the sidelines and try to bash other viewpoints. they're actually a lot like marxists, who claim that the criteria of science are too rigorous. many marxist scholars actually make this complaint--that the method of science is just a tool designed to promote capitalism. creationists say the same thing, just substitute "atheism", "humanism", or whatever. long story short, ID in its current configuration is not scientific, and cannot qualify as a scientific theory. if you want to change that, get off the sidelines and do some work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Intelligent design is just as scientific as the big bang. They are both theories. scientific terms have specific meanings, that are not necessarily the same as everyday language. 'theory' is one of those terms. intelligent design does not meet any of the criteria for a scientific theory. it is--at best--a hypothesis, but in order to be promoted to the level of theory... -it would have to be testable. -it would have to be supported by a substantial body of positive evidence ("we haven't seen..." is negative, not positive). -it would have to cohere with the body of scientific knowledge, or do a better job of explaining other physical phenomena. -it would have to generate accurate predictions about future phenomena. -and it would have to generate new, testable hypotheses. when informed of this, the usual trope for creationists is to refuse to provide scientific support for their own position. instead of digging in and doing the grunt work of scientifically supporting ID, they want to stand on the sidelines and try to bash other viewpoints. they're actually a lot like marxists, who claim that the criteria of science are too rigorous. many marxist scholars actually make this complaint--that the method of science is just a tool designed to promote capitalism. creationists say the same thing, just substitute "atheism", "humanism", or whatever. long story short, ID in its current configuration is not scientific, and cannot qualify as a scientific theory. if you want to change that, get off the sidelines and do some work. Copy. Not my line of work so you will have to excuse the misuse of the word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:28:19 PM EDT
[#6]
fair enough. to answer your question above, the BB is indeed a scientific theory.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:29:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard almost all of those dozens and dozens of times.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:  If you didn't know better, you might think that some people don't want to disabuse themselves of their ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:29:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am using the word theory in a general way. Not as a scientific theory. Is the big bang theory a scientific theory? Serious question. If you're using it in a general way, then why did you say "it is just as scientific as the big bang?" What's the purpose of making that statement if you're not attempting to imply there is a scientific relevance to the "Theory of intelligent design?" That doesn't even make sense, dude. And yes, the big bang is considered a "theory," as it meets the criteria, to include making falsifiable predictions and being supported by empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:31:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other then the bible I would like a creationist to cite actual evidence of the creation....because i have never seen any I see evidence of it everywhere I look. But that is the point isn't it. You and i can see things differently. I'm thankful for that actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:33:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see evidence of it everywhere I look. But that is the point isn't it. You and i can see things differently. I'm thankful for that actually. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Other then the bible I would like a creationist to cite actual evidence of the creation....because i have never seen any I see evidence of it everywhere I look. But that is the point isn't it. You and i can see things differently. I'm thankful for that actually. That's a different definition of evidence, just as you used a different definition of theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:36:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're using it in a general way, then why did you say "it is just as scientific as the big bang?" What's the purpose of making that statement if you're not attempting to imply there is a scientific relevance to the "Theory of intelligent design?" That doesn't even make sense, dude. And yes, the big bang is considered a "theory," as it meets the criteria, to include making falsifiable predictions and being supported by empirical evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am using the word theory in a general way. Not as a scientific theory. Is the big bang theory a scientific theory? Serious question. If you're using it in a general way, then why did you say "it is just as scientific as the big bang?" What's the purpose of making that statement if you're not attempting to imply there is a scientific relevance to the "Theory of intelligent design?" That doesn't even make sense, dude. And yes, the big bang is considered a "theory," as it meets the criteria, to include making falsifiable predictions and being supported by empirical evidence. Right. I used the word science because fatal error and I were talking about education system and he mentioned science class specifically. I am not a scientist. Apologies to the science community. