Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on February 24, 2007, 02:46:56 am
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17302266/
-
Ummm. You've got that the wrong way round. They're saying that it occurred later than thought, not earlier.
Interesting stuff though.
-
f1x0r3d
And while we are on the subject of evolution, the fundies are still going at it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013405/
-
f1x0r3d
And while we are on the subject of evolution, the fundies are still going at it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013405/
IMO a Fundie is someone who refuses to beleive anything other than what they've been taught and doesn't try to stray away from the standard of what they believe. Does that make you an Evolutionist Fundie for refusing to consider anything else but what you've become acustomed to? Now what you do if they actually proved that they where right, and on the other hand what if Evolution actually proved undoubtably, without a shadow of a doubt that they are right. The fact is there are still unexplained factors in both theories, and thats what they are and will remain until proven, theories.
-
f1x0r3d
And while we are on the subject of evolution, the fundies are still going at it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013405/
IMO a Fundie is someone who refuses to beleive anything other than what they've been taught and doesn't try to stray away from the standard of what they believe. Does that make you an Evolutionist Fundie for refusing to consider anything else but what you've become acustomed to? Now what you do if they actually proved that they where right, and on the other hand what if Evolution actually proved undoubtably, without a shadow of a doubt that they are right. The fact is there are still unexplained factors in both theories, and thats what they are and will remain until proven, theories.
Yes, like gravity is an unproven theory.......
-
doubt casts no shadow upon evolution, if you think us wrong, by all means do enlighten us in upon our stupid ways.
-
I probably shouldn't comment, I'm one of those terrible gravitationists.
-
IMO a Fundie is someone who refuses to beleive anything other than what they've been taught and doesn't try to stray away from the standard of what they believe. Does that make you an Evolutionist Fundie for refusing to consider anything else but what you've become acustomed to? Now what you do if they actually proved that they where right, and on the other hand what if Evolution actually proved undoubtably, without a shadow of a doubt that they are right. The fact is there are still unexplained factors in both theories, and thats what they are and will remain until proven, theories.
You have an incredibly poor grasp of science if you believe that science is ever about refusing to believe anything other than what you were taught. Science is constantly questioning things that we "thought" we knew. In the big stuff it almost always finds that it's exactly what we thought but often it uncovers minor details that we didn't know.
Let me tell you here and know that there isn't a single scientist worthy of that title who doesn't question if evolution might be wrong. The point however is that unlike a fundamentalist a scientist goes back and looks at the evidence and sees that there is a huge mountain of evidence for evolution and no supporting evidence for Young Earth Creationism. A fundamentalist never even looks at any evidence except to find a new way to distort it for their own aims.
-
You have an incredibly poor grasp of science if you believe that science is ever about refusing to believe anything other than what you were taught. Science is constantly questioning things that we "thought" we knew. In the big stuff it almost always finds that it's exactly what we thought but often it uncovers minor details that we didn't know.
Let me tell you here and know that there isn't a single scientist worthy of that title who doesn't question if evolution might be wrong. The point however is that unlike a fundamentalist a scientist goes back and looks at the evidence and sees that there is a huge mountain of evidence for evolution and no supporting evidence for Young Earth Creationism. A fundamentalist never even looks at any evidence except to find a new way to distort it for their own aims.
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I beleive in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the arguement would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
-
no, there's plenty of creationists on here, and if you think it's one sided bring as many of your bretheren here to back you up as you want, in fact please do, that way I won't have to wait for respnces, I just like arguing this.
if you realy think you have a rational well reasoned position and we are just herd animals what are you afraid of? something you can point to as an example of what you mean?
-
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I believe in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the argument would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
It's not about calling your beliefs stupid. You can believe whatever you want, as that is no business of other people to tell you what to believe. But this debate is about making belief into science, which clearly cannot be done. To be able to apply it to science you need evidence to back up the claims.
The point is that the Young Earth Creationists don't have the evidence to support their claims, and it's easily refutable, and has been done so over and over and over again on many occasions.
Now.. if you were to post some evidence that contradicts all this, that actually proves that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, then that would actually be quite a groundbreaking discovery. But until then.. I'll stick to the mountain of evidence that says the earth is quite a bit older than that.
-
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I beleive in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the arguement would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
So what you're saying is that your beliefs don't stand up to external scrutiny?
-
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I beleive in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the arguement would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
So what you're saying is that your beliefs don't stand up to external scrutiny?
