Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Is your theory so weak it cannot bear other explainations? So weak that you resort to this arguement when you are confronted not with an arguement that your theory is wrong but rather that it has no irrifuable proof? That is further evidence that my opinion is truth, not fiction.
Ok, come up with a fact that agrees with creationism or intelligent desgn, but disagrees with evolution.
1) You keep repeating this.. "information" as if you think we care. But we don't. So if it makes you feel any beter: yes we understand what you said 50 times allready. You can now stop doing it.
2) If you don't have the time/don't want to debate, Don't. But don't go making crazy assumptions without telling anything else.
I came here to set the record straight about my posts that were taken out of context. If you had a post started by someone else, quoting you out of context, saying things you did not say and contributing them to you, would you not try to correct the lies?
From your previous post it seemed like you had direct information to it, so why not cut all the ********, and ask it directly to you? This still is a science forum, and I come here to learn. So yes, if I ask for a source I expect you to have one, no matter how easy it is to find. I've met to many people on this board who can't support their claims that I am doubtfull of most silly claims, this being one of them.
Actually, my previous post says that I watched a scientific program in which they discussed this substance that they called a lighter than air solid. If that sounds like I am researching the substance in my own lab at home, I think you are full of (something smelly) and should reconsider your words.
Thanks! You are kind of deluded about the theory of evolution, but that is okay, we still like you.
It is nice to know someone likes me, but you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?
Thanks, now that wasn't so hard, hasn't it?
Not hard just took more time than I really had. I have slightly more time the rest of this week, but that will change quickly, back to about one decent length post a day. That is why I limit the number of threads I am on at a time and why I asked Merle to leave me out of this debate until the other one we were on was finished.
I think we're talking about this, right? I must say that it is indeed intresting but I don't see any support that this solid is indeed lighter then air. I see that the solid is composed of air, that it is very light, and is very unusual, but I don't see any claims that this is lighter then air...
I see some other claims on the website (like someone suggesting that argon should be used in production of such a substance, rather then normal air. Of course, if that counts, then balloons would have been the first "lighter then air solid") but none of those are really substantial.
More than I can commit to at the moment. All I currently know about it is what I have seen on the scientific program I watched and what you have said. When things slow down here, maybe I can look at it in more depth.
you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about either science or evolution. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Please, go get yourself an education on the subject.
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
It grieves me to see how too many Americans have fallen for Creationism, ID, astrology, and a host of other pseudosciences. You folks are to be commended for taking time out of your busy schedules to shine a light in this one corner of the vast scientific darkness. Thank you for what you do.
---------
I hope you do not mind if I take a minute to defend something much less significant than the integrity of science. I wish to defend something that, for some odd reason, is of great importance to me--my reputation. I have watched as razzleflabben has taken it upon herself to deliver an attack on my reputation. May I please take a minute to set the record straight?
Uh, wouldn't that be a nitpick? Besides, everybody seems to agree with me that your questions are indeed about evolution. But if your questions are not about evolution, please forgive me for misunderstanding you.
As I have already explained, this is a total fabrication. I never insisted that you come here.
Huh? All I did was repond to what you have written. I put the response here because the other thread was totally unrelated to evolution, and putting my response there would have hijacked my own thread. I explained the context and gave a link back to the original thread.
Guess what? This is a public forum. If you write something here, folks just might respond. So please don't vent your fury at me because I responded to one of your posts.
This is absolute flapdoodle. Where did I ever accuse you of anything because you did not respond immediately? If I accused you because of this, please repond to the post where I made the accusation, and show the world what I have said. But if you have no evidence, than drop the claim please.
False pretnese? What false pretense? You wrote. I responded. Where is the false pretense?
Huh? You have serious time constraints? Pray tell me, than why have you littered the tornadoes threads with reams of junk? There are dozens of posts on that thread that you have written to me that I have not yet had time to respond to. The reason your writings stand unrefuted is because I simply do not have time to write at your pace. And now you seem to be complaining when I actually do find time to respond? Guess what? If you fill this forum up with posts, people just might respond.
Okay, now I find that I am arrogant and that I see myself as knowing everything. I take it you don't like me very much?
I invite anybody to browse the tornadoes thread and respond to me on that thread showing me what I have done wrong. I am serious. If I have said anything wrong, I want to fix it up.
Okay, so I am not only arrogant, but also dense? You sure ain't doing much for my self-esteem.
Dear Christain lurker, I have a question for you. Is this the way Christians treat people? If I became a Christian, would I start treating Christians the way razzleflabben treats me?
I am using all your time? Huh? How is it that you have written dozens of posts to me that I simply have not had time to respond to, and yet you complain that you are the one not able to keep up with me on that thread? Hello?