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:39:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a different definition of evidence, just as you used a different definition of theory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Other then the bible I would like a creationist to cite actual evidence of the creation....because i have never seen any I see evidence of it everywhere I look. But that is the point isn't it. You and i can see things differently. I'm thankful for that actually. That's a different definition of evidence, just as you used a different definition of theory. Lol. Well it is evidential to me nonetheless. Thanks for all of the help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 6:46:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sources? How about Colombia University? http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/CorruptedScience.pdf Enjoy. BTW, Gravity is just a 'Theory', by the way, whether you believe it or not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: One thing that has always stood out to me is the fact that despite hundreds of thousands of years of the modern Human Being, we only have about 6,500 years of Written Human History. In other words, the oldest recorded and dated writings we have only go back to about 4,500 BC (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history ) The Rise of Civilization also starts to occur within that time frame. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world ) Furthermore, we can see that the human population only starts to really increase around 4,000 BC: (source: University of Miami: http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/humanpopgrowth.gif ) What is also interesting is many calendars of the world only account for around 6,000 years. The Hebrew Calendar, for example - is currently on year 5,775. We are also still finding soft tissue in '75,000,000' million year old Dinosaurs, even as recent as last month (source: http://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones ) There are several other interesting facts that I have read about lately that point to the beginning of everything being less than 10,000 years old. Now, I am NOT a Creatonist, I am more motivated by the fact that I just can't digest Darwinian Evolution and the accepted scientific age of our universe. I have seen too many evolutionary and biological scientists get caught in their own lies, and if you believe for a second that the scientific community as a whole is not extremely corrupt and broken then you have some research to do. Working in that field for a few years will turn you off and motivate you to start seeking your own truths. Within this community, many have concluded that the Evolutionary Theory is dying, and that it is scientifically impossible - and many great Scientists have lost their jobs for choosing not to subscribe to this theory any more. The problem is, there is no acceptable, viable alternative. I just can't buy that Modern Humans have been around for some 200,000 years (that number keeps getting larger, by the way), and the human being has been around for much, much, longer - yet we only have a few thousand years of recorded history? So my question is WHY do all of these undisputed, widely agreed upon, historical facts - all line up with the Biblical account of the beginning and human history? Is it just a coincidence? I am fulfilling my scientific obligation to continue to ask questions, as should you. Thoughts? Op, you approach this topic with ignorance and bias. You stated that the reason and basis for your opinion is that you can't digest evolution...I believe you. It is because you don't understand evolution or the universe that you don't accept reality. You mention vague assertions that evolution is no longer accepted...really lol really. Seriously I rofled at that. Every bit of evidence in every field of science that relates to evolution has supported evolution. In science we change our understanding of the world based on evidence. If evidence was found that could disprove evolution that would be great because we would be one step closer to the truth. But the reality is that all of the related evidence points to evolution and there is so much evidence that evolution is a scientific theory. Like the scientific theory of gravity or the theory that the earth circles the son. I know even though you see the sun rise and fall it is the earth that is moving in relation to the sun crazy right? You make vague assertions about evolutionary scientists being caught in lies.. Really cite to some documentation to support that. Your ignorance drives you to jump to crazy and simplistic unsupported conclusions. Reality is not a matter of opinion if everyone in the world stopped "believing" in gravity. Gravity would still exist and if you jumped off a high enough building without some piece of technology to save your ass you would still go splat even if everyone in the world thought gravity was fake. Sources? How about Colombia University? http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/CorruptedScience.pdf Enjoy. BTW, Gravity is just a 'Theory', by the way, whether you believe it or not. I'm not sure what your point here is either. ETA: In the interest of being helpful instead of just critical, I would recommend that you take college-level courses in geology and physical anthropology. Then, if you still feel compelled to argue that the mainstream theories are completely wrong, at least you'll have an idea what evidence you're arguing against. Incidentally, this is the only logical way to argue against a theory - by showing that the evidence that supports it is wrong, or at least inadequate. Simply claiming that some scientists can't be trusted, therefore <insert theory here> is wrong, is sloppy reasoning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:00:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe that the Chinese calendar also only goes back around 6,000 years, though you should check me on that since I'm working from memory. But, speaking of the Theory of Evolution, it's pretty much at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then there's The Flood. Numerous cultures have a tale of a world wide flood. If that happened around 6,000-8,000 (just to pick some numbers out of the air) it might take until 4,000 BC to start building up population again. Just some thoughts for you here. Everyone who is like "Calendars go back so far" Well no shit. Before that they didn't have a written language to write down and keep track of time. Please do not mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic unless you have at least a basic understanding of what it is. There have been many giant floods in man's history, thus the flood stories. Never has there been one that covered the earth destroying all life. If that had happened we would clearly see it in the geological record. We don't Christian Geologists when geology was just starting looked for such signs. Everyone assumed the flood was real. When they couldn't find the evidence they had to change what the believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:27:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right. I used the word science because fatal error and I were talking about education system and he mentioned science class specifically. I am not a scientist. Apologies to the science community. