b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7292434 (Thread)

# Yes
Yes I was referring to historical science rather than operation science - and you're absolutely right, there's not a single repeatable experiment. They both require faith and would be defined as 'religions'. I'm saying is that historical science supports creation just as well, so why have a topic on something about 'overwhelming evidence' on once side of the argument? It's all to do with starting assumptions ^_^
(Strangemiester, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 10:59, archived)
# 'historical science'
What on Earth are you banging on about? there is no real support in science, the fossil record, observational experience etc. for either of them.

So basically you're just ranting because the compo was stated in a slightly flippant way?

And don't pretend you agree with me, you said that creationism was 100% science based. there may well be 10,000 scientists in the US alone who believe in creationism. But you have to remember that they are American.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:02, archived)
# our survey said "X"
evolution doesn't require faith, it has a ginormous amount of scientific evidence to support the theory.
due to the giant timescales involved it hasn't been possible to conclusivley prove it in the past 2000 years

wheras your invisible sky guy cult has exactly how much scientific evidence? where are you theses and peer reviewed publications? actual facts other than "the bible says so"?
(I helped save b3ta! VampireMonkeyOnSpeed a super sexy sexual sex terrorist sex, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:03, archived)
# Bollocks.
Evolution has hardly any scientific evidence to support it. that's partly why Darwinian evlution is on its way out. The fossil record is very sketchy indeed.

I reckon that it is at best a reasonable rule of thumb to describe what happens, in the same way that the early atomic theories were sort of correct in a staggeringly simplistic and not actually very correct way.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:07, archived)
# on it's way out?
what's replacing it?
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:10, archived)
# the theory of badgers
how we evolved from them etc.
(I helped save b3ta! Haku Orange Whip? Orange Whip? Three Orange Whips., Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:11, archived)
# those rcrazy badgers!
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:13, archived)
# I'm not totally up to date
but I think there are a variety of molecular/biological theories clumped together as non-darwinian evolution. I don't think Darwinian evolution has been completely discredited, just that scientists are coming to the realisation that it is either far too simplistic or cannot possibly account for the diversity of life, even given the massive timescales, that perhaps Darwinian evolution is just a small part of what can happen.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:20, archived)
# it's a 19th century theory <-(important bit) based upon observation and deduction
and for some reason people equate evolution with making a better/more complicated/clever species

which isn't what it's about

but "I don't know" does not mean "god did it", if we knew everything we'd be gods ourselves, and we aren't :)
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:33, archived)
# I think...
I think you're confusing the work of actual scientists with supporters of intelligent design here, personally.
(nullmouse, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 12:16, archived)
# You sir...
... are talking out your arse I'm afraid. With the advent of genetics and particularly molecular genetics the theories expoused by Darwin have becaome more refined and extended, but there are certainly no movemements in the scientific community to reject them, not in the slightest. Indeed the influence of our understanding of evolution on the progress of modern molecular biology is something which is often understated.

For example, scientists regularly use our understanding of evolution in an attempt to identify elements of importance within the genetic code. By realising that selection will restrict changes on regions of function you may look to identify possible areas with functional significance. This works. But perhaps more importantly in areas where you may predict rapid evolution, such as in the immune system, these results are actualy born out in the DNA sequence.

Thats not to mention the fact that evolution can be a bit of a bastard in the day to day life of a scientist. I've got mutant yeast which die at high temperatures, this is a good thing. The only problem is that the bastards keep gaining mutations, mainly as these tend to co-incide with stronger growth phenotypes at normal temperatures. As a result I end up wasting ages because I have to go back to the original stocks to recover the temperature sensitive phenotype.

And what about anti-biotic resistance, heavy metal tolerance appearing in plants, and speciation events obserbved in human lifespans (in plants.)
(JamesG, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 22:31, archived)
# I <3 this
Thankyou!
(nullmouse, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 9:20, archived)
# I think you could
easily argue for evolution using the ol' "Common Sense" argument. It just makes a heapload more sense than creationism.

I do find it extremely unlikely that we'll ever know about all of the whole nuts-and-bolts of 4 billion years worth of development here on earth.
But it is extremely likely that it wasn't due to some omniscient chap one day going "BANG! And the people have arrived!" and everthing appearing all
of a sudden, like. That's just a bit silly. Unless he was David Copperfield.
(I helped save b3ta! The Neville What what what, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:25, archived)
# Personally
I tend towards believing that the Universe is so complex and unlikely that a creator is the most likely Occam's Razor option.

I also happen to think that something along the lines of evolution (I don't think we are anywhere near understanding it properly yet) was the mechanism used to get to where we are now, life-wise.

The 7 days thing is clearly parable. for 7 stages or whatever I guess.

Science already agrees with that account in Genesis. The order things happened in, anyway.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:31, archived)
# True.
It's 'Revelations' though that this crowd take for their evidence, which was written by John whilst trapped on an island and quite clearly smacked off his tits for the whole time.
(I helped save b3ta! joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:41, archived)
# Indeedy!
I believe there's some sense in some words in the Bible, if, and only if you don't take them literally.

My opinion on am "Almighty Creator" is that there may well be one. Who am I to say otherwise? But I really don't believe he would take the form that
so many devout Christian types believe he would. I reckon a creator could even be something as removed from our tiny little planet
as a scientist in a laboratory creating a new Universe (or billions and billions of 'em) when he flicks a switch on a particle accelerator,
inadvertantly becoming "God" to countless trillions of civilsations.

Imagine the responsiblity!
(I helped save b3ta! The Neville What what what, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:42, archived)
# or perhaps an existing universe
spurted this one into existence
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:48, archived)
# pffft
you said *spurt*!

/brings the whole conversation down a few notches blog
(I helped save b3ta! The Neville What what what, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:52, archived)
# I didn't even know it could get any lower
what with being all about complete nonsense and all

:D
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 12:03, archived)
# People who say "there's hardly any evidence"..
..haven't tried looking for it. It's fucking everywhere.
(MeteoriK, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:31, archived)
# Point to some then.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:56, archived)
# Happy reading!
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
(nullmouse, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 12:09, archived)
# Ok
Remember when you last had a bad back? That's because you're supposed to walk around on all fours, and your pelvis is attached at the wrong angle. Appendix? What's that for? Well, your ancestors needed it to create bile to help digest all the fruit you used to eat when you were a monkey. Caught a virus recently? That's because an existing virus mutated in such a way that it became able to exist in your body, and thus become successful. Ginger hair? Well, that's because your ancestors couldn't get enough vitamin D in the north of Europe. Ever seen a bulldog? It was born by caesarian section, because this man-made (or "artificially evolved") creature has a head so big it won't actually fit out of its mother's womb. Without us, it's fucked. In fact, point to any living thing, and you can find a whole history going right back to its genus. Plaice is a delicious flat fish, but ever wondered why it has both eyes on the same side of its head? Well, millions of years of swimming horizontally along the bottom of the ocean with one eye on the floor had a part to play in that.

(MeteoriK, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 13:05, archived)
# Crikey
So all compos should be subject to the same anal critique?
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:05, archived)
# only when someone's myopic worldview based upon a doctrinal programming
designed to employ a power relationship is questioned
(I helped save b3ta! discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:19, archived)
# um...
you do realise you're on b3ta.com where taking the piss is mandatory?
(I helped save b3ta! Haku Orange Whip? Orange Whip? Three Orange Whips., Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:09, archived)