Okay, now you inform me what my intentions are. And you inform me that I intend to present misconceptions? Excuse me. Why are you here judging other people's character? Does it not seem unethical to you to judge another's intentions?
I invite anybody to read the OP and the thread it was spawned from and show me where I am trying to present a misconception.
Well, then you have us all fooled. For your writings sure looks like anti-evolution rhetoric to most of us here.
I never said I was going to twist your words. I have never intentionally twisted anybody's words. If I misunderstood, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify so I can understand. So exactly how is it that I twisted your words?
BTW, most of my replys in the OP were in the form of questions. How can that be "twisting your words"?
Yes, indeed. Interested lurkers should read that thread for themselves, to see is razzleflabben's claims are true.
Huh? I am completely overloaded, with dozens of posts to me--some containing personal insults about me--that I simply have not responded to because I am too busy. I found time to write a post to respond to your evolution rhetoric. And you accuse me of bad debate tactics because I responded when I was busy? Huh?
I stand by the words that I have written on this forum. If anybody has any complaint about anything I have said on this forum, please go to the offending post and respond to that post in the thread it occurred. (Or better yet, write me a private message so I can clean it up without making a big deal of it.) Isn't it better simply to resolve these things in private rather than blow up to other people in another thread?
Huh? Anybody who will take the time to look at post 344 of the tornadoes thread will see it was razz, not I, who brought up the topic of evolution.
How have I taken your comments out of context? For you have made many of the same claims right here on this thread that I quote you as saying in the OP.
What false information?
razzelflabben, this forum is not here so that foks have an opportunity to lie about and insult each other. Now could you please stop publishing insults, and move on with the debate?
-------------------
Okay, folks, sorry for the interrruption, but I do feel much better now.
Let's get back to something more important--the debate about true science and evolution. Pseudoscience needs to be debunked, and you guys are doing just great! Go get em', tigers!
I have cleared my name on this thread and others on the other thread have already shown you your (stinky stuff from the back side of a cow) accusations, so I have nothing more to say to you unless you would like to get involved in the thread you started.
Ok, come up with a fact that agrees with creationism or intelligent desgn, but disagrees with evolution.
Ron
My arguement is not one in which one theory is more sound than another. So what would be the point of that discussion? My point is that evolution is still a theory and until it is otherwise, you will continue to stir up controversy by claiming it to be fact.
Want proof of that, look at this thread. Just to claim that evolution is still a theory is enough to stir up this debate.
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about either science or evolution. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Please, go get yourself an education on the subject.
Okay, my dictionary is not currently handy so why don't you give us the Webster definition for
Theory-
Fact-
then maybe this discussion can make some progress.
I came here to set the record straight about my posts that were taken out of context. If you had a post started by someone else, quoting you out of context, saying things you did not say and contributing them to you, would you not try to correct the lies?
depends, Though you again mistake that I care about this issue. You could have also ignored the op.
Actually, my previous post says that I watched a scientific program in which they discussed this substance that they called a lighter than air solid. If that sounds like I am researching the substance in my own lab at home, I think you are full of (something smelly) and should reconsider your words.
You are the one who brought it up, you are the person who apperently knows more about it then I do, I expect you to back it up. You could have looked up the name of the program or something similiar like that. And what is your major mallfunction? I am simply asking for a source, is it really that hard for you to do this? I am asking this because this is quite an intresting development, and so far noone has been able to make a solid lighter then air.
It is nice to know someone likes me, but you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?
The theory of evolution is both a theory and a fact. Just like the theory of gravity both a theory and a fact. This again illustrates your non-knowledge of evolution.
More than I can commit to at the moment. All I currently know about it is what I have seen on the scientific program I watched and what you have said. When things slow down here, maybe I can look at it in more depth.
I will be waiting, because none of my investegations show any solid material lighter then air. Infact the website I linked at says that with 5 milligrams per cubic centimeter it is currently the record holder.
"It's probably not possible to make aerogel any lighter than this because then it wouldn't gel," Jones said. "The molecules of silicon wouldn't connect. And it's not possible to make it lighter than the density of air, 1.2 milligrams per cubic centimeter (.00004 pounds per cubic inch)
So while it is awesome and light, it is not lighter then air.
I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural-ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : SPECULATION 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light> 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTUREc: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete: FEATb: CRIME <accessory after the fact> carchaic: ACTION 2archaic: PERFORMANCE, DOING 3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact: in truth
Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.
My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.
If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?
I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.
I have cleared my name on this thread and others on the other thread have already shown you your (stinky stuff from the back side of a cow) accusations, so I have nothing more to say to you unless you would like to get involved in the thread you started.
Really? Please go to that thread and show me where others have made this accusation. For I seem to have missed it.
You are not spouting out more stinky stuff from the back side of a bull, now, are you?
__________________ "If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"--Robert G. Ingersoll
Linear Mode
