Darwin's theory

J C

Wereghost wrote: »

There is no such thing as Creation Science; Young Earth Creationism is about denial of known reality in favour of a preferred conclusion and is therefore counter-scientific by nature.

The reality denying is done by those who believe that something that is impossible (life spontaneously arising from death) becomes possible with the addition of large amounts of time.:)

Wereghost

J C wrote: »

The reality denying is done by those who believe that something that is impossible (life spontaneously arising from death) becomes possible with the addition of large amounts of time.:)

Death implies pre-existing life. But if you mean biology arising from chemistry, your claim is nonetheless based on an unproven assumption and therefore untenable.

Also, evolution theory as it pertains to biology has nothing to do with how biology began.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... says the person who suggests that humanity is descended from a blob.:D

incorrect.

smcgiff

Wereghost wrote: »

There is no such thing as Creation Science;

Creation Science is as Scientific as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic.

Wibbs

Jesus this thread is bloody scary in places.

J C wrote: »

... they aren't in the 'Ordovician' layers for the very simple (circular) reason that it would immediately be re-named 'Quaternary', if they were found there.:)

Ehh... no. Ordovician strata have a particular set of organisms contained within. It's how they can be reliably attributed. Strata that contain humans and/or human ancestors contain a very different set of organisms. If you had an Ordovician layer containing trilobites, brachipods and evidence of humans or cats or horses, dinosaurs, then there would be a point to make, but you don't. In any event how do creationists explain human ancestors that are quite different to modern humans. It seems their god was knocking up "Adams" left right and centre until he got it right.

Then again the whole flood idea - based on bronze age legends and fears across many civilisations* - is daft and shows this god to be an unholy twat. Create people, give them free will and when they use it slaughter all but a handful of them and kill millions of animal species while he's at it. Even though a god would have seen this coming and set up the experiment differently. So either he can't know outcomes of his actions or he can and is a twat. Either way hardly worthy of worship.




*The move to agrarian societies necessitated a move to reliable water supplies and fertile soils, so communities formed around rivers with fertile floodplains. Nile, Ganges, Euphrates, etc. The floodplain moniker gives the game away. Floods brought great and reliable bounties, but every so often could fcuk you up. They were part and parcel of the bronze age mind. So a story which may have had a few realities behind it where some bloke saved his family and his livestock by sticking them in a boat while his neighbours got swept away gets jollied up into a world event. Your bronze age mind for all its advancements in science and philosophy had a strong tendency to conflate the local with the universal.

5uspect

PSA, for those who don't know.
There is no point arguing with J C. He's spent a decade ignoring all the evidence and refusing to furnish any of his own.
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056402682/1/#post74566022

smcgiff

Wibbs wrote: »

Your bronze age mind for all its advancements in science and philosophy had a strong tendency to conflate the local with the universal.

Their world was so much smaller than ours. You can just imagine said saviour saying, 'Everyone else was carried away with the flood and only I and my family managed to survive because of my newly built boat. Thank God.'

And a myth was born. :pac:

Panrich

When you look around at people who deny the reality of evolution and others who wage war in the name of their mythical 'creators', it really does make you wonder where we are headed as a species. We seem to be incapable of taking the actions required on hard questions like global warming, over-population and arms controls. I see an 'idiocracy' emerging.

endacl

Guys. I read on a website that the Earth is flat. Any thoughts? I'm kind of in the fence meself.

Panrich

endacl wrote: »

Guys. I read on a website that the Earth is flat. Any thoughts? I'm kind of in the fence meself.

Make sure you hang on tight in case she tilts.

endacl

Panrich wrote: »

Make sure you hang on tight in case she tilts.

No sudden moves, like?

SaveOurLyric

Wereghost wrote: »

There is no such thing as Creation Science; Young Earth Creationism is about denial of known reality in favour of a preferred conclusion and is therefore counter-scientific by nature.

Creation Science is one theory. With a lot of evidence and reason behind it. 'Science' in its narrower sense as you use it, evolution, carbon dating, paleontology, etc is another theory. Agreeing in some parts, differing in others. And also a valid avenue for research. But to say it is definitively the correct theory is hugely premature. There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does. Keep working on you side and we will see who is right.

Similarly for gayness. It is not clear what causes it, even for modern scientists, geneticists, etc as you are debating here. It maybe simply a choice. It maybe societal. It may be a disorder, aberration. Or it may be that God made them that way. It really is too early to know a clear answer on this. For the moment, keep an open mind an be tolerant.

PopePalpatine

Tordelback wrote: »

You've heard of stratigraphy, right?

That would require his IQ to at least treble.

Canis Lupus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does.

Apart from saying 'god done it', what knowledge gaps has has creation science babble credibly explained that the actual scientific community hasn't?

smcgiff

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It maybe simply a choice.

I wonder at the sexuality of people that make this claim. There must be some ambiguity as to their orientation.

For myself there is no doubt. There are no circumstances where I could see myself fancying a guy. (cue many breaking hearts )

Delirium

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Creation Science is one theory. With a lot of evidence and reason behind it. 'Science' in its narrower sense as you use it, evolution, carbon dating, paleontology, etc is another theory. Agreeing in some parts, differing in others. And also a valid avenue for research. But to say it is definitively the correct theory is hugely premature. There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does. Keep working on you side and we will see who is right.

