Forums | MacLife

oh, btw, I am a heathen biologist (fresh water).

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Science supports that there was a global flood.

No it doesn't.

Oh, wait, by science do you mean crackpot theories by people who are not educated in the field they're theorizing on? Cuz thats not science.

I can say, with a pretty good certainty that there was no "global" flood.

I would like to see a link to your papers.  I am a scientist you know!

Great link jerwin.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I call bullcrap on that one. A mountainous heap of steamy, stinky, weevil-ridden bullcrap.

Legitimate science links, please. And plenty of them.

This ought to be good.

And there lies the problem.
You want "legitimate" links - which means you want links from journals that refuse to publish such works, regardless of how well qualified the author is. This forces them to publish in journals that you would not consider "legitimate science links". Kinds stinks, doesn't it - the journals are deciding what is science instead of letting peer review do it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Great link? Freakin' devastating, really.

Talk origins is always good for that sort of stuff.

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Great link? Freakin' devastating, really.

Talk origins is always good for that sort of stuff.

Talk Origins needs an editor to review the material.
Very often the points people make either are addressed in what they are rebuting, or are not a fair representation of the arguement.

As such, wether it is good or not is extremely hit or miss.

To me, It looked like it shot down all of those crazy theories about a flood. With Facts and empirical evidence. You whine about the stuff not getting published in journals because of peer review, and its being discriminated against, but its that all of these creationist claims are unable to come up with enough proof to disprove many accepted theories.

There's problems with General Relativity not addressing quantum effects. Does that mean its wrong? No. This is all because of the part of the scientific process called coherence. New theories have to correspond with existing theories, unless they're able to make more sense with the evidence to back it up. If you creationists can come up with the facts, and be able to overcome coherence, then, maybe you'll get published in a journal.

jerwin wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

"The greeks invented the zero and what did they have?  Nothing"

The greeks borrowed it from the Babylonians. There's a proposal to encode the ancient greek zero in unicode, with a good deal of historical detail

Gah!  You know I've never liked you

I knew that but most assume that it was the Greeks and I was referencing an old joke.... Gah!

It's so tough to interject humor...  Gah!

Metacell wrote:

The main reason I reject the creationist and young Earth theories is that they are invented for one and only one reason--not to find truth--but so that the Bible will be right. They do not seek truth. They are fools who wish to validate their own delusions. For these people's sakes, I hope there's a hell.

Ya know - the same can be said for athiests and evolution, and if you read the reasoning some of the early athiests gave - they stated it themselves, they wanted evolution to prove there is no God.

One does not have to be a creationists to be a christian though, but one does have to be an evolutionist to be an athiest.

Chew on that for awhile - and think about why there is so much vile against those who reject evolution. It is because without evolution, the athiest is kind of stuck ... it is critical to their belief in no higher power.

The flood story isn't important and it can be easily be tackled and it does sound just like Jesus walking on water which can't be possible right? I mean just place a human on water it will sink. That is science and so Jesus walking on water is simply not true! But that doesn't mean I think he never did, maybe he did maybe not but I do believe his lessons of life because truth = truth and you can't find anything wrong with he said about his lessons and if he did or not walked on water it just isn't important.

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

The main reason I reject the creationist and young Earth theories is that they are invented for one and only one reason--not to find truth--but so that the Bible will be right. They do not seek truth. They are fools who wish to validate their own delusions. For these people's sakes, I hope there's a hell.

Ya know - the same can be said for athiests and evolution, and if you read the reasoning some of the early athiests gave - they stated it themselves, they wanted evolution to prove there is no God.

One does not have to be a creationists to be a christian though, but one does have to be an evolutionist to be an athiest.

Chew on that for awhile - and think about why there is so much vile against those who reject evolution. It is because without evolution, the athiest is kind of stuck ... it is critical to their belief in no higher power.

What?!!!!  You have to believe in evolution to not believe in god?  It does not follow.  Regardless, people will support any evidence that propels their agenda, but the agenda of atheists is not the driving force behind the belief in evolution. The quest for understanding is. But there are NO (ZERO) objective proponents of ID or young Earth that are NOT PROPELLED BY THE AGENDA OF PROVING THE BIBLE RIGHT. In any case, to hell with the atheists too.  They're just as unwilling to examine their own nature as the self-righteous chosen of God.

Freakout Jackson wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Problems with a Global Flood

Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).

Oy vey!

For the record - most if not all of what he says about whether a flood could have happened has been in fact disputed by qualified creationists - IE the layers of ice in greenland, for example - they measure the age by assumption of annual layering of dust, but concede that under certain conditions - more than one layer of dust could be laid a year, in fact many could - conditions which happen to match post flood conditions, so the ice layers on greenland don't really discount the flood 4-5k years ago at all. In fact, the conditions for multiple layers is what would be expected in a post-flood phase.

That page is just a simplistic biased view, it does not even attempt to look at the issue seriously, let alone scientifically. It is designed to tickle itching ears.

Last edited by resedit (2005-08-10 4:49 am)

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

The main reason I reject the creationist and young Earth theories is that they are invented for one and only one reason--not to find truth--but so that the Bible will be right. They do not seek truth. They are fools who wish to validate their own delusions. For these people's sakes, I hope there's a hell.

Ya know - the same can be said for athiests and evolution, and if you read the reasoning some of the early athiests gave - they stated it themselves, they wanted evolution to prove there is no God.

I'm gonna have to call bullstein again.

One does not have to be a creationists to be a christian though, but one does have to be an evolutionist to be an athiest.

Better notify the Catholic Church, then, which is pretty much okay with evolution.

John Paul II wrote:

Today ... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

So much for the irreconcilability between evolution and Christianity. Unless John Paul II wasn't Christian?

Chew on that for awhile - and think about why there is so much vile against those who reject evolution. It is because without evolution, the athiest is kind of stuck ... it is critical to their belief in no higher power.

Bile, you mean bile. And if millions (billions?) of Christians do believe in evolution, doesn't that mean you're the one who's stuck? Doesn't that pretty much ground your argument into dust?

The Church has reconciled with evolution pretty smoothly (and decades ago). They basically say that the mechanism of man's creation isn't very important, but the creation of souls, something that science can never hope to measure or explain, remains the domain of the divine ... that, indeed, evolution could well be one of the magnificent physical systems that God in his wisdom has created, like gravity and quantum mechanics.

Isn't that something you should be chewing on?

Anyway, it's all making sense now. To apply any kind of logical thought to this thing, one has to believe in conspiracies. You have to believe that the theory of evolution itself is part of a plot to destroy Christianity. It's the only way opposing it on "science" grounds makes any kind of sense.

ID is valid science, but all attempts to discuss it on scientific grounds are futile because science itself is conspiring against it as part of a broader spiritual war.

Just as Iraq can be seen to be going well because the media is intentionally refusing to report the good news, and Vietnam can be seen as virtuous and winnable but for vast amounts of devilish people trying to ruin things, ID can be seen as a path to wisdom assailed by legions of atheist doubters.

Of course, the whole thing falls apart once you actually think about it for five minutes. As has been demonstrated, it's pretty damned easy to be Christian while subscribing to the theory of evolution.

It's all about suspension of disbelief. Some are better at it than others.

Me, I suck at it.