Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:16 AM
45 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, Meddle, PaulK (5 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,542 Year: 3,579/19,786 Month: 574/1,087 Week: 164/212 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 98 (433806)
11-12-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
It's not magic. With God, all things are possible.

How is that not magic?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:28 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 98 (433807)
11-12-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:49 PM


Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
I was purposefully overstating the theory. I never expected there to be winged horses.

Then you admit that "macroevolution" is nothing special and is just a bunch of microevolution.

Good.

Now can we get onto the question of why you think scientists are morons when it comes to their chosen field of study?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:49 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 78 of 98 (433808)
11-12-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 10:16 PM


Re: truth and evidence
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
quote:
"man" in the context you put it is the same as "human,"

I meant 'ape'.


Then your request is ruled out by evolutionary theory. We don't see transition from ape to man or from man to ape is because apes and humans are not descended from one another.

I am not my cousin. My cousin is not me. I am not descended from my cousin. My cousin is not descended from me. Instead, my cousin and I are descended from a common ancestor who is neither my cousin nor me: Our grandparents.

You're trying to say that because we don't see something that evolution says could never happen, that means evolution is wrong? Isn't that a bit backwards? It isn't solid proof that evolution is right, but it does mean that evolution is consistent with what we see.

All the things you are demanding are things that evolution says can't happen.

So why are you so struck by the fact that we don't see them?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:16 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 79 of 98 (433810)
11-12-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:31 PM


micro\macro and the simple truths
This is off-topic regarding the parable so I have put my answer at Message 71.

Some hints for formating quotes

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

Hope that helps.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:31 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 80 of 98 (433831)
11-13-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Canyon
quote:

Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

The evidence doesn't point to a simple functioning "mature" Earth. The Earth is full of evidence of events that have happened and evidence that it IS old that is not necessary for the Earth to be "mature" in a functional sense. It is not necessary for radiometric dating to work as it does. There is no need to plant fossils. There is no need to plant evidence of large meteor strikes and so on. Come to that God could make a planet that looks like the one described in Genesis 1 with a solid sky and with the sun and moon just lights in the sky. If God didn't create a world that looks like the one in Genesis 1 then why assume that the timescale of "creation" is the same as in Genesis 1 and all the physical evidence is just one of God's deceptions ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 81 of 98 (433849)
11-13-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:31 PM


Re: truth and evidence
You didn't answer the other part of my reply, so I'll repeat it and add to it for further clarification.

No. I'm saying that it could be that evidence is a lie. It might not.

By assuming that some evidence can be false means you can believe any possible concept you want to believe, and there is no way to distinguish between any that are true from those that are false.

The earth is flat, 6,000 years old, the center of the universe and the sun orbits the earth. Any evidence that says otherwise is false evidence.

The earth is round, 4.5 billion years old, orbits the sun in the outer arm of a rather nondescript galaxy. Any evidence that says otherwise is false evidence.

How do you tell which is true?

If any evidence can be false, then it is the same as if all evidence is false, for none can be trusted. Neither the evidence of a rock or the evidence of a book.

I believe that God did make the earth old, or that the earth was created with the universe (Gen. 1:1). But there is no distinction between 'God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was formless and void...' (Gen. 1:2). Maybe in that time, the earth aged. Maybe, life was sprung up in the water, which died during creation week. I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe that when Jesus does come again, I'll know when I ask Him.

Not only did he make it old, then, but he made it of many different old ages, all consistently layered and complete with dead life forms embedded in those layers designed in such a way that they show a progression from one layer to the next exactly as would occur if they had evolved.

Not only did he make them old but he made them consistently old for patterns of geological layers, life form and radioactive decay. He gave similar rocks in similar formations different radioactive ages.

If the earth is young 99.9% of the evidence just for the age of the earth is false.

So IF god does not lie then the earth is old, and those people who have told you that it is young are the ones that have lied.

So is the evidence true or not? It's simple: either the evidence is all true, or there is no reality, no truth.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:31 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 82 of 98 (433852)
11-13-2007 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
11-12-2007 8:39 PM


Re: Canyon
I read all of your lengthy post but it raises a lot of false implications and assumptions about me or others.

Incorrect. Evolution, like the rest of science, is largely deductive.