Nah actually I'm saying that almost anything that I can say (whether or not it related to my beleifs) can be found to have holes in it because I'm just not good at debating things, anyways I gotta go to work now so don't expect any replys to this for a while. Oh and a bit off topic, pcs is for converting pofs right? If so where can I get a copy (assuming its free)?
-
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I beleive in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the arguement would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
So what you're saying is that your beliefs don't stand up to external scrutiny?
Nah actually I'm saying that almost anything that I can say (whether or not it related to my beleifs) can be found to have holes in it because I'm just not good at debating things, anyways I gotta go to work now so don't expect any replys to this for a while. Oh and a bit off topic, pcs is for converting pofs right? If so where can I get a copy (assuming its free)?
So anytime someone pokes holes in your, umm, position you blame it on your (lack of?) debating ability rather than considering it might actually be a hole?
PCS is at alliance.sourceforge.net IIRC EDIT; er, it isn't. D'oh....
-
Human Chimpanzee split occured later than thought
Is this a jab at ahmedinijad?
-
Human Chimpanzee split occured later than thought
Is this a jab at ahmedinijad?
Nah, just posting something thatl ooked interesting and evolution related.
-
Well I'm not going to argue with you guys on this (anymore) because I have better things to do than sit here and argue (for example work on the ship that I'm making), because from the looks of things the majority of the users this forum would love to try and get their piece in on how "stupid" the things I beleive in are. So I'm letting it rest at this, because the arguement would be more or less one sided anyways, because I suck at debating.
well first you're wrong and second it's not because your debating skills suck but because your position sucks
-
well first you're wrong and second it's not because your debating skills suck but because your position sucks
Davin's position doesn't 'suck', and it's rather offensive for you to call it such. His position is laughably wrong, but it does not 'suck' in any way, shape or form.
Seriously Davin, there are times when you just have to swallow your pride and admit that you were completely and utterly incorrect in your baseless assumptions, and no amount of pigheadedness will make up for it.
-
the real problem is that the creationist argument relies on 'god', when in fact such a god does not exist. kinda makes the whole argument kinda silly.
-
That's pretty bold. A more sound way of putting it would be to say that the assertion of god has no truth value.
-
the real problem is that the creationist argument relies on 'god', when in fact such a god does not exist. kinda makes the whole argument kinda silly.
Saying that "god" doesn't exist has just as much truth value as saying he does exist. You can't just say he doesn't exist and call the argument that he does exist "silly" without justification. And even if you provide justification, you can never completely remove the concept - which is why the debate continues to this day and will probably continue forever.
-
well first you're wrong and second it's not because your debating skills suck but because your position sucks
Davin's position doesn't 'suck', and it's rather offensive for you to call it such. His position is laughably wrong, but it does not 'suck' in any way, shape or form.
Seriously Davin, there are times when you just have to swallow your pride and admit that you were completely and utterly incorrect in your baseless assumptions, and no amount of pigheadedness will make up for it.
It's dumb and objectively false, not based on anything and he does not want to discuss it? The position sucks, because it is wrong, and it sucks because he said he is unwilling to check it? I mean, if that does not qualify as sucking then what does.
-
the real problem is that the creationist argument relies on 'god', when in fact such a god does not exist. kinda makes the whole argument kinda silly.
The problem isn't the reliance on God so much as the reliance on a God who creates the universe and then goes to extraordinary lengths to obfuscate that he did it, only to then write a great big book telling everyone he did it.
Even if you're religious a much more sensible option is that God simply waited for humans to evolve before revealing his existence.
If I didn't know better I'd swear that creationism was a galactic equivalent of the show Space Cadets and right now they're at the stage where they're trying to figure out who is stupid enough to fall for the next stage.
-
I mean, if that does not qualify as sucking then what does.
Well I could post a picture but I would get banned.
-
I mean, if that does not qualify as sucking then what does.
Well I could post a picture but I would get banned.
oh darling you know how to play me like a mandolin <3
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/chimpglock.jpg)
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/chimpglock.jpg)
Pff, that's so unbelievable. You'd never see a US president wearing a pink t-shirt.
-
If Darvin or anyone else is interested, I found a good video series on the internet that talks about what science is, what it is not, how it works, and also the terminology (like the word "theory") that people keep getting confused by. It also talks about the religious points of view, and also why "Intelligent Design" is not accepted by the general scientific community.
In fact I challenge Darvin and/or any of his/her friends to look at everything in there, and the come back here and talk to us about it.