Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Powerman]

Okay - look, I've made NO personal attacks on you. Stop lying, or stop being a baby.

How can me saying "PM thinks life on this planet was formed earlier (than, say, 10,000 or whatever) years ago" is putting words in your mouth when you clearly believe it?

I do believe that life on earth is much older than 10,000 years old and anyone who has taken a college level science class would agree with me.

But this is what I meant by you putting words into my mouth

[quote[Nobody with a lick of sense can think life 'just happened' after millions of years of sitting around, chemicals just sorta collided into life.[/quote]

When did I say that? I didn't.

 

[Powerman]

No - it's just I don't take people's opinion as truth.

Here's 'my' evidence for you to like or not like...but it makes MUCH more sense than what you've linked to.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

Dude you just linked me to a junk science propaganda website. I've already completely and utterly destroyed one of these. Don't make me do it again.

 

[dmp]

I do believe that life on earth is much older than 10,000 years old and anyone who has taken a college level science class would agree with me.

But this is what I meant by you putting words into my mouth



When did I say that? I didn't.

I have no idea - I thought "I" said that.

 

[dmp]

Dude you just linked me to a junk science propaganda website. I've already completely and utterly destroyed one of these. Don't make me do it again.

Of COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are SOOO Much smarter than the PhD's on THAT crappy site....omgwtflolbbq!!

 

[Powerman]

Of COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are SOOO Much smarter than the PhD's on THAT crappy site....omgwtflolbbq!!

I'm sure that plenty of what they say is taken out of context.

For example: They misrepresent as do all Christian science websites what the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics actually mean.

 

[Powerman]

I have no idea - I thought "I" said that.

You did say that. And you were assuming that's what I believed and therefor trying to make it look like I did in fact believe it. In doing so you were wrong. Why else would you have brought it up?

 

[dmp]

You did say that. And you were assuming that's what I believed and therefor trying to make it look like I did in fact believe it. In doing so you were wrong. Why else would you have brought it up?

wow...what????

Nobody with a lick of sense can think life 'just happened' after millions of years of sitting around, chemicals just sorta collided into life.

Stop putting words in my mouth!

Wtf?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So, when's the wedding fellas?

 

[Powerman]

wow...what????

OK we're just arguing about nonsense now. Can we get back on topic now? I'll chalk it up as a misunderstanding on my part.

 

[Powerman]

So are there any websites that aren't Christian apologetics websites that contend that the earth is this young? I haven't run accross any yet.

 

[Annie]

The Earth is actually estimated to be 4.55 Billion years old. I said that the earliest life was at least 3.6 billion years old. Now would you like to tell me why that doesn't add up? Because that's the number that the scientific community agrees on.

You not liking the answer because it doesn't support your position isn't a valid reason for it not to add up.

The sheer numbers of agreement doesn't prove anything. Take God for example...

 

[Annie]

I do believe that life on earth is much older than 10,000 years old and anyone who has taken a college level science class would agree with me.

But this is what I meant by you putting words into my mouth



When did I say that? I didn't.

Now that's patently false. I've already refuted that with the first post. C'mon...btw, I'm way in favor of higher education, while readily agreeing that attending and earning degrees does not necessarily mean one is 'smarter' than those that do not, for any reason.

 

[Powerman]

Now that's patently false. I've already refuted that with the first post. C'mon...btw, I'm way in favor of higher education, while readily agreeing that attending and earning degrees does not necessarily mean one is 'smarter' than those that do not, for any reason.

Who said anything about smarter. I'm talking about more educated. Do you think you can honestly walk into an accredited University and expect a geology or anthropology teacher to tell you that the earth is less than 10 thousand years old? I can promise you they wouldn't have a job for long spewing such nonesense.

And by the way DMP here is a link to a website that utterly destroys the "science' on your Christian apologetics website that you linked me to. There is a ton of information here and it would take a long time to get through all of it but it couldn't hurt to take a peek at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

 

[Powerman]

The sheer numbers of agreement doesn't prove anything. Take God for example...

I tend to agree with that theory sometimes. Just because a lot of people believe something it doesn't mean it is correct. I beg you to take a look at some of the pseudoscience nonsense that I have debunked in detail on this website though.

That's not opinion. That's outright lying. And scroll down to the bottom. That's how you brainwash kids to be stupid.


http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

When people bring up these lying Christian propaganda sites they need to be called out on it.

 

[dmp]

And by the way DMP here is a link to a website that utterly destroys the "science' on your Christian apologetics website that you linked me to. There is a ton of information here and it would take a long time to get through all of it but it couldn't hurt to take a peek at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

so one guy interprets data from his POV, and it's 'absolute truth' - but when Christian and non-christian scientists show data from THEIR point of view, it's lying and brainwashing?

Interesting. Are you SURE you're not a religious zealot incognito?

 

[Annie]

so one guy interprets data from his POV, and it's 'absolute truth' - but when Christian and non-christian scientists show data from THEIR point of view, it's lying and brainwashing?

Interesting. Are you SURE you're not a religious zealot incognito?

I agree with you. That's the problem with anything 'not proven' which by the very nature of scientific inquiry is always going to be problematic.

What I find amusing is PM's 'scientific' argument for evolution, while denying even the discussion of ID at the university level, which many qualified scientists are trying to bring forward. I wonder what it is he is afraid of? Reminds me of the Catholic Church and Galileo, though we do have primary sources that acknowledged that the Church understood the correctness of the position, just were afraid it would turn 'believers' into 'unbelievers'. Never underestimate the 'masses.' They are not as dumb as we often assume.

 

[Powerman]

so one guy interprets data from his POV, and it's 'absolute truth' - but when Christian and non-christian scientists show data from THEIR point of view, it's lying and brainwashing?

Interesting. Are you SURE you're not a religious zealot incognito?

I don't think you understand the absolute absurdity these people are trying to pass off as fact to support their position. It is the equivalent of me telling you that 3+3=19 and hoping that you are terrible in math. They are lying. The website you linkes isn't nearly as bad as the evolution-facts website which is rampant with lies and brainwashing suggestions.


But you can't go through life accepting fiction as fact. You have to be called out on it and that's what I'm doing right now.

 

[Powerman]

I agree with you. That's the problem with anything 'not proven' which by the very nature of scientific inquiry is always going to be problematic.

What I find amusing is PM's 'scientific' argument for evolution, while denying even the discussion of ID at the university level, which many qualified scientists are trying to bring forward. I wonder what it is he is afraid of? Reminds me of the Catholic Church and Galileo, though we do have primary sources that acknowledged that the Church understood the correctness of the position, just were afraid it would turn 'believers' into 'unbelievers'. Never underestimate the 'masses.' They are not as dumb as we often assume.

Kathy, if you don't mind calling you that, you have to understand once and for all that ID is not science. Bringing it into the science classroom is the equivalent of discussing art from the Romanticism era in a calculus class. It's completely non-related to anything scientific.


BUT!!! I am completely in favor of anyone who wants to bring any arguments they have that may show some holes in evolution or if someone propopses another SCIENTIFIC theory. I am not here to defend evolution. I could care less if the theory is right or wrong. I am here to fight against propaganda and junk science. I am for the advancement of science and ID is for the obstruction of science. Surely you can see that no?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Neither is evolution. Every time I bring this up, people claim it's testable, but I have yet to see somebody tell me how evolution can be tested. The fossils sure as hell don't do the trick. Sure, this fossil may look like a cross between two animals, but a platypus looks like a beaver and a duck and isn't every geographically close to either.

Evolution predicts what kinds of fossils we will find and which kinds we won't. So far, we've found the ones we're supposed to - mammal to whale transitions, for instance, and none of the ones we're not supposed to, like mammal to reptile.

The platypus may look like a cross between a beaver and a duck but things are not always as they appear. You shouldn't make that assumption.


Evolution also predicts that new species will form, and we have observed several new species of plant, bacteria, and even a few new insects form.

And even if the fossil record showing that "animals are similar" is a valid test, then isn't the conjecture of irreducable complexity along with the complexity of all animals also a valid test?

First define "irreducably complex".

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Excuse me, but that is pretty much what they are doing. In France they may go on trial, in the US they are allowed to publish and be laughed at for the most part.

Name one historian who claims the entire universe was created 10 years ago.