Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I don't really know alot of the posters views clearly... I would hazard a guess that you all believe in evolution.... Cept whobdamandog...What do you believe in whobdamandog??
I'm a little lost on the subject and would apreciate any and all info site you could send my way...
Here's a rather informative site Hit.
http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Here's a rather informative site Hit.http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.
Dinosaur Extinction: The Theory
Dinosaur Extinction is a recent phenomenon. Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S.). We know this theory is revolutionary to many! However, we must admit – it’s not original. In fact, the theory isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all. It’s based on the established truth of the Biblical record – a record that’s not dependant on mankind’s ever-changing view of science and reason. We absolutely encourage you to carefully examine the evidence for yourself!
😂
great source. i have a better theory:
the dinosaurs all died out because they came up with a theory
of evolution, which angered the invisible man in the sky, so he
smited them, every one. amen
The only dead horse here are your own views, whob. I see your 'staying away' form this thread lasted all of a day; which is neatly demonstrative of how wrong you always are!
Let's have a look at what you say:
"Science is full of constants and absolutes"
Lie. Science is the construction of theories that explain observed phenomena. Everything that science works on is based on theories- evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics... Scientific theories can never be 'fully' proven unless you somehow manage to observe and test every single conceptual thing in the Universe, in every way, in every place, in every tiny fraction of time. Nothing is 100% certain- it is conceptually impossible.
A theory CAN be contradticted, however, and this is the mechanic of science. Once you have established a workable theory with evidence to support it, an exhaustive effort is made to see if the theory is contradicted by any observed effect. if a theory is proposed, and it can withstand attempts to contradict, then it stands.
I hate to tell you this, whob, because you still labour under this massive misapprehension of what science is, but just about all modern advances in technology have been made on that basis alone. So if you want to disbelieve evolution on that basis, feel free to think that gravity is bull as well, simply because we cannot observe its formation. Which of course we never can- but we can observe its effects and discern its nature from there. That is the exact same process that evolution followed.
Again- go back to school, and pay attention in science class this time.
Incidentally, what the speaker says na be validated as true because the nature of the scientific method itself is NOT science. That is simply fact, like the rules of a football game. That is what it is; get used to it.
You once more make referenc to 'Naturalistic Humanism'. Once more, that is pure golden crap. For those who do not know, the term given above is one that Creationists use to label scientists to try and make out that scientists are following a belief system, as much a belief system as any religion.
It is, of course, the supremest bollocks to say that. As I continually say, science differs from a belief system funadmentally in the nature that it is continually open to revision and change- where faith is the exact opposite, it resists change regardless of presented evidence.
Secondly, science does not approach life from any pre-defined scientifc viewpoint. The four processes that whob refers to are NOT a prerequiste of the operation of science alone, it is the prerequisite of performing any rational action in this world; the same process early hunter gatheres used to select the best crops. The scientific method grwe up from that basis and it is the same basis all of us use to interact in life- religious or non religious. The sun rises evet day, people don't just fly off into space, and effect follows cause. Faith then lays down a set explanations for all this and refuses to differ. Science, in contrast, uses that same concept of rationality to try and discern the underlying mechanics behind those processes.
So despite the fact that every Human on Earth believes in those concepts, religious types like whob (who, incidentally, would have no reason to even try and argue if they thought the above concepts were not true, because argument is an intellectual process that depends on such things) try and shove them onto scientists alone and make out that they follow their own belief system. Utter crap, and to be continuously exposed as the rubbish it is. The scientif method is NOT a relativistic belief system- that is a lie. It is contrary to belief by its very nature. Belief is not a factor within it- only the collection of observable evidence.
You could, of course, try and bring in an argument of philisophical scpeticism, which boils down to NOTHING existing save yourself, but not only is that an intellectual dead end, it is also one that would simply have left modern civilisation... well, non-existant. As it is, common sense application of the rational scientific method has led to the (relatively) advanced culture we have today.
Odd that you mention clockmakers- I recommend you read the book "The Blind Watchmaker" to understand why evolution, in no way at all, implies chaos- quite the opposite. It is beautifully ordered, and fully automatic.
Interesting that you try and clock me for arguing with dictionaries, as you yourself have completely failed to grasp the meaning of satire. Let's have a look at what you said there:
"A satire my friend..is a fictional/exaggerated scenario.
A fictional scenario is not true.
Something that is valid represents something that is true.
Thus your statement "valid satirical refutation"..is an illogical statement.
Some valid advice my friend..cut down on the length of your responses. Posting more, doesn't make your point anymore truthful."
Put your hands up if you also spotted that no intelligence was behind this mad jumble of sentences?
One hardly knows where to begin in refuting the incredibly stupid non-sequiturs here. First of all, you say satire can be either fictional or exaggerated, and then continue your postulation on the fictional idea alone. But your secondmistake is the hugrst- you try and make out that I was saying that it was a TRUE event being used as satitr.