Similarly for gayness. It is not clear what causes it, even for modern scientists, geneticists, etc as you are debating here. It maybe simply a choice. It maybe societal. It may be a disorder, aberration. Or it may be that God made them that way. It really is too early to know a clear answer on this. For the moment, keep an open mind an be tolerant.

Creation Science isn't a theory, it's a literal interpretation of the bible.

Wibbs

SW wrote: »

Creation Science isn't a theory, it's a literal interpretation of the bible.

Which itself isn't internally consistent. I've read a fair bit of the CS stuff over the years and found very little of value within it. Well save for one example. A US dentist IIRC was claiming that Neandertals et al looked like that because they humans just like us, but were very very old, 100's of years old like the bible claims people could be "pre flood". Interesting twist on the evidence. However some of his conclusions would suggest that some of these specimens were older than the ages given for them. Obviously not 300 years old or any of that, but 50's or 60's rather than the 30 to 40 usually given them*. He convinced me on that score. He also piqued my interest in how he reckoned a few of the specimens were reconstructed incorrectly.








*the La Chappelle neandertal for example. When he was dug up first in the 1900's he was nicknamed the "old man", because, well he looked old. Barely a tooth in his head, major jaw recession, smooth skull and riddled with arthritis. Latterly his age is given as around 40. Yet other dudes also supposed to be 40 look like robust and healthy 40 year olds would look. They have great teeth, little arthritis etc.

endacl

That's the central flaw with creation 'theory'. It needs a narrative requiring a justification. If Darwin had never made that voyage on the Beagle the process of evolution by natural selection would still have been noticed, observed, and described. Wallace's paper would have emerged at the same time. If not Darwin or Wallace, then certainly some other bright spark. Creation 'Science' requires a bible. It could and would not have been brainfarted out otherwise. It could, granted, have been based on any one of thousands of creation myths from around the world. Why not the creation story of the Mongols, the Toltecs, or the Vikings? They're equally as ludicrous, and yet equally as valid.

All a theory of evolution by natural selection requires is a clever person to notice it. Creation science needs a fairytale to justify. Take away the fairytale and the 'science' collapses.

It's fcuking laughable.

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Creation Science is as Scientific as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic.

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

Does anyone genuinely still think he isn't trolling? Come on.

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

I'll have to look up the word conventional in the dictionary, I had a different meaning to 'bat shít crazy' in mind.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

... ... so how do you explain polystrate* fossils that extend through different layers?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-polystrate_fossil.jpg

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/polystrate_trees_wide.jpg
Either these trees stood there for millions of years, while the rock layers were laid down ... or they were rapidly buried during the Flood. * periods of rapid sedimentation
I'm gong with the latter!!!

I'm going with the latter too.

*all bullshyte makey-up creationist words have been deleted.

MRnotlob606

i am one of the last surving apes, somebody save me,

endacl

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

i am one of the last surving apes, somebody save me,

If you're evolved enough to open an account and type a post, I'd say you're safe enough.

Canis Lupus

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Does anyone genuinely still think he isn't trolling? Come on.

I always thought he was but he has been at it literally for years in the Atheist forum so he's either the most dedicated troll ever or actually believes it. Either way there's no point engaging him. God himself could actually appear to JC and tell him evolution is real and JC would still not believe.

Squeedily Spooch

"Creation science" isn't a thing. It's basically the equivalent of using Lord of the Rings to explain where the Grand Canyon came from, it happened when the earth split apart and swallowed up Sauron's armies after Frodo destroyed the one ring at Mount Doom. The evidence is there for all to see people!*



*no evidence actually there, so fits into "creation science" accurately

Squeedily Spooch

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Creation Science is one theory. With a lot of evidence and reason behind it. 'Science' in its narrower sense as you use it, evolution, carbon dating, paleontology, etc is another theory. Agreeing in some parts, differing in others. And also a valid avenue for research. But to say it is definitively the correct theory is hugely premature. There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does. Keep working on you side and we will see who is right.

Similarly for gayness. It is not clear what causes it, even for modern scientists, geneticists, etc as you are debating here. It maybe simply a choice. It maybe societal. It may be a disorder, aberration. Or it may be that God made them that way. It really is too early to know a clear answer on this. For the moment, keep an open mind an be tolerant.

Why would God make something he hates? If being gay is a choice then free will would dictate people do it of their own accord, going against God's wishes. If it's not a choice then its God's wish they be gay, and he's fine with them being hated.

endacl

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Why would God make something he hates? If being gay is a choice then free will would dictate people do it of their own accord, going against God's wishes. If it's not a choice then its God's wish they be gay, and he's fine with them being hated.

if you think reason and logic will work, you're in for a bit of a let-down.

M5

J C wrote: »

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

Kim probably got his tips from the bible/RCC. Demand worship on punishment of death, take over education systems, Mass propaganda etc, all used by the RCC in the past to get into the position they are today

A dictators handbook

endacl

M5 wrote: »

Kim probably got his tips from the bible/RCC. Demand worship on punishment of death, take over education systems, Mass propaganda etc, all used by the Rev in the past to get into the position they are today

A dictators handbook

So where did he get the idea for the ridiculous haircut?!?