|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: QUESTIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Or possibly their research and science are both completely spurious and not one of them has ever produced something worth a Nobel prize... I personally find this more convincing than the Global Evilutionist Conspiracy TM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Actually more than 1 person wins a Nobel prize every year... 2)This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever, it seems to imply that you think a large proportion of evolutionary scientists are awarded Nobel prizes, they aren`t....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Really a guess is it? Why hasn`t it been exposed as such, oh it must be GEC TM at work again... 2)How does more time available cast any doubts on the possibility of evolution? 3)Possibly, possibly not it depends how much shorter a time frame we are talking about.... 10,000 yearas would be to short but then again the GEC TM have managed to supress that as a widely accepted age... 4)Really? How? 5)How about the fact that genetic data shows exactly the "papertrail" that evolution predicts ie chimps and humans having more shared genetic material and retroviral insertions than humans and gerbils... The GEC TM want you to think this is due to a shared ancestry.... 6)Would you care to define created kinds for me... For instance are chimps and orangutangs the same "kind"... Are humans and chimps the same "kind"... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Interesting I would have thought that the government would want to promote any worldview that promoted a sense of responsibility for ones actions, it would make it easier to enforce law and order....
Must be GEC TM in action again.... Oh and if you think separation of church and state is "bunk" try going and living in a theocracy some time Iran for example... Also how would you feel about a state church if that church were not christian? Probably the same way a non christian would feel about a state sponsored christian church..... i.e not very happy church state separation is a good way of avoiding this issue... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
He is also an idiot, he thought that a decomposing basking shark was a plesiosaur....
And the "challenge"? Read these and tell me if you can honestly say its not spurious...
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htm http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_phony_challenge.htm http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM#Proverbs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: You seem really impressed by that doctorate... Its from patriot university do a web search and see what you find....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Now that is interesting, what does that do to Dembskis concept of specified information?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: What, so basically , the more people understand science, the less people believe in creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Right so we have various Bsc`s, PHD`s, at least one professor (SLP at least probably more) and presumeably some Msc`s as well who, get this, think evolution is right and creationism wrong.... Are you saying that those of us with scientific qualifications don`t understand science? If not your assertion falls at the first hurdle....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)It isn`t an arguement from authority, you made the assertion that the more people understood science the more (likely?) they would be to accept creationism, I was meerly showing you that the people here on these boards with scientific training seem to predominantly disagree with creation.... I`m not saying that because they have qualifications they are right by default, rather that they have qualifications that demonstrate their understanding of science.... The fact that they are predominantly evo`s seems to disproove your original assertion.... 2)Science is interpretation TC the rest is just data.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: HTF did they get into different strata? Did a global flood come along and "sort" them? If they were buried (by man) I`m pretty sure that these putative future paleontologists would notice things like discontinuities in the rock strata.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ok TC explain to me by what mechanism does a sudden innundation of H2O sort dead organisms by degree of sophistication rather than by size/shape/density.... Thats assuming it wouldn`t just churn everything up into a homogenous layer....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Thats what i was asking for bud, sorry TC if it wasn`t expressed clearly enough but a general model is what we want here....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Um TC you seem to misunderstand Punk Eeek, Punk Eeek IS gradual evolution in an isolated (geographically and genetically) population...
The reason that we see sudden transitions is that once the isolated population overcomes its confinement it has evolved to be different from the parent population hence we see the arrival of a new species... Oh and for the record it was Darwin that first proposed some sort of Punk Eeek..... "Charles Darwin wrote in 1859: Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439" [This message has been edited by joz, 03-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Your implication that the appearence of discrete as opposed to continuous changes in the fossil record is a "dilemma" for gradualism is resolved by Punk Eeek, so it is puzzling that you mention Punk Eeeek as an alternative to gradualism.... Its not an alternative it is gradualistic and as Darwin noted we don`t expect to find a smooth transition, hence no dilemma..... Also your description of species muddling along for millenia before undergoing a rapid burst of evolution and settling back down in relative evolutionary inactivity again when coupled with mention of Punk Eeeek implys a notion that Punk Eeeek = Hopeful Monster ie non gradual evolution... Do you understand that your post either a)betrayed an ignorance of Punk Eeek or b)was misleading in its representation of Punk Eeeek....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024