evolutionists goof again

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou Noobster, you are a light shining in a very dark place, and have stated, succinctly and without ambiguity, what is the case. Darwins finches remained finches, they did not become white tailed sea eagles simply because all the nuts ran out and they were forced to eat fish!

bye da way, can i ask the Evos, how the stealth design of the Ow ...[text shortened]... t ones with stealth flight caught all the mice? if so, then i shall need to revise my position!

But 'finch' is not a species, so rather than cause confusion by using the word 'species' incorrectly, why not make up your own word or hijack the work 'kind' as other creationists have done. Then at least we can communicate. As long as you claim that Darwins finches were all one species because they were all finches, then we simply cannot communicate because by the normal scientific definition of species Darwins finches were not all one species but, according to Wikipedia, 13 or 14 different species and that is only Darwins species on Galápagos. They even come from four different genera. If we were to look at world wide species of finches we would find many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

Originally posted by twhitehead
But 'finch' is not a species, so rather than cause confusion by using the word 'species' incorrectly, why not make up your own word or hijack the work 'kind' as other creationists have done. Then at least we can communicate. As long as you claim that Darwins finches were all one species because they were all finches, then we simply cannot communicate beca ...[text shortened]... ecies of finches we would find many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

yes quite, but i am presently revising my position, in view of other seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes quite, but i am presently revising my position, in view of other seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

The important thing to note is that the classification system of 'species' is an entirely man made construct, so any claims that nature will obey a set of rules dependent on mans classification system is clearly flawed in some way.
Part of the problem is that life is not particularly easy to classify, so any claims about one species/type/kind of life is doomed from the start unless there is some way to define exactly what you mean by 'species'/'type'/'kind' or any other classification system you choose to use. Worst of all, you then need to explain why you believe your man made classification system serves as a barrier to evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The important thing to note is that the classification system of 'species' is an entirely man made construct, so any claims that nature will obey a set of rules dependent on mans classification system is clearly flawed in some way.
Part of the problem is that life is not particularly easy to classify, so any claims about one species/type/kind of life is ...[text shortened]... in why you believe your man made classification system serves as a barrier to evolution.

i think i am a type of creationist, for i see design in living things!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think i am a type of creationist, for i see design in living things!

I don't mind if you are a religous creationist, as long as you understand that it is not science you believe in.
But whenever you use scientific articles to prove your religious opinion, you are way out in the wild.
If you see design in living things, that's alright. Other people see aliens in the sky, gnomes in the woods, monsters under the bed, and so on. But we would laugh at them if they said it is science.
So go on being ignorant in science, but a genious in your creational religion. I don't mind.

Becaue - you cannot ever mix religion and science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't mind if you are a religous creationist, as long as you understand that it is not science you believe in.
But whenever you use scientific articles to prove your religious opinion, you are way out in the wild.
If you see design in living things, that's alright. Other people see aliens in the sky, gnomes in the woods, monsters under the bed, and so ...[text shortened]... your creational religion. I don't mind.

Becaue - you cannot ever mix religion and science.

thank you for that unwarranted attack, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? never mind ol putty cat, unless it is plausibly explained in a scientific manner, then i have every reason to discount and dismiss unscientific claims, and if it lends itself to creation, then i shall laud it from the rooftops and marvel at Gods ingenuity, sadly denied to the poor materialist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thank you for that unwarranted attack, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? never mind ol putty cat, unless it is plausibly explained in a scientific manner, then i have every reason to discount and dismiss unscientific claims, and if it lends itself to creation, then i shall laud it from the rooftops and marvel at Gods ingenuity, sadly denied to the poor materialist.

I thought I was generous to you? Then I have to tell the same thing again, of course with other words:

Please go on be a religious creationist, I don't mind. You have your domain where you can rule. People who knows science have our domain where we can discuss scientific matters. Why would we argue when religion and science never touch?

There are creationists who don't know anything about science. They ususally stay in the creationist domain, not bothering anyone. And there are scientists who don't give a [censored] about religious things. That's all right.

But when creatioinsts try to act like they know anythinga bout science, and science people trying to prove (or disprove) the existance of god - then things are getting stupid.

Because - Religion and science never meet.

(Feel better...?)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I thought I was generous to you? Then I have to tell the same thing again, of course with other words:

Please go on be a religious creationist, I don't mind. You have your domain where you can rule. People who knows science have our domain where we can discuss scientific matters. Why would we argue when religion and science never touch?

There are cr hings are getting stupid.

Because - Religion and science never meet.

(Feel better...?)

nope! if we choose to observe and draw conclusions based on our observations, is that scientific? i would say it is more scientific than beginning with a premise and then trying to mould our theory to fit that premise, as is often done with the evolutionary hypothesis, yes yes, quite! for example in the case of the fossil record, them bad ol putty cats never observed a gradual transition of life, nope instead they witnessed entire species appearing without precedence, and invented, yes, that is correct, invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium, to make the theory, fit the observation, rather than discarding the theory as being unscientific, is that sound scientific procedure?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope! if we choose to observe and draw conclusions based on our observations, is that scientific? i would say it is more scientific than beginning with a premise and then trying to mould our theory to fit that premise, as is often done with the evolutionary hypothesis, yes yes, quite! for example in the case of the fossil record, them bad ol putty ...[text shortened]... on, rather than discarding the theory as being unscientific, is that sound scientific procedure?

did we discarded newton's theory just because we learned about quantum mechanics?

EDIT: Corollary: do sane christians(carrobies not included) discard christianity just because genesis is utter mind numbing nonsense from a scientific point of view?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope! if we choose to observe and draw conclusions based on our observations, is that scientific? i would say it is more scientific than beginning with a premise and then trying to mould our theory to fit that premise, as is often done with the evolutionary hypothesis, yes yes, quite! for example in the case of the fossil record, them bad ol putty ...[text shortened]... on, rather than discarding the theory as being unscientific, is that sound scientific procedure?

this is the problem with carrobies world wide: if a theory isn't 100% correct and finished then it should be discarded as unscientific. yet creationism doesn't adhere to this rule of course. in fact, the carrobies are quite positive the plants came into existence before the sun.

name one theory which you believe it cannot be improved, that is the ultimate truth in a certain domain. that all the scientists in that domain are now rendered jobless and forced to requalify in other jobs.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
did we discarded newton's theory just because we learned about quantum mechanics?

EDIT: Corollary: do sane christians(carrobies not included) discard christianity just because genesis is utter mind numbing nonsense from a scientific point of view?

simply because you do not understand in Panzi dude, does not mean that it is nonsense, it may be nonsensical to you, but that is all you can state with any certainty! Christ upheld the genesis account i see no reason to dispute his claim!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply because you do not understand in Panzi dude, does not mean that it is nonsense, it may be nonsensical to you, but that is all you can state with any certainty! Christ upheld the genesis account i see no reason to dispute his claim!

christ upheld the genesis because he spoke in parables to a bunch of ignorant barbarians that couldn't count farther than how many sheep they had were afraid that if they sailed to far they would fall off the face of the earth.

not to mention that he knew he had a gruesome death appointment in a very short time and he was supposed to teach the barbarians to love each other, not teach them astrophysics and biology.


it took darwin several years to come up with his theory and many people had trouble understanding it and some(the carrobies) still have trouble understanding it to this day. that's more than 100 years of convincing 19th and 20th century people of the merits of the theory. you would think jesus had something better to do than use his time to teach people more ignorant than that something that is totally unimportant to their salvation and christianity in general.

i don't like dawkins. i find him cocky and insulting. but i must take his position now: anyone who believes in noah story is brainwashed and insane. and unless he is amish or lives in a cave in a third world country without internet, has no excuse.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this is the problem with carrobies world wide: if a theory isn't 100% correct and finished then it should be discarded as unscientific. yet creationism doesn't adhere to this rule of course. in fact, the carrobies are quite positive the plants came into existence before the sun.

name one theory which you believe it cannot be improved, that is the ultimat ...[text shortened]... the scientists in that domain are now rendered jobless and forced to requalify in other jobs.

clear that plants came into existence before light???? sorry Zapansy, you must be quite mistaken, for if you shall examine the ancient and reliable record, not a record of 'how', but a record simply covering the major events taken from a human standpoint (this is discernible from phrases like, 'a greater luminary,' with reference to the sun, for clearly there are greater stars in magnitude than the sun), which was evidently created before the flora, or have you never read,

(Genesis 1:3) . . .And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light.

now logically the sun and the moon must have existed, so how are we to reconcile this statement and the answer is both concise and reasonable, in that light 'gradually reached the surface of the earth', not as when one turns on an electric light bulb, but in other words it must have been diffused light.

Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

Capiche? and anyway clearly light existed before the flora!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply because you do not understand in Panzi dude, does not mean that it is nonsense, it may be nonsensical to you, but that is all you can state with any certainty! Christ upheld the genesis account i see no reason to dispute his claim!

arguing in a different manner:

you are a christian, you moron, what use is a book you see as old and metaphorical and obsolete to you? you can agree that stoning an adulterer to death is not to be taken literally but you hold noah and the adam and eve story as history.

how moronic and self delusional can you be?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
christ upheld the genesis because he spoke in parables to a bunch of ignorant barbarians that couldn't count farther than how many sheep they had were afraid that if they sailed to far they would fall off the face of the earth.

not to mention that he knew he had a gruesome death appointment in a very short time and he was supposed to teach the barbarians ...[text shortened]... less he is amish or lives in a cave in a third world country without internet, has no excuse.

unfounded and belligerent statement, it shall be shredded!