Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2011, 10:47 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,600,779 times
Reputation: 1275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You're not familiar with Punctuated Equilibrium, either.

So now you have a beef with geology and radiological dating as well? Is there any branch of science you're not willing to throw out if it threatens your creation theory?

You come across as rather rude, seeing as you yourself have refused to answer that question several times, now.



Well, you can prove that the solar system is too young, like Lord Kelvin did. It's just that he was wrong. Had he been right: Good-bye, evolution.

You can argue that there's no mechanism to carry characteristics from parents to offspring. If that had been the case: Good-bye, evolution. Of course, Mendel (and later Crick, Watson and Wilkins) blew that out of the water, didn't they?

DNA sequences could have failed to match the bifurcal branching we'd expect if ToE is to be true. If that hadn't matched - well, it would have been a serious blow. But we invariably find DNA evidence to match the theory's predictions.

See, the problem in falsifying evolution by now is that the good arguments against it have failed already. It didn't survive for 150+ years by being a weak theory.

Didn't we cover this already? "Prove me wrong" isn't falsification. Give me the piece of physical evidence - however hypothetical - that would falsify the idea of a creator in your mind. Or, in your own words: "what exactly would you suggest we look to in order to invalidate it?" Or don't. Because I think we both know that you're utterly incapable of doing so. You can't comprehend a universe without a creator, can you?

It's a nice metaphysical idea. Just don't pretend that it carries any weight as a scientific (counter)argument, and we'll get along fine.


I get it...you have bought into the theories...you believe in it. That's fine. You think you're too smart to believe in creationism. Fine.

I personally don't believe in fairy tales. That's what I think your theory is. You say it wouldn't survive for 150+ years by being a weak theory? How long have people believed in a creator? It's a lot longer than 150 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2011, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,747,069 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I personally don't believe in fairy tales.
Your posts and understanding of science prove it otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 11:07 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,600,779 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Your posts and understanding of science prove it otherwise.
I could say the same of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 11:14 AM
 
46,840 posts, read 25,796,967 times
Reputation: 29322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I get it...you have bought into the theories...you believe in it.
The evidence supports the ToE. Provide supporting evidence for an alternative, I'll look. Provide falsifying evidence, I'll look.


Quote:
That's fine. You think you're too smart to believe in creationism.
If you can't falsify it, I'm not accepting it as a scientific hypothesis.

Quote:
I personally don't believe in fairy tales. That's what I think your theory is.
You've repeatedly shown you have no understanding of it, so your judgment is perhaps not very sound?

Quote:
You say it wouldn't survive for 150+ years by being a weak theory? How long have people believed in a creator? It's a lot longer than 150 years.
How long did people believe in a geocentric universe? Once the evidence pointed towards heliocentrism, the scientific consensus shifted. The poeple who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting the evidence-based worldview, were of course those who clung to religion.

Frankly, your personal incredulity doesn't count for much.

As for creationism, I ask - I believe this may be the 4th time - "what exactly would you suggest we look to in order to invalidate it"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,747,069 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I could say the same of you.
You could, but that would be only retaliatory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 11:36 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,600,779 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
You could, but that would be only retaliatory.
and true?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,747,069 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
and true?
No, illogical. Non-sensical, irrational retaliatory remarks don't cut it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,108,728 times
Reputation: 1651
I don't believe in unicorns, ghosts, talking horses, ESP, and many other things. I wouldn't be surprised at the number of people who do believe such things. I just think the population of our planet would be better off with facts and what people could infer logically to other facts, which lead to light bulbs coming on, now and then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 01:10 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,204,860 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I just question why we have all kinds of examples of finished products of animals--with great leaps from one "stage" to another, with very little transitional records.

Nevermind that evolution does nothing to explain how life actually began.
Evolution was never intended to explain how life actually began. It explains how life evoles, changes over time.

By the way, why do you persist with this nonsense about transistional fossils? ALL lifeforms are transitional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2011, 08:21 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,600,779 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Evolution was never intended to explain how life actually began. It explains how life evoles, changes over time.

By the way, why do you persist with this nonsense about transistional fossils? ALL lifeforms are transitional.
And the gaping holes in the fossil record shows that it has some major issues before it can be considered seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top