Darwin's theory

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, you'd rather insist 2+2=5 rather than 4 if it meant having "credibility"?

Sounds like how some Evolutionists behave when faced with the evidence for ID.:D

SaveOurLyric

endacl wrote: »

Ten, in fact!

Here's part 2.

Thanks. Yes, I can follow those and even agree with some. They do raise questions about the creation theory alright. But thats whats so interesting about science.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Sounds like how Evolutionists behave when faced with the evidence for ID.

Evidence that you, or anyone else for that matter, has yet to provide.

Edit: Fair play for at least admitting Creation is open to question SaveOurLight.

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Exactly. How can you have credibility if you keep changing your answer? Thats just wandering in the dark, not 'scientific method'.

So you actually do think that sticking with your first answer, even when it is shown to be wrong, ADDS to OR MAINTAINS your credibility? Really?

Well at least you are honest, but this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard said about science, which is saying something given who is posting on this thread right now. You are mixing up being credible with being stubborn.

Updating your answers to reflect new data is the _exact_ opposite of wandering in the dark. The fact is we ARE in the dark as a species but we are pushing that darkness back as we learn and learn. But you would have us stick with our ignorance, because not to do so means changing your position.

SaveOurLyric

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you think sticking with your first answer even if it's proven wrong is the better option?

No. I have already stopped listenting to you if your track record is of only producing wrong answers.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Great standard of debate. Your argument must be very weak....

Go on. Explain how 10000 years something something. I could use a giggle.

:pac:

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

Go on. Explain how 10000 years something something. I could use a giggle.

:pac:

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Rabble rabble polystate fossils, psuedoscientic babble CFSI, blah blah Hitler was an atheist, did ye know that? hah? HAH?

Edit: Forgot about floods and vegetarian Tyrannosaurs.

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thanks. Yes, I can follow those and even agree with some. They do raise questions about the creation theory alright. But thats whats so interesting about science.

This was produced by 'the Thinking Atheist" ... are you sure your're not confusing Atheism with science.

SaveOurLyric

endacl wrote: »

Go on. Explain how 10000 years something something. I could use a giggle.

:pac:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413231898&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible

Brian Shanahan

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

Maybe they have already. We've c. 4.5bn years of Earth's existence, and given the weather, plate tectonics an number of meteor impacts, a civilisation roughly as advanced as ours from even 100m years ago would have no traces of it left for us to find (except possibly a few fossils from which it may not be possible to decipher signs of intelligence). And then we've another at least 13bn (best guess with current available evidence) years of goodness knows how big of a universe for life to evolve somewhere else.

It is entirely possible that we are, right now, being watched by an advanced spacefaring species, just like what they used do on Star Trek with species who didn't manage to get into space.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

This was produced by 'the Thinking Atheist" ... are you sure your're not confusing Atheism with science.

You pretend they're the same thing all the time. You're the one who keeps confusing them.

Doctor Jimbob

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe they have already. We've c. 4.5bn years of Earth's existence, and given the weather, plate tectonics an number of meteor impacts, a civilisation roughly as advanced as ours from even 100m years ago would have no traces of it left for us to find (except possibly a few fossils from which it may not be possible to decipher signs of intelligence). And then we've another at least 13bn (best guess with current available evidence) years of goodness knows how big of a universe for life to evolve somewhere else.

It is entirely possible that we are, right now, being watched by an advanced spacefaring species, just like what they used do on Star Trek with species who didn't manage to get into space.

Even aside from all that, the idea that something else should evolve to our 'level' is fallacious. We're the best organisms at being human, but we'd make pretty lousy earthworms, mice, or even bacteria.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You pretend they're the same thing all the time. You're the one who keeps confusing them.

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413231898&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible

Y'know....

It's free on the kindle. I might just.....

.... Nah. I like my kindle. That'd be kindle abuse.

endacl

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

Are you in the tshirt business? You should be in the tshirt business...

catallus

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

Nicely put.

It is odd that those who would wish others to think that they and they alone are the arbiters of truth are so belligerent in their refusal to countenance other's views.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity

catallus wrote: »

Nicely put.

It is odd that those who would wish others to think that they and they alone are the arbiters of truth are so belligerent in their refusal to countenance other's views.

You'll find that the wonderful thing about science is it will accept anyone's views. Provided you have some of that pesky 'evidence' stuff to back them up.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Rabble rabble polystate fossils, psuedoscientic babble CFSI, blah blah Hitler was an atheist, did ye know that? hah? HAH?

Edit: Forgot about floods and vegetarian Tyrannosaurs.

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

their refusal to countenance other's views.

I do not speak for all atheists. Or scientists. Or anyone really. I just speak for myself.

And as myself there is only one set of views I do not accept. Unsubstantiated ones.

I do not have trouble with the "views of others". I consider them and even adopt them all the time.

But when a view is unsubstantiated, I simply dismiss it until such time as substantiation comes in.

Of course people who really.... REALLY.... want me to adopt their views call me intolerant and arrogant and even fundamentalist for this. Simple name calling really. But I maintain that one simple position:

If an idea comes before me ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning then I simply do not subscribe to that idea. Simples.

The idea there is a god is ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. Much less from anyone on this thread.

So I simply dismiss it.

Where is the problem with that exactly?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

F? That's not fair. I even mentioned CFSI

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity



You'll find that the wonderful thing about science is it will accept anyone's views. Provided you have some of that pesky 'evidence' stuff to back them up.

... unless the evidence points towards God ... that is.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... unless the evidence points towards God ... that is.:)

Can you show us some that does?

endacl

catallus wrote: »

Nicely put.

It is odd that those who would wish others to think that they and they alone are the arbiters of truth verifiable facts are so belligerent in their refusal to countenance other's views promotion of nonsense, that they are privately more than entitled to believe, in the public sphere. Most worryingly in education.

Better.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

F? That's not fair. I even mentioned CFSI

... upon review we'll give you an 'E' ... had you also mentioned irreducible complexity and universal probability bound ... you could have got a 'D'.:)

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Exactly. How can you have credibility if you keep changing your answer? Thats just wandering in the dark, not 'scientific method'.

As more evidence becomes more available, a clearer picture of is available.

Take the age of the earth for example. During the 1800's, a British physicist William Thomson put forward the suggestion that Earth was at least 20 million years old. All he had to go on was basic estimates based on the his assumptions for the amount of time it would take a molten earth to cool, given it it's present crust. It was more of a starting-point to get the ball rolling, more than anything. It was not a definitive statement saying "The Earth is 20 million years old, within a X percent margin of error."

Once radiometric was discovered, placing an age on the Earth started to become more defined, reducing the margin of error. Over time and many experiments, it brought us to the current figure of about 4.54 billion years. The figure is cross-compiled from an array of different radiometric dating processes.

So of course, as more information becomes available - we're going to be able to answer more questions. We never at any point had the ability to give an accurate age of the earth, before radiometric dating was available to us.

Scientists are not just throwing out random answers and changing their tune all the time.

Doctor Jimbob

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

As more evidence becomes more available, a clearer picture of is available.

Take the age of the earth for example. During the 1800's, a British physicist William Thomson put forward the suggestion that Earth was at least 20 million years old. All he had to go on was basic estimates based on the his assumptions for the amount of time it would take a molten earth to cool, given it it's present crust. It was more of a starting-point to get the ball rolling, more than anything. It was not a definitive statement saying "The Earth is 20 million years old, within a X percent margin of error."

Once radiometric was discovered, placing an age on the Earth started to become more defined, reducing the margin of error. Over time and many experiments, it brought us to the current figure of about 4.54 billion years. The figure is cross-compiled from an array of different radiometric dating processes.

So of course, as more information becomes available - we're going to be able to answer more questions. We never at any point had the ability to give an accurate age of the earth, before radiometric dating was available to us.

Scientists are not just throwing out random answers and changing their tune all the time.

Good post. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that a lot of the people arguing against scientific points don't have enough of a science background to be familiar with stuff like this. It probably does seem like we're just pulling facts out of our ass from time to time :pac:

Brian Shanahan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Can Darwin explain conversion therapy ? I think not.

Of course he can't he's been dead for over 100 years, long before religious nutbags invented "conversion therapy".

But I can, it's a lie. It doesn't work, and all it is is a torture used to destroy a person who is unable to conform to the ideals set by the religious nutbags who first came up with the idea (who are all closet homosexuals themselves, hence their problems with it).

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

No thanks, I like not being mentally handicapped.

endacl

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Good post. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that a lot of the people arguing against scientific points don't have enough of a science background to be familiar with stuff like this. It probably does seem like we're just pulling facts out of our ass from time to time :pac:

It doesn't take a scientific background to grasp the elegant simplicity of the scientific method. As mentioned earlier, mine is in music. I get it. All it takes is an interest in the world around you, and a curiosity as to how it works. 'Why' is a question for philosophy, and doesn't really matter beyond the private meaning people may attach to whatever answer they come up with. The disconnect occurs when one begins with their answer to the philosophical question and then tries to force the facts to fit.

They don't fit.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Good post. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that a lot of the people arguing against scientific points don't have enough of a science background to be familiar with stuff like this. It probably does seem like we're just pulling facts out of our ass from time to time :pac:

It sometimes does.:pac:
Radiometric Dating uses circular reasoning (dating the rock layer by the fossils found in it and dating the fossils by the rocks they are found in).
It then calibrates each radiometric date against the supposed age of each rock ... and ignores the ones that don't fit as 'outliers'.
It also ignores the fact that the isotope ratios upon which it is based, depend on the amount of parent and daughter isotope present originally ... and the amount of each isotope leached out or contaminated in during the history of the rock.
In other words, it tells us nothing about the age of the rock.