Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:58 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  So, birdseye is urging us to think by copy/pasting from a creationists site Laughat


Where do you get your information for evolutionary theory? Did you theorize it yourself without first proving it as Darwin did... even modern evolutionists today scoff at the unscientific conjectures of Darwin and are embarassed. There are origins of all factual information, and that site so happens to NOT be where I get my information. I can not theorize creation, because to me it is fact... and I have no lab to study for myself true science, and neither do you... but I can find Factual citations and use them in an organized manner to form an argument to support one side or another... all university and higher education is based on borrowing from others what they have discovered. I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to be an authority in any manner, asside from maybe carpentry... however, I am willing to find fact and information to support that which I believe, and am willing to show it to you, that you might THINK and make your own "INFORMED" decision.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 04:07 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Where do you get your information for evolutionary theory?

What made you assume I have any interest in the theory of evolution?
Quote:that you might THINK and make your own "INFORMED" decision.

Like you did? Big Grin

And if you wanted us to think for ourselves , why did you offer us other people opinions?


Again, what's your point?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
16-11-2013, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 04:20 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 04:02 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Most of us already knew how complicated DNA is.

What's your point? If there is one?

Edit: Copy/paste spam is not allowed and will be removed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
That will only get you banned.

If you expect me to read the stuff you copy/pasted from somewhere you are mistaking.

For the third time, what's your point?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
16-11-2013, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 04:44 PM by birdseye.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 04:20 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  That will only get you banned.

If you expect me to read the stuff you copy/pasted from somewhere you are mistaking.

For the third time, what's your point?

While what I was doing is not considered Spam-by its definition... I understand the deleting of many of the things that I presented... because they are too compelling... or too in depth. I can cite from a book and not be "Spamming" anyone... it does not fit the definition of spam, much like the theory of evolution not fulfilling the scientific laws to make it fact.

To theorize and make conjectures on something without a basis of support is foolish, and is exactly how the theories of evolution began. The Bible on the other hand has been proven by archaeology, as the posts on Sodom and Gomorrah poorly tried to disprove and do exist. The flood can be verified. Sandalled footprints have been found stepping on Trilobites in the Cambrian Strata. The flood is the only explanation for missing layers, petrified trees growing through million year layers... theory without proof with only and ever be theory. To bully someone around and wrongfully accuse them of "Spamming" is a misguided technique for what you yourself said you wouldn't do, weeding out the bad. That's fine... As for hell... as many believe... the bible does not support an eternal torment. Each shall suffer according to his sins, and nothing more beyond that... the spirit does die and go away, and doesn't live on in eternal torment. Nut for those who believe, they shall inherit eternal life, and only those who believe have been promised an eternal life. The rest have been promised dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:43 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

Guy.

You made those up.

So, I'm not sure what some nonsensical drivel you pulled from your ass is supposed to illustrate. You either have very little idea of what you speak, or else you somehow think it's worth your time to pretend not to.

Is it even worth anybody's time to correct you?

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

And here you're plowing on as if your facetious made-up nonsense meant something. So that's your first problem.

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

... which means nothing.

People who held different opinions at different periods in the past did so because they had different data available to them.

Your "point", and I hesitate to call it such, is meaningless.

The fact that they were scientists, committed to engaging in reasoned, falsifiable exploration of their world, would tend to suggest that they would, in fact, incorporate new discoveries into their worldviews.

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

Uh... huh...

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Scientists today are... not as smart as their predecessors? That's rather absurd.

Scientists today have... more resources? In absolute terms, of course they do. Most of the kings who ever lived would still shit themselves to see how comparatively opulent my life (as a grad student) is in the year 2013. Relevance? None.

Notwithstanding that I think you fail to realize just how limited in accessibility pure science was as an occupation. The likes of Lavoisier and Kelvin were incredibly rich. That's how they could afford to do what they did full-time.

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Oh, so you are claiming that people used to be smarter, or something.

"Depth of comprehension" is necessarily predicated on available data. Data available to even a layman, today, is almost indescribably more comprehensive and easily accessible than at any prior point in human history.

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

Um, yes. They were smart. Are you going somewhere with this?

They believed implicitly in some sort of creation, because there were as yet no alternatives. And even by the 1700s they were overwhelming deists...

Which brings us to: out of context quotes!

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  "Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

I'm not sure if you realize this, but smart people can be wrong. Very smart people can be very wrong. Particularly when their conclusions are based on bad data.

Do you know how science works? One analyses all available data and draws conclusions accordingly; one generalises these conclusions into testable hypothesis. And then one tests them. Testing hypotheses generates additional data (as does any observation in general). Conclusions are revised as more data is available. This is called the scientific method. It has occasionally demonstrated some small efficacy.

Supposing you accept the methodology of science to have remained unchanged, where does that leave your objection to the conclusions of modern science?

I note that you seem to have no problem with most of its outputs; indeed, you occasionally use them yourself.

But returning to the disagreement: leaving aside methodological disputes (untenable as an objection; the methodology of science hasn't changed!) then we may take either the data on which the conclusions are based as invalid or we may take the reasoning abilities of modern scientists themselves as flawed.

For all the data to be suspect requires a conspiracy the scope of which beggars all belief; I excuse you such farcical delusions. I leave such divorce from reality to the likes of PleaseJesus (or Luminon on a bad day! Tongue ).

(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

Well, you clearly haven't thought your thesis through very thoroughly. As best I can tell, it is as follows:

In the past, scientists held certain opinions.
Today, scientists hold different opinions.
In the past, scientists were better,
THEREFORE, their opinions are more valid.

Which is, as they say, more worthless than shit in a sewer.

...

4/10. Would troll again.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-11-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 04:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Is it even worth anybody's time to correct you?

Well.

(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  To theorize and make conjectures on something without a basis of support is foolish, and is exactly how the theories of evolution began. The Bible on the other hand has been proven by archaeology, as the posts on Sodom and Gomorrah poorly tried to disprove and do exist.
Nope.
(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  The flood can be verified.
Nope.
(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Sandalled footprints have been found stepping on Trilobites in the Cambrian Strata.
Nope.
(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  The flood is the only explanation for missing layers, petrified trees growing through million year layers...
Nope.
(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  theory without proof with only and ever be theory. To bully someone around and wrongfully accuse them of "Spamming" is a misguided technique for what you yourself said you wouldn't do, weeding out the bad.

No, "spamming" is throwing up unattributed creationist copypasta.

(16-11-2013 04:42 PM)birdseye Wrote:  That's fine... As for hell... as many believe... the bible does not support an eternal torment. Each shall suffer according to his sins, and nothing more beyond that... the spirit does die and go away, and doesn't live on in eternal torment. Nut for those who believe, they shall inherit eternal life, and only those who believe have been promised an eternal life. The rest have been promised dust.

That answers that question.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

I live now, in the 21st century; an exciting world of possibilities unknown. I am by no means brave, I just can't wait to see what's next and go there. I am often compelled to think about my Grandmother as a young woman.

At the age of 23, She left all familiar and dear to her and struck out on her own into an exciting world unknown to her. She carried with her no expectations but rather, the very distinct possibility she may never return to see everything her life revolved around. I don't think she thought she was brave, I just think she wanted to see what's next and go there.

Your last inspirational science guy, died four years before my grandmother emigrated from her home country to the US.

You might have some catching up to do... you even missed her boat. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
16-11-2013, 04:53 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
@birdseye

You are really naive if you think that people here haven't heard and seen what you were posting.

It might surprise you to find out that we know more about the DNA, bible, evolution , geology and finally much more about the apologetics you are trying to push, then you do.

Many of people here used to be religious , and for most of them learning about religion is what started their deconversion process.

If you have nothing new to bring to the table, you are wasting your time, and ours too.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: