[quote]pushharder wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
pushharder wrote:
The great Flood of Noah�?�¢??s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.
Oh boy. But I agree with you on one point, we all do make a leap of faith.
Some more than others. How big is your leap?[/quote]
Ooh, not much, just a tiny step. I have all the other building blocks that make that step easy. I quess that from your vantage point it looks like I was Bob Beamon.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What vantage point would that be?[/quote]
Well, I’m quessing since you haven’t stated it explicitly or if you have, I have missed it. I quess you have a backround that grants biblical stories more than just symbolic meanings. It is also possible that you are an atheists who doesn’t believe in evolution. After all, a flood plays a role in many mythologies. But that would make you a rare bird, almost like a dodo, so I stick with my first quess.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are Fossils the Result of Noah’s Flood?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Fossils have been frequently cited as the main evidence for evolution.[/quote]
Not a great start - a shakey and possibly strawman claim. If he’d said extinction then I’d agree. Fossils show that organisms existed in the past that don’t now. However, they also show that organisms that existed in the past still exist today, very little changed. Neither of these supports evolution and indeed fossils were famously a source of stress for Darwin.
Fossils and the depth they are found do show that fish were around before amphibians, which were around before birds(etc. etc.) - which implies the appearance of new species as time passed. This would be consistent with evolution, but not proof of it. It’s not consistent with a one-off flood however.
I read today about a woman in New Mexico who smothered her 3 year old son to death, because he interfered with her partying. This causes me to believe in the existence of Satan. This would then of course lead one to believe in God (especially to punish babykillers).
Now, I already knew that God exists (He has spoken to me) but whether that would resolve any evol/crea debate is an unknown. I also think that God wouldn’t like someone trying to pass laws limiting thought.
So, I’ll happily think of God as a First Cause and evolution as an Efficient Cause.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You never go full retard.
I noticed.
Hey Aragorn, that was a sly reference, right?
Damn straight. Nice catch my friend. This thread is short on humor and high on stress…[/quote]
woot!
Do I get a prize?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
While you were sleeping the rest of the class got to see Miss Berry lift her skirt and show off her new Victoria’ Secret panties. This is just one of many problems associated with nodding off during one of my lectures. When will you learn?[/quote]
As unbelievably delicious as she looks, I’ll live.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
While you were sleeping the rest of the class got to see Miss Berry lift her skirt and show off her new Victoria’ Secret panties. This is just one of many problems associated with nodding off during one of my lectures. When will you learn?[/quote]
As unbelievably delicious as she looks, I’ll live.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You never go full retard.
I noticed.
Hey Aragorn, that was a sly reference, right?
Damn straight. Nice catch my friend. This thread is short on humor and high on stress…
woot!
Do I get a prize?
:)[/quote]
Ten viking badass points to you sir. Thanks for playin’.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You never go full retard.
I noticed.
Hey Aragorn, that was a sly reference, right?
Damn straight. Nice catch my friend. This thread is short on humor and high on stress…
woot!
Do I get a prize?
Ten viking badass points to you sir. Thanks for playin’.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And, “In science, a theory is as good as it gets” is simply an outlandish showcase of ignorance.
Even if you want to truly talk “theory” and its plural, to imply all theories hold an equal status of acceptance and credulity is nonsense. There are hypotheses, weak theories, strong theories, etc. so these distinctions must be made before a sweeping statement such as the one mentioned above can be made.
See my post above referencing Laws, scientific Laws, that is. You see, when a theory becomes accepted as a Law THEN you can say, “In science, a Law is as good as it gets” and you can hold your head high and sound like intelligent and thoughtful projector of opinion on this subject. The Theory of Macroevolution is a long ways from achieving that status much to the chagrin of its Faithful Believers.[/quote]
Theories don’t become Laws:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
squat and milk
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So, in the creationist model we have an idea, the Great Flood, that says if it did indeed occur we would expect to find millions of dead things, covered in mud, weighed down by water, all over the earth. What do we find on the terrestrial orb of ours, JabbyTightPanties? Voila! We find evidence of millions of dead things that at one time were covered in mud then weighed down by water all over the earth.[/quote]
Wow. That’s your non-dodge panty-blowing revelation? Yikes. The bar is really set very low with you guys, isn’t it?
