Yikes DNA proves what??

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

MrGoodBytes said:
Since your own contribution to this board mainly consists of cut-and-pasting text you obviously don't understand yourself, I dare say that you are not in the position to call anything here "foolish".

Please explain how cutting and pasting information is different than reading it and then typing it??

Other than it is more time efficent, of course to cut and paste.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

TheOutsider said:
I know that I'm going to regret this, but oh well ...
Ok if a decieved person knows is convinced form some medical study that Chocolate does not give people acne. But every time they eat Chocolate they get acne.
They cannot objectively see the acne as being proof that chocolate causes the effect.

There fore a person cannot take their views formed over incorrect science and see the evidence objectively.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

TheOutsider said:
I know that I'm going to regret this, but oh well ...
Ok if a decieved person knows is convinced form some medical study that Chocolate does not give people acne. But every time they eat Chocolate they get acne.
They cannot objectively see the acne as being proof that chocolate causes the effect.

There fore a person cannot take their views formed over incorrect science and see the evidence objectively.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

TheOutsider said:
You are making the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically foolish. Does that not seem a little arrogant to you?

I dont think someone is foolish to disagree with me. I think they are foolish to disagree with God.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

Nitron said:
A Christian Creationist linking to a Muslim site to disprove evolution.

This has to be some sort of win.

Haha, thanks for the reps.

Because muslims are wrong about many things does not mean they are wrong about everything.
I have muslim neighboors and I actually love there kids.
Very well behaved and respectful.
I think parenting, husband wife relations and much of Muslim law is very wise also and actually Biblical.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

Chalnoth said:
Will you stop plagiarizing already? But what's more, what's your point?

P.S. We can predict the future quite well using quantum mechanics. Sorry that I missed that bit of nonsense when I said the previous part of this article that you quoted was "largely correct."

Ok my point is what makes your or any opposing "theory" correct and the other wrong wrong??

The " theory " of evolution the big bang "theory "
etc. etc.

Sorry cut and pasted here again..LOL
Theory
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation3: 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 [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e wave theory of light>6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations

According to Werner Heisenbergs theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is traveling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behavior. Measuring the particles speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed.

Chalnoth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
Please explain how cutting and pasting information is different than reading it and then typing it??

Other than it is more time efficent, of course to cut and paste.

Reinterpreting information requires understanding. Anybody can cut and paste. But it takes a certain degree of intelligence to actually explain in different words what something means.

Chalnoth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
Ok my point is what makes your or any opposing "theory" correct and the other wrong wrong??

Evidence.

Carey said:
The " theory " of evolution the big bang "theory "

Both theories are supported by multiple lines of independent, corroborative evidence. For instance, the big bang theory is supported by:

1. The observed expansion of the universe.
2. The observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe.
3. The observed cosmic microwave background.
4. The observed primordial light element abundances.
5. The observed relationship between the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and the distribution of structure in the nearby universe.

While I'm not going to go into the details right now (I'm a bit tired), the basic essence is that if the big bang theory is correct, then there must be a very specific relationship between all of the above observations. If the observations do not match, then the theory is wrong. But they do match, and with so many independent lines of evidence all converging on the same overall picture, our confidence that that overall picture is correct becomes rather high.

Naturally we are open to modifications of the theory, and many scientists are investigating a wide variety of potential modifications. But the overall picture we can be very certain is correct: that the universe we observe expanded from a very dense (though not infinitely dense) and very smooth hot soup of matter. As it expanded it cooled, first forming the light elements, then emitting the CMB, and then, eventually forming galaxies and galaxy clusters. After the light elements were processed through a series of supernovae within our own galaxy, enough heavy elements had formed for some stars to form rocky planets capable of supporting life. Around one such star with enough heavy elements, the Earth formed, a planet that formed about 9.2 billion years after the initial expansion, on it formed life, and eventually ourselves, some 13.7 billion years or so after the birth of our region of the universe.

All of this is highly certain, given the evidence we have available to us today.

Baggins · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
I dont think someone is foolish to disagree with me. I think they are foolish to disagree with God.

And you are sure that you and god have the same ideas because......?

I love the way creationists are always so sure that they and god are of one mind on everything, very funny

MrGoodBytes · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
Please explain how cutting and pasting information is different than reading it and then typing it??

Other than it is more time efficent, of course to cut and paste.

Except it's abundantly clear that you do not read the excerpts you post. This thread's OP is a prime example.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

Chalnoth said:
Reinterpreting information requires understanding. Anybody can cut and paste. But it takes a certain degree of intelligence to actually explain in different words what something means.