Infact, quite correct actually. Theories work from prediction and confirmation. They can use deduction within the framework, but deductive logic wouldn't allow for paradigm shifts. That is what I mean. Generally, theories are tentative. There is some deducing within, but it is not a solid knowledge like a deductive syllogism from KNOWN premisses.

And yet, evolution is precisely that: It is a fact. You can watch it happen right in front of your very eyes.

You are equivocating with the term "evolution". If you mean natural selection and speciation is a fact - then I agree. Otherwise define, "fact".

Some? = All? I think not. This is the "gap" where people make personal choices whether to believe big evolution happened, and it is where many people think that the "gaps" in the fossil record are woefully huge, therefore they don't need to bake a macro-cake. Just a personal choice.

If you wish to make a leap of faith and declare that there is some evidence somewhere that we don't have which would change everything, then you are perfectly free to insist that it was magic. But you will understand if the rest of us who insist upon evidence don't quite come along for the ride

I never asked anybody to.

Because creationists don't even have a theory. In science, a theory is not simply wishful thinking.

It means you have a presupposition that the bible is "wishful thinking". It's exactly why I don't listen to people like you, but infact listen to logic, that doesn't require that I see the bible or any theory of the bible as wishful thinking based on another person's subjective views. (see your own post for examples of your own biblical subjective views).

Do you KNOW it is wishful thinking? No - it's not a knowledge, it's an argument, which is why I don't have to believe your argument, as logic shows me.

Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.

HAHAHA. Or it explains everything because it's the truth. You don't know but it was amusing to see you pretend you do know.

Do you seriously not see the problem with this? How very telling that you're trying to frame this as a "freedom of conscience" issue as if creationism were akin to not eating meat on Friday. The problem is that you are insisting that we lie to people with regard to the way things work...and not regarding something innocuous but rather something basic and fundamental.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just how do you expect there to be any progress in biology if you are going to insist that every fanciful opinion is just as good as any other? We are on the verge of genetic breakthroughs with regard to the treatment of disease and you want us to ignore the underlying biology that makes it possible in the first place?

I said none of that.

I said that it is the creationists right to not believe in a theory.

But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity.

And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory.

A good example of why we don't place faith in men's theories, as we think God, if he exists, if he is the bible God, is omniscient, and - does know. Gettier it?

The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution?

I said I see all theories as not being fact, but infact the facts that they deal with are facts.

In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism.

Science is tentative, and theories aren't deductive or gravity wouldn't be negotiable. Even deductions within a theory can be deduced FROM inductive theories which are also deducing from other assumptions.

If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case.

Excellent. I agree completely. But people don't believe in big evolution, because they believe that macro-evolution is not knowable at this stage. The actual small scale biological insights are true, but they don't believe in big change.

I only ask that we don't insist they believe in it, as afterall, we don't insist that they believe in any other theories such as gravity etc....

I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 8:39 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2007 10:55 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 11-14-2007 2:25 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 90 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-20-2007 2:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 83 of 98 (433873)
11-13-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 8:39 AM


Re: Canyon
I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?

Ah yes, the good ol' "if you're right and I'm wrong, why are you arguing with me?" trope.

I heard that one the other day from a 9/11 Twoofer:

Here.

Max Photon writes:

That is why I am a bit surprised by the hostility of some. If your 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis is indeed correct, then my ideas should invoke little threat or anger, but rather should help fortify your position.

See? If we were right, we wouldn't point out that he was wrong.

And that's logical ... in La-La land.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 8:39 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 11:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 84 of 98 (433882)
11-13-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
11-13-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Canyon
Ah yes, the good ol' "if you're right and I'm wrong, why are you arguing with me?" trope.

Infact that isn't my argument.

My argument is that there is a heavy intolerance of people who are creationist and a need to desperately de-bunk, what? Beliefs.

People can believe what they want - I am not saying if you are right and I am wrong then you are bothering me so I'm right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2007 10:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by subbie, posted 11-13-2007 12:07 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 11-13-2007 9:52 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2007 10:33 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2007 10:38 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 36 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 85 of 98 (433883)
11-13-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Canyon
My argument is that there is a heavy intolerance of people who are creationist and a need to desperately de-bunk, what? Beliefs.

