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…7273747577

Comments

  • #2282
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    I don't really agree with the Bible description of god creating man in his image being a student of comparative religion I find the Quran description of God better:
    "there is nothing like Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things)."(42/11)
    "No vision can grasps him, but he grasps all vision. He is the most courteous, the well-acquainted with all things" (103/6)

    Doesn't negate the validity of my science, nor does it prove anything more than you are very suggestible to fairytales


  • #2283
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    Chunners wrote: »
    Not so, gravity should be causing the expansion of the universe to slow down when in actual fact it is speeding up which means one of 2 things. 1. that the conditions inside our universe are changing (one theory is "Dark gravity" is being created somehow) or 2. the conditions outside our universe are changing (kind of like bringing a balloon on a plane and taking off and the higher you go the less dense the air outside the balloon becomes so the more the balloon expands, crap analogy but for this it will suit the purpose). Dark gravity is a theory like dark matter



    I'm not going to claim I'm a scientist like J c -I barely manage to get the turf cut in time as it is- but there is no outside.
    The definition of the Universe is that it contains everything. If something was outside the Universe, it would also be part of the Universe too.
    The expanding is speeding up but as yet they haven't figured out why.Dark energy and dark matter may have something to do with it.
    http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/


  • #2284
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    housetypeb wrote: »
    I'm not going to claim I'm a scientist like J c -I barely manage to get the turf cut in time as it is- but there is no outside.
    The definition of the Universe is that it contains everything. If something was outside the Universe, it would also be part of the Universe too.
    The expanding is speeding up but as yet they haven't figured out why.Dark energy and dark matter may have something to do with it.

    Oh I never said there was anything outside I just said that there is an outside but it is full of absolutely nothing so therefor can't exist(ain't science fun lol ). The problem with using the definition of "Universe" as a description of the universe and even of what defines "everything" is that "Universe" and "Everything" are human words that sort of come with the addendum "as we know it".


  • #2285
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    It's all above my pay grade,But sure do love reading books about it myself, even if I barely grasp it.


  • #2286
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    5uspect wrote: »
    He has had evolution explained to him many, many times. Yet he continues to misrepresent it. So either he incapable of understanding it or he's being dishonest. Why continue to attempt to debate with someone like this?

    On the off chance that if we don't somebody gullible will start listening to him and take his lying bullshit as the truth.

    I know it's a fairly small chance, as those who believe in creatardism are weaned on it from birth and heavily insulated against reality by their criminally irresponsible and maliciously negligent families and communities, but the chance still exists that there are people out there genuinely interested in finding out, yet not in possession of a bullshit detector good enough to find JC and his rotten and corrupt ilk out.


  • Advertisement
  • #2287
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    housetypeb wrote: »
    Why would they bother? They've got a perfectly good book written by sheep herders that explains everything.

    This kind of thing always suprises me because the bible probably wasn't written by sheep herders. For one thing, they'd have a pretty good idea from watching their sheep that certain traits are passed on from parent to child, and have had a good idea of which male to mate with which female to breed good stock, most farmers with animals work that bit out fairly quickly (otherwise they don't stay farmers long).

    To take the ToE example, one of the sectors of society which most quickly accepted it were farmers, and many of the precursor theories to ToE were developed by farmers, or those with jobs or homes close to farming communities. As I said in the last paragraph, farmers selectively breed their animals for favourable traits, and this unnatural selection is a great gateway to understanding the mechanism of natural selection, once farmers copped onto deep time and the dynamic environemt, they had no objections to ToE because they were practising an almost identical process on a daily basis (their lives depended on it).

    In all honesty the creation myth was probably written by city dwellers who'd never seen a live animal (except maybe the odd stray dog) and didn't know the first thing about raising animals or even heredity. They read or heard the creation myths of more advanced civilisations, and for their nascent tribalism stole those myths to create a religion of their own, adding their lack of knowledge of many things (some their country cousins would have put them right on) along the way.


  • #2288
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    This is what pope palpatine was on about with his trolling comment. That adds nothing at all to the discussion, it's just a silly little attack - something you're very quick to criticize the rest of us for.
    I'm just reflecting back some of the more outlandish statements of Evolutionists on this thread ... to let ye see how ye might feel if ye were on the receiving end of some of the stuff that ye post about other people, especially Creationists.

    I'm glad you now share my belief that this adds nothing to the discussion ... so please don't do it!!!


  • #2289
    irish coldplayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭irish coldplayer


    For anyone that is genuinely interested in the science disproving creationist "pseudo science" this is an excellent resource with links to peer reviewed papers and explanations.
    Its a pretty exhaustive list.
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    had to delete the www part, as I am a new user and so cant post links


  • #2290
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    irish coldplayer wrote: »
    For anyone that is genuinely interested in the science disproving creationist "pseudo science" this is an excellent resource with links to peer reviewed papers and explanations.
    Its a pretty exhaustive list.
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    had to delete the www part, as I am a new user and so cant post links

    +1.


  • #2291
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    On the off chance that if we don't somebody gullible will start listening to him and take his lying bullshit as the truth.

    I know it's a fairly small chance, as those who believe in creatardism are weaned on it from birth and heavily insulated against reality by their criminally irresponsible and maliciously negligent families and communities, but the chance still exists that there are people out there genuinely interested in finding out, yet not in possession of a bullshit detector good enough to find JC and his rotten and corrupt ilk out.
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?


  • Advertisement
  • #2292
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Most Christians = normal
    Creationism = extremist

    He also raises a good point . Creationism is mostly forced from birth through schooling and community . If creationist were allowed believe what they want from birth then how many do you think would adopt creationism beliefs . I think it would be pretty low.


  • #2293
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Another passive aggressive comment. :rolleyes:


  • #2294
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Is this your attempt at the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? to be honest it just all comes across as an attempt by you now to get this thread closed by implying basically the same thing that Godwin's deals with


  • #2295
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Forgive me but I don't seem to fully understand what your saying if you meant that if we discovered gravity we simply sat down and didn't bother delving deeper into it because it would be impossible for us to understand, then this doesnt contradict what I said because gravity is in our universe and is possible to understand.
    The point is that science doesn't delve any deeper into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.
    That is OK ... in so far as willful ignorance of anything is OK .. but what is not OK is that scientists who do scientifically investigate the evidence for God are bad-mouthed and name-called and asked for peer-reviewed papers ... when such papers and such peer review is actually banned by conventional science, in the first place.


  • #2296
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Bible? Koran? There's only one true faith! (check the sig)


  • #2297
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Chunners wrote: »
    Is this your attempt at the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? to be honest it just all comes across as an attempt by you now to get this thread closed by implying basically the same thing that Godwin's deals with
    If the cap fits ... and all that.
    Actually Godwin's law is a form of Holocaust denial ... the denial that such a thing could ever happen again ... when genocide still continues to be pursued where and when the opportunity arises ... Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia being some recent examples ... and antisemitism continues to be an ever present possibility.


  • #2298
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    Does god allow genocide for his own amusement or is there some other reason?


  • #2299
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Most Christians = normal
    Creationism = extremist

    He also raises a good point . Creationism is mostly forced from birth through schooling and community . If creationist were allowed believe what they want from birth then how many do you think would adopt creationism beliefs . I think it would be pretty low.
    As a matter of fact I was an Evolutionist ... before I became a Creationist ... and most Creation Scientists I know were the same.

    I also don't 'force' Creationism on anybody ... including my children ... I encourage them to look at all the evidence for and against evolution and creation ... they can then make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge.

    We have been over the 'extremist/normal' stuff already. I have a well-founded difference of opinion on where we have come from and where we are going ... and I believe in tolerance, love and respect for everyone, including those with whom I disagree ... nothing 'extreme' about that.


