Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 223 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#47120 - 12/29/12 12:58 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Mike Kremer]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
I cannot understand why there is so much animosity towards Evolution. Surely it is possible for believers, and I know some who do, to believe that the world was developed by God along the plan described in Genesis, which actually gets the whole birth of the universe remarkably accurately for the time in which it was written.

I think that the universe (and etc) arose from undirected chaos or even nothing! But it surely would not be difficult to believe that Evolution, which now slowly being verified, gives the most accurate outline of the origin of everything! And believe it is directed by God, if you must.

It is wrong not to allow children access to provable science, and instead to teach them, knowingly, incorrect information.


Edited by Ellis (12/29/12 01:01 AM)

Top
.
#47122 - 12/29/12 01:36 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
It is wrong not to allow children access to provable science, and instead to teach them, knowingly, incorrect information.


exactly , that's why we should stop teaching them evolution.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47123 - 12/29/12 01:42 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Ellis]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Frequently this sort of animosity is born of fear, often unrecognised and/or unacknowledged, but very real none-the-less.

Questioning one's fundamental beliefs, especially if those beliefs are linked to the concept of eternal life/salvation, requires a degree of courage that tends to be proportional to the fervour with which the belief is held.

I suspect that one would need personal experience of this sort of situation in order even to begin to know how it must feel.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47124 - 12/29/12 02:01 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Frequently this sort of animosity is born of fear


in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.

I'm not looking at it from a creationist viewpoint , I'm looking
at it from a logical viewpoint.

evolution does not seem logical to me.
and from what I have read and seen it is not logical
to many other's either.

there's no fear involved , believe me.
whenever I would read up on evolution , I would find thing's
that just didn't fit into any logical picture.

BTW , I did believe that evolution occurred at some point
in the past , this was before I began to question science
due to the corruptness in science today.

I began to question all aspects of science not just evolution
I'm developing my own personal theory that evolution may have
been deployed to reduce the number of people joining the
ranks of the religious because the religious pay 10% of their
income to their churches , this would release mountains of
dollars to be spent on what the rich people sell , including books on evolution.

LOL





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47126 - 12/29/12 03:08 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Science is not a popularity contest.

As per the high court rulings you can have the majority of a state disagree with evolution and you still can't get a majority of people to vote to overturn it and teach something else.

Science has simple rules and noone gets to vote on whats right and wrong a fact you keep ignoring.

In the same way noone cares evolution doesn't seem logical to you this isn't about you it's about what can be shown using logic. You somehow believe in a literal version of genesis which makes no logical sense and you don't want to discuss so I hardly think anyone would be surprised it makes no sense to you, I mean literal genesis creation makes perfect sense right.

I have no real view evolution it's not something that really interests me. I believe it I guess because it makes logical sense. I dislike your literal genesis creation because to me it's crazy beyond any sort of common sense but again what I like or dislike does not make evolution right and genesis creation wrong and nor does science care what I think.

Nobody has falsified evolution so it stands in science it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not opinions don't come into things.

Thats how science works so continuing to bleat and whine on about it is pointless.


Edited by Orac (12/29/12 03:21 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47128 - 12/29/12 04:46 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
As per the high court rulings you can have the majority of a state disagree with evolution and you still can't get a majority of people to vote to overturn it and teach something else.


tell that to the states that are teaching Creation vs evolution.

our constitution does not allow our government to dictate
to the states in matters concerning religion.

its called separation of church and state.

the mountain of evidence that is easily available that
shows evidence that evolution is based on flawed logic
can be used to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools.

basically it can be shown that the purpose of evolution
was meant to destroy belief in Creation.

if the federal courts rule to stand in the way of a state who's citizens want Creation to be taught to their children
vs evolution then the federal courts are ruling unconstitutionally.

any ruling or law that has been passed to prevent the teaching
of Creation yet allows the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional.

there are colleges in the U.S. that are denying students admission because their high school used a text book that
teaches Creation.

I say let them have those students that they want , and build
colleges for those students that they don't want.

at least they will not be living a lie by attending a school
of higher learning where they learn to believe lies.

Quote:
Nobody has falsified evolution so it stands in science


you have that wrong , I would venture that those who first started evolution were innocent , they truly believed that
they were correct , but after all the evidence against evolution that is available today has slipped into mainstream knowledge it will be seen that evolution was a ploy to remove religion.

and those who have invested in a education in evolution will
be looking for a new career especially the teachers.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47129 - 12/29/12 07:51 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul


our constitution does not allow our government to dictate
to the states in matters concerning religion.

its called separation of church and state.

if the federal courts rule to stand in the way of a state who's citizens want Creation to be taught to their children
vs evolution then the federal courts are ruling unconstitutionally.



Do you practice being able to not read what people write ... you can teach religion as religion noone is stopping that.

What you can't do is teach creation as science because it has been falsified or in some forms not testable.

Hence the issue is dead and no appeals or constitution was broken it is simply not science. If the whole of USA voted to teach creation as science the USA of would simply cease to teach science and it's institutions would fail to be reecognized as science institutes .... Get it.