DUH!
I said that it was VALID SATIRE! As in something that qualifies as satire. Bloody hell, a five year old could have understood that. The statement was these two things:
1. A valid piece of satire- as in, not something purporting to be satire but actually not.
2. A refutation.
Hence, I called it a 'valid satirical refutation'. Now, have you got that, or shall I speak more slowly to you?
Meanwhile, anyone can look in a decent dictionary- rather than the crappy one you are using- and see how the opening post exactly fits the definition of satire, that I posted aboe, taken from a much better dictionary.
Because yes, the selective definitiion of Creationism you have quoted there is nonsense. Creationism is purely faith based. it is not based on observed, tested phenonena that are then attacked, it simply is, and nothing else. Hence, it does not meet the definition of 'theory'. It is just an idea and anothing more. There is no scientific process behind it, hence it cannot be put at ths same level as Evolution.
If there WAS such evidence for Creationism, scientists would accept it as a theory. That's the point- scientists don't have a pre-determined agenda. They simply make theories out of the available observable evidence.
Meanwhile...
No, I don't sound dogmatic or relgiious at all when putting my views across- only you think that. Others simply recognise the rationality and logic behind it all. Talking of rationality... try proving that the scientific study of economics has anything to do with nature at all. You can't, so you will then note that science does not automatically imply nature.
I don't care how many irrational fools think ID should be equated with Evolution. The world is full of such people; they used to think the world is flat, after all. I am talking about HERE, and people reading THIS argument. It is people here that you are totally failing to convince, and again and again and again are being totally slammed down upon in every argument you make.
So then. There are no illusions in what I speak of. Once mopre, I present the cold, hard facts, which are blowing your argument into tiny tiny peices, as anyone here can see. Meanwhile, you continue to make moronic statements like the one above about satire, and further destroy your own argumment.
You done yet? You going to calim to be done, but then come back anyway? Go ahead then. Like I say, the more you post, the more you sabotage your own views, and that suits me just fine. Continue to believe that I am this evil person you want me to be, but the truth is simply that the truth hurts, and all the intelligent people here know that when you try and cast me down like that, that is simply the desperate flailing of a beaten man.
"Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S)"
what cracks me up is it seems...according to that site whob provided...that the flintstones was actually sort of a historical documentary
looks like fred couldnt get enough of those brontoburgers
This is precious:
We know this theory is revolutionary to many! However, we must admit – it’s not original. In fact, the theory isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all. It’s based on the established truth of the Biblical record
If it admittingly, "isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all" then it has no place in a scientific forum such as a science class. Guess the folks in kansas never read that article.
Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.
🙂
Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.🙂
and some obnoxious trolls need to find a new hobbie 🙂
not you of coarse...just saying 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂
Originally posted by PVS
and some obnoxious trolls need to find a new hobbie 🙂not you of coarse...just saying 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂
🙂 I'm glad your not telling me to find a new hobby, I woould not want to be another person who you argue with on here you, you seem to have so many 🙂
Your more relaxed today that's a good sign 🙂
so tell me, do you use smilies to mask the fact that you're angry and crying when you post, or do you think that they somehow validate a thoughtless and benign post like this:
Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.🙂
🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I think PVS hacks more on people not so much for them being religious as much as them being either ignorant and religious or stupid and religious.The religion seems to take a back seat to the personality, but that's just my take, I could be wrong, have been before, will be again.
He often hacks at AC who can be annoying but is not ignorant.
I don't think Whobd is either - I used to think PVS was OK, he just seems an angry guy these days 🙂
Originally posted by LanaThat's how I found the original post.
Too bad that no one found it funny and just found it highly pathetic - and sad - that he could not come up with anything better with which to defend his beliefs than to accuse all of us of groupthinking.But then again, since we all agree on this, he's probably going to come in and accuse us of 'groupthink' again! Oh dear.
But then again, I see this groupthink logic works both ways -- never has he accused anyone who agrees with HIM of groupthink, I have noticed.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Here's a rather informative site Hit.http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.
The following is quoted from the "ABOUT US" section of that website.
"Our Mission
Our mission is to lead people to Jesus and help them grow in their relationship with Him. We strive to deliver compelling evidence for the Christian faith to seekers, believers, and a skeptical world. We seek to be non-threatening, practical and informative, using the technology of the Internet to answer tough questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity."
This is obviously a website with a genuine bias and a specific cause that would lead them to only support creationism and any/all beliefs that fit into their view. Not a valid, sound, credible or reasonable source by any means.
This is a prime example of the Religious movement, with alterior motives, trying to push religious propaganda into the realm of science based on lies, deceptions and distorted ideas to help defend their actions.