You have one fact that sorta fits (very loosely, if you ignore a lot of details) but what about the long list of other facts that don’t fit? Shouldn’t your flood hypothesis, if it was true, fit with all the facts known about fossils? A good theory - which the flood fable isn’t - should be as all-encompassing as possible. If facts are found that do not fit, then the theory needs revisions or corrections, which, of course, you can’t do with that flood story.
Start from the conclusion, look at all fossil facts. Find a few that can be made to fit and then go on and on about those factoids claiming they “prove” your a priori selected conclusion. Call that science. Yup, very impressive guys. Good thing we don’t have Creation Justice to go along with Creation Science. You know, pick the guilty party in advance and then build a case against him by keeping only the evidence that can be made to fit. Throw away or ignore any disculpatory evidence; pay some shills to contradict alibis; intimidate witnesses to silence, etc. Wouldn’t that be grand?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“The Theory of Micro-Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of micro-evolution and adaptation. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.”
I amended that statement ^^^^ from the article for accuracy. I know you won’t mind since any good grad student that has been exposed to our country’s extraordinary institutions of higher learning knows that accuracy and attention to detail in science is a worthy goal. [/quote]
You can ride your bike for short distance in your village. But it’s impossible to ride your bike for a large distance all the way to the next village. Micro-cycling is accepted by everyone, but macro-cycling is impossible.
How does that sound?
Macroevolution (a term seldom used by actual scientists) is simply a long accumulation of “micro-evolutions” over millions or billions of years. Take a specie, split it in two isolated groups exposed to different environments that slowly change until they are eventually vastly different. Let each group adapt to their specific environment for a million years. Voila. Different species from a common ancestor. Each well adapted to it’s local environment.
By the way, how does the flood hypothesis deal with marsupials? Did they swim all the way from Australia to the Ark? Did Noah canoe them back there and only there? Did God poof into existence the kangaroos and koalas after the great flush? Did Australia detach from Africa and swim away after making sure no mammals where standing on it? (and that no marsupials were left behind?) If the koalas got on the ark, how did they feed, since they have a very exclusive diet?
I think your flood hypothesis suffers from a bad case of death by kangaroo.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
“The Theory of Micro-Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of micro-evolution and adaptation. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.”
I amended that statement ^^^^ from the article for accuracy. I know you won’t mind since any good grad student that has been exposed to our country’s extraordinary institutions of higher learning knows that accuracy and attention to detail in science is a worthy goal.
You can ride your bike for short distance in your village. But it’s impossible to ride your bike for a large distance all the way to the next village. Micro-cycling is accepted by everyone, but macro-cycling is impossible.
How does that sound?
Macroevolution (a term seldom used by actual scientists) is simply a long accumulation of “micro-evolutions” over millions or billions of years. Take a specie, split it in two isolated groups exposed to different environments that slowly change until they are eventually vastly different. Let each group adapt to their specific environment for a million years. Voila. Different species from a common ancestor. Each well adapted to it’s local environment.
By the way, how does the flood hypothesis deal with marsupials? Did they swim all the way from Australia to the Ark? Did Noah canoe them back there and only there? Did God poof into existence the kangaroos and koalas after the great flush? Did Australia detach from Africa and swim away after making sure no mammals where standing on it? (and that no marsupials were left behind?) If the koalas got on the ark, how did they feed, since they have a very exclusive diet?
I think your flood hypothesis suffers from a bad case of death by kangaroo.
[/quote]
Ouch.
That post was the forum equivalent of a legionaries thrust.
The problem is that those debate always end up in scientist having to defend their theory. Why don’t creationnist try to prove creationnism? That is because they can’t