Darwin's theory

Brian Shanahan · 13-10-2014 09:45PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Can Darwin explain conversion therapy ? I think not.

Of course he can't he's been dead for over 100 years, long before religious nutbags invented "conversion therapy".

But I can, it's a lie. It doesn't work, and all it is is a torture used to destroy a person who is unable to conform to the ideals set by the religious nutbags who first came up with the idea (who are all closet homosexuals themselves, hence their problems with it).

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2014 09:49PM

J C wrote: »

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

No thanks, I like not being mentally handicapped.

endacl · 13-10-2014 09:51PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Good post. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that a lot of the people arguing against scientific points don't have enough of a science background to be familiar with stuff like this. It probably does seem like we're just pulling facts out of our ass from time to time :pac:

It doesn't take a scientific background to grasp the elegant simplicity of the scientific method. As mentioned earlier, mine is in music. I get it. All it takes is an interest in the world around you, and a curiosity as to how it works. 'Why' is a question for philosophy, and doesn't really matter beyond the private meaning people may attach to whatever answer they come up with. The disconnect occurs when one begins with their answer to the philosophical question and then tries to force the facts to fit.

They don't fit.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:52PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Good post. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that a lot of the people arguing against scientific points don't have enough of a science background to be familiar with stuff like this. It probably does seem like we're just pulling facts out of our ass from time to time :pac:

It sometimes does.:pac:
Radiometric Dating uses circular reasoning (dating the rock layer by the fossils found in it and dating the fossils by the rocks they are found in).
It then calibrates each radiometric date against the supposed age of each rock ... and ignores the ones that don't fit as 'outliers'.
It also ignores the fact that the isotope ratios upon which it is based, depend on the amount of parent and daughter isotope present originally ... and the amount of each isotope leached out or contaminated in during the history of the rock.
In other words, it tells us nothing about the age of the rock.

kingchess · 13-10-2014 09:55PM

kingchess wrote: »

sorry to be pedantic J C, but is there any scientists from other faiths (not Christian,Muslim or Jewish) who would back Creation theory because ,well,lets face it-the facts are there for all to see . they should arrive to the same conclusions independent of reading the bible or koran.:rolleyes::D:D

I am really pedantic

J C · 13-10-2014 09:57PM

endacl wrote: »

The disconnect occurs when one begins with their answer to the philosophical question and then tries to force the facts to fit.

They don't fit.

That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2014 09:57PM

Oh, I bet it's "top secret" information held in the arse-end of nowhere in the Deep South! :rolleyes:

Pherekydes · 13-10-2014 09:57PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

I've already asked but...

The general consensus within science is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years' old.

What's your best guess/estimate?

obplayer · 13-10-2014 09:58PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No. I have already stopped listenting to you if your track record is of only producing wrong answers.

Let me give an example of how science works. Newton derived the laws of motion which for a long time allowed us to predict the results of moving objects interacting. Then Einstein showed that under particular extreme conditions, velocities close to that of light, Newton's laws no longer applied. Does that mean Newton's laws were wrong? No, they were incomplete and Einstein added to our knowledge of moving objects. Likewise Darwin's explanations were necessarily incomplete, not least because there was no knowledge of DNA in his day. Modern evolutionary science explains far more than Darwin did but that does not mean Darwin was wrong. Also where a particular tenet of science proves simply wrong in the light of new knowledge then that is accepted and scientists move on.

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2014 09:58PM

catallus wrote: »

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

Isn't this the same educational system which allows the RCC to control >90% of all primary schools? :rolleyes: Or is it not authoritarian enough?

SaveOurLyric · 13-10-2014 10:01PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

I've already asked but...

The general consensus within science is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years' old.

What's your best guess/estimate?

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

J C · 13-10-2014 10:02PM

kingchess wrote: »

I am really pedantic

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

J C · 13-10-2014 10:04PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh, I bet it's "top secret" information held in the arse-end of nowhere in the Deep South! :rolleyes:

... I'm sure many Cork people would disagree!!:)

catallus · 13-10-2014 10:05PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Isn't this the same educational system which allows the RCC to control >90% of all primary schools? :rolleyes: Or is it not authoritarian enough?

You've got weird ideas about "control", popephilistine (sic) :pac:

endacl · 13-10-2014 10:07PM

J C wrote: »

That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)

People really have been playing this game with you for nearly 10 years?!? I presume they take it in shifts?

J C · 13-10-2014 10:07PM

obplayer wrote: »

Let me give an example of how science works. Newton derived the laws of motion which for a long time allowed us to predict the results of moving objects interacting. Then Einstein showed that under particular extreme conditions, velocities close to that of light, Newton's laws no longer applied. Does that mean Newton's laws were wrong? No, they were incomplete and Einstein added to our knowledge of moving objects. Likewise Darwin's explanations were necessarily incomplete, not least because there was no knowledge of DNA in his day. Modern evolutionary science explains far more than Darwin did but that does not mean Darwin was wrong. Also where a particular tenet of science proves simply wrong in the light of new knowledge then that is accepted and scientists move on.

