 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb big ...and 74 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2608870 Today 10 Topics 127232 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
should be illegal. fucking hate it, a pathetic attempt by america's religious right wing to reverse scientific progress. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you seem overly concerned to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, maybe. just get sooooo angry when people say stuff like "evolution sounds so improbable, theres no evidence to support it" when there is an incredible amount of evidence to support it. just in one of those moods, ill calm down in a bit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
strange that as time goes on attitudes go backwards |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that it gets annoying, but religion does have some positive impacts on peoples' lives too. I guess its a matter of how you interpret it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree, it's quite moronic. the proof of evolution in everyday life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the vatican said a few days ago that intelligent design is not science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
.... that's kind of the point... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, anyone could've told you that. the point i was making was that the pope said it. that has much different implications. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly, its not science! people claim it is sometimes though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the pope's crew is also getting rid of limbo or whatever |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, but in terms of someone who does not believe in religion at all, the pope saying something has about as much bearing on my personal life as a bum in an alley saying something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its an american issue, so why are so concerned over it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the most annoying thing of all are people who get annoyed by other peoples opinions when their claims are as ludicrous as what they're getting annoyed by. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am about to make a pun, here it goes: ludichrist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Intelligent design and creationism is great for a healthy laugh. My favorite bit is the stuff about the earth being only about 5000 years old. They come up with the funniest "proof" of this. And they go to comical lengths to refute real evidence like the geological formations and radio dating. On a side note: check out the google adds for this thread: "New poll: Public favors creationism and evolution in schools. Read more." har har. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're kind of lenient with what you call "real evidence," aren't you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here we go again. Call into question the legitimacy of empirical evidence and theories that are compatible with it, yet fully support stuffing a fucking book of fairy tales up your ass and chanting "woo woo! goddidit!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nope. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i believe in rael,scientology, falung gong and heaven's gate all together |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Christianity especially American Christianity is the only religion that has a large amount of people who belive that there holy book is without fault. What a stupid bunch of inbread morons |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't care about the theories themselves and in this case, they could be any set of theories. the point is more that ezkerraldean is actually angry at creationists because they propose a theory (and, may I add, at a no less fanatical level than any other scientist proposing a theory) when he should know full well that the current theory isn't really a very good one either. if he ever grew up to be a scientist, he'd be one of those people standing in the way of progress by being narrow minded. so nevermind the fucking theories; they both suck in terms of being justified. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you saying that publishing articles in peer reviewed scientific journals is fanatical? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when he should know full well that the current theory isn't really a very good one either How is it not very good? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not that particular action, no, but "what has been" is always "on top" and can kind of relax.. it is always the new contender that has to work hard. fleetmouse: as far as I know the main.. erh.. "holding point" or "starting point" or whatever that would be in english, for the current method of determining how old stuff is, is carbon dating, which isn't really something the results of which we can really check, is it? anyway, the theories themselves weren't the point, I was just trying to "soften" people up or whatever... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
carbon dating, which isn't really something the results of which we can really check, is it? yes, it is something we can check. did you skip the ninth grade? it's a math problem. you do the formula and there you have it. why would they just make up something like that? . the problem with your arguments is that they're all based on your unabashed ignorance of the subject. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just as I expected you're talking out your ass again. Go read something on radiometric dating. Carbon is just the beginning. Read up on other dating methods too. How much do you know about varves, ice cores, archaeo-magnetic dating and dendrochronology? (please actually do some research on this instead of cutting and pasting scientifically illiterate arguments from creationist websites) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have had about carbon dating, yes, but maybe we get a more critical perspective on it in school than you do then... that's hardly evidence by any standard. a good explanation, maybe, but.. first of all, even the smallest deviation in that calculation from what it really is would amount to a massive deviation after time, making any calculation of the earths origin miss by millions of years. there may also be other things that count towards the deterioration that haven't been accounted for. what if carbon deteriorates at one rate until it is one million years old and then its rate changes completely? of course, the way it seems now, it isn't likely, but that's not really a good pro either... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my main point, however, doesn't concern the theory, it concerns pig-headed people. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, I'm saying it could be, and it could also very well be that the creationist theory is closer to the truth (maybe the earth isn't more than a few thousand years old, be it because the dating calculations are wrong or because a god created it, that doesn't matter). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have had about carbon dating, yes, but maybe we get a more critical perspective on it in school than you do then... Did they teach you that it can only be used to date materials that were once alive, that it can only be used to date back to 60,000 years ago, and that there are many other methods for dating older and non-biological materials? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rubbish. How about Muslims and the Koran and Jews and the Torah? Fundamentalists from all religions take their religious scriptures as fact. That is what defines them as fundamentalist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dude, even the pope says it's bull. he picked up the paper, checked out the stuff in america, and said, "intelligent design is science? what the fuck are you kidding me? this is nonsense, and i'm the fucking pope. i've got to tell these people that it's stupid." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes, they mentioned something like that too.. and that it was more unreliable for dating stuff that was too young... anyway, what I said apply to any form of dating. you can't really go back in time and check if this thing was there a million years ago, and that the calculation really is correct. it may be off by very little and it may be off by a lot, but of course.. it may also be completely on the spot, but I find that very unlikely, considering maths never are completely on the spot when it comes to real things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not saying the theory is wrong, I'm saying it could be, and it could also very well be that the creationist theory is closer to the truth Yes, in the same sense that the theory of combustion might be wrong and phlogiston true. (i.e., not at all) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you saying we have to travel to the past to observe decay rates of isotopes? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Intelligent design. pfft. I'm all for people, however misguided, touting their theories of how we got from back then to now but when they start campaigning to get it taught in schools in place of science; treating it as science, that's when enough is enough. The two are not analogous at all. Science is a constantly changing set of principles and theories, being redfined, modified, corrected. Intelligent design is fixed and immutable, unwilling to be challeneged at any level. Not science. Evolution is a science that itself is evolving. Intelligent design is not a science. Go and preach Intelligent Design in RE lessons if you want. I'll have my evolution in biology, ta. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I seem to have thought too much about this. I've had four glasses of wine tonight. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, and if you read my post again, you'll see that I've taken such things into consideration.. I was saying that creationists may be closer to the truth (their end result or their calculation of how old the planet is or whatever) though it could be a complete coincidence. bad example, but both 7+3 and 4+6 equals ten. two different calculations. and if you have a goal (the true age of the planet [10]), both calculations will get you the same number, and if one is correct and the other wrong, they both had the same result, though one of them had it by coincidence or "accident" or whatever.. I hope you get what I mean... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
considering maths never are completely on the spot when it comes to real things. Right, since that's the case we can't trust the many mathematical and logical transformations information must go through to travel from your keyboard in Norway to my screen in Canada. I mean, you could have typed anything originally, so I might as well stop responding. Maybe you're actually posting fuck-fantasies about Nelson Mandela and wondering why I'm talking about radio dating methods. Ta! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, that's just pigheadedness, and that never gets you anywhere. progress isn't made by hanging on to the old. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course I'm saying that! are you saying we can observe through calculations? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm talking 100% on the spot. no calculation is 100%. that's just impossible. pi, for example.. they're never going to find the true value of pi. sure, they're getting closer and closer, but it's just impossible for them to reach 100% pi; maths can only do approximations of reality, and if the deviation in the original calculation is too large, it'd increase over time and eventually become a massive deviation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, i understand that i could take anything and make my own interpretation of it by distorting facts and fabricating "evidence" that conveniently supports my agenda. it wouldn't change the fact that i'm making up bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was under the impression that intelligent design and evolution are not conflicting viewpoints - intelligent design being simply an explanation of the starting point of life (something beyond the scope of the theory of evolution). However, a quick look at wikipedia has told me that isn't true. In actuality, Intelligent design states that as life developed it was entirely under the influence of the designer. The concept seems really strange to me. Strange not for the part of there being a designer, but strange from a philosophical standpoint with them placing that sort of a cut off point on the abilities of the designer - the fact that life required the constant attending to of the designer as it developed. To me, it would say more of the designer's abilities if the idea for the outcome existed before the creation of life, and the entire process was set under way by the press of one huge red button. It's just the idea of infinite complexity from the most minimum and simplist of equations - that, to me, would be perfection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here's the whole problem with what you're saying: why do you have an easier time believing that arbitrary assertions with no grounds are more likely to be legitimate than observable, testable evidence? there is no logic attached to that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the fact is, there is figuratively (and literally) mountains of evidence that all point to the same thing. there is no question that the earth is 4.5 billion years approx. there is no question that life has evolved on this planet during that time. the only question is the path evolution took, the mechanisims employed. creationists and i.d.'ers point to those questions as proof that evolution didn't happen when really, it's only proof that we don't know exactly how it happened. Like that Onion article a while back called 'evangelical scientists refute gravity with "theory of intelligent falling."' The article was genius because it suggested that, because nobody can explain how gravity works, it must not actually exist. The only logical answer is that God is holding you to the earth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, for the love of god (or carbon). ezkerraldena hates creationism. he wants to ban it. does that seem fair to you? should they be banned because they have a theory that differs from todays reigning theory? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No! it should be banned because they are a bunch of raving deluded intractable nutters. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, it shouldn't be banned, it should just be discussed in theology class not biology class. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
