Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Intermission Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 2 of 6
Topic:
Darwin's 200th Birthday Coming Soon!
This thread has 87 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 30.
OP | Post 16 made on Friday January 30, 2009 at 21:44
davidcasemore
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
3,352
On January 30, 2009 at 18:03, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
Very few of us are truly open minded.
I'll admit it. Will you?

Yes, I'm truly open minded.

You, on the other hand, are so open minded that I'm afraid your brains may have fallen out.

Two great theories.

Evolution and creationism?

You've got to be kidding.

First off, a Scientific Theory does not mean "guess".

Second, creationism, creation "science" and intelligent design - none of these even remotely resemble science or the scientific method.

You can believe what you want, I don't care, I'm not interested in changing your mind. You can believe in god and the tooth fairy for all I care. You can believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, too, if you'd care to.

But don't try to dress up your lame ideas as "science" and try to get them taught in a science classroom, okay?
Fins: Still Slamming' His Trunk on pilgrim's Small Weenie - One Trunk at a Time!
Post 17 made on Friday January 30, 2009 at 23:40
Tom Ciaramitaro
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
Well, you will be the first to deride it, but you could spend some time reading. There are real accredited scientists out there studying creationism. And not just a few. You can discredit them and all that they stand for. But there is science going on.

[Link: icr.org]

[Link: creationscience.com]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Can they all be dead wrong? Can evolutionists all be 100% right? How about a "blend" of the two, since each side follows scientific procedures and has repeatable results, right?
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
OP | Post 18 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 00:32
davidcasemore
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
3,352
On January 30, 2009 at 23:40, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
Well, you will be the first to deride it, but you could
spend some time reading. There are real accredited scientists
out there studying creationism. And not just a few.
You can discredit them and all that they stand for.
But there is science going on.

[Link: icr.org]

[Link: creationscience.com]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Can they all be dead wrong? Can evolutionists all be
100% right? How about a "blend" of the two, since each
side follows scientific procedures and has repeatable
results, right?

Dude, look - this stuff has all been fully discredited. Furthermore, I'm not interested in arguing with you, I'm not interested in changing your mind, and I'm not interested in "proving" something to you. I just don't care, okay?

Evolutionists aren't 100% right. Science doesn't work that way! Science accepts what it knows at the time as the best explanation for something. The ideas are always open for change if newer, or different evidence comes to light. Religious thinking is dogma, plain and simple.

I will tell you this, though: If you or a family member comes down with a really terrible infection then I hope you are going to a faith healer. Because I will be really pissed if I find out that you'll take advantage of science when it serves your purpose and abandon science when the topic is something you don't understand.

Do all of us a favor and please sit through the entire video clip that's in the link of Post #9 by Mr. Griffiths. It is not condescending, rude, or humorous. It is very informative and should be watched by everyone who lives in the 21st century. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the video clip. Until then, I've got nothing more to say, nor do I have any desire to hear any more.
Fins: Still Slamming' His Trunk on pilgrim's Small Weenie - One Trunk at a Time!
Post 19 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 00:43
39 Cent Stamp
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
On January 30, 2009 at 23:40, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
There are real accredited scientists
out there studying creationism.

These guys?



[end smart@ss response]
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 20 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 01:39
mcn779
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2003
1,070
davidcasemore - your wrong the third step in the scientifice method is to guess - Hypothesis! Tom stated it prove to me or anyone else that anything other than natural selection has happened. Prove the hypothesis of evolution which is the fourth step. A finch on the mainland of South America through natural selection ends up being different on the Galapagos Islands. But prove to me that that finch came from a lower animal. There are no connection that can be proven. The missing link across the board is still missing. There are bird like dinosaurs but there are still huge gaps that can be filled by nothing other than conjecture as to what the next evolutionary step is. The evolutionary tree is filled with these gaps. Up until 10 years ago the evolutionists/paleontologist said that humanoids and Neanderthals DID NOT COEXISTS until the remains of both were found in a cave in Romania - I think - in the same level of debris. Now they are having to re-evaluate their hypothesis. The scientific method can not be applied to evolution because evolution CAN NOT be proven! Evolution being the man came from the primorial stew. Since God can't be proven therefore he doesn't exist I guess we could extrapolate this to evolution! That neither exists. You taut the scienticfic method as the basis of all that is real but if you hold evolutions up to it's rigors it ends being only a THEORY - not proveable or testable - conjecture, an educated guess, hypothesis but not the way it actually happened no one knows!
Post 21 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 02:25
QQQ
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2002
4,806
On January 30, 2009 at 23:40, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
There are real accredited scientists
out there studying creationism.

There are real people with degrees writing books about people being abducted by aliens. They aren't considered credible, but they are real.

Can they all be dead wrong?

Yes.

Can evolutionists all be
100% right? How about a "blend" of the two...

Sure, and while we're at it let's mix some peanut butter and jelly into chemotherapy bags because some nut job, sorry I mean "scientist", claims peanut butter & jelly cures cancer.
Post 22 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 02:45
39 Cent Stamp
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
Start this video then scroll down..............

hl=en&fs=1">hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">












Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 23 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 04:32
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
Yes chaps, I quite agree . . .

