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.
I seriously have to wonder why Scientists inhabit this discussion.
Their arrogance and rudeness is breathtaking and what exactly do they get out of it themselves? The doubtful pleasure of putting down everyone else as far as I can see. It can't be intellectually stimulating for them either because they're just preaching to the masses.
Still, good job we're not all scientists because we'd all agree and there'd be nothing to talk about.
Reading what may very well be the truth makes you guys pretty uncomfortable, eh, geoff?
Just want to give a shout out to Nozzferrahtoo for his highly impressive work in this thread.
If this was a prize fight, the ref would've had to stop it long ago...
I already cited several in this thread, and I explained what transitional form actually means.... and how the meaning differs from what most creationists think it means. Or at least what they want to pretend it means.
Just want to give a shout out to Nozzferrahtoo for his highly impressive work in this thread.
If this was a prize fight, the ref would've had to stop it long ago...
Thank you. Alas it is not that impressive. I have the advantage of knowing what I am talking about, education, training and experience. The other user does not.
I therefore have something of an advantage which I am happy to exploit.
To use your analogy, if it was a prize fight then any good ref would not have let the fight start in the first place, as the combatants are in not just different weight categories..... but categories at extreme opposite ends of the scale.
Why must these be mutually exclusive? Does evolution disqualify an intelligent designer? A lot of people reject the idea of evolution because they think it takes away any role for God to play in the creation of life. Such is the case; however, only for people who require God's role to fit certain narrow preconceptions of what "intelligent design" must mean. Millions of people around the world have no trouble believing in God and accepting evolution at the same time. Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.
You are yes. Just like when I walk into a discussion with people who know more than me on a subject, I am fortunate too. And this happens often. My knowledge of law and history are, for example, minimal. So when I am lucky enough to learn from a conversation with my betters on these subjects I avail of it. I NEVER walk in trying to tell them false facts about their subject, because I will succeed only in looking silly.
As you have. Rather than benefit from those of us who know quite a lot about a Subject you seem to enjoy discussing, you have instead closed your ears, opened your mouth, and bleated out the most egregious falsehoods that do little but highlight how far you have yet to go.
I likened your approach in another post with how I would look if I walked into a discussion about baseball and started telling everyone my favorite player is David Beckham. All I would do is A) look silly and B) let those who do know about baseball see clearly that I know nothing about it.
So when you waltz in telling people there are no transitional fossils between man and our most recent common ancestor... you are doing little more than telling Baseball fans that David Beckham is the best player.
It is so easy for the only fool in the room to profess all others in the room to be "fools" with throw away quotes like yours. Just as it is easy to fall back on such insults, when all else has failed you on the thread. But remember my mantra: Insults demean ONLY the insulter. Never the target.
I already cited several in this thread, and I explained what transitional form actually means.... and how the meaning differs from what most creationists think it means. Or at least what they want to pretend it means.
You only cited extinct apes. Humans were created just as we are today.
Scientists do not at all agree, and science is constantly disproving itself. Which science is true, today's, the science of WW2, the science of Da Vinci's day?
God's truth never changes. The best that man's science can ever do is catch up with God's eternal truths.
And right here is where you define exactly why science will always be more correct than religion.
Science disproves itself and that is its greatest strength. If science is wrong it seeks to explain. It asks questions and then seeks to learn those answers through the faculties and senses God has provided us. If I have a theory and then some new observation disproves my theory I don't try to forever defend my inaccurate theory. I modify it. I try to better understand. Science wishes to improve.
That is not possible with religion. If religion has a story, let's say young earth creationism, since that is the topic of this conversation (but there are many others), and an insurmountable tower of evidence disproves this story, religion cannot change. If it were to change the followers would lose "faith" and find new religion or possibly lose all hope. Unfortunately there is a problem with faith. All religious people believe their religion is true on faith, but all world religions differ from one another in one or more ways. So is faith any indicator of actual truth? If I were a Mormon and I told you my ways were correct because of faith would you simply say, ah yes, faith. Yes, Mormons have it right, they have faith. Religion does not wish to improve.
Switching back to science. If I am a scientist and I show a good scientist of a contradictory theory hard and undeniable evidence that mine is true, the good scientist will concede. Nothing is lost, he is not a lesser scientist. Being wrong is just as important as being right.
In religion you cannot be wrong, ever, which just isn't possible as we can see in the countless contradictory statements in the bible (and other religious texts) despite their believers still claiming that there is only one way and that's God's way. Well, which way is God's way? For that matter, which God are we going to say is the correct one? Why yours? Why not the God some guy from Iran, Israel, India, Japan or Nepal believes in?
But in the end, I know there is more to life than we can empirically observe with our senses. Religion has a place, but we shouldn't ever try to deny what we can learn with science just because religion says otherwise, just ask Galileo. Or do you still believe the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us? Religion once demanded that as truth, you know.
Last edited by Geo-Aggie; 07-17-2014 at 09:11 AM..
Reason: typing error
Reading what may very well be the truth makes you guys pretty uncomfortable, eh, geoff?
Just want to give a shout out to Nozzferrahtoo for his highly impressive work in this thread.
If this was a prize fight, the ref would've had to stop it long ago...
No it doesn't make me in the slightest uncomfortable and your rather smug opening comment echoes the delivery of the scientists on this thread. Here's a few more for the record:-
'You appear to have plucked them out of a rear orifice.'
'Poppycock from you. Tosh.'
'wantonly contriving to misrepresent the facts as blatantly as you. '
Again your lies are adding nothing to the content of the thread son.
'You are a lay man to science preaching false science at people who simply know better than you.'
'Stop preaching and bleating and instead stop, listen and learn. '
'You lying that it is not does not change the world of fact'
'The phrase "quiet down son, the adults are talking" springs to mind.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The above represents arrogance of a high order and such comments speak more about the writer than what he has to say. He certainly has much to learn in the respect department.
To continue - The scientists on here can't be proved wrong by the non scientists because they cannot evaluate the evidence properly without becoming scientists themselves, and that's not going to happen.
The creationists can't prove their beliefs because the very nature of faith is completely removed from procedures of provable science. Because of that their belief is dismissed out of hand so you get a very one sided argument.
I imagine Jehovah's Witnesses would find in exasperating trying to get their message across to the evolutionists as well, especially as most of them ( I'm guessing) haven't studied the Bible in as much detail as they have evolution.
I'm not a creationist myself but I have taken the trouble to attend a number of their meetings to educate myself a little on the subject and I was highly impressed by their patience and non confrontational explanation of their belief as a result of long and detailed study of the Bible.
Such qualities are sadly missing from the evolutionists on this thread.
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.
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.