Do you think it also requires intelligence to cut and paste only the words that make your point and use the words of a peer in the persons group your are cutting and pasting the words for??

Chalnoth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
Do you think it also requires intelligence to cut and paste only the words that make your point and use the words of a peer in the persons group your are cutting and pasting the words for??

There is a tremendous difference between cutting and pasting and distilling a large argument down to a few sentences. And besides, some of us have actual knowledge in these subjects. I, for example, am a student studying to obtain my Ph.D. in theoretical cosmology.

Loudmouth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
Do you think it also requires intelligence to cut and paste only the words that make your point and use the words of a peer in the persons group your are cutting and pasting the words for??

This is a discussion and debate forum, not a suggested reading forum. Unless those peers are here to discuss their work then it is inappropriate to base one's arguments solely on the words of others.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

Chalnoth said:
There is a tremendous difference between cutting and pasting and distilling a large argument down to a few sentences. And besides, some of us have actual knowledge in these subjects. I, for example, am a student studying to obtain my Ph.D. in theoretical cosmology.

I am impressed Cuz dumb ole boys like me don't no nothin bout dat theory of cosmotolgy or cosmology or whatever.

I just take time to read what them smart fellers write and pick out the parts pertaining to a discussion tween me and some other smart feller or lady as the case may be.
Course Just to save that other smart feller time cuz shoot , all that studyin has gotta take lots of their time gittin them there PHD thingy's

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

Loudmouth said:
This is a discussion and debate forum, not a suggested reading forum. Unless those peers are here to discuss their work then it is inappropriate to base one's arguments solely on the words of others.

In other words I should never post an opposing theory of any other scientist?? So this is a sole scientists field specific board??

astroweezer · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
In other words I should never post an opposing theory of any other scientist?? So this is a sole scientists field specific board??

Sure, you can post an opposing theory of another scientists. However, the problem occurs that creationists don't understand what the other scientist is saying, which is evidenced in your OP. You posted a website that had an incorrect interpretation (not your own, I might add) about a news release from a university where the actual information still supports evolution.

Perhaps, if you find what you think may be conflicting peer-reviewed scientific evidence, you should understand it first. It's getting tiring reading about the evidence against evolution when instead it's just a made up fact from a creationist website or just plain misinterpreted or distorted facts from scientific evidence.

Loudmouth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
In other words I should never post an opposing theory of any other scientist?? So this is a sole scientists field specific board??

No, you should post your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others.

Is this how you do papers for an english class, just copy and paste huge chunks with zero words written by yourself?

Chalnoth · Nov 2, 2007

Carey said:
I am impressed Cuz dumb ole boys like me don't no nothin bout dat theory of cosmotolgy or cosmology or whatever.

I just take time to read what them smart fellers write and pick out the parts pertaining to a discussion tween me and some other smart feller or lady as the case may be.
Course Just to save that other smart feller time cuz shoot , all that studyin has gotta take lots of their time gittin them there PHD thingy's

It always amazed me how Christians can blissfully claim that they aren't as intelligent as those against whom they are arguing, and yet still come out of it believing that they are correct, and the more intelligent person is deluded.

Really, now, Carey. Which do you think happens more commonly? That an unintelligent person is deluded? Or an intelligent person is?

P.S. I would like to mention that it seems rather apparent to me that the majority of our intelligence is not inborn, but rather learned. So much of Christianity revolves around delighting in ignorance, and ensuring that followers never exercise their minds. Exercise of the mind, after all, is what leads people to intelligence in the first place.

kiwimac · Nov 2, 2007

Chalnoth,

You'll pardon me if I disagree. Both of my Doctoral degrees required scholarship and a delight in learning AND had the requirement that I exercise my mind.

Carey · Nov 2, 2007

astroweezer said:
Sure, you can post an opposing theory of another scientists. However, the problem occurs that creationists don't understand what the other scientist is saying, which is evidenced in your OP. You posted a website that had an incorrect interpretation (not your own, I might add) about a news release from a university where the actual information still supports evolution.

Perhaps, if you find what you think may be conflicting peer-reviewed scientific evidence, you should understand it first. It's getting tiring reading about the evidence against evolution when instead it's just a made up fact from a creationist website or just plain misinterpreted or distorted facts from scientific evidence.

How do we know you have not misinterpreted the information??

Yikes DNA proves what??

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Seeker for life, probably

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency