Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
69 online now:
caffeine, kjsimons, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Even Younger Earth Creationism
Am5n 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4244 days)
Posts: 106
From: New York City, New York, United States
Joined: 02-21-2007


Message 46 of 76 (450234)
01-21-2008 11:40 AM


PD writes:

Please refrain from using inflammatory language.
Argue the position, not the person.


I try not to, but I guess I'll have to try harder not to do such things.
PD writes:

If you continue this type of language, you will suffer a short suspension.

I apologize and I thank you for being so kind as to give me a warning PD. :)

Quetzal writes:

I can't figure out how you knew he had a pet dog, and since I'm a "science jock", and my avatar has a picture of my pet dog


Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?". :laugh:
What kind of breed is that?

Quetzal writes:

is there a different kind of scientist other than "natural"? Are there scientists of your knowledge or acquaintance that study something other than nature?

sure there are different kinds of scientist. other than natural? sure. take a look at this link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Quetzal writes:

What is the difference between "evolutionist" and "scientist" (natural or otherwise)?

I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.

sincerely yours, Amen.


Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 11:59 AM Am5n has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 76 (450239)
01-21-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Am5n
01-21-2008 11:40 AM


Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?".
What kind of breed is that?

Heh. Probably not necesary - it was just an odd coincedence. I figured (based on the posts) that you weren't referring to me particularly.

According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend. :D

sure there are different kinds of scientist. other than natural? sure. take a look at this link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

AND

I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.

I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).

Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled" :D .

Anyway, thanks for your reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 11:40 AM Am5n has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 4:54 PM Quetzal has responded

  
Am5n 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4244 days)
Posts: 106
From: New York City, New York, United States
Joined: 02-21-2007


Message 48 of 76 (450344)
01-21-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Quetzal
01-21-2008 11:59 AM


Quetzal writes:

According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend.

I have a few champions myself[about 4 out of 7]. :laugh:

Quetzal writes:

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.

I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).

Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled".


so, do you want me to reply to this or what? :confused:

sincerely yours, Amen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 11:59 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 6:50 PM Am5n has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 49 of 76 (450372)
01-21-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by molbiogirl
01-21-2008 1:01 AM


screen grab
What is that, a screen grab?

Yep. You can use <control><PrtScrn> to capture the whole screen and <alt><PrtScrn> to capture the active window.

Then paste into a slide program where you can modify it if necessary and then export the slide as an image or into paint and use save-as.

<PrtScrn> (Print Screen) is left over from the dos world (pre eukaryotes) and it would cause the text (of course, you think computers need pictures?) on the screen to print.

(end OT discussion)

Edited by RAZD, : ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by molbiogirl, posted 01-21-2008 1:01 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 6:23 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 76 (450386)
01-21-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
01-21-2008 5:47 PM


Re: screen grab
(Print Screen) is left over from the dos world (pre eukaryotes) and it would cause the text (of course, you think computers need pictures?) on the screen to print.

print screen (in windows) copies the screen to clipboard as an image.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2008 5:47 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 76 (450395)
01-21-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Am5n
01-21-2008 4:54 PM


so, do you want me to reply to this or what?

Nah, we better not. We'll get purpled for sure. We can pick it up on some other thread.

Best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 4:54 PM Am5n has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 10:50 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Am5n 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4244 days)
Posts: 106
From: New York City, New York, United States
Joined: 02-21-2007


Message 52 of 76 (450449)
01-21-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Quetzal
01-21-2008 6:50 PM


alright, I gotta goto bed. night Quetzal.

sincerely yours, Amen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 6:50 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 76 (450637)
01-22-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2007 12:59 AM


Creationists believe that the universe was created thousands and thousands of years ago by a dog....SNIP

Lets just accept this at face value.

The idea of the universe made by a dog is so ridiculous that it is incredible that anyone would believe it. How could a dog make a universe with its little bitty paws?

Not to mention a lack of intelligence also....but, according to evolutionary theory, a mindless uintelligent process (natural selection) made all life on Earth.

At least the dog has a mind and therefore some "intelligence" so given enough time and a long enough life span it is infinetly more plausible than the evolutionary proposal.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 12:59 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2008 5:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 54 of 76 (450665)
01-23-2008 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2008 11:11 PM


Lets just accept this at face value.

So you support the dog hypothesis?

You're barking.

At least the dog has a mind and therefore some "intelligence" so given enough time and a long enough life span it is infinetly more plausible than the evolutionary proposal.

Perhaps you should try explaining that to a biologist, they enjoy a good laugh.

However that may be, the dog hypothesis is markedly less plausible than the view that I'm advocating in this thread, i.e. the matchless truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who made the world with his Noodly Appendage last Thursday.

However, the purpose of this thread is not to preach the truth of the FSM, nor to address your belief that the world was made by a dog, but to refute your delusion that the world existed for these fictitious "thousands and thousands of years" before last Thursday.

Please stay on topic. If you have any evidence for these "thousands and thousands of years", please share it with us.

Were you there?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2008 11:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2008 3:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 55 of 76 (450888)
01-24-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2008 5:40 AM


If you have any evidence for these "thousands and thousands of years", please share it with us.

Adequate: I am an OEC.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2008 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 56 of 76 (462114)
03-31-2008 7:27 AM


* Nylonase

There are bacteria that can digest nylon-6. Now, creationists admit that there are no beneficial mutations, and according to creationist chronology, nylon was invented in 1935. By their own admission, therefore, creation cannot have taken place earlier than 1935. And yet they cling blindly to their dogma of "thousands and thousands of years".


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 76 (462217)
04-01-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
03-31-2008 7:27 AM


It's curious that evos would cite bacteria evolution as evidence for their theories since the form is remarkably stable. As of today, we've never seen bacteria evolve into anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2008 7:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by teen4christ, posted 04-01-2008 3:38 PM randman has responded
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2008 6:57 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Shield, posted 04-02-2008 10:05 AM randman has not yet responded

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 58 of 76 (462218)
04-01-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
04-01-2008 3:31 PM


Are you sure about this? The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequency. With the widespread of introduction of anti-biotics and how bacterial populations everywhere have reacted to them, I'd say that bacteria is a perfect demonstration of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 3:31 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2008 3:54 PM teen4christ has not yet responded
 Message 60 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 4:07 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 59 of 76 (462220)
04-01-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by teen4christ
04-01-2008 3:38 PM


Are you sure about this? The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequency. With the widespread of introduction of anti-biotics and how bacterial populations everywhere have reacted to them, I'd say that bacteria is a perfect demonstration of evolution.

Randman is sure that his definition of evolution has never been observed. Note how he lumps all of "bacteria" into a single "form."

Rand(straw?)man is yet another of the misguided Creationists who, despite everyone's best efforts to educate him, has never been able to understand that the Theory of Evolution does not and never has suggested that a microbe should give birth to a chihuahua, or that a snake should lay an egg that hatches a chicken.

Randman will say that "we have never seen a bacteria produce anything as offspring other than more bacteria," completely missing the point when it comes to actual changes in allele frequency in populations. Until e coli morphs into a hamster or we actually observe a change on a level higher than the species level ("kind" seems to be something similar to "family," I think), he'll dismiss any speciation or other observed confirmation of the predictions of evolution as "adaptation within kinds."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by teen4christ, posted 04-01-2008 3:38 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 4:08 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 60 of 76 (462221)
04-01-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by teen4christ
04-01-2008 3:38 PM


By that definition, creationists are evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by teen4christ, posted 04-01-2008 3:38 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2008 4:09 PM randman has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019