Why do unscientific people think they are qualified to attack science? (mythology, contradiction)

[JustNobody]

The history of the word "atom" is very detailed. It originally came from a Indian word, and then used by the Greeks, and so on, meaning indivisible, and referenced that all matter was made of 5 different forms, earth, water, fire, air, ether, corresponding to the 5 geometric forms. The word "atom" was then later applied to a completely different thing, which was atomic elements, which were later found to be made of parts. And the whole earth being seen as flat was never a scientific theory.

[Time and Space]

Originally Posted by baket

LEARN TO READ. did i say round planet appears to be flat ?!!! omg. and for 1 poster i distinctly remember that question no. 5 on my SCIENCE exam on 5th grade reads " who INVENTED electricity?" or are you gonna change AGAIN an old information taught in classes? gosh. you people make me laugh.

again this image:



has been in my 5th grade science book and that is how i REALLY thought human came to be(that's one hell of shape shifting action don't u think?). darwin's evolution is taught on my catholic school as such with images like that so i believed it. it was only later on that i realized it is a fable. to ME.

Wow....

So this is the 'religion' of aithiest scientist...illustrated in this drawing you posted?

Kind of scary...and explains a lot...

Thanks for posting this...

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by baket

oh it is only now that i get what phoebe was saying she was talking about atom! and how 50 yrs. ago well maybe 60 yrs. ago now (that episode was aired in the 90s), atom accdg to science is just teeny tiny thing. until they opened it up and a whole lot of crap came out. i am just quoting phoebe.

anyway, well based on the vid i saw about "what darwin never knew". scientists found out that there is an on/off switch on our genomes that sets the characteristics. like they were wondering why the flies they were observing, one has dots on their wings while the other has not. they found the triggering sequence and artificially put it/injected it with the fly that has no dots. and it worked. i have to point out though, instead of dots, the fly that they injected has glowing wing at the end since they injected it with glowing stuff. they were NOT able to give it the same dot as the other fly. proving that these genes need a higher being perhaps? to trigger certain characteristics. well that is how i understood the vid. although of course this scientists were saying other reasons why it has on/off switch whatever.

And where they have been able to change, alter, breed, transmute and genetically redesign this that or the other, you suppose that the Higher being helpfully worked its magic to make them think they were doing it all themselves? You are looking for anything you can think of to shoehorn God into the equation.

can u honestly believe ANYthing can survive for billion and billion and billion and billion years ago. a freaking fruit rots in half a day. seriously? a house rots in what 10,20 yrs..? i know we are talking a single cell or sand or water or elements of the earth/universe leading to evolution but still.

What is this nonsense? You and I both know that humans have been around thousands of years, yet a dead human rots in a few months. Why in principle, should anything that can reproduce for a few thousand years not do the same for a million?

u see how polluted the waters are now? and the air? how was it that it remain pure because there are no humans to waste/abuse them before? well then the ultimate, highest form of evolution(human) is not good then coz it contributed the slow death of the earth? so it is evolving to its own death. that mighty cell. i guess that mighty single cell's billion and billion and billion and billion years of existence and evolution has run its course.

You people seem to have a death - wish. You'd love to see the world die choking so that you could make some footling claim about what evolution has brought us to. But, my dear half-baket, what they say about angry with God (you must believe in it) works for evolution. If you are going to blame all the world ills on evolution, it must be real, or you are blaming something that doesn't exist.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Time and Space

Wow....

So this is the 'religion' of aithiest scientist...illustrated in this drawing you posted?

Kind of scary...and explains a lot...

Thanks for posting this...

Baket was a known troll who had been banned from this forum no fewer than 15 times before getting away with a few lively posts under the pseudonym of baket.

Keep in mind, this same troll was the very person who didn't just think the world was 6000 years old, as if that weren't stupid enough, but was the first person I've ever encountered who vehemently denied the existence of dinosaurs. They even claimed that all dinosaur bones were either fakes or planted there by scientists to promote an Old Earth theory.

Though most of his/her arguments read like that of a thirteen year old with a crafty text messaging device in their hand, it somehow came to be known that this person was over the legal age of being considered an adult. So, flabbergasted and simply dismayed at the idiocy portrayed by one person, I've always been able to recognize the writing style of this one idiot no matter how many months has passed.

For a while, it was a lot of fun doing this because this troll was so particularly persistent it got to the point where I thought we'd never be rid of them. Despite being banned so many times that their presence would be considered "Criminal Trespassing" at a physical location, they kept showing up. Then it became almost sad, really, to watch them arrive, post something in the exact same grammar and spelling, get banned, make a new name, post about how we all deserved to Moderator cut: delete " from God's vengeful hand, get banned again, and then disappear for a day or two only to pop back up with the same spelling and grammar to act completely confused as to how they were figured out again. Ever see a dog get sprayed by a skunk over and over and over and over again? Yeah... Same thing...

Which leads me to the picture posted by our long since deceased troll... First and foremost, that picture is a gross misconception of evolution. I hate that picture and others like it because it makes the lineage of evolutionary trees look like a redneck family tree (one that doesn't branch). Part of the problem is that it makes it look like the barely erect monkey-like creature gave birth to a semi-erect human-looking thing and so on and so forth. It's so easy to get the conception wrong from these kinds of paintings and drawings that I hate them for that very reason. Yeah, they're useful in terms of a brief representation of our origins but it has become so simplified and the misunderstanding of evolution is so great that it becomes all too familiar for people to claim the images in that picture as reality.

