Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you can make it hard going sometimes, it was nothing to do with Edgar Allen Poe, if you'd followed my link you would have realized that, here is an extract.: :idunno:

Dear alwight,

I missed that box you put in my post. I do know christianforums, but I don't bother them for the most part. It is inferior to this site. I see now what you meant. Never Mind!! HeeeeeHeee!!

"Poe's Law" was originally written by Nathan Poe in 2005, in a post on christianforums.com, an internet forum about Christianity. The post was written in the context of a debate about creationism, where a previous poster had remarked "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious". Poe then replied, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterrly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.".[1] The original statement of Poe's Law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

People will often use sarcasm and parody Michael, I know I do it, just don't jump to quick conclusions before they've had a chance to clear things up if you ask them to, or by reading later posts you might realize that you've been played with.
It's sometimes called "taking the Micky", Michael.

I will have to be more cautious next time. Anything that seems abnormal, I'll just forget about it. No one will slip me a Mickey ever again.

Best Of Wishes And Cheerio Mate!!

Michael

:rapture: :guitar: :cheers: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Doesn't the name "seehigh" not ring bells Michael? :sherlock:

Dear alwight,

I know what you mean, but Mark wouldn't have written that. He is a creationist. I talk to him on the phone once a week and if he were back on here, he would have told me. It'd be nice if it were true, though. He used to be quite the strong ally. He wouldn't be so blatant to use that as a Pen Name. Thanks for the heads up, Al.

God Watch Over You For Me,

Michael

:guitar: :cheers: :cloud9: :singer: :angel: :angel:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

I missed that box you put in my post. I do know christianforums, but I don't bother them for the most part. It is inferior to this site. I see now what you meant. Never Mind!! HeeeeeHeee!!



I will have to be more cautious next time. Anything that seems abnormal, I'll just forget about it. No one will slip me a Mickey ever again.

Best Of Wishes And Cheerio Mate!!

Michael

:rapture: :guitar: :cheers: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:

You don't need to simply forget about it Michael, think about it! Parody can often make very valid points. I don't think anyone here is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, just argue their corner.
For me it is evidence based conclusions that matter to me more than individual assertions.
I really don't know why you seem to have settled on YECism recently, I suggest you give testable scientific reality a fair hearing, science is there for your benefit not to flim-flam you.:nono:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Science starts with a premise (hypothesis), tests it, has independent scientists retest it, and then comes up with a conclusion. If the original conclusion was wrong, it's back to square one. Science welcomes new and better, testable, information.

Religion?

It starts with the conclusion, and desperately tries to find anything that may point to that conclusion. It dismissed any new evidence that counters it's conclusion.

The picture is a significant and much closer representation of the truth than any faith based process could produce. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and most religious claims have no proof.

As a priest once told me, one only needs faith

Dear seehigh,

You've got your scientific beliefs that you can die with. I believe that Armageddon shall happen this Autumn. Then you will get your extraordinary and religious proof. I have Faith in Jesus' Return!!

May God Help You See,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :singer: :rapture: :cloud9: :guitar:

 

[Daniel1611]

Testable science? Lol. That's not what evolution and cosmology are. They are well outside the realm of actual science

 

[alwight]

Testable science? Lol. That's not what evolution and cosmology are. They are well outside the realm of actual science

That's just bald assertion, care to be more specific? :sherlock:
Falsify some science, then I might take more notice.

 

[Daniel1611]

That's just bald assertion, care to be more specific? :sherlock:

Yes. Cosmology is based on pictures of things that no one can be verified to have actually seen. By NASA's own admission, nearly every picture they have of earth are "composites" meaning not actual photographs. Forget pictures of things that are millions of miles away. You're taking it on faith that those pictures are real. That's not verifiable science. I cannot actually look at Jupiter and see what the NASA photos show. I have to rely on a handful of people. Its all garbage. I used to be really interested in cosmology, even considered becoming and astronomer. But I'm now convinced that its all garbage. All lies.

 

[alwight]

Yes. Cosmology is based on pictures of things that no one can be verified to have actually seen.

What are you talking about? I can look up at the night sky right now and see things that astronomy and astrophysics can convincingly explain.

By NASA's own admission, nearly every picture they have of earth are "composites" meaning not actual photographs.

Modern technology means that they can now "see" well outside of the human visible spectrum and get far more information than that which is visible. We can often only digest it as what they freely describe as "false images" since we can't actually see it, there is no deception going on at all. :nono:

Forget pictures of things that are millions of miles away. You're taking it on faith that those pictures are real. That's not verifiable science. I cannot actually look at Jupiter and see what the NASA photos show. I have to rely on a handful of people. Its all garbage. I used to be really interested in cosmology, even considered becoming and astronomer. But I'm now convinced that its all garbage. All lies.