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am using the word theory in a general way. Not as a scientific theory. Is the big bang theory a scientific theory? Serious question. If you're using it in a general way, then why did you say "it is just as scientific as the big bang?" What's the purpose of making that statement if you're not attempting to imply there is a scientific relevance to the "Theory of intelligent design?" That doesn't even make sense, dude. And yes, the big bang is considered a "theory," as it meets the criteria, to include making falsifiable predictions and being supported by empirical evidence. Right. I used the word science because fatal error and I were talking about education system and he mentioned science class specifically. I am not a scientist. Apologies to the science community. For your future reference, understanding the actual scientific meaning of basic terms is so fundamental to this kind of discussion that an intelligent discussion is impossible until you do get the definitions clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:33:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one? If you don't want the same old anti creationist talking points, then come up with an original objection. Again, Talk Origins covers most of them. I would actually love to hear something new, instead of the same "2nd Law," "why do we have monkeys," and "water firmament" bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that the Chinese calendar also only goes back around 6,000 years, though you should check me on that since I'm working from memory. But, speaking of the Theory of Evolution, it's pretty much at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then there's The Flood. Numerous cultures have a tale of a world wide flood. If that happened around 6,000-8,000 (just to pick some numbers out of the air) it might take until 4,000 BC to start building up population again. Just some thoughts for you here. You don't understand evolution, thermodynamic, or both. You too should get a refund on your science education. Worldwide flood myths? Easily explained by ancient people seeing fossils in limestone deposits and making up stories. So that is why they have been seeing evidence of a global flood around the world? I would disagree, also, with evolution is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hence I gave an example. Warning: The usual anti-creationist arguments don't work on me. In-fact I challenge many creationists I see to understand evolutionary science in a different perspective. I have won over quite a few but some cling to a very stern interpretation of creationism. Kinda like when Galileo was throwing out ideas about heavenly bodies. Some Christains saw what he was seeing & moved forward with their own research. Darwin, Newton & many others that are the founders of modern science were creationists that simply tried to understand creation. It is arrogantly postulous of modern man to say he now has all the answers, however. Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one? If you don't want the same old anti creationist talking points, then come up with an original objection. Again, Talk Origins covers most of them. I would actually love to hear something new, instead of the same "2nd Law," "why do we have monkeys," and "water firmament" bullshit. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:38:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems appropriate... <a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg</a> trolling....trolling...trolling...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:40:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
trolling....trolling...trolling...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems appropriate... <a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg</a> trolling....trolling...trolling...... Please explain the scientific definition of the word "theory" so that all your friends can understand it and retain it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:44:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one? http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? i didn't go through it meticulously, but the only thing i see in that link is evidence of flooding, not global flooding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:45:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that the Chinese calendar also only goes back around 6,000 years, though you should check me on that since I'm working from memory. But, speaking of the Theory of Evolution, it's pretty much at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then there's The Flood. Numerous cultures have a tale of a world wide flood. If that happened around 6,000-8,000 (just to pick some numbers out of the air) it might take until 4,000 BC to start building up population again. Just some thoughts for you here. You don't understand evolution, thermodynamic, or both. You too should get a refund on your science education. Worldwide flood myths? Easily explained by ancient people seeing fossils in limestone deposits and making up stories. So that is why they have been seeing evidence of a global flood around the world? I would disagree, also, with evolution is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hence I gave an example. Warning: The usual anti-creationist arguments don't work on me. In-fact I challenge many creationists I see to understand evolutionary science in a different perspective. I have won over quite a few but some cling to a very stern interpretation of creationism. Kinda like when Galileo was throwing out ideas about heavenly bodies. Some Christains saw what he was seeing & moved forward with their own research. Darwin, Newton & many others that are the founders of modern science were creationists that simply tried to understand creation. It is arrogantly postulous of modern man to say he now has all the answers, however. Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one? If you don't want the same old anti creationist talking points, then come up with an original objection. Again, Talk Origins covers most of them. I would actually love to hear something new, instead of the same "2nd Law," "why do we have monkeys," and "water firmament" bullshit. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? Read the page. I will leave the layout alone...It speaks for itself. As to the content, without going point by point, several of the problems it mentioned have already been explained (and that's just a few that I, a layman, noticed and recognized). That page seems to be a set up for a path that eventually leads to "we don't know, therefore God did it." I could be wrong...shrug. Maybe you didn't say that. I could have misread. If so, my bad
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 8:44:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i didn't go through it meticulously, but the only thing i see in that link is evidence of flooding, not global flooding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one? http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm So where have I said evolutionary theory is a wrong? i didn't go through it meticulously, but the only thing i see in that link is evidence of flooding, not global flooding. This is what those sites do. They post questions and make assumptions with out evidence to back it up. If you do a search for any one of the examples on that site you will find even better explanations with out needing a global flood. Even for the handful of items where we are not 100% sure, all the other ABSENCE of evidence of a flood disproves it. All they do is say "How did this happen? Clearly the only way for this to happen is a massive world wide flood." Case in point is their example of erratic boulders. No. For the love of - erratic boulders are from GLACIERS pushing and carrying rocks and soil hundreds of miles from their origins. It is why the Midwest is so fertile. All the top soil was scraped off Canada and deposited there. No - there was not a global flood. We figured this out in the late 1800s. 1) There isn't enough water to cover the earth to the tops of mountains. 2) the shear down pour required EVERYWHERE to create that much water would pulverize anything and everything. 3) We would have clear evidence of it, showing up globally, at the same time everywhere. Example the KT event that killed the dinosaurs. Anywhere you find rock laid down during that time you will find a thin layer rich in Iridium. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 8:47:32 PM EDT
[#23]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 11:14:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm using the word theory in the broader sense than that used by the previous poster. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, Intelligent Design is NOT a Theory.  Not one that can currently be tested via the scientific method, anyways. It is also a theory that may very well never be one to which the scientific method can be applied due to human limitations and the grand nature of the question. Perhaps one day we'll be able to test it and find some evidence in its favour, but I doubt we'll ever reach the point where, simply using empirical methods, we can arrive at the truth in a fully conclusive manner. Given the grand nature of the question, the scale of which brings our humanity into the proper perspective in the context of the universe, it would make sense for God to provide other means to arrive at the truth, i.e. means other than empiricism. He gave us the capacity for reason, he gave us intuition as part of our nature, and he gave us the capacity for faith, which is necessary to accept the veracity of divine revelation. Men can and have arrived at the truth of other things via reason, intuition, and divine revelation, and they are valid means to expand the knowledge of the world, physical or otherwise, in combination with empirical methods. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory Please click on at least one of these links. If something hasn't been and can't be tested, it is, by definition, NOT a theory. I'm using the word theory in the broader sense than that used by the previous poster. The only problem with that, is that you and other who do that try to latch on to the scientific Theory idea to lend credence to ID. Now, you can deny that, but that's why it's done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 12:49:30 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain the scientific definition of the word "theory" so that all your friends can understand it and retain it. Thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems appropriate... <a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg</a> trolling....trolling...trolling...... Please explain the scientific definition of the word "theory" so that all your friends can understand it and retain it. Thanks. Why? Here's a better one...since you've made up your mind as to what I believe....how about you enlighten us as to what that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 12:57:28 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Here's a better one...since you've made up your mind as to what I believe....how about you enlighten us as to what that is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems appropriate... <a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg</a> trolling....trolling...trolling...... Please explain the scientific definition