creation museum (3 Viewers)

[classic seanc]

what you just said:



sounds pretty dude-in-the-sky-ish to me

Ah no, it doesn’t preclude Stargate style “Ascended”, or Star Trek style “Q”.

Seriously.

It’s just that the other evidence makes more sense than the “we already know the answer” of mock-scientists.

 

[Pantone247]

remember they used to literally believe that the world was built in seven days (or six).

used to?

I think some of them still think it was

 

[flashback]

intelligent design is being put forward by scientists, physicists, chemists and biologists, as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

Seriously... it's not.
No proper scientist has any truck with ID, when that ID overlaps with their area of study. Ie, no evolutionary scientist would consider ID to be plausable theory of evolution. In fact, at this point, it is the standard scientific joke at conferences.

I mean, I know this stuff, its more or less my job. My boss is a big shot evol biologist.
The fact of the matter is, there is not a single shred, in any shape or form, of any evidence, at all, to sugest a need for ID.
As a theory it is completely redundant.

And that is even without going into if it is true or not. But, that's the first test. Is your hypothesis needed?
Does your hypothesis solve anything, does it provide needed answers?

ID fails both of these questions miserably.

 

[Squiggle]

Seriously... it's not.
No proper scientist has any truck with ID, when that ID overlaps with their area of study. Ie, no evolutionary scientist would consider ID to be plausable theory. In fact, at this point, it is the standard scientific joke at conferences.

I mean, I know this stuff, its more or less my job. My boss is a big shot evol biologist.
The fact of the matter is, there is not a single shred, in any shape or form, of any evidence, at all to sugest a need for ID.
As a theory it is completely redundant.

And that is even without going into if it is true or not. But, that's the first test. Is your hypothesis needed?
Does your hypothesis solve anything, does it provide needed answers?

ID fails both of these questions miserably.

Which is your opionion, to which you are absolutely entitled.

 

[Pantone247]

because, as far as i can tell,

by this logic

i have a theory that,

kettle of fish

on a dude in the sky

Here Silo I don't think you can throw dirt at squiggle when your own theroies, QUOTED FROM YOUR OWN POSTS, don't make too much sense either...

 

[snakybus]

Squiggle, has it not occurred to you that ID has only arisen as a prominent (if not accepted) pop-theory in the last ten years, and have you considered why this might be the case? Do you think there might be a correlation between it and, oh, I don't know, the increased prominence of the evangelical right in the USA as a result of George W Bush being in power? And would that not make you somewhat suspicious of the motives of its proponents? In much the same wayas when you hear about a scientist saying that there is no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, and then you find out he works for Philip Morris?

 

[Squiggle]

Here Silo I don't think you can throw dirt at squiggle when your own theroies, QUOTED FROM YOUR OWN POSTS, don't make too much sense either...

Hey, Tom's got a future as the next T.S. Eliot

With Pantone as his Ezra Pound

 

[taubstumm]

Silo

http://thumped2000.8.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2

 

[Squiggle]

Squiggle, has it not occurred to you that ID has only arisen as a prominent (if not accepted) pop-theory in the last ten years, and have you considered why this might be the case? Do you think there might be a correlation between it and, oh, I don't know, the increased prominence of the evangelical right in the USA as a result of George W Bush being in power? And would that not make you somewhat suspicious of the motives of its proponents? In much the same wayas when you hear about a scientist saying that there is no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, and then you find out he works for Philip Morris?

Of course it has, I think I stated a few times that I haven't yet found any single theory to be compelling enough for me to fully embrace it.

But I would ask also why it is that people are so ready to embrace a theory as fact that also remains largely unproven, while dismissing one that they have not attempted to understand. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Pantone247]

I remember having an argument with a friend who wasn't buying evolution years ago

her: do you really think we're evolved from monkeys?

me: well... I mean... it's the best idea... I... uh... guess

her: well maybe you were, but I'm not!

 

[magicbastarder]

i was of the understanding that evolution of species by means of natural selection had been observed?

 

[aoboa]

Of course it has, I think I stated a few times that I haven't yet found any single theory to be compelling enough for me to fully embrace it.

But I would ask also why it is that people are so ready to embrace a theory as fact that also remains largely unproven, while dismissing one that they have not attempted to understand. That is the point I am trying to make.

Because there is hundreds of years of scientific study on evolution to back it up.
Creationism/ID, despite the bibles existence for thousands of years and the millions and millions of people who believe its words, has yet to provide a shred of scientific evidence.

 

[classic seanc]

Of course it has, I think I stated a few times that I haven't yet found any single theory to be compelling enough for me to fully embrace it.

But I would ask also why it is that people are so ready to embrace a theory as fact that also remains largely unproven, while dismissing one that they have not attempted to understand. That is the point I am trying to make.

Makes more sense than christianity based creationism.

 

[taubstumm]

Of course it has, I think I stated a few times that I haven't yet found any single theory to be compelling enough for me to fully embrace it.

But I would ask also why it is that people are so ready to embrace a theory as fact that also remains largely unproven, while dismissing one that they have not attempted to understand. That is the point I am trying to make.

ah here squiggler; we're just going in circles here. i think you're bats. (you probably think i am too). i give up. let's talk about music instead or something. i'm listening to ac/dc. you?

 

[Space]

Of course it has, I think I stated a few times that I haven't yet found any single theory to be compelling enough for me to fully embrace it.

But I would ask also why it is that people are so ready to embrace a theory as fact that also remains largely unproven, while dismissing one that they have not attempted to understand. That is the point I am trying to make.

In fairness evolution makes a hell of a lot more scientific sense than intelligent design.

 

[Pantone247]

i'm listening to ac/dc. you?

makes sense... considering you're an evolutoin believing satanist....

 

[Squiggle]

Because there is hundreds of years of scientific study on evolution to back it up.
Creationism/ID, despite the bibles existence for thousands of years and the millions and millions of people who believe its words, has yet to provide a shred of scientific evidence.

Hundreds of years? The Origin of the Species was first published in 1859.

Evolutionary theory remains a theory.

Well, according to the Bible, people did not require scientific proof of the existence of God until realitively recent times. Throughout much of the Old Testament a higher power spoke directly to humans and provided physical proof of his/her power when required.

Of course, the Bible may be a work of fiction, but the same is true of The Origin of the Species.

 

[taubstumm]

makes sense... considering your a evolutoin believing satanist....

for those about to evolve, we salute you

 

[Squiggle]

ah here squiggler; we're just going in circles here. i think you're bats. (you probably think i am too). i give up. let's talk about music instead or something. i'm listening to ac/dc. you?

Just read this now. I'm listening to Handel's Messiah, naturally.*

I don't see how it can be bats to insist on equal treatment of scientific theories, but I'm willing to drop the argument.



*not true.

 

[flashback]

Which is your opionion, to which you are absolutely entitled.

Well... parts of that post are my opinion. And the opinion of all science I have ever come into contact with. Parts of it are fact. Science has nothing to do with Gods.


Its not like music, where everyone's opinion matters. In science your opinion does not matter. Some things are true, and some aren't.
Can you prove what you say is true? Ok, we will publish you. Else, no.

There is no need for any higher beings, there is no evidence for any higher beings, so you take the most parsimonoius explanation, and say there are no higher beings.