Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
Rubbish, kelpie. First off, no one is certain of the earth's age. The scientific evidence is thoroughly inconclusive, based on Carbon dating and Potassium Argon dating and the inconsistencies of the Geologic Column. It is also inconclusive Biblically, since the word "day" (yom in Hebrew) can mean an undisclosed period of time. This why both Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists exist. And frankly, it's a secondary issue. And why are you mentioning the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Which simply states that the universe, both open and closed systems, are running out of useful energy - things deteriorate. So, I don't follow why you would say I'm an "anti" scientist. I'm not a scientist at all.
You ask what the "point" is if there was at some point a designer to spark things into motion. Well, the point is to let people know that this is the direction which science is pointing, and to let people know that the Darwinian Narritive is not an established fact, hardly. And to get people to consider the philosophical implications of both. Either we were created for purpose, or we are cosmic accident. Where does the evidence point?
- kelpie0
cosmic accident. clearly.
- discipler0
kelpie, the burden is with you to show me where i've been inconsistent in the application of my position.
- discipler0
well, there ya go. ;)
- pavlovs_dog0
gah! what a goof.
discipler should get a spot on art bell's radio show. contrails and all!
now:
id's negative conjecture is pure bullshit...
creationism (id) does not make ONE single positive prediction or testable claim about the world around us. that's ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NOTHING!
the jist of it:
all biology, geology, chemistry, cosomology, physics that disagrees with the xtian bible is suspect.
then:
find a few things these disiplines can't expain (like maybe five out of MILLIONS we can) and use that to infer a (the) god?
BULLSHIT!
did you know that your blood conatins the same percentage of salt as the ocean?
so, not only did our ancestors leave the ocean, we took it with us!
- Nairn0
You just can't face the fact that we're simple, ignorant monkeys, find our way can you, discipler?
Arrogance.
- Nairn0
findING our way. ING.
- ********0
I got lost just past the big tescos. Which way off the roundabout?
- Nairn0
It's left. but I can't remember when.
- flagellum0
Hey look, it's my new name, as promised to mrdobs. Unfortunately, I can see those who I had ignored.
Nairn, I would be happy to admit that we have ancestors who were ignorant monkeys... if that's what the evidence showed. But unless you can provide a detailed biochemical pathway that demonstrates how our monkey ancestors gradually became us via an unguided mechanism which doesn't produce information gaining mutations and which was somehow able to build irreducibly complex molecular machines to get from A to B... I'll remain thoroughly skeptical.
- KuzIII0
yes but what about that stupid thing you said about 100,000 years of unrecorded history proves there was no humans back then? that was a stupid thing to say. you're stupid. WELL stupid.
- ********0
Your problem is your insistence on using the term "irreducibly complex".
And cool I add a new name to ignore...
- flagellum0
What's wrong with using a factual scientific term, Tick?
- KuzIII0
the first forms of writing were used to count how much grain was harvested. and lunar and solar calenders were developed to figure out the best time for farmin. so you see you idiot, the neolithic revolution 10,000 years ago coincided with agriculture, and also coincided with the end of the ice age.
do you see you idiot??
- ********0
Let me spell this out. Discipler/Flagellum - what you are doing is promoting propaganda, not truth.
Science, by it's defiinition seeks data that can be disproved. It is a system based on the philosophical notion of S.O.A, meaning suspicion of authority. It basically asks "What do we know, how do we know it, and are we really sure that what we know is accurate (note - accurate NOT TRUE)..
Science takes the datat and puts to increasingly rigourous tests, to see if resuklts match obseervable phenomenen.
Creation Science, oops, I mean Intelligent Design, proposes nothing and merely is a reach back to the preistly-kings that dominated Mankind for 10,000 years since the beginning of civilization.
Discipler - one of the reasons civilization didn't progress - as per your point - despite the lack of a populational critical mass and environmental conditions - is these stupid Priest-Kings who told people what God was and though and kept people in check.
Only with the rise of the enlightenment and the questioning of the power and influence and propaganda of all these religious types has humankind gotten some measure of freedom and can invent cool things like the internet on which you can argue all day on about how a system that prevented it's invention for millenia is somehow correct.
All your websites you get information from are PROPAGANDA. You lack any semblence of critical thinking...
Please post something design related..graphic..something..any... Your a simple propagandists and a hamfisted one at that.
- flagellum0
Do you see how if i shout real loudly the same tired story which lacks empirical evidence and which still doesn't account for A) Population and B) Agricultural stasis for thousands of years and and C) Begin with the assumption that the most recent Ice Age occured and occured when it did and D) call names like a 7th grader, it makes me right!?
KuzIII
(Jan 6 06, 06:17)