of the word "theory" so that all your friends can understand it and retain it. Thanks. Why? Here's a better one...since you've made up your mind as to what I believe....how about you enlighten us as to what that is. Because, so far, no one who has spoken in favor of creation has been able to do that simple task. Therefore, the conversation is a lot like talking to kids in the second grade -- but even worse than that, because it appears they don't even want to understand the simplest concepts. Their argument is arguably one level above trolling, because they seem to really believe what they say, but still . . .their ignorance seems to be deliberate. The fact that none of them choose to reply -- but instead try responses like yours, seems to prove that. Where did I say that? Or is this another one of your beliefs without any real evidence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:26:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because, so far, no one who has spoken in favor of creation has been able to do that simple task. Therefore, the conversation is a lot like talking to kids in the second grade -- but even worse than that, because it appears they don't even want to understand the simplest concepts. Their argument is arguably one level above trolling, because they seem to really believe what they say, but still . . .their ignorance seems to be deliberate. The fact that none of them choose to reply -- but instead try responses like yours, seems to prove that. Where did I say that? Or is this another one of your beliefs without any real evidence? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems appropriate... <a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/11667427_685989678201381_7471187818694153669_n_zps7giphawc.jpg</a> trolling....trolling...trolling...... Please explain the scientific definition of the word "theory" so that all your friends can understand it and retain it. Thanks. Why? Here's a better one...since you've made up your mind as to what I believe....how about you enlighten us as to what that is. Because, so far, no one who has spoken in favor of creation has been able to do that simple task. Therefore, the conversation is a lot like talking to kids in the second grade -- but even worse than that, because it appears they don't even want to understand the simplest concepts. Their argument is arguably one level above trolling, because they seem to really believe what they say, but still . . .their ignorance seems to be deliberate. The fact that none of them choose to reply -- but instead try responses like yours, seems to prove that. Where did I say that? Or is this another one of your beliefs without any real evidence? lol...you and others here dance around it....Come out and say it....certainly membership on a given forum is not more important than your closely held beliefs.....right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:38:28 AM EDT
[#28]
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:52:06 AM EDT
[#29]
lol x infinity
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 3:15:32 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s1247.photobucket.com/user/jablack/media/Mobile%20Uploads/76856_zpsmcjttf7y.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg639/jablack/Mobile%20Uploads/76856_zpsmcjttf7y.jpg</a> In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll lol..you really don't see yourself do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 3:30:58 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only problem with that, is that you and other who do that try to latch on to the scientific Theory idea to lend credence to ID. Now, you can deny that, but that's why it's done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, Intelligent Design is NOT a Theory. Not one that can currently be tested via the scientific method, anyways. It is also a theory that may very well never be one to which the scientific method can be applied due to human limitations and the grand nature of the question. Perhaps one day we'll be able to test it and find some evidence in its favour, but I doubt we'll ever reach the point where, simply using empirical methods, we can arrive at the truth in a fully conclusive manner. Given the grand nature of the question, the scale of which brings our humanity into the proper perspective in the context of the universe, it would make sense for God to provide other means to arrive at the truth, i.e. means other than empiricism. He gave us the capacity for reason, he gave us intuition as part of our nature, and he gave us the capacity for faith, which is necessary to accept the veracity of divine revelation. Men can and have arrived at the truth of other things via reason, intuition, and divine revelation, and they are valid means to expand the knowledge of the world, physical or otherwise, in combination with empirical methods. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory Please click on at least one of these links. If something hasn't been and can't be tested, it is, by definition, NOT a theory. I'm using the word theory in the broader sense than that used by the previous poster. The only problem with that, is that you and other who do that try to latch on to the scientific Theory idea to lend credence to ID. Now, you can deny that, but that's why it's done. LOL, I almost never discuss this topic, much less engage in practices regarding it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 4:15:04 AM EDT
[#32]
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool.
A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: 
Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 5:52:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool. A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: http://i.imgur.com/oMOjUYG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RPSbjVY.jpg Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. Probably not a "geode". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 10:16:18 AM EDT
[#34]
The part I'd be most worried about for all the people dog-piling the creationists, is the (in)accuracy of radiometric dating methods.