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

J C · 13-10-2014 10:13PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Since we're resorting to silly retorts instead of debating the actual science (again); why, if scientists refuse to accept things which go against their religion, has evolutionary theory been accepted by christian scientists?

... I guess Mary Baker Eddy had something to do with it.:)

obplayer · 13-10-2014 10:13PM

J C wrote: »

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

There is not a scrap of evidence for ID, the fact that you are convinced otherwise simply shows you have no grasp of science and no understanding of evidence or proof, just a brainwashed determination to hold to a 50 / 50 mix of fairy-tales and barbarian history because it saves you having to actually think.

kingchess · 13-10-2014 10:14PM

J C wrote: »

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???interesting.:D:D

J C · 13-10-2014 10:16PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Pretty much. It's a good way to keep important scientific points in your mind too, since you need to remember/look up the facts to prove him wrong with.

Creation Science helps the Evolutionists 'to up their game' allright ... and to improve their critical thinking.:)

catallus · 13-10-2014 10:18PM

JC I admire your fortitude in bearing the blows of the ignominious and wretched in this thread with such patience.

J C · 13-10-2014 10:18PM

obplayer wrote: »

There is not a scrap of evidence for ID, the fact that you are convinced otherwise simply shows you have no grasp of science and no understanding of evidence or proof, just a brainwashed determination to hold to a 50 / 50 mix of fairy-tales and barbarian history because it saves you having to actually think.

... belief in evolution can be a very powerful thing.:)

catallus · 13-10-2014 10:20PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well that's not very nice

This whole thread hasn't exactly been a haven of good manners now, has it?

PopePhilistine wrote: »

No thanks, I like not being mentally handicapped.

J C · 13-10-2014 10:22PM

catallus wrote: »

JC I admire your fortitude in bearing the blows of the ignominious and wretched in this thread with such patience.

... they remind me of myself, when I was a young evolutionist ... brash, opinionated ... and largely relying on others for their opinions:)

... beneath all that bluster lies a person seeking God in their lives ... but too proud to admit it ... I know ... 'I too was that soldier'!!!;)

J C · 13-10-2014 10:30PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about those of us who went the opposite direction down that road though? Until my late teens, maybe even later I was a fairly devout christian. Took it very seriously. Never a creationist of course, but still.

In fairness, I have found your posts to be largely considered and thoughtful.
I can see how somebody can be an Atheist ... and I have a good few people that I'm proud to number among my friends who are.

How would you describe your faith-position now?

kingchess · 13-10-2014 10:36PM

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???interesting.:D:D

also J C did not like your slur about the deep south-felt very insulted and hope one of the major Gods(THOR maybe) will give you what you deserve in Vahalla:p

Pherekydes · 13-10-2014 10:38PM

J C wrote: »

... they remind me of myself, when I was a young evolutionist ... brash, opinionated ... and largely relying on others for their opinions:)

... beneath all that bluster lies a person seeking God in their lives ... but too proud to admit it ... I know ... 'I too was that soldier'!!!;)

You are hilarious. Not in a good way, though. You think the posters here and in the A&A are just angry teenagers going through an atheistic phase.

J C · 13-10-2014 10:41PM

kingchess wrote: »

also J C did not like your slur about the deep south-felt very insulted and hope one of the major Gods(THOR maybe) will give you what you deserve in Vahalla:p

I'm not from Cork ... so I wasn't insulted ... and I only wish good things for everybody.:)

J C · 13-10-2014 10:43PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well, thanks :pac:

I got the impression from your post that you think anyone who really thinks it over will come to the conclusion that you have, maybe I picked that up wrong though.

Honestly, I don't know how I'd describe it. Agnostic atheist I suppose if I had to give an answer. It's really not something that crosses my mind much these days, except when these threads come up at least. There are some days when I want to believe there's something out there watching over us; it's a comforting thought in some ways. I just can't reconcile that thought with reality anymore, and reading of the bible in my younger days describes it's God as far from the kind and loving one I was brought up being told about.

Thanks for that.
Many people are 'on your page' ... and I can see how you are where you are.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-10-2014 10:44PM

catallus wrote: »

This whole thread hasn't exactly been a haven of good manners now, has it?

Such as you ignoring my last post, for example?

Manners really are subjective I guess.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

So rather than follow the facts that are the most compelling, you follow the person who is the most convincing. That is an unusual approach that I certainly could never share. For me, the more convincing a person seems to be, the more I feel I need to check their claims thoroughly.

Darwin's theory

Comments