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…3233353738…78

Comments

  • #1022
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand


  • #1023
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    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.
    ... some seem to be ... others are more considered in their views.:)


  • #1024
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    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.

    Well, who do you believe and why?

    Here's an analogy:

    Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

    Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?


  • #1025
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand
    I'm holding 'Thor' in the palm of my hand ... apart from that ... I'd like to thank you for your good wishes ... and wish you many happy returns.;)


  • #1026
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Well, who do you believe and why?

    Here's an analogy:

    Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

    Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?
    I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
    ... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    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.:)
    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???


  • #1028
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Well, who do you believe and why?

    Here's an analogy:

    Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

    Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

    I would be tending towards the 4.5 billion years theory at this stage.


  • #1029
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(


  • #1030
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,527 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
    ... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)

    Never heard of genetic algorithms then?

    I'm still waiting for you to show me a paper from a peer reviewed journal where you point out all the mistakes, or are you happy to accept their contents?

    Also what is your scientific background? I take your silence as admission that you are not a biologist.


  • #1031
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ...

    So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

    Bet he ignores that...


  • #1033
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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???
    Facts are facts ... how they are interpreted can depend on ones worldview.


  • #1034
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    catallus wrote: »
    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(

    You don't have to quit reading poetry or speculating when you open your eyes to reality, you know.


  • #1035
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?
    Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.


  • #1036
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Look at it this way. People from various religions have accepted evidence supports evolutionary theory. Only those who believe in the Abrahamic religious have found that the evidence supports creationism. Does this not strike you as odd?
    ... it's not odd ... and some people of other faiths and none have grave doubts about 'molecules to man' evolution ... and that's not odd either.


  • #1037
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    endacl wrote: »
    Bet he ignores that...
    Answer here.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133


  • #1038
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed.

    Good thing there's not very many of them about!


  • #1039
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    J C wrote: »
    Answer here.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133

    ^^

    Ya. Got that.


  • #1040
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.
    Religious (and irreligious) worldviews are very powerful ... and this applies to people of all faiths and none.


  • #1041
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    catallus wrote: »
    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(

    Speculation? You are going by the writings of a primitive book from a backwards part of the world, and you say Atheists don't speculate? Hahahahahaha


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    endacl wrote: »
    Good thing there's not very many of them about!
    Please stop misquoting me.

    I never posted this ... yet you deliberately changed it to give the impression that I did
    here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599894&postcount=1137
    Quote:-
    "Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed."

    ... not only are you confusing your beliefs and your science ... you are now confusing your posts with my posts - and not in a good way.:eek:


  • #1043
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #1044
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,527 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

    And yet you provide no peer reviewed evidence to support this and allude to some sort of conspiracy where the poor auld creationist geologist/scientist must hide their views for fear of losing their jobs.


  • #1045
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    What if....?



  • #1046
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    catallus wrote: »
    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(

    Nice of you to summarise your first paragraph in your second! Probably easier to read and rebut your own work than reply to a post from me I guess.


  • #1047
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wibbs wrote: »
    And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?
    Just fully Human races within the Human Race.


  • #1048
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    catallus wrote: »
    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(
    Or Catallus, one could argue from another angle and imagine a god, a cosmic force existed and brought all of this complexity into being and knew intelligent species would emerge and grow from this system to question, to seek answers to this complexity and try to explain it. If a deity existed, surely that would be what it would seek? For it's "children", those who got the point of asking the universal questions, using their "god given" intellect and senses to find answers, to become fully aware, rather than be mired in primitive thinking and stasis. Any parent would look to their kids to question, explore the world and grow up, so why wouldn't some posited deity not feel the same way?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #1049
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Including Creation Science ?

    Creation science is like invisible rainbow-coloured unicorns. Neither has an existence outside of one's imagination, and neither has any relevance or reference to reality.


  • #1050
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    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".
    You've just failed science, forever.

    The whole point of science is that no position is final. Any scientific theory can be overturned by evidence.

    Science doesn't know everything, that's why it's on going.

    Just look at the taste map of the tongue which used to adorn most schools science books.
    Now debunked.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

    So two conventionally qualified geologists differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand and you go with the guy who isn't using instruments?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement