Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

St. Tom was right...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    I would be glad if you'd ocassionlly call out Stripe for this type of thing.
    here, i'll do it, i'll call him out


    Hey Stripe!

    Good job!

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    ... the plants and animals that we see today are in fact different than those of earlier times.

    the plants and animals i see today are pretty much the same as the ones i saw when i was a kid

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    By the way, you would be better off addressing his arguments, rather than attacking Stripe directly.
    I would be glad if you'd ocassionlly call out Stripe for this type of thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Making blanket statements doesn't move the discussion forward. Could you be more precise:

    What has Stripe misunderstood?

    or deliberately misusing scientific concepts
    How has Stripe deliberately misused scientific concepts, and which ones did he misuse?

    How is Stripe being ignorant?

    How is Stripe being dishonest?
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    The top objection is the entropy problem.
    This statement is based on either ignorance, i.e.not understanding thermodynamics, or, if he understands thermodynamics, then he is being dishonest.

    He is referring to an old anti-evolution argument, i.e. that since entropy is slowly but surely bringing the universe to greater disorder, it is impossible for a natural process such as evolution to create greater order out of disorder.

    It is false because the laws of thermodynamics are valid in closed systems. The Earth gets energy from the Sun, so it is not a closed system.

    Note that if entropy wouldn't allow for evolution, it also wouldn't allow for a seed to grow into a tree.

    It is also false for another reason. The Theory of Evolution isn't progress from less ordered creatures to more ordered ones. It is change over time that makes living things that are better adapted to their environment.

    Note that there is also the plain observed evolution, i.e. that the plants and animals that we see today are in fact different than those of earlier times. This is not related to the theory per se. Just observed facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    Maybe you are right. Misunderstanding or deliberately misusing scientific concepts is not "irrational", just plain ignorant and/or dishonest.
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Making blanket statements doesn't move the discussion forward. Could you be more precise:



    What has Stripe misunderstood?



    How has Stripe deliberately misused scientific concepts, and which ones did he misuse?



    How is Stripe being ignorant?



    How is Stripe being dishonest?
    By the way, you would be better off addressing his arguments, rather than attacking Stripe directly.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Making blanket statements doesn't move the discussion forward. Could you be more precise:

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    Maybe you are right. Misunderstanding
    What has Stripe misunderstood?

    [QUOTE]or deliberately misusing scientific concepts[QUOTE]

    How has Stripe deliberately misused scientific concepts, and which ones did he misuse?

    is not "irrational", just plain ignorant
    How is Stripe being ignorant?

    and/or dishonest.
    How is Stripe being dishonest?

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Is there something irrational in/about what Stripe said?
    Maybe you are right. Misunderstanding or deliberately misusing scientific concepts is not "irrational", just plain ignorant and/or dishonest.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    A common creationist objection to evolution is ....

    my objection to evolution being compatible with God is that, as a theory/concept, evolution relies on random changes to the DNA of descendants of any specific organism, random changes that are more often harmful than beneficial, a population of descendants with a higher proportion of birth defects than microscopically incremental improvements

    Leave a comment:


  • oatmeal
    replied
    Evidently, the odds of even a single protein molecule forming in any "primordial soup" puts that one single event in the impossible category anywhere in the entire universe.

    How much more impossible then is the forming of two protein molecules close enough to each other to do anything together, let alone all the protein molecules needed to form one cell, let alone have them all organized so as to be "alive" let alone reproduce?

    The only reasonable and scientific answer is that God did it

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    Is this your idea of a rational discussion?
    Is there something irrational in/about what Stripe said?

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    The top objection is the entropy problem.
    Is this your idea of a rational discussion?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    A common tactic by Darwinists is to ignore substantive, scientific objections to their religion in favour of attempting to debunk religious or philosophical ideas.
    Stripe: Sensible objection to Darwinism.
    Barbarian: BUT VENEZUELA IS SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!1111

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    It's not unusual for creationists to do this.
    Right. It's not strange in any way, shape or form. It's a perfectly sensible observation given the facts.

    Darwinists have a fanatic's devotion to their religion.

    It reveals a truly sad lack of confidence in one's own faith, doesn't it?


    Our faith is solely in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, who died on a cross so that all men might have a chance.

    You know: the same thing you believe.

    If you think that evidence-based analysis of rocks and things is faith, then you're even more deluded than your Internet persona conveys.

    It would as if the United States accused Venezuela's ruler of practicing democracy.
    And my analysis bears out. Darwinists will glom onto anything to avoid a rational discussion over the thing they hate most: Evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Hedshaker View Post
    By what backward thinking could Darwinian evolution possibly be called religion?
    It's not unusual for creationists to do this. It reveals a truly sad lack of confidence in one's own faith, doesn't it? It would as if the United States accused Venezuela's ruler of practicing democracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    ...

    The top objection is the entropy problem.

    ...
    oh oh. now you've done it!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X