Now go cry in the corner and whine and whinge no one cares creation can't be taught as science period and it has nothing to do with the constituation or any other rights ... science decides the rules of science not countries.


Originally Posted By: paul


the mountain of evidence that is easily available that
shows evidence that evolution is based on flawed logic
can be used to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools.



Funny how noone has managed to do produce sucg evidence except in your crazy fundemntalist circles.


Originally Posted By: paul

basically it can be shown that the purpose of evolution
was meant to destroy belief in Creation.


And now we have the fundementalist conspiracy theory ... lol



Originally Posted By: paul

any ruling or law that has been passed to prevent the teaching
of Creation yet allows the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional.


If the teaching is science then no it isn't unconstitutional it is correct and upheld by the law. Noone is stopping the teaching of creation it just can't be taught as science it probably can't be taught as mathematics or as art or a pile of other schoool disciplines either.


Then you drift back into conspiracy theory ... sob sob sob sob

Now you have had you big cry do you need some tissues and a shoulder to cry on to get over it?


Edited by Orac (12/29/12 07:56 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47131 - 12/29/12 02:55 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Do you practice being able to not read what people write ... you can teach religion as religion noone is stopping that.


a school is not a place where religion should be taught.

Quote:
What you can't do is teach creation as science because it has been falsified or in some forms not testable.


evolution is testable , and evolution has been falsified every time evolution think's its found something that shows evolution.

these have been found to be false yet they are still being portrayed as evidence of evolution.

but they are evidence of evolution because evolution itself
is false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
java man = false
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
etc...etc...etc...


not one instance of what evolution claims as being evolution has
ever been found.

nothing.

which brings evolution into the category of religion.

and religion should not be taught in schools.

Creation is not religion , Creation actually happened and
has been verified by the fossil record.

the fact that all life forms just appeared with no evoloutionary
history shows Creation.

there's really no way that Creation can be taught as a science
because we don't know how to Create , we just know it happened.

so we can't teach creation , but we can see the results of Creation every time we try to find evolution.

if I'm looking for a red barn , but all I can find is gold barns
every time I think I've found where a red barn might be located
then eventually I'm going to begin to think that there must
not be any red paint.

so I look for the ingredient's of what I think red paint consist of , and I mix those ingredients together but I always end up
with gold paint , then I decide to try and manipulate the ingredients around to try and make some red paint , but it
always turns out to be gold paint.

eventually , after several hundred years , I'm going to
decide that the logical thing to do is to accept that there
is no red paint and that I cant make red paint to use
to paint a barn with.

and that is the reason why I have never been able to find any
red barns.

and that is the reason why I can only find gold barns.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47132 - 12/29/12 04:42 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Mike Kremer]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
You missed out quite a few ,Paul.

If you add to to the groups you have stated as false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
(java man = false)
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
You forgot the Chinese Peking Man, and others, Paul.

Here are a few more ancient Man Species:-

Homo floresiensis, Man

http://www.livescience.com/25415-hobbit-homo-floresiensis.html

Where the wrist bones, hand and skull,
point to a new human species

Pleistocene Man

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/#vanlandingham

A lot of the above was kept secret and not released
until after 1926.

Paranthropus boisei Man

http://www.macroevolution.net/paranthropus-boisei.html

One of the largest and oldest species of early man.

Now if you place these 8 different species in some sort
of cronological order, you might see that their tools, their art, their weapons and food, get better and better,
as the years progress. Thats Evolution


>Oh I nearly forgot 'OMO Man' the oldest hominid found yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269299.stm





Edited by Mike Kremer (12/29/12 04:57 PM)
Edit Reason: Added OMO Man
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#47133 - 12/29/12 04:59 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I could argue how wrong all that is but that would actually require effort and caring about your views of evolution :-)

The evolution argument has to be strong in science because there is no money in that area of science. If it was weak I could imagine a pile of scientists would knocking on various religion doors asking for research funding to falsify evolution. I mean for such a scientist the Nobel science prize, accolades and money from numerous churches and groups of thankful vestal virgins waits. Strangely no scientist has taken up the lucrative offer so I can only conclude that evolution must be very solid.

There has been a topical article about scientist Peter Higgs taking scientist Richard Dawkins to task about his anti-religion zealotry by Lubos Motl which is worth a read. My personal position is very close to Lubos's view that both extreme fundementalism are bad

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/richard-dawkins-vs-peter-higgs.html#more

I particually agree with this statement

Originally Posted By: Lubos Motl

Instead, my point is that I agree with Peter Higgs that people like Richard Dawkins are fundamentalists in a similar sense as the believers themselves despite the fact that they are arguably right much more often than the believers (a comparison that may change as time goes by, however). The general character of answers to the "big questions" is always predetermined and this comment applies to both of these opposing groups. Every statement that is positively correlated with the vague concept of God has to be supported by the obedient believers; and it has to be spitted upon by the politically correct anti-believers.

Whether or not the second attitude seems to be more successful in the incorporation of the scientific insights of the last 20 or 100 or 500 years, both of these approaches are equally fundamentalist and both of them are intrinsically unscientific. Science isn't defined by its goal to show that every idea positively correlated with the vague concept of God is wrong much like science should never have been defined by its consistency with God. Science is simply independent of these prejudices both of them and many others. Science impartially evaluates the empirical data and the right conclusions aren't and can't be determined a priori.



Thus science cares not whether there is a GOD or not as the presence of a GOD would change very little of any significance for science.


Edited by Orac (12/29/12 05:01 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47134 - 12/29/12 05:46 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Mike Kremer]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Here are a few more ancient Man Species


I see a few extinct apes.





and a small human , possibly much like a pigmy.
something that would be expected due to inbreeding.



I'm not even sure that the above is a human skull as some
of the tooth sockets look as if they housed large ape like
teeth.




what is needed is a gradient from one of the so called
common ancestors to modern human to prove evolution.

not the finding of extinct species of apes.

or the finding of small modern humans such as pygmies.

its obvious that if so many dinosaur fossils are found given there age according to evolution there should also be a massive number of fossils found that would show the evolutionary process of
transition from a common ancestor in incremental stages that occur over millions of years , so if evolution is true , then why have these transitional fossils not been found in abundance?

but science can't seem to find a gradient from any species that
shows any evolution.


that's really strange to me, why evolution is such a important science , yet not one transition has ever been found.

and transition from one creature to another higher evolved creature is what evolution is supposed to be about.


tiny incremental changes over a very long time period.

not sudden appearances of species without any transition.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47135 - 12/29/12 06:31 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Science impartially evaluates the empirical data and the right conclusions aren't and can't be determined a priori.


then why has science evaluated the data in a manner that clearly
shows partiality.

no data can be found in favor of evolution , yet science
has concluded that evolution is science.

given sciences response or approval of evolution its like saying that science itself as a whole is a religion.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47136 - 12/29/12 08:26 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK

Quote:
in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.


I did not, nor would I, presume to comment on your possible personal motivation in an open discussion.

Since you introduce the personal angle, I feel I might comment that the style and content of many of your posts gives scant support to the idea that logic alone is their driving force.

Two possibilities seem to present themselves:

1. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.

2. You are a curmudgeonly old fart with an extremely low tolerance for the views of others.

You may agree that the former is the more charitable inference to draw, and is the one I hope you will keep in mind if you have a need to apply my generalised comments to yourself.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47137 - 12/29/12 08:50 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n4/moon-dust-argument
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47138 - 12/29/12 09:00 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.


I'm not basing my argument on anyone else's argument.

in the above it must be assumed that the amount of dust annualy
is the current amount of dust.

4.5 billion years ago , no one knows the annual amount of dust
that would have fallen.

so , any calculation's based on current dust fall amounts would not be seen as correct or close.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47139 - 12/29/12 09:07 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.


Don't come out of retirement in order to pursue a clairvoyant position with one of evolution's fable creation agencies.

I base my belief's on my finding's.
I don't just blindly accept things other people say or believe.
I have a look myself and then form my own opinion.

this is why I know that evolution is false.
I have looked into it myself and formed my own opinion.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47140 - 12/29/12 10:52 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
I'm not basing my argument on anyone else's argument.


Are your figures those of your own collection?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47141 - 12/29/12 11:04 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Don't come out of retirement in order to pursue a clairvoyant position with one of evolution's fable creation agencies.


As one who apparently values logic, you must see a logical connection between reading people's posts as they are presented, and clairvoyance.

I will not attempt to speculate as to what connection you might imagine, as I have no wish to engender confusion in the minds of those who might be unable to distinguish between clairvoyance and reasonable assumptions based on observations.

One logical line of thought might be that you are saying that others need to be clairvoyant in order to understand your posts, but you will undoubtedly appreciate that any such speculation would be based solely on the paucity of information you provide, and have no connection whatsoever with any claim to preternatural abilities.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47142 - 12/29/12 11:27 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
As one who apparently values logic, you must see a logical connection between reading people's posts as they are presented, and clairvoyance.


this was what you were replying to correct?

Quote:
in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.


I based the caution about your seeking a position in
clairvoyance on what you wrote below.

Quote:
1. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.

2. You are a curmudgeonly old fart with an extremely low tolerance for the views of others.


I have repeatedly said that I use logic to resolve
problems.

your response looks like it could be found written on a tiny
piece of paper that would come inside fortune cookie's.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47143 - 12/29/12 11:33 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Are your figures those of your own collection?


it's been awhile , but they are here on sagg somewhere.

here I found it.

Quote:
5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 inches high of solid nickel.


like I said I dont know how much moon dust weighs but the above
would be how thick the dust would be if it were solid nickel.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=true#Post46343

you may have the weight of moon dust handy , Bill s

if you could link to it I would greatly appreciate it
this way I could recalculate the thickness to see if
6000 years would be a more reasonable time span for
the .75 inches of moon dust buildup.

I have asked before , but there was no reply.

I just looked and I still can't find how much moon dust weighs
which is amazing to me , for the simple fact that the thickness of the moon dust cannot be determined unless its
density per volume is known.

go figure!


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.