But I digress... I've already seen how this plays out in GD, especially in the rare times a creationist uses science to address the scientists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 10:30:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The part I'd be most worried about for all the people dog-piling the creationists, is the (in)accuracy of radiometric dating methods. But I digress... I've already seen how this plays out in GD, especially in the rare times a creationist uses science to address the scientists. Lol, no. That isn't what you're most worried about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 10:37:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, no. That isn't what you're most worried about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The part I'd be most worried about for all the people dog-piling the creationists, is the (in)accuracy of radiometric dating methods. But I digress... I've already seen how this plays out in GD, especially in the rare times a creationist uses science to address the scientists. Lol, no. That isn't what you're most worried about. Basic reading comprehension is elusive. I wasn't talking about me... But that's a good point, (I realize this part is a stretch) but perhaps as adults both sides could put forth the parts of their theories they are most troubled by. The purpose of furthering the discussion of course... I won't hold my breath for that though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 10:56:15 AM EDT
[#37]
GAWD FEARING MAN HERE BUT YOU FORGOT GEOGRAPHY. LOCATION MAT WELL BE THE ANSWER YOU SEEK TO FIND OUT.
Quoted:
One thing that has always stood out to me is the fact that despite hundreds of thousands of years of the modern Human Being, we only have about 6,500 years of Written Human History.IN cHINA MAYBE BUT HOW LONG IN AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST OR OTHER LOCATIONS I BELIEVE VERY VERY LITTLE OF CURRENTLY ACCEPTED HUMAN EVOLUTION IS CORRECT. also the humans walked across the bearing strait to settle N America is utterly retarded and is false. ? In other words, the oldest recorded and dated writings we have only go back to about 4,500 BC (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history ) The Rise of Civilization also starts to occur within that time frame. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world ) once again WHERE ? do you realy believe it occurred in only one place and did not migrate?. Also how are you or your cited study defining civilization? there is a huge time difference between hunter gathers in SE asia and wheat cultivation in the fertile crescent. Furthermore, we can see that the human population only starts to really increase around 4,000 BC: (source: University of Miami: http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/humanpopgrowth.gif ) WHERE  could it have started ealier in other locations or later in other locationswithout the where this info is only semi useful.
What is also interesting is many calendars of the world only account for around 6,000 years. The Hebrew Calendar, for example - is currently on year 5,775. alright we are getting somewhere now. ow long from hunter gatherers to invent numbers, writing and enough culture to create a calernder I assume a few dozen centuries. so add atleast10,000-15000 to your 6000 years we knoiw of 2 major dark ages one pre homer in greece & one after rome's fall so we could assumne anoter dark age and add another 500 -700 years to 21,000.
I am not saying your wrong I like your points but you have to look at location and include the known DNA bottlenecks in our species. I t is my opinion we are hairless and can swim because we at one point were a semi aquatic species. eating shells and other critters found in the intertidal zone. the point is your observations are valid but are based on incorrect data. mine most likley are too. but the error leans towards much longer time spans not shorter ones. link to bottlenecks We are also still finding soft tissue in '75,000,000' million year old Dinosaurs, even as recent as last month (source: http://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones ) There are several other interesting facts that I have read about lately that point to the beginning of everything being less than 10,000 years old. Now, I am NOT a Creatonist, I am more motivated by the fact that I just can't digest Darwinian Evolution and the accepted scientific age of our universe. I have seen too many evolutionary and biological scientists get caught in their own lies, and if you believe for a second that the scientific community as a whole is not extremely corrupt and broken then you have some research to do. Working in that field for a few years will turn you off and motivate you to start seeking your own truths. Within this community, many have concluded that the Evolutionary Theory is dying, and that it is scientifically impossible - and many great Scientists have lost their jobs for choosing not to subscribe to this theory any more. The problem is, there is no acceptable, viable alternative. I just can't buy that Modern Humans have been around for some 200,000 years (that number keeps getting larger, by the way), and the human being has been around for much, much, longer - yet we only have a few thousand years of recorded history? So my question is WHY do all of these undisputed, widely agreed upon, historical facts - all line up with the Biblical account of the beginning and human history? Is it just a coincidence? I am fulfilling my scientific obligation to continue to ask questions, as should you. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:00:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool. A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: http://i.imgur.com/oMOjUYG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RPSbjVY.jpg Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. So the idea is that around the time that rocks were being formed, someone was making Model A's that were technically identical to the ones made in the 1900s by Henry Ford. Kinda odd that the blueprints would survive that long, don't you think? But that brings up another question. If they had spark plugs then they obviously had a manufacturing plant to make them. Likewise, they also must have had a large manufacturing plant to make the cars, as well as gas stations, repair shops, roads, oil refineries to make the gas, tire making plants, wrecking yards, the city of Detroit, and a shitload of other stuff that goes with modern autos. So how is it that we discovered only one old spark plug and none of the rest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:06:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The part I'd be most worried about for all the people dog-piling the creationists, is the (in)accuracy of radiometric dating methods. But I digress... I've already seen how this plays out in GD, especially in the rare times a creationist uses science to address the scientists. Like radio carbon dating, which doesn't really factor into this discussion? Or are you assuming that showing an inaccuracy in one particular thing invalidates a shitload of other science from a wide range of completely different scientific disciplines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:04:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool. A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: http://i.imgur.com/oMOjUYG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RPSbjVY.jpg Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. What are you trying to say? That ancient man used the exact brand of spark plugs for something way before the first car was built? Or we had cars in the past and it was a lost technology? Or fossils don't take long to form? It's a concretion around a old spark plug. Nothing more. Concretions can happen around modern artifacts given the right settings. I mean, we make concrete every damn day. Is is the same principle only one is made by nature. It is a completely different processes than fossilization. In before the hammer in stone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:12:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like radio carbon dating, which doesn't really factor into this discussion? Or are you assuming that showing an inaccuracy in one particular thing invalidates a shitload of other science from a wide range of completely different scientific disciplines? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The part I'd be most worried about for all the people dog-piling the creationists, is the (in)accuracy of radiometric dating methods. But I digress... I've already seen how this plays out in GD, especially in the rare times a creationist uses science to address the scientists. Like radio carbon dating, which doesn't really factor into this discussion? Or are you assuming that showing an inaccuracy in one particular thing invalidates a shitload of other science from a wide range of completely different scientific disciplines? Even if he is actually talking about the type we use for measuring the age or rocks - yes there are anomalies when we measure. That is why we have to take many samples over large areas to get the big picture. The dating only works on the assumption of a closed system, and many things can happen to contaminate a sample. But the method works. Just because we get some anomalies doesn't discredit the method. Even if the measuringments are off by a factor of 10, they still mean that the earth is very old and we can still use the measurements to show where the samples are in time when they were laid down. If I went to your yard and plucked the first green plant out of it and it was a dandy lion or clover, should I assume your whole yard is covered in Dandy Lions or Clover? OR should I take dozens of samples to get a true picture of the average make up of your yard so I can conclude it is mostly grass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:30:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Lol, same stuff every time.
Don't butcher science looking for an excuse, you don't need one. Just believe what you want to and leave the science to the scientists. It's mostly only the real jerks that will give you crap about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:39:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are you trying to say? That ancient man used the exact brand of spark plugs for something way before the first car was built? Or we had cars in the past and it was a lost technology? Or fossils don't take long to form? It's a concretion around a old spark plug. Nothing more. Concretions can happen around modern artifacts given the right settings. I mean, we make concrete every damn day. Is is the same principle only one is made by nature. It is a completely different processes than fossilization. In before the hammer in stone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool. A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: http://i.imgur.com/oMOjUYG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RPSbjVY.jpg Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. What are you trying to say? That ancient man used the exact brand of spark plugs for something way before the first car was built? Or we had cars in the past and it was a lost technology? Or fossils don't take long to form? It's a concretion around a old spark plug. Nothing more. Concretions can happen around modern artifacts given the right settings. I mean, we make concrete every damn day. Is is the same principle only one is made by nature. It is a completely different processes than fossilization. In before the hammer in stone. And it was found near Owens Lake, which is famous for its many concretions. Drop a laptop computer on the ground in the same spot and in a few years someone will be claiming prehistoric Windows XP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:47:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh THAT settles it...you can't be a real person and say something that stupid. You're a bot created by someone who dislikes Creationists and wants to make them look bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not to mention erosion. There could not be mountains if millions of years of evolution really happened. Oh THAT settles it...you can't be a real person and say something that stupid. You're a bot created by someone who dislikes