Post 24 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 04:33
QQQ
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2002
4,806
BTW, to clarify my flippant response to Tom, I in now way believe that evolution precludes the existence of God. "Creation science" however is a total crock. One might as well start to claim that there are serious scientists that contend the earth was created by the flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/).
Post 25 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 09:17
Tom Ciaramitaro
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
On January 31, 2009 at 00:32, davidcasemore said...
Dude, look - this stuff has all been fully discredited.

That's what you believe, but it's obviously not true. You were just taught that.

I will tell you this, though: If you or a family member
comes down with a really terrible infection then I hope
you are going to a faith healer. Because I will be really
pissed if I find out that you'll take advantage of science
when it serves your purpose and abandon science when the
topic is something you don't understand.

This is not logical thought. I have never thrown out science and never will. However, evolution is not science. Science starts with a hypothesis and through testing the hypothesis can be proven repeatedly or not. Evolution is not science - it breaks down when you try to prove it. There are not any (*zero*) transitional forms in the fossil record, and there should be lots and lots of them for large scale evolution to have taken place. Interesting theory, and that's all it is.

I've got nothing more to
say, nor do I have any desire to hear any more.

I'd just like to say that I take you to be a very religious person. To believe in evolution takes far more faith in the unknown and unseen than creation. Far more. So for that, I respect your faith.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
Post 26 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 09:22
Tom Ciaramitaro
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
On January 31, 2009 at 04:33, QQQ said...
BTW, to clarify my flippant response to Tom, I in now
way believe that evolution precludes the existence of
God. "Creation science" however is a total crock.

Your flippant response is not that at all. I understand the party line.

There is no way that you can discredit 100 per cent of creation science. I probably can't discredit 100% of evolution, but I can choose to disbelieve it. Herein lies the rub. You start with a mindset and you believe what you want to believe and discredit the rest. Discrediting or not believing it does not make it untrue.

BTW, evolution and creation cannot exist side by side. I said that just to advance the dialogue. The two conflict at the root level and cannot coexist. It's one or the other.

You too are a man of great faith. I respect that.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
Post 27 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 09:27
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
davidcasemore - Darwin had no problem with there being a "god". He said that he wasn't an aethist but an agnostic - huge difference. He also said that his theories did not disprove god but prove him. This makes it ironic when aethist quote Darwin as a part of the proof of there being no god.

don't forget that Darwin was on his way to join the clergy before he decided to join his friend on that memorable trip.
...
Post 28 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 09:35
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
That's because, as any educated person knows, you cannot "prove" that something doesn't exist!

I am agnostic by the real definition of it (i.e. gnosi =knowledge, a=not, so something cannot be known and so not be proved or disproved and the only thing there is is belief –either in his existence or none existence) in this matter. But your statement is false, there are many things that can be proven to not exist, like a flat earth or a earth cantered galaxy.
...
Post 29 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 10:26
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
On January 31, 2009 at 09:35, Anthony said...
. . . But your statement is false, there are
many things that can be proven to not exist, like a flat
earth or a earth cantered galaxy.

That's only because the Matrix has been programmed in such a way as to make us believe it's not flat or the centre of the galaxy.
Post 30 made on Saturday January 31, 2009 at 10:42
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
So far no one has showed actual evidence of large scale evolution taking place. That's what Darwin hypothesized. We can see small changes in a species, but that's not enough. We can see mutations, but they do not change DNA, the code that would have to change for large scale (a la Darwinian) evolution to take place. So there is no evidence like that which is needed to support his large scale hypothesis. I think evolution is a convenient way of avoiding creation and therefore avoiding God. That's only my opinion and your mileage may vary.

Creationists will tell you over and over that you have to produce transitional forms from the fossil record for evolution to be a viable process. It's not sufficient to say that a fish became a four legged creature without something in-between appearing consistently in the fossil record. You've heard the argument before, so I won't belabor it.

there is and there is

let's start with the fish [Link: tiktaalik.uchicago.edu]

second
1) DNA, shows the relation between parent and child and DNA proximity shows the changes

2)
-- a) let me ask you this, do you think that there have been many many millions of humans on this planet that died before you where even born? where is the proof? where are the dead bodies? the vast majority would have disappeared, why do you think it should be so for all the other creatures that lived on this world?
-- b) we only have partial records, we have some bones (of some creatures), but soft tissue does not tend to survive, when looking at fossils it is extremely hard to differentiate from one creature to an other, when you have a handful or two of an individual, was one shorter and the other one taller because they happened to be that way or really different species or a transition on the way of happening.
-- c) the world is an extremely large place, every day more and more and newer bones and species are fond, it would be nuts to assume that everything there is to be found is found

3) you say that you agree on evolution on the small scale, I am guessing by that you mean inheritance of traits, but how long have people been scientifically (with intent of showing/recording evolution) looking at it? Large scale fish to man takes millions of years, it does not happen in a life time. Even then in more agrarian circles there have been a lot of evidence and even to the point of new species evolving (especially in the plant world where you can mix and match much more easily).


PS
I am curious in your interpretation of fissile records and the world around us. What do you think dinosaurs are, why they are not here any more, why there are no bird or human or chimpanzee fossils dating back to the time of the dinosaurs
...
Find in this thread:
Page 2 of 6


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse