Darwin's theory

PopePalpatine

Oh, right. In my secondary school there was a general mandatory science class for the Junior Cert, which had about half-a-dozen-or-so pages on evolution in the textbook. I've forgotten some parts of that class (particularly in chemistry), so it's not unreasonable for someone to forget the ins-and-outs of evolution.

gladrags

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

I know, it's a bit like an evolving door.

endacl

Squeedily Spooch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

Well it falls down to needing a backstory. Scientific theories work on the most solid evidence we have at the time if new evidence should arrive and overwrite the previous theory, well then that's what happens if the new evidence is proven right.
That's why it's so chucklesome when Creationists use the "well science thought the world was flat, ho ho!" line. Yes it did, then we figured out it's not flat. And we now go with what we know and can prove. Yet Creation "Science" still clings on to utterly ludicrous claims that come from it's book of backstorys despite no evidence.
Take away the bible and Creationism simply doesn't work, and that's not real science.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

Evolution for Dummies ... eh!!!!:eek:
... very soon belief in it it will be confined to readers of such stuff!!!:)

... some say it already is!!:)

J C

endacl wrote: »

If you can't make logical evidence-based arguments in favour of Evolution or against Creation ... I guess this is the next best thing!!!:D

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

If you can't make logical evidence-based arguments in favour of Evolution or against Creation ... I guess this is the next best thing!!!:D

But that video gives logical reasons why creationist arguments are nonsense

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

so only scientists from maybe two of the three Abrahamic faiths(excluding Judaism??) believe in creation theory?you would think that if the theory was correct people from other faiths would be easily convinced by the facts??

any answer to that question J C????,

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by PopePalpatine

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

Doctor Jimbob
Heh.

Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.:)

Understandable, too many of these threads is bound to have a negative effect on one's mental health :pac:

J C

kingchess wrote: »

any answer to that question J C????,

Answered here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92585816&postcount=934

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Understandable, too many of these threads is bound to have a negative effect on one's mental health :pac:

... is that what you call starting to live in the real world?:pac:

SaveOurLyric

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When using the word "science" one should be careful about using the word "theory" alongside it as "theory" in science has a different meaning than in the vernacular. What Creationism is is a hypothesis. And one that is currently lacking any substantiation that I know of.

Which is why this is of interest to me:

Could you adumbrate for us the content of this "lots" of evidence and reason?

This is another area to be careful with language. There are many things we have NOT explained using our sciences, but that is NOT the same as saying they CANNOT be explained by science.

Wishful thinking and imagination are not explanations.

OK. But that is science appropriating words and the criticising the rest of us for not using them in a particular way that scientists do.

But how close is science to answering these questions. Its no good to say - "I know we havent answered them, but at least we are corectly not answering them'. Thats just no help at all.

I follow you on the imagination point alright. But its not necessarily imagination if they are facts whose origins can just be questioned because they have been handed down for many many generations and cannot be easily proven at this stage. That doesnt prove that they are wrong.

SaveOurLyric

endacl wrote: »

To be fair, there's some good points in that.

SaveOurLyric

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

When you are right, you are right.
Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

To be fair, there's some good points in that.

Ten, in fact!

Here's part 2.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

Answered here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92585816&postcount=934

No JC, not the question I asked ,I asked is there scientists from non- Abrahamic faiths who support creation theory,as you would think they would be convinced by the facts.??

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

When you are right, you are right.
Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

Really? What time is it?



























What time is it now?

SaveOurLyric

endacl wrote: »

Really? What time is it?



























What time is it now?

19:04 in both cases. Its printed on the post.

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

When you are right, you are right.
Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

Changing your position when all evidence supports it is not a flaw of science, it's the opposite.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.:)

I haven't suffered any brain injuries, so no, I don't think so.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

19:04 in both cases. Its printed on the post.

I think you know what I meant!

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

They don't mention intelligent design or anything of the sort. Their work was misinterpreted and twisted in order to produce the intelligent design 'theory'.

They don't mention intelligent design allright ... but they have presented an enormous problem for Materialistic Evolution ... that to date has only been resolved by ID.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.

PopePalpatine
I haven't suffered any brain injuries, so no, I don't think so.

If you're a Pope ... you're a Creationist already,

amen

Posting on AfterHours is normally a waste of time but what all of you creationists/ anti-evolution guys don't seem to get is that modern science is pretty much inter-connected from our understanding of how the universe works down to how cells work, dna/ran, how modern drugs are created, life saving machines, computers, mobile phones, the internet etc

If you start throwing out parts of modern science based on the stories in 5000 year old book then fine throw it all out and stop using all of the modern scientific inventions. Go back to walking/horses as your mode of transport, grow your own crops (no artificial fertilisers), no vets, no fridges, no phones/electricity, horrendous child birth mortality rates, horrendous child/adult mortality rates etc

If you all the deniers spent as much time trying to learn the science as you do denying then maybe you would understand.

Personally I think a lot of the deniers don't understand what they are denying nor have the desire to learn. Its easier to just watch some random youtube video and and let the video tell them what to think.

endacl

amen wrote: »

Posting on AfterHours is normally a waste of time but what all of you creationists/ anti-evolution guys don't seem to get is that modern science is pretty much inter-connected from our understanding of how the universe works down to how cells work, dna/ran, how modern drugs are created, life saving machines, computers, mobile phones, the internet etc

If you start throwing out parts of modern science based on the stories in 5000 year old book then fine throw it all out and stop using all of the modern scientific inventions. Go back to walking/horses as your mode of transport, grow your own crops (no artificial fertilisers), no vets, no fridges, no phones/electricity, horrendous child birth mortality rates, horrendous child/adult mortality rates etc

If you all the deniers spent as much time trying to learn the science as you do denying then maybe you would understand.

Personally I think a lot of the deniers don't understand what they are denying nor have the desire to learn. Its easier to just watch some random youtube video and and let the video tell them what to think.

Amen!

catallus

endacl wrote: »

Amen!

Thank you JESUS!!!

endacl

catallus wrote: »

Thank you JESUS!!!

This guy?

SaveOurLyric

Some scientists on BBC4 now :
"Horizon: Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?"

Hope for them yet.

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

To be fair, there's some good points in that.

more strawmen, hand-waving and logical fallacies than you could shake a stick at.:)