Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…2930323435…78

Comments

  • #932
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    any answer to that question J C????,
    Answered here:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92585816&postcount=934


  • #933
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Understandable, too many of these threads is bound to have a negative effect on one's mental health :pac:
    ... is that what you call starting to live in the real world?:pac:


  • #934
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    When using the word "science" one should be careful about using the word "theory" alongside it as "theory" in science has a different meaning than in the vernacular. What Creationism is is a hypothesis. And one that is currently lacking any substantiation that I know of.

    Which is why this is of interest to me:

    Could you adumbrate for us the content of this "lots" of evidence and reason?

    This is another area to be careful with language. There are many things we have NOT explained using our sciences, but that is NOT the same as saying they CANNOT be explained by science.

    Wishful thinking and imagination are not explanations.

    OK. But that is science appropriating words and the criticising the rest of us for not using them in a particular way that scientists do.

    But how close is science to answering these questions. Its no good to say - "I know we havent answered them, but at least we are corectly not answering them'. Thats just no help at all.

    I follow you on the imagination point alright. But its not necessarily imagination if they are facts whose origins can just be questioned because they have been handed down for many many generations and cannot be easily proven at this stage. That doesnt prove that they are wrong.


  • #935
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    endacl wrote: »

    To be fair, there's some good points in that.


  • #936
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

    When you are right, you are right.
    Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    To be fair, there's some good points in that.

    Ten, in fact! :)

    Here's part 2.



  • #938
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    Answered here:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92585816&postcount=934

    No JC, not the question I asked ,I asked is there scientists from non- Abrahamic faiths who support creation theory,:confused:as you would think they would be convinced by the facts.??


  • #939
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    When you are right, you are right.
    Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

    Really? What time is it?



























    What time is it now?


  • #940
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    endacl wrote: »
    Really? What time is it?



























    What time is it now?

    19:04 in both cases. Its printed on the post.


  • #941
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.:)

    I haven't suffered any brain injuries, so no, I don't think so.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    19:04 in both cases. Its printed on the post.

    :D I think you know what I meant!


  • #943
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    They don't mention intelligent design or anything of the sort. Their work was misinterpreted and twisted in order to produce the intelligent design 'theory'.
    They don't mention intelligent design allright ... but they have presented an enormous problem for Materialistic Evolution ... that to date has only been resolved by ID.


  • #944
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.

    PopePalpatine
    I haven't suffered any brain injuries, so no, I don't think so.
    If you're a Pope ... you're a Creationist already,


  • #945
    amen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    Posting on AfterHours is normally a waste of time but what all of you creationists/ anti-evolution guys don't seem to get is that modern science is pretty much inter-connected from our understanding of how the universe works down to how cells work, dna/ran, how modern drugs are created, life saving machines, computers, mobile phones, the internet etc

    If you start throwing out parts of modern science based on the stories in 5000 year old book then fine throw it all out and stop using all of the modern scientific inventions. Go back to walking/horses as your mode of transport, grow your own crops (no artificial fertilisers), no vets, no fridges, no phones/electricity, horrendous child birth mortality rates, horrendous child/adult mortality rates etc

    If you all the deniers spent as much time trying to learn the science as you do denying then maybe you would understand.

    Personally I think a lot of the deniers don't understand what they are denying nor have the desire to learn. Its easier to just watch some random youtube video and and let the video tell them what to think.


  • #946
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    amen wrote: »
    Posting on AfterHours is normally a waste of time but what all of you creationists/ anti-evolution guys don't seem to get is that modern science is pretty much inter-connected from our understanding of how the universe works down to how cells work, dna/ran, how modern drugs are created, life saving machines, computers, mobile phones, the internet etc

    If you start throwing out parts of modern science based on the stories in 5000 year old book then fine throw it all out and stop using all of the modern scientific inventions. Go back to walking/horses as your mode of transport, grow your own crops (no artificial fertilisers), no vets, no fridges, no phones/electricity, horrendous child birth mortality rates, horrendous child/adult mortality rates etc

    If you all the deniers spent as much time trying to learn the science as you do denying then maybe you would understand.