Personally, I'd like a picture that looked like the following to show man's position among the modern day taxonomic network:



And, I'd like to see something similar to this image to represent man's evolutionary lineage:

[AREQUIPA]

Thank you, both for providing clarification of this 'Fairy tale' (as dear old C34 used to call it) of evolution which is a grossly over-simplified popular - imagination picture and clarification of one of our less stimulating anti evolutionists.

Ps. I can imagine that the anti - evolutionists might point to all those question marks and ask if we know anything at all about primate evolution? It is true that the neat line of ascent from monkeys to men with Piltdown man providing the Missing Link is simply a myth. The fact is that the developing primate fossils found in appropriate stratification indicates that the development of humans came about in just the same way indicated in the fossil record for every other dark kind of life on earth.

Originally Posted by rifleman

It's always intriguing to me that when science discovers a hoax, ...
Question no. 3: Do you then believe and gloat over those announcements when the scientific community makes them (As in Piltdown Man and some aspects of Lucy?).

I had always thought that the claims of hoaxing about Lucy were false or at least misrepresented. If there are some aspects about Australopithecus which are unjustified, let alone a hoax, we had better learn the worst. Can you clarify or give a link?

[Bideshi]

Why do un-Christian people think they are qualified to attack Christianity?

[Bideshi]

Hmm. First from left resembles my boss, and I probably most closely resemble the next to last on the right.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Why do un-Christian people think they are qualified to attack Christianity?

Well, speaking for myself because I understand a sight more about some aspects of it than the majority of Christians appear to. Next question, right in here please..

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Hmm. First from left resembles my boss, and I probably most closely resemble the next to last on the right.

Stick with us and we'll help you make that last step..

[Time and Space]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Baket was a known troll who had been banned from this forum no fewer than 15 times before getting away with a few lively posts under the pseudonym of baket.

Keep in mind, this same troll was the very person who didn't just think the world was 6000 years old, as if that weren't stupid enough, but was the first person I've ever encountered who vehemently denied the existence of dinosaurs. They even claimed that all dinosaur bones were either fakes or planted there by scientists to promote an Old Earth theory.

Though most of his/her arguments read like that of a thirteen year old with a crafty text messaging device in their hand, it somehow came to be known that this person was over the legal age of being considered an adult. So, flabbergasted and simply dismayed at the idiocy portrayed by one person, I've always been able to recognize the writing style of this one idiot no matter how many months has passed.

For a while, it was a lot of fun doing this because this troll was so particularly persistent it got to the point where I thought we'd never be rid of them. Despite being banned so many times that their presence would be considered "Criminal Trespassing" at a physical location, they kept showing up. Then it became almost sad, really, to watch them arrive, post something in the exact same grammar and spelling, get banned, make a new name, post about how we all deserved to "f**king die you f**king ba**ards" from God's vengeful hand, get banned again, and then disappear for a day or two only to pop back up with the same spelling and grammar to act completely confused as to how they were figured out again. Ever see a dog get sprayed by a skunk over and over and over and over again? Yeah... Same thing...

Which leads me to the picture posted by our long since deceased troll... First and foremost, that picture is a gross misconception of evolution. I hate that picture and others like it because it makes the lineage of evolutionary trees look like a redneck family tree (one that doesn't branch). Part of the problem is that it makes it look like the barely erect monkey-like creature gave birth to a semi-erect human-looking thing and so on and so forth. It's so easy to get the conception wrong from these kinds of paintings and drawings that I hate them for that very reason. Yeah, they're useful in terms of a brief representation of our origins but it has become so simplified and the misunderstanding of evolution is so great that it becomes all too familiar for people to claim the images in that picture as reality.

Personally, I'd like a picture that looked like the following to show man's position among the modern day taxonomic network:



And, I'd like to see something similar to this image to represent man's evolutionary lineage:

Unlike aithiest scientist, who seem to be 'cruel' and very 'insultive' when making their arguements...I won't be...

But I will ask questions...and if me asking questions evokes some kind of cruel, insulting, demonic response in you...than don't answer....

But I have a right and obligation to ask questions....

That being said....


Why does 'nature' need to evolve?

What's the incentive or motive for nature to evolve?

To make things 'self aware'?

Why does nature need a conscious?

Why would random atoms, want to go to the moon, or laugh, or cry?

And do you think the 'love' you feel for your family is just 'random'?

NFL football, or the need to compete...random?

If people on the evolution side of things are going to mock, and ridicule those on the 'creation' side of theory...than be willing to offer explanations....without getting all 'hostile' and down right 'hateful' ...like the majority of those on the 'scientific' section are...

[Time and Space]

When dating the earth...there's two distinctions that must be made...

1. Life on earth...

2. Life or age of Planet...

In other words...the earth could be 100,000 years old....

But life on earth could be 20,000 years old....

Like a vacant house...that sits vacant for 200 years, until family moves in....

You don't measure how old the house is, by the date family moves in....

For instance...Venus has been there for 'x' amount of years...

If someone or something planted life on there tomorrow...you wouldn't measure age of Venus, and age of 'start date of life on Venus' as being the same...

The earth very well could have been here for millions of years...void and lifeless...

But life on earth could, and most likely is, a lot younger than the actually age of the planet....