Creationists and wants to make them look bad. Meh, he also thinks pokemon and Ouija boards are sources of demonic possession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:48:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol x infinity Pretty much. I've been here 11 years, and I've lost any motivation I once had to engage in discussion on this. You can only explain the same things so many times, before it dawns on you that it's all wasted effort. So: lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 1:53:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much. I've been here 11 years, and I've lost any motivation I once had to engage in discussion on this. You can only explain the same things so many times, before it dawns on you that it's all wasted effort. So: lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol x infinity Pretty much. I've been here 11 years, and I've lost any motivation I once had to engage in discussion on this. You can only explain the same things so many times, before it dawns on you that it's all wasted effort. So: lol I really need to learn to stop trying in these threads. Pearls before swine, as they would say. The only reason they don't get it is because they decided that they don't want to get it. All these threads to is draw trolls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:03:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really need to learn to stop trying in these threads. Pearls before swine, as they would say. The only reason they don't get it is because they decided that they don't want to get it. All these threads to is draw trolls. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol x infinity Pretty much. I've been here 11 years, and I've lost any motivation I once had to engage in discussion on this. You can only explain the same things so many times, before it dawns on you that it's all wasted effort. So: lol I really need to learn to stop trying in these threads. Pearls before swine, as they would say. The only reason they don't get it is because they decided that they don't want to get it. All these threads to is draw trolls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:06:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh, he also thinks pokemon and Ouija boards are sources of demonic possession. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to mention erosion. There could not be mountains if millions of years of evolution really happened. Oh THAT settles it...you can't be a real person and say something that stupid. You're a bot created by someone who dislikes Creationists and wants to make them look bad. Meh, he also thinks pokemon and Ouija boards are sources of demonic possession. It might be true...something must have possessed my son to make me buy him all those damned Pokémon episodes on VHS tape back in the late 90s... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:12:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I try to keep in mind that I'm not just talking to the people who are posting in the tread; there are a lot of lurkers who may start to believe that some of that crap actually makes sense, if no one brings up the reasons that it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol x infinity Pretty much. I've been here 11 years, and I've lost any motivation I once had to engage in discussion on this. You can only explain the same things so many times, before it dawns on you that it's all wasted effort. So: lol I really need to learn to stop trying in these threads. Pearls before swine, as they would say. The only reason they don't get it is because they decided that they don't want to get it. All these threads to is draw trolls. And I love explaining why it actually does make sense. But as much as I love science and education, it isn't my job. I enjoy a civil discussion about this topic, even with people who disagree. Evolution is freaking cool. It's simple, but has brought us amazing diversity. There are a lot of people that don't understand it, for whatever reason. I love the thought of getting somebody interested in science...in the process of learning, and understanding how we ended up with the theories we have. But I'm just so sick of the assholes and trolls. Takes all the fun out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 2:40:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the idea is that around the time that rocks were being formed, someone was making Model A's that were technically identical to the ones made in the 1900s by Henry Ford. Kinda odd that the blueprints would survive that long, don't you think? But that brings up another question. If they had spark plugs then they obviously had a manufacturing plant to make them. Likewise, they also must have had a large manufacturing plant to make the cars, as well as gas stations, repair shops, roads, oil refineries to make the gas, tire making plants, wrecking yards, the city of Detroit, and a shitload of other stuff that goes with modern autos. So how is it that we discovered only one old spark plug and none of the rest? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I find some Anachronistic Archaeology / Out of Place Artifacts pretty cool. A Geode that has a Ford Model A Spark plug in it: http://i.imgur.com/oMOjUYG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RPSbjVY.jpg Wiki Article Things aren't so cut and dried with what we know about history. So the idea is that around the time that rocks were being formed, someone was making Model A's that were technically identical to the ones made in the 1900s by Henry Ford. Kinda odd that the blueprints would survive that long, don't you think? But that brings up another question. If they had spark plugs then they obviously had a manufacturing plant to make them. Likewise, they also must have had a large manufacturing plant to make the cars, as well as gas stations, repair shops, roads, oil refineries to make the gas, tire making plants, wrecking yards, the city of Detroit, and a shitload of other stuff that goes with modern autos. So how is it that we discovered only one old spark plug and none of the rest? Or even simpler: Occam's Razor |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
