Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 07:04 am
The most important consideration is always economic, for all that people disparage mere money. Those without a solid grounding in real science will never qualify for good jobs in research fields, and industry which hands out plum jobs to those with good credentials. There will always be a market for people who understand science, and there will always be plenty of people willing to pass by the religiously self-deluded to get a good job. Self-induced scientific hebetude hurts individuals--i doubt that it will ever threaten the nation as a whole.

I could be wrong--but i rarely admit it.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 07:07 am
RL's blathering opinions are nearly all non-sequiturs boarding on trolling. He's in here just to roil the pot and doesn't like it when the spoon is taken away and he's slapped in the face with it. He just wipes it off and continues to pile nonsense onto more nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 07:45 am
Setanta wrote:
Self-induced scientific hebetude hurts individuals--i doubt that it will ever threaten the nation as a whole.
Perhaps, but a similar argument could be made about the war on drugs, despite the vested self-interest for some, it's highly destructive as a whole.

War on Drugs / Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 11:32 am
Here's something interesting I came across. Don't know if its been posted before.
Quote:
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 11:43 am
Here's a satellite picture of the site the new 'missing link' was found. Rather remote and harsh.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 02:29 pm
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Hi RL,
given that you dispute the theory of evolution, present your theory that fits the evidence. Then present your evidence to back your theory.


Since the topic here is 'Evolution? How?' , it would seem to be perfectly reasonable to question how such an idea is supported.

So far a lot of inference has been presented.

I understand the inference and it has it's place, but given that the proponents want to claim that evolution alone is scientific and all else is not, then I would expect a higher level of proof.

It has not been forthcoming.

Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.

I guess it's not unusual that you would seek to shift the burden of proof to me, but the topic is 'Evolution? How?'

So, do you seriously propose that the same sequence of events I outlined did in fact occur, and how do you support it other than inference?


Yeah well what has "are rocks alive?" got to do with the subject?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:14 pm
Real wrote:
Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.


Can you please tell us what source your ideas are derived from?

Science or mythology?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:19 pm
real life wrote:
Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.


So what?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:20 pm
Absolutely no part of creationism is supported by evidence of any description.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:31 pm
WOW!!

It proves the value of coming on A2K in order to learn valuable things like that.

xingu

The doors thing is very good but why did the science guard not mention the wine,women and song which one would expect to be a feature of the life accompanying the hard work and the labyrinthe.

Does the scientific mindset intend eradicating the finer things in life and turn us into beavers?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:49 pm
Quote:
The doors thing is very good but why did the science guard not mention the wine,women and song which one would expect to be a feature of the life accompanying the hard work and the labyrinthe.

Does the scientific mindset intend eradicating the finer things in life and turn us into beavers?


Good question. Many creationist consider evolutionist atheist or agnostics, hence morally bankrupt. By the way some of them talk one would think evolutionist have a mistress on every dig and another in their lab.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:50 pm
aperson wrote:
This is ridiculous. Rocks move around the sun because gravity makes them. Are we saying that everything that is affected by gravity is alive??? Any biologist will tell you ROCKS ARE NOT ALIVE. And rocks joining together is not reproduction. It is simply rocks joining together. Rocks only move because other things move them. When I said movement I ment by itself. I mean, we could just go ahead and say everything is alive, but we don't.

I suggest we move on and stop dicussing this.


You're pretty mouthy to be new. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 03:55 pm
RexRed wrote:
There is a chemistry between rocks and if you put the right two rocks together in the right way they will make more rocks...


Hmm...must be the reason I have more in the driveway now.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 04:26 pm
I'm the other one wrote:
aperson wrote:
This is ridiculous. Rocks move around the sun because gravity makes them. Are we saying that everything that is affected by gravity is alive??? Any biologist will tell you ROCKS ARE NOT ALIVE. And rocks joining together is not reproduction. It is simply rocks joining together. Rocks only move because other things move them. When I said movement I ment by itself. I mean, we could just go ahead and say everything is alive, but we don't.

I suggest we move on and stop dicussing this.


You're pretty mouthy to be new. Laughing


Well so what if I'm new?
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 07:54 pm
It's my way of saying, "welcome"

I'm pretty mouthy too. This I don't deny nor dismiss.
And...being new has nothing to do with it, I was new once too.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 08:16 pm
aperson wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Hi RL,
given that you dispute the theory of evolution, present your theory that fits the evidence. Then present your evidence to back your theory.


Since the topic here is 'Evolution? How?' , it would seem to be perfectly reasonable to question how such an idea is supported.

So far a lot of inference has been presented.

I understand the inference and it has it's place, but given that the proponents want to claim that evolution alone is scientific and all else is not, then I would expect a higher level of proof.

It has not been forthcoming.

Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.

I guess it's not unusual that you would seek to shift the burden of proof to me, but the topic is 'Evolution? How?'

So, do you seriously propose that the same sequence of events I outlined did in fact occur, and how do you support it other than inference?


Yeah well what has "are rocks alive?" got to do with the subject?


You are asking the wrong guy. I think you mean Rex.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 08:19 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
The doors thing is very good but why did the science guard not mention the wine,women and song which one would expect to be a feature of the life accompanying the hard work and the labyrinthe.

Does the scientific mindset intend eradicating the finer things in life and turn us into beavers?


Good question. Many creationist consider evolutionist atheist or agnostics, hence morally bankrupt. By the way some of them talk one would think evolutionist have a mistress on every dig and another in their lab.
If they all look like farmer?

Whaddaya think?

We're in the wrong business.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 08:26 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.


So what?


The vast array of physical evidence in the Earth is interpreted by many to mean that evolution is the means by which microbes changed to Man, with a few detours along the way.

The physical evidence can also be interpreted to mean that evolution is not taking place and did not ever necessarily take place.

In other words, there is nothing that only an evolutionary interpretation explains. This is self evident.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 08:34 pm
real life, there are two possibilities being offered here....evolution or magic.

For evolution there are vast amounts of evidence.

For magic there is no evidence, but then none is required, is it?
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:22 pm
A creationist goes outside and says, "Wow, look at all that God has made."

An evolutionist goes outside and says, "wow, look at all that was made with evolution."

Over looooong periods of time...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 439
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 08:19:13