If creos simply wanted to sit in their homes and believe, or gather in their churches and believe, or even walk about the streets and believe, 99% of this argument would go away. The problem is not that creos believe. It's that creos are trying to get their belief taught in public schools as science. It is this action that there is intolerance of, not simply the act of believing. And, the only reason science is debunking is because creos both believe and argue that their belief is scientific.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 11:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 86 of 98 (433990)
11-13-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Canyon
Subbie's response deserves to be reinforced. There would be no debate if creationists weren't pushing their religious agenda into public schools. We believe in religious freedom and that people everywhere should be free to worship according to their own beliefs, but in churches, not science classrooms. Science class should teach that which science has learned using the scientific method. If creationists want science taught in science class, then they should take their science to science journals and conferences instead of to schools boards and state legislatures. They should stop bypassing the scientific process and start participating.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 11:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 87 of 98 (434041)
11-14-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 8:39 AM


Re: Canyon
mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
They can use deduction within the framework, but deductive logic wouldn't allow for paradigm shifts.

Incorrect. It is precisely because of deductive logic that we get paradigm shifts:

If X is true, then we necessarily see Y. We instead see Z, therefore X cannot be true and must be discarded.

quote:
Generally, theories are tentative. There is some deducing within, but it is not a solid knowledge like a deductive syllogism from KNOWN premisses.

Huh? How is it not deductive simply because we're not sure if the premises are certain? Did you learn nothing from the development of non-Euclidean geometry? It's because we decided that the "KNOWN" premises of Euclidean geometry aren't true that we are able to develop other systems of geometry.

That doesn't make Euclidean geometry any less deductive or any less "solid." It simply means it is dependent upon the various postulates and axioms being true. If they're not, then we'll discard it.

quote:
You are equivocating with the term "evolution". If you mean natural selection and speciation is a fact - then I agree.

But that's what evolution is. How can it be equivocation when that is precisely what the term means?

Again, evolution is both a fact AND a theory. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. We know that evolution happens. The theory OF evolution seeks to describe how it happens.

quote:
This is the "gap" where people make personal choices whether to believe big evolution happened, and it is where many people think that the "gaps" in the fossil record are woefully huge, therefore they don't need to bake a macro-cake.

Incorrect.

What are these "gaps" to which you speak? Be specific. We keep hearing creationists claim that there aren't transitional fossils, but the fossil record is lousy with them. You can't go to a dig without tripping over them.

Be specific, mike. What are these "gaps" you're talking about?

Please note, I am not saying there are none. I'm simply asking for you to define your terms for you are assuming that if there is a gap, then it is "woefully huge" and are expecting everybody else to go along with you.

I am worried that you're going to invoke the creationist fallacy that if we find a transitional between A and B, that leaves two more "gaps" that need to be filled, even though the "gap" between A and B has been reduced.

quote:
I never asked anybody to.

Did you or did you not say:

Just a personal choice.

In the very sentence before?

Do you think we're stupid, mike?

quote:
It means you have a presupposition that the bible is "wishful thinking".

In the context of science, how is it not? The Bible is nothing but assertion and what is assertion if not wishful thinking? We don't include the Iliad, the Odyssey, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Book of Three, the Koran, the Baghvad Gita, and a host of other books in science.

Why do you wish to invoke special pleading for your favorite book?

quote:
Do you KNOW it is wishful thinking?

It's what you're doing right now.

quote:
quote:
Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.

HAHAHA. Or it explains everything because it's the truth.


Incorrect. You clearly misunderstood.

Suppose there is an experiment. A theory claims that if thus-and-so is the case, then we should see result X. If we see something else, then we know that thus-and-so is not true. Therefore, there is a differential outcome that is explained by the theory: You get result X and not Y. The reason why you don't get Y is because the process gives a result of X.

But if your theory says that X, Y, Z, and any other possible outcome is acceptable, then what have we actually learned? How does it explain why we got result Y and not X? The theory says that X is just as acceptable a result, so why didn't we get it?

Gravitational theory says that when I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. It does not fall into the sky. Gravity is an attractive force and pulls the objects together. It does not push them apart.

But if your theory is that god purposefully, consciously, and deliberately moves the ball, then that doesn't really tell us why the ball falls to the ground. God could just as easily have moved the ball into the sky, moved it laterally, had it hover, do loop-the-loops, etc. So why didn't it? Why did it fall to the ground? Why does it always fall to the ground?

Because the "god did it" claim explains every possible outcome we could possibly find, it doesn't actually explain anything.

quote:
I said that it is the creationists right to not believe in a theory.

You have a right to your opinion.

You do not have a right to your facts.

quote:
A good example of why we don't place faith in men's theories, as we think God, if he exists, if he is the bible God, is omniscient, and - does know.

BZZZT!

Pascal's Wager!

I'm so sorry, mike.

What makes you think you picked the right god? Chances are you didn't.

And on top of that, you do realize that by making god omniscient, you do away with free will. This isn't me writing to you, mike, it's god. And that isn't you responding. It's god.

And thus all creation is nothing more than an exercise of god playing with himself.

quote:
I said I see all theories as not being fact

Huh? Nobody said a theory was a fact. That's why we say that evolution is both a fact AND a theory. They're distinct things. Evolution happens right in front of our eyes. That's the fact. How evolution happens is the theory.

quote:
but infact the facts that they deal with are facts.

Then you're saying evolution is a fact.

Good.

quote:
Science is tentative, and theories aren't deductive or gravity wouldn't be negotiable.

Huh? How is it not deductive? Gravity isn't negotiable. Step off the Empire State Building and you plummet (to the balcony a few floors down).

The fact that our understanding of kinetics changed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein didn't mean that apples suddenly hovered in mid-air awaiting us to make up our minds about how gravity works. That's why theories are deductive: They start with observable facts and deduce the interactions that lead to the results.

quote:
But people don't believe in big evolution

First, there's no such thing as "big evolution." There is just evolution.

Second, evolution believes in people. That's the great thing about science: It doesn't require belief. Gravity works where you believe in it or not.

quote:
because they believe that macro-evolution is not knowable at this stage.

But we've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us lie to people?

quote:
The actual small scale biological insights are true, but they don't believe in big change.

If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore because that'll mean we've speciated?

quote:
I only ask that we don't insist they believe in it, as afterall, we don't insist that they believe in any other theories such as gravity etc....

You have a right to your opinion.

YOu do not have a right to your facts.

quote:
If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?

Ah, yes...you make an idiotic statement and the people who point out your errors are the ones with the problem.

That's called "projection," mike.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 8:39 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by mike the wiz, posted 04-25-2008 7:08 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 88 of 98 (434077)
11-14-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Canyon
My argument is that there is a heavy intolerance of people who are creationist and a need to desperately de-bunk, what? Beliefs.

Whereas creationists by contrast sit quitely in their monastic cells and meditate on the glory of God, there is no debate, and consequently these forums don't exist.

Oh, wait ...

Could I suggest that the immediate reason why evolutionists debate creationists is exactly the same as the reason that creationist debate evolutionists, i.e. that the two sides disagree with one another.

To misquote you slightly: "My argument is that there is a heavy intolerance of people who are evolutionist and a need to desperately de-bunk, what? Half of science."

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 11:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 89 of 98 (434078)
11-14-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Canyon
Infact that isn't my argument.

Well it looks like it is.

Let's read it again.

You write: "I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?"

If Rrhain is right, you say, then it is odd that he should argue with you.

This means, inductively, that the fact that he argues with you is evidence suggesting that he is not right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 11:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 98 (435367)
11-20-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by mike the wiz
11-13-2007 8:39 AM


Re: Canyon
wiley coyote supergenius writes:

I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2835639.ece

Events like this are why we worry. Religious groups with no knowledge or understanding of the topic they are objecting to are the reason we worry and why we will continue to object.

Bishop Boniface Adoyo, the head of the 35 Kenyan evangelical denominations, is leading opposition to the exhibition. “I do not dispute that as humans we have a history, but my family most certainly did not descend from the apes,” he said. The bishop was invited to view the new Human Origins gallery before it opened this month, and said that he would call on his flock to demonstrate outside the museum if evolution was described as anything other than merely a theory.

“Bits of it are being disproved by scientists every day,” he said. “Yet it’s being taught in our schools to children - a theory being taught as fact.”

Not a single 'bit' has been disproved to date. This theory is in fact a body of facts, no wonder its taught as fact. Not only are we evolved from apes, we are in fact still apes.

-x


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 8:39 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 11-20-2007 3:17 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019