    Personally I think a lot of the deniers don't understand what they are denying nor have the desire to learn. Its easier to just watch some random youtube video and and let the video tell them what to think.

    Amen!


  • #947
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    endacl wrote: »
    Amen!

    Thank you JESUS!!!


  • #948
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    catallus wrote: »
    Thank you JESUS!!!
    This guy?



  • #949
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Some scientists on BBC4 now :
    "Horizon: Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?"

    Hope for them yet.


  • #950
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    To be fair, there's some good points in that.
    more strawmen, hand-waving and logical fallacies than you could shake a stick at.:)


  • #951
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    The abject failure of the educational system to provide a broad and holistic syllabus to hungry young minds is a stain on our society.


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

    Their arguments were created perfect!


  • #953
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Some scientists on BBC4 now :
    "Horizon: Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?"

    Hope for them yet.
    Some Quotes;-
    "They think the orthodox science could be very wrong."
    "we suspect in our hears of hears that it might not be the final truth".

    "cosmologists model of Creation might only be just another story."
    "the problem starts one second after it starts."
    "the problem is that all explosions produce patches of heat and cold - and the universe is even in temperature"

    "in an instant it underwent a massive expansion that left everything smooth and uniform."

    "for every kg of normal matter there is 5 kg of other matter"

    "it is a persuasive theory but there is a fundamental flaw" :)

    "there is no dark matter no ghosts around the Universe".

    "Creation starts with a bang ... inflation takes over and everything expands."

    The universe has been speeding up ... but the standard model predicted it should be slowing down".

    "the big bang was no ordinary explosion ... the big bang is still banging."

    "what is dark energy? ... I have no idea what it is ... I hope it goes away ... I don't like it"

    "Nobody asked for it ... nobody wants it"

    Dark energy is whatever is causing the university to expand ... it seems to have magical properties"

    "there must be something in nothing."

    "Dark energy is the energy of nothing ... and its taking over the Universe."

    "(dark matter and dark energy) it isn't a solution ... it's a description of a problem."

    "it has a new problem ... dark flow"

    "the very same (CMB) data could undermine everything"

    "you become very famous in science if you shoot down the standard model everyone else believes in."


  • #954
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Have any physicists really studied how the big bang theory could be correct in general, but incorrect in its timescale, and that the universe was created 10,000 years ago, rather than billions? Its probably possible to make both theories agree if approached with an open mind.


  • #955
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Have any physicists really studied how the big bang theory could be correct in general, but incorrect in its timescale, and that the universe was created 10,000 years ago, rather than billions? Its probably possible to make both theories agree if approached with an open mind.

    *rolls on floor laughing*


  • #956
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    I think if their numbers came out showing 10,000 years, then they would be pretty pig headed not to agree that creation science is looking rather good. Isnt that they way 'science' works - if that what the numbers predict, than you cant just ignore the result because it doesnt agree with what you 'believe'


  • #957
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    *rolls on floor laughing*

    Great standard of debate. Your argument must be very weak....


  • #958
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    I think if their numbers came out showing 10,000 years, then they would be pretty pig headed not to agree that creation science is looking rather good. Isnt that they way 'science' works - if that what the numbers predict, than you cant just ignore the result because it doesnt agree with what you 'believe'

    If that's what the calculations show, there's some Nobel Prizes for Physics waiting for Billy-Bob, Jimmy and John-Joe from Some Outhouse In Mississippi University.


  • #959
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Absolutely, the problem is that no numbers have indicated anything remotely close to that.

    Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.


  • #960
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If that's what the calculations show, there's some Nobel Prizes for Physics waiting for Billy-Bob, Jimmy and John-Joe from Some Outhouse In Mississippi University.

    Nice to see scientific objectivity and reason at work rather than a resorting to lazy stereotypes.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    It adjusts its answers according to the evidence available.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement