Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EnragedPenguin

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27
The amount that gas contributes to the mass of the earth is less than the amount that the meteorites do. The reason the sun has such a strong gravitational pull is because it is HUGE. Pretend this 'O' is the earth, and your computer is the sun, thats about the proportional difference in size between them.

We have already explained to you how meteorites hitting the earth would not have a noticable effect on the gravitational pull (which, stop me if I'm wrong, is your whole point) so that is in no way evidence that the earth isn't round and you need to come up with a new argument.

It's also clear that the facts needed to say with all accuracy that the material that enters the atmosphere does effect the gravitational pull, are not present, so your point is moot and you need to give us a new one.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: December 04, 2005, 08:56:42 PM »
Next, why would all the planets in the intire solar system be round (spherical) but the earth isn't? you say that the most naturall shape in space is a disk, then why is most everything (comets stars planets asteroids) in space a spherical shape?

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: December 04, 2005, 08:47:44 PM »
Quote from: "Believe"

4. constellations shift as you move along the earth, therefore, it is at least curved. -- Yeah, and it works on a flat-earth, too. When the pancake is thousands of miles wide with stars only a few hundred miles above, it's quite easy and MUCH more reasonably understood.

Yes but it's not just that they shift, according flat earth theorys the north pole is the center of the earth and the south pole is an ice wall around the edge, now if two people were to stand at a random spots on the north pole they would both see basicaly the same stars, that works for both theorys, however if two people were to stand at random spots at the south pole, according to the flat earth theory (south pole being an ice wall around the edge) they should both see different stars, but you don't, you see the same stars from any where on the south pole, in other words you are standing in the same generall location, if the south pole goes all the way around the earth shouldn't you be saperated by hundreds of miles?

Quote from: "bullhorn"
Even if they "burn up" they are still part of the planet just in a gas state, what im asying is all the fine particals will effect the planet in some way due to their mass together

Has the dust that builds upon your furniture caused it to collapse? has it had any noticeable effect on it at all? no? the reason is because the weight of the the dust is insignificant compared to the size of the piece of furniture, you'd have to have dust piled up to your ceiling before it would begin to have a noticeable effect (and even then it probably wouldn't be enough).

Quote from: "bullhorn"
Some comets and asteroids from space ar the size of golf balls and they could be smaller as well even the shabe of sand, but the constant bombardment of matter into the planet should effect it in some way, what im saying is I have not noticed any change in my day to day life.

There isn't a constant bombardment though, the only "constant bombardment" is from dust particles that hit the atmosphere, the particles never reach earth however, because they burn up in the atmosphere.

About a hundred meteorites hit the earth every year, which to me, doesn't  constitute a "constant bombardment of matter into the planet".

Well first off, it doesn't matter if we know the exact wieght of the planet, he was just explaining how the effect of being struck by meteorites would be negligable compared to the huge size of the planet.

And second, the meteorites that strike the planet do not "increase the wieght by tons upon tons everyday" because most of the meteorites that hit are about the size of a golf ball, usually smaller.

Flat Earth Q&A / It's so sad, but I dare you to show some evidence
« on: December 01, 2005, 12:16:03 PM »
Quote from: "cborigo16"
Well your questions don't really make sense...

For your put water in the dent of a ball theory, a ball weighs maybe a few lbs at most, compared to the water that is insignificant.   The Earth is HUGE and the gravity is so much greater that it pulls the water in towards the center with the same strength in all directions, same reason a bubble is a sphere, the forces are equal in all directions.

And your second question about "water splashing everywhere on a round Earth" doesn't make sense to me bc i never said anything like that.

About Jupiter floating away...floating is caused by a difference in densities of a fluid and an object IN GRAVITY...a ball doesnt float in water in zero gravity...Jupiter doesnt "float away" fro two reasons.
ONE:  There is no gravity
TWO:  The vacuum of space is MUCH less dense than the gas JUpiter is made of

I can go into much more detail about how buoyancy works, but you won't listen whatsoever bc you are too self-deluded and stubborn.

You see, the problem with you flat earth theorists is that you look at your situation on Earth, which you are used to.  And you expect EVERYTHING else in the universe everywhere to follow the exact same rules you are used to in your mind.   We are only human, our minds are weak and we cant comprehend a lot of things.

This is the EXACT same way that racial and cultural prejudices arise.   People look at the world and culture they are used to and think that its the only way, just because they are used to it.  They refuse to listen to anyone else bc they are too busy being absorbed by their own self satisfaction and arrogance.   I really cant believe that you would use your own everyday experiences to explain the whole universe.

