RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer How many mechanics are estimated to be in orbit, then? Well there's the dwarf out of Big Bang Theory, or is he back down again now?

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. Yeah....Wants it would help if you'd speak English.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead He proposed a near miss, not a collision. People all over the globe have flood myths because flooding happens all over the globe. Arguing that said myths are proof of a long forgotten prehistoric catastrophe, on the other hand, is an excuse to invent bullshit that can't be verified one way or the other. Also, the notion fundamentally violates the physics of space/time. None of the inner plants has mass enough to leave its solar orbit and any invading mass would not likely have left the solar system so orderly. Ancient Shuruppak, Ur, Kish, Uruk, Lagash, and Ninevah all present evidence of flooding. However, the evidence comes from different times.[10] In Israel, there is no such evidence of a widespread flood.[11] SOURCE As you say, just plain bullshit.

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:30:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It appears that the crackpot Velikovsky knows nothing about orbital mechanics. Shit! I don't either. How many mechanics are estimated to be in orbit, then? If they're quantum mechanics, they're potentially anywhere there is a job to interact with.

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo You can't really prove a creationist wrong, you can only add more evidence to the argument for evolution. No amount of evidence can prove creationists wrong, because they can always say God created the evidence that way. (Or, if they're the more extreme fundies, the Devil created it.) That's why creationism isn't a scientific theory: it fails the test of falsifiability.

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. Yeah....Wants it would help if you'd speak English. I might actually read his posts if he did.

Moonhead -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:37:18 PM)
quote: No amount of evidence can prove creationists wrong, because they can always say God created the evidence that way. (Or, if they're the more extreme fundies, the Devil created it.) That's why creationism isn't a scientific theory: it fails the test of falsifiability. I'd find the spectacle of people who think like that trying to co-opt a scientific method that they don't appear to understand in order to disprove itself hilarious if it wasn't such a display of contempt for rationality, human endeavour and everybody who can count to twenty without taking their shoes off. It's like watching Abu Hamza try to juggle: too pathetic to be funny.

Kirata -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Fundamentalist christians who promote Creationism as an alternative to Evolution have taken exception to any attempt to portray Genesis as myth. Raking the Bible for not being factual is a legitimate counterpoint. That great swaths of the Bible aren't "factual" in a literal sense is an incomparably trivial observation, and also one so utterly useless to employ against a Fundamentalist that doing so raises the question of which is a bigger fool. You cannot reason people out of something to which reason hasn't brought them. ~Jonathan Swift K.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 12:49:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam A "Flood Myth" that has basis in fact. I've heard this sort of thing referred to as a Deepity. That the flood myth to the extent it would be profound is false and is trivial to the extent that it could potentially be true. An alcoholic grabbing his family, livestock and getting on his boat to survive a flood, sure it happens but what's the point? Out of all the stuff in the Bible that fundies could talk about they keep coming back to this story for a reason. It's extremely important to them that they are the incredibly inbred descendants of Noah. Remember that Christianity was originally a Jewish cult, the rationalization that gentiles could belong is based on our being able to claim Noah as an ancestor. Without that it doesn't matter whether or not heaven is real, either way we weren't invited.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 1:10:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It appears that the crackpot Velikovsky knows nothing about orbital mechanics. Shit! I don't either. How many mechanics are estimated to be in orbit, then? If they're quantum mechanics, they're potentially anywhere there is a job to interact with. Don't observe them at work or they'll change.

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 1:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Mammals appeared during the age of the dinosaurs, but were very small and nocturnal. I thought the earliest mammal fossils predated the big extinction event that gave the dinosaurs legroom to evolve at the end of the triassic? (No argument with any of the rest, though.) The problem is there is no sharp dividing line. The synapsids that evolved into mammals were very mammal like by the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction. Whether the most mammalian synapsids were fully mammals would depend on identifying characters that don't fossilize. Although IIRC the earliest fossil considered to definitely be a mammal is from the middle Triassic. Also recent discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the early mammals were uniformly tiny. Castorocauda, from the Jurassic, was roughly the size of a smallish otter, 17 inches long and weighing maybe 800g grams, is the present largest mammal of the Mesozoic.

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 1:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead He proposed a near miss, not a collision. People all over the globe have flood myths because flooding happens all over the globe. Arguing that said myths are proof of a long forgotten prehistoric catastrophe, on the other hand, is an excuse to invent bullshit that can't be verified one way or the other. Actually it can be verified to not have happened. A massive object having a near miss with Earth recently enough for humans to have experienced it would have had effects on the orbits of all the major bodies in the Solar System that would be unexplainable otherwise. No such anomolies exist. Also if Earth had ever experienced a global flood we'd find signs of the flood, silt layers and the like, all over the world. We don't.

Moonhead -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 1:47:08 PM)
I know that, you know that, but people who like to argue that all these myths mean that something happened obviously don't know that.

Kirata -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 2:52:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I know that, you know that, but people who like to argue that all these myths mean that something happened obviously don't know that. That the ubiquity of the myths may suggest a time in our past when there were catastrophic inundations that would utterly dwarf any localized floods is not an idea that only occurs in the frenetic imaginations of flakes. The researchers, who formed the working [Holocene Impact Working Group] ...are established experts in geology, geophysics, geomorphology, tsunamis, tree rings, soil science and archaeology, including the structural analysis of myth. ~New York Times There are, of course skeptics, and the article quotes them. But on the other side, while the evidence isn't all in yet, there are some seriously well-qualified experts who think the indications merit a deeper look. More at: Discover K.

wittynamehere -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 2:55:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Science proves creationists wrong. So much fail. The person who wrote that line has absolutely no clue what science even is, or they wouldn't have written it. No comment on the link or rest of the thread, just pointing out that it's not worth looking into just based on the title alone.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 3:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. Yeah....Wants it would help if you'd speak English. well just skip my posts if ya dont like how i write. vincentml understands as many times hes a takin' issue wit my 'pinions. [8\|]

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 3:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 5) Over tens of millions of years, hominids evolved into humans. it waz a shorter time than dat. homo habailis is da first of da transitional early homo species comin bout 3.5 million yrs ago. agree wit ya though bout mass extinctions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Causes quote: 6) Posting in English to approximate an accent makes it hard to understand the point of the post and is mostly annoying rather than funny. whew feelin' da love at da moment. [&:]

PeonForHer -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 3:44:31 PM)
What accent is that actually meant to be, Wants? As a Brit I'm not familiar.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 3:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer What accent is that actually meant to be, Wants? As a Brit I'm not familiar. is it a wigga accent?

PeonForHer -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/12/2013 4:19:01 PM)
Buggered if I know, tbh. It does make me think of saying 'I told you not to play that tune, Sam', though.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875