  • #2300
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that science doesn't delve any deeper into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.
    That is OK ... in so far as willful ignorance of anything is OK .. but what is not OK is that scientists who do scientifically investigate the evidence for God are bad-mouthed and name-called and asked for peer-reviewed papers ... when such papers and such peer review is actually banned by conventional science, in the first place.

    Source? or purely because trying to prove the supernatural is wasting funding?

    Any scientist worth their salt proposing something would be asked for peer reviewed papers, and rightly so. Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method. Can't you as a "scientist" see this? If there was any evidence for ID worth reviewing scientists would do it, but there's none. Not a bit. At all. Nobody has it in for you, you're just a ****e scientist.


  • #2301
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    J C wrote: »
    As a matter of fact I was an Evolutionist ... before I became a Creationist ... and most Creation Scientists I know were the same.

    I also don't 'force' Creationism on anybody ... including my children ... I encourage them to look at all the evidence for and against evolution and creation ... they can then make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge.

    We have been over the 'extremist/normal' stuff already. I have a well-founded difference of opinion on where we have come from and where we are going ... and I believe in tolerance, love and respect for everyone, including those with whom I disagree ... nothing 'extreme' about that.

    Why did you change to creationism ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2302
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Does god allow genocide for his own amusement or is there some other reason?
    God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes.
    It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.


  • #2303
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Why did you change to creationism ?

    Same way Doc Brown invented time travel, slipped and bonked his head off the sink.


  • #2304
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Why did you change to creationism ?
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.


  • #2305
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes.
    It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.

    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.


  • #2306
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.

    maybe because Spontaneous Evolution isn't a thing? Nor does Evolution claim that's what happened. Unless you don't actually understand what Evolution is and think mankind just morphed from pond slime as you put it into thinking homosapiens (this wouldn't surprise me in the slightest). Yet humankind spontaneously appearing from almost nothing, ie dust, is EXACTLY what you're claiming happened.


  • #2307
    bitemeluis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭bitemeluis


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.


    https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/6CFEDEA7981132759165266243584_205c20af19a.5.1.3502281290495505338.mp4?versionId=7u6CdCocTVva5s2OwWou_H8l4hQfAvRs


  • #2308
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Source? or purely because trying to prove the supernatural is wasting funding?

    Any scientist worth their salt proposing something would be asked for peer reviewed papers, and rightly so. Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method. Can't you as a "scientist" see this? If there was any evidence for ID worth reviewing scientists would do it, but there's none. Not a bit. At all. Nobody has it in for you, you're just a ****e scientist.
    I agree with the thrust of your argument that funding must only be provided to worthwhile projects ... but the 'kicker' is that conventional science doesn't allow any research, irrespective of its potential or merit, into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.

    ... so we never actually get to the point of conventionally reviewing any of the evidence for ID ... because research into any cause that isn't 'natural' is banned.
    ... and 'natural' has been defined to exclude intelligent causes as well.
    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method.
    On that basis, the Theory of Evolution should be reviewed by Creation Scientists ... and not confirmation biased Evolutionists.
    What are the chances???:eek:


  • #2309
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I agree with the thrust of your argument that funding mus only be provided to worthwhile projects ... but the 'kicker' is that conventional science doesn't allow any research, irrespective of its potential, into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.

    ... so we never actually never get to the point of conventionally reviewing any of the evidence for ID ... because research into any cause that isn't 'natural' is banned.
    ... and 'natural' has been defined to exclude intelligent causes as well.

    Banned by who? the science police? It's banned in schools and rightly so because myth masquerading as facts shouldnt be taught to children.

    Simple fact is if there was any weight behind ID and Creationism it'd be the leading theory for how we evolved, but it's not, unless every scientist is an atheist out to get your and your kind? What about theists who agree with evolution, hell even the Catholic Church does, or are you trying to say the RCC has an atheist bias?


  • #2310
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.
    ... do you have any examples of these god's actions in Greek history?


  • Advertisement
  • #2311
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.

    So you agree with the below ?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement