27 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm an atheist, and your post confuses me. Please explain?
Now the last argument you have is crumbling before your eyes: No missing link to modern humans. Well there is one now. I feel sorry for your loss.
EDIT - I think religious ppl, probably xtians, will give me at least 3 recs for this post. Minus one for this Edit.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerGod if he exists can explain everything. However that doesnt help us as he does not seem willing to pass on those explanations to us and stating that he can explain things does not explain anything either.
Science cannot explain everything. You should know that.
God can.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
I'm an atheist, and your post confuses me. Please explain?
EDIT - I think religious ppl, probably xtians, will give me at least 3 recs for this post. Minus one for this Edit.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI think his point is, if you have some info, post a link. If you're not going to cite sources or provide backup for statements, you're sounding like an ID freak...
Just talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting how everyone seems to agree that supposed lack of proof for evolution is considered a cornerpost of creationism.
Just talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZSpeed of light?
No he's demonstrated that your 'logic' can be applied to anything at all to discredit it. Of course when you fill it full of misinformation then of course you get an incorrect 'proof'.
Dating methods do not assume the rate of processes have remained the same. They do assume that all the physical constants (gravitational constant, nuclear force constant ...[text shortened]... ave remained the same. Once again if you have evidence that this isn't true then speak up.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant.
Your catastrophy would have to alter the laws of physics. This cannot be the case, or there would be evidence, for example, in the spectral emissions of stars. Your turn to provide [b]evidence that the laws of physics have changed.[/b]
27 Mar 06
Reading this thread, I'm reminded again of why it sucked to be an anti-evolution Creationist: the evidence is always against you! If I had come across this news ten years ago, I would have immediately run to my favorite YEC source (then a newsletter, today a website) and poured through it looking for explainations as to why the skull had to be a hoax or yet another embarrasing scientific error.
The worst thing is that archaelogists and paleontologists will keep making these discoveries, and it won't make a single bit of difference to a YEC.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by telerionYet it does not seem to amaze you that two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach two different conclusions...
Reading this thread, I'm reminded again of why it sucked to be an anti-evolution Creationist: the evidence is always against you! If I had come across this news ten years ago, I would have immediately run to my favorite YEC source (then a newsletter, today a website) and poured through it looking for explainations as to why the skull had to be a hoax or ye ...[text shortened]... sts will keep making these discoveries, and it won't make a single bit of difference to a YEC.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy should it, people make different judgements on the same thing all the time. The difference with YECs is that their judgements are heavily biased by a ferevent and presuppositional belief in YE-pseudoscience.
Yet it does not seem to amaze you that two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach two different conclusions...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanYeah, yeah...
Why should it, people make different judgements on the same thing all the time. The difference with YECs is that their judgements are heavily biased by a ferevent and presuppositional belief in YE-pseudoscience.
The YECs can say exactly the same thing about the crack-pot evolution pseudoscicence, which is heavily biased by a ferverent belief in crack-pot evolution, which has so many holes punched through it that it needs a lot of crack-pot bearded ape-men to defend it...
Instead of throwing around insults which make you look like a crack-pot ape-man it would be a lot more useful to discuss the issues at hand.
So are you going to supply anything useful to this conversation?