Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:21:55 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:24:22 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:27:46 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:30:40 PM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:33:47 PM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to thezeppo)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:35:31 PM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:37:18 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Moonhead -- 2/12/2013 12:38:37 PM >

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:46:04 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/12/2013 1:31:09 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:49:19 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:10:52 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:36:00 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:39:37 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/12/2013 2:00:51 PM >

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:47:08 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 2:52:31 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/12/2013 2:55:41 PM >

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 2:55:57 PM   
wittynamehere


Posts: 759
Joined: 2/5/2010
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I almost never return to a thread, so if you saw my post and want me to hear your reply, please message it to me.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:08:43 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/12/2013 3:29:29 PM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:17:54 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/12/2013 3:21:33 PM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:44:31 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		What accent is that actually meant to be, Wants? As a Brit I'm not familiar.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:57:20 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

What accent is that actually meant to be, Wants? As a Brit I'm not familiar.


is it a wigga accent?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 4:19:01 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		Buggered if I know, tbh. It does make me think of saying 'I told you not to play that tune, Sam', though.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094