For example... when I walk down the street in America and someone says HELLO to me, I am not surprised, I am used to it.   But does that mean that if i go to Germany, a different place and situation, that I should expect everyone to say HELLO and not GUTEN TAG?  But THEY MUST! bc that is all i am used to, ive never heard anyone say THAT before, so it cant happen...therefore everyone speaks English or Spanish, bc those are the only two languages I hear in America  (make sense?  didnt think so)

:shock: Ummmmm, it may interest you to know that I was, in fact, arguing with bullhorn, not you...that'd be why I quoted him...not you. I think the earth is round...

I'll explain my points though. to avoid further confusion.

My point with Jupiter was that Jupiter could not stay in, or have initally formed into,  a round shape without the gas just floating away in random directions without gravity, gravity that is formed from the planets orbit around the sun. You see, flat earthers say that gravity doesn't exist.

Next, the water on a ball. One of the "experiments" performed by a flat earther to prove the earth was flat was measuring a lake, he found that the surface of the lake was flat and said that it should have a 'mound' in it if the earth where round so that meant it was flat, I was explaining why it doesn't. Didn't really have much to do with posts in this thread I guess.

Flat Earth Q&A / It's so sad, but I dare you to show some evidence
« on: November 30, 2005, 08:13:02 PM »
Quote from: "bullhorn"
I can explane how a round earth can't possibly have a stable sea. Think of a "round earth" that has water on it, according to you since it is round then it has to be in the shape of a sphere. It is a common known fact that a sphere has a curve. Wouldent it make sense to say that if the earth is a curve that the water would be on a curve as well.

Why would water follow the curve of the earth? take a ball, put a dent in it and fill the dent with water, does the water have a round shape too it? or does it level out?

And also we can see water can hold itself in a round shape by just looking at a drop of water falling through the air.

And further more, according to your theory of water splashing every where on a round earth, that would also mean that the gas that makes up Jupiter should just float away (because I can see for myself that Jupiter is round through my telescope) but it doesn't. Explain that without gravity.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is FLAT ! GOD says so.
« on: November 19, 2005, 05:56:55 AM »
Please tell me where in the bible God specificaly states that the earth is flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / How We Can Disprove the "Flat-Earth" Theory
« on: November 14, 2005, 03:38:53 PM »
Hmm, that would be a good idea but it wouldn't work, because they could just say the reason you can't see anything is because you are looking through so much atmosphere (which greatly affects seeing).

Flat Earth Q&A / Here's proof for you
« on: November 14, 2005, 03:35:27 PM »
Quote from: "Darmikalus"
an 11th century peasent could tell you that the earth is flat...and he has an excuse ecasue people back then were stupid... you sir have no excuse, you live in a modern era in which we can fly, boat, and drive across vasst distances, if your so destined to prove it get al the other tossers on this website, gat some money, get a sesna, and fly in one direction ,you will go back whence you came! BECASUE THE EARTH IS ROUND!

Actually they believed the earth was round back then, and they weren't stupid either, maybe ignorant of a few things, but they where no more stupid than you or me. Oh, and I bet the ones that could write could spell. :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evolution - dispelling the myths
« on: November 13, 2005, 02:56:51 PM »
Quote from: "Goethe"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

It was just a quick response due to me being busy at the time. I might look into it and respond in depth later.

Ok maybe I should take back the "show me any evidence at all" because you could show me a picture of a waffle and say it's proof of evolution.

Flat Earth Q&A / Another serious debate
« on: November 13, 2005, 09:42:35 AM »
I don't think there are any flat earthers left here, they have all been chased away. The only people left at the flat earth forums are people who believe the earth is round...kind of sad huh?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 12, 2005, 09:11:39 AM »
Quote from: "Goethe"
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."

Flat Earth Q&A / Evolution - dispelling the myths
« on: November 12, 2005, 06:17:29 AM »
Quote from: "Goethe"

And that proves? all I see is some fragmentary skulls that are either from a human or an ape. I saw a show once where they took a skull like that made a copy of it and had an artist who knew human and ape anatomy and he created what the face would have looked like, they where all amazed at how much it looked like a half man half ape, I noticed however that if you got rid of his nose and ears (since the cartilage was long gone, he had to make up his own) and replaced them with an apes nose and ears and coverd the face in hair it would look exactly like an ape, not necessarily a type that is still alive today but are you going to tell me that a species can't go extinct?

Flat Earth Q&A / Why is it important?
« on: November 12, 2005, 06:01:40 AM »
Quote from: "Nina"
You say it doesn't matter what round earthers believe. You still have this forum. So actually you want to discuss it, obviously, otherwise would this homepage not exist. And I didn't flame and bash anyone, I just tried to understand.

I didn't say you were, actualy I was agreeing with you,I wasn't trying to say it's not important what they believe I was saying it makes no difference in any ones lifes whether it's round flat oblong cubical or in the shape of a llama.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evolution - dispelling the myths
« on: November 11, 2