You think that such scientists devote their lives to inventing false information?
Why would they do that?

 

[Daniel1611]

What are you talking about? I can look up at the night sky right now and see things that astronomy and astrophysics can convincingly explain.


Modern technology means that they can now "see" well outside of the human visible spectrum and get far more information than that which is visible. We can often only digest it as what they freely describe as "false images" since we can't actually see it, there is no deception going on at all. :nono:


You think that such scientists devote their lives to inventing false information?
Why would they do that?

You cant look at earth. You think its a ball because of NASA cgi images basically.

For hundreds of years they've been saying its a ball. Science, philosophers, Copernicus, the universities, the royal society. But no one could actually look at it to see if it was true untill the 1960s. So, if they got up there, looked down,and they were wrong...would they tell you?

 

[seehigh]

You cant look at earth. You think its a ball because of NASA cgi images basically.

For hundreds of years they've been saying its a ball. Science, philosophers, Copernicus, the universities, the royal society. But no one could actually look at it to see if it was true untill the 1960s. So, if they got up there, looked down,and they were wrong...would they tell you?

You better not use GPS technology. It kind of depends on a lot of, you know, science, stuff.

Including the fact the earth is an orb.

 

[Daniel1611]

You better not use GPS technology. It kind of depends on a lot of, you know, science, stuff.

Including the fact the earth is an orb.

Not really. Satellites could be in low earth orbit rotating around magnetic north.

 

[Jonahdog]

You cant look at earth. You think its a ball because of NASA cgi images basically.

For hundreds of years they've been saying its a ball. Science, philosophers, Copernicus, the universities, the royal society. But no one could actually look at it to see if it was true untill the 1960s. So, if they got up there, looked down,and they were wrong...would they tell you?

Oh, goody, what shape is the earth? And how do you know?

 

[seehigh]

Not really. Satellites could be in low earth orbit rotating around magnetic north.

Could? Based on what observable, repeatable, and testable basis would you make such a statement?

 

[Daniel1611]

Oh, goody, what shape is the earth? And how do you know?

I've never seen it so I don't know for sure. That's my point. Your senses tell you that you are standing upright and not flying through space. You don't see the earth as a ball. You don't feel yourself spinning. If someone is going to tell you that your own senses are wrong, they should have incontrovertible proof. And they don't. They have a few paintings from NASA.

 

[Daniel1611]

Could? Based on what observable, repeatable, and testable basis would you make such a statement?

The same observable proof that they're rotating around a ball that's flying through space. Why don't you require NASA to give you testable proof? No, they show you a few pretty paintings and you take it as Gospel. Satellites aren't the main point though. I'm just pointing out that satellites could possibly rotate around magnetic north.

 

[seehigh]

I've never seen it so I don't know for sure. That's my point. Your senses tell you that you are standing upright and not flying through space. You don't see the earth as a ball. You don't feel yourself spinning. If someone is going to tell you that your own senses are wrong, they should have incontrovertible proof. And they don't. They have a few paintings from NASA.

Please do yourself a favor and ignore all weather reports. They seem to gather data from science that was develop is NASA and other scientists. Obviously you can have no faith in those because they must just come from someone's imagination then.

 

[Daniel1611]

Please do yourself a favor and ignore all weather reports. They seem to gather data from science that was develop is NASA and other scientists. Obviously you can have no faith in those because they must just come from someone's imagination then.

Nothing to do with the shape of the earth. BTdubs. Watch the weather maps on the weather channel. Watch the clouds moving all around. Go outside and watch the clouds move. Now watch NASA's alleged video of the earth rotating and watch the clouds on their video not move AT ALL. Do it. Go watch that ridiculous nonsense. Don't believe me. Watch it for yourself.

 

[seehigh]

Nothing to do with the shape of the earth. BTdubs. Watch the weather maps on the weather channel. Watch the clouds moving all around. Go outside and watch the clouds move. Now watch NASA's alleged video of the earth rotating and watch the clouds on their video not move AT ALL. Do it. Go watch that ridiculous nonsense. Don't believe me. Watch it for yourself.

Better check on those chem trails while I'm at it, right?

 

[Daniel1611]

Better check on those chem trails while I'm at it, right?

I don't know about that. I'm talking about the shape of the earth. Derail the conversation with chemicals trails or whatever because your dogma and blind faith in the great spinning ball cannot be questioned.

 

[Daniel1611]

Btw, lol that you ask for evidence then refuse to look at the evidence I suggest. Do you really want evidence or do you just want to get emotional about your fanatical religious devotion to the globe?