is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 5 of 10
"I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent."
Tell me about it! I think the same way....You ass.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?
Why not take hypotheticals into account? Scientists have evidence that dark matter and other oddball sounding stuff exists; they just don't know how to measure its effects yet. All he was saying was "what we can measure right now may not be the only things influencing how the universe works." Admittedly, this in itself sounds almost like a creationist argument. The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."
Besides. You can't "disprove" what they have never managed to "prove." That's the problem inherent with creationism and faith.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Tell me about it! I think the same way
God help me.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why should they be taken into account if there are better counterarguments available? Saying something like "That calculation isn't true because there's other stuff that we don't know much about that might have an effect" doesn't sound like an argument any creationist would accept, and trying to win arguments by invoking the magical realm of possibilities that hypotheticals allow doesn't seem like the solid, scientific counterargument I'd be comfortable with.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Why not take hypotheticals into account?
Quote:Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".
The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, this is a completely pointless off-topic discussion, because presumably the reason why that creationist dude only took electrons into account is because they are what's necessary for atoms to combine and form molecules. Unless it was recently discovered that dark matter holds together proteins, I don't know what Sigma was on about.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".
But Sigma's not saying "that's enough." That's the difference. He's saying "we're still looking, so don't call the debate finsihed yet."
Wait a minute - what the hell are we arguing for, anyway? Aren't we on the same side? Forget I brought it up.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the Creationist model is followed more closely by measurable natural law, in that it would predict a decaying universe(it was created perfect and can only go down from there). We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter. With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers. Why would the matter act differently than life? In evolution new species would appear. In creationism species would disappear over time. What do we observe? The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct. At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage, we don't see any new species. What does that show? And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think about good scientific counterarguments vs bad ones. See my previous post as to why this is pointless in this context.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Wait a minute - what the hell are we arguing for, anyway? Aren't we on the same side? Forget I brought it up.
But mostly I just wanted to see you in action again, 7%. Welcome back, hope you stick around during the summer break!
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Electrons' don't bump into each other randomly. Atoms do, and they stick by attractive forces. That's how you get water (H2O) - which is two hydrogens sticking with an oxygen - or even gaseous oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2) etc. According to the 'theory' proposed these normal-state compounds shouldn't exist, simply because the probability is too low for it to happen by chance.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME