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. (2/1/2013 1:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided. Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory. I'm not sure that putting a saddle on a dinosaur model is enough to bridge the gap.

PeonForHer -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 2:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not sure that putting a saddle on a dinosaur model is enough to bridge the gap. Jesus, Moonhead - there's mixing metaphors, then there's scrambling them into a Pollock painting!

Raiikun -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 2:33:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided. Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory. Well there are multiple groups of "creationists". As far as what the Bible says, if you dig back into the original Hebrew, it actually coexists with what Science knows pretty well. (For starters, the Bible speaks of the earth as being far, far older than a few thousand years).

mnottertail -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 2:45:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not sure that putting a saddle on a dinosaur model is enough to bridge the gap. Jesus, Moonhead - there's mixing metaphors, then there's scrambling them into a Pollock painting! I would rather have thought him narked at New York, when I thought he should have said London in his example (perhaps another thread, not this one...and keep the analogy your side of the pond) but you haven't any dinosaurs other than a few in the house of lords and the piltdown bloke, right? And he was rather iffy, I must say.

thishereboi -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 2:50:20 PM)
You are assuming that anyone who believes in God doesn't believe in evolution. You are wrong about that.

Moonhead -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 3:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not sure that putting a saddle on a dinosaur model is enough to bridge the gap. Jesus, Moonhead - there's mixing metaphors, then there's scrambling them into a Pollock painting! Not a mixed metaphor, old boy: believe it or not, there's models of saddled dinosaurs in that stupid creationist museum...

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 3:42:45 PM)
quote: I have spent substantial time studying evolutionary theory. I am not talking against the theory. It has been extremely useful in biology studies. Still, we can not make it a dogma. Often I find the "great debates" between evolutionists and creationists ridiculous. The basic problem is they talk past each other. The debate is actually between major philosophy directions: the evolutionists are materialists, the creationists are idealists. Where the information comes from is the basic question. If the materialist assumption is wrong their theory falls apart. Depends on what your definition is for "theory." In science a theory is a best fit model of how things work based upon empirical evidence. There is nothing philosophical about it. It is in fact the antithesis of philosophical. Philosophy is speculative. Science is skepticism that calls for empirical evidence. The scientific model is always subject to change and is therefore anything but dogmatic [until the politicians take hold of it.] Not only is Darwinian evolution by natural selection materialist . . . all science is materialist. Your dichotomy between materialism and idealism is a description of ancient Greek thought. That battle has long gone. The prospect of new and challenging evidence is endemic to the scientific enterprise, and unsurprising. Falsification is endemic to science. In fact, it is at the frontiers of new knowledge where the excitement of science lies.

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 3:44:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'. I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:01:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So much for "we never see evolution happen". We are now evolving things that didn't exist before. http://www.sciencecodex.com/u_of_minn_researchers_unveil_first_artificial_enzyme_created_by_evolution_in_a_test_tube-105949 "While a handful of groups worldwide are developing artificial enzymes, they use rational design to construct the proteins on computers. Instead, the Seelig lab employs directed evolution. "To my knowledge, our enzyme is the only entirely artificial enzyme created in a test tube by simply following the principles of natural selection and evolution," he says." Science will never prove the creationists wrong. I remember as a kid they came up with this new concept in the 60's....the Big Bang....with all their science, purportedly proving God inescapably absent, limp. Now....God (being God and all) could have simply snapped his fingers and said "Fuck this silence shit....getting a smidge bored here.....let's have us a big motherfucking bang....why I believe I'll just create everything* out of nothing"* (the scientists, by the way are largely at that point now....pretty much thinking...."we actually don't have a clue but...it seems to have started....here....at this point....and before that, there was nothing and then suddenly....there was all this stuff"). So...you wanna blow off the Creator? Work a little harder on your thesis because when it all comes down to figuring out...."how the FUCK did we get here?"....the scientists are largely (today, after all our computers, UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLY giant brains, Hubble, etc.) at the point of...."at some point there was nothing and then....suddenly....there was something". When the scientists get to a point where they can say "there was this blob....we have photos...lookie here....and, like insulating foam, one day someone squished the nozzle and suddenly there was more shit"..... Until then....you pretty much got nothing.

Moonhead -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:09:24 PM)
So what do you have, then? "Oh, it only works if you believe in it." When you've got something other than Tinkerbell to offer, then you might have a leg to stand on with that argument.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:20:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So what do you have, then? "Oh, it only works if you believe in it." When you've got something other than Tinkerbell to offer, then you might have a leg to stand on with that argument. I've got nothing more than the scientists do (which is....nyet)....which is what makes this argument ridiculous. Everyone's at the same place: One day there was nothing...the next day there was something. Taking out some guy/gal who snapped their fingers and said "here we go....something" is as likely as anything else. Until they show me photos, I'm as likely to believe in omnipotence as I am that some contractor went to Home Depot and built all this shit.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided. Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory. I'm not sure that putting a saddle on a dinosaur model is enough to bridge the gap. Man rode bareback in dem days and nah I'm a' talking bout homo sapiens.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided. Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory. No fucking way! quote: evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the 'evolution-versus-creation' debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God's Words and the Book of God's Works, he presents evolutionary creation a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms an evolutionary understanding of the concept of intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith. http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Creation-Christian-Approach-Evolution/dp/1556355815

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Lets see. With phrases like "that may resemble" and "Seelig speculates the new protein resembles" I find it evolutionary speculative in the extreme. It's interesting, but not conclusive by any stretch. "Science proves creatinists wrong". Interesting. Proof based on such as "may" and "speculates". Fascinating[8\|] You're right that the thread is poorly titled. Science proved creationists wrong and here's a little more evidence to put on top of the mountain would be a more accurate title.

imdoingitagain -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And if guided by me, it's called a blowjob. http://instantrimshot.com/

imdoingitagain -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:24:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So much for "we never see evolution happen". We are now evolving things that didn't exist before. http://www.sciencecodex.com/u_of_minn_researchers_unveil_first_artificial_enzyme_created_by_evolution_in_a_test_tube-105949 "While a handful of groups worldwide are developing artificial enzymes, they use rational design to construct the proteins on computers. Instead, the Seelig lab employs directed evolution. "To my knowledge, our enzyme is the only entirely artificial enzyme created in a test tube by simply following the principles of natural selection and evolution," he says." Science will never prove the creationists wrong. I remember as a kid they came up with this new concept in the 60's....the Big Bang....with all their science, purportedly proving God inescapably absent, limp. Now....God (being God and all) could have simply snapped his fingers and said "Fuck this silence shit....getting a smidge bored here.....let's have us a big motherfucking bang....why I believe I'll just create everything* out of nothing"* (the scientists, by the way are largely at that point now....pretty much thinking...."we actually don't have a clue but...it seems to have started....here....at this point....and before that, there was nothing and then suddenly....there was all this stuff"). So...you wanna blow off the Creator? Work a little harder on your thesis because when it all comes down to figuring out...."how the FUCK did we get here?"....the scientists are largely (today, after all our computers, UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLY giant brains, Hubble, etc.) at the point of...."at some point there was nothing and then....suddenly....there was something". When the scientists get to a point where they can say "there was this blob....we have photos...lookie here....and, like insulating foam, one day someone squished the nozzle and suddenly there was more shit"..... Until then....you pretty much got nothing. However, unlike some of the most vocal anti-theists on the internet, most scientists are not try to prove anyone wrong but instead simply trying to get a better understanding of our world.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi You are assuming that anyone who believes in God doesn't believe in evolution. You are wrong about that. Where did he say that? I'd like to see the quote of him claiming that because this looks to me like yet another example of that well used stereotype: Christians telling lies about atheists.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Well there are multiple groups of "creationists". As far as what the Bible says, if you dig back into the original Hebrew, it actually coexists with what Science knows pretty well. (For starters, the Bible speaks of the earth as being far, far older than a few thousand years). Could you talk me through that because I was just reading Genesis 1:3-2:3 and it seems an awful lot like water and the earth predate the existence of stars which is a pretty massive cosmology fail. I just don't see how the book could have gotten things much more wrong, it talks about a flat earth that sits immovable on a pillar.....

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory. No fucking way! quote: evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the 'evolution-versus-creation' debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God's Words and the Book of God's Works, he presents evolutionary creation a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms an evolutionary understanding of the concept of intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith. http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Creation-Christian-Approach-Evolution/dp/1556355815 Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins based on nothing more than his own wishful fantasies. What is his evidence? How is his proposal falsifiable? Intelligent Design was an ill-informed attempt to put lipstick on the creationism pig and call it science. Based on the allegedly inadequate explanation for the development of 1. the bacterium flagellum, 2. human immune system, and 3. the human blood-clotting system. The evolutionary steps of protein production have been verified in all three processes. So, Lamoureux hasn't a clue about Intelligent Design. As for the reflection of God's mind in the beauty, complexity, and functionality of nature, how does this preacher raise himself to the level of knowing God's mind? Who the fuck appointed him so all-knowing? And how does he dare to presume that nature is so functional and beautiful when millions of innocents are killed by hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions; when 40% of human pregnancies end in bloody, twisted natural abortions; and when so many untold millions end their days in suffering and anguish brought on by pathogens, parasites, and/or organ dysfunction? Nature is functional? You've got to be fucking kidding! Nature is deadly. Something like 98% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. I should think God would be embarrassed and outraged to have some idiot preacher assign all that horror to His creation. Puhleezeee!!![8\|]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 8:33:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie Science will never prove the creationists wrong. I remember as a kid they came up with this new concept in the 60's....the Big Bang....with all their science, purportedly proving God inescapably absent, limp. Now....God (being God and all) could have simply snapped his fingers and said "Fuck this silence shit....getting a smidge bored here.....let's have us a big motherfucking bang....why I believe I'll just create everything* out of nothing"* (the scientists, by the way are largely at that point now....pretty much thinking...."we actually don't have a clue but...it seems to have started....here....at this point....and before that, there was nothing and then suddenly....there was all this stuff"). So, are you saying that God works for The Fed, The Fed Chairman is God, or we have lots and lots of Big Bangs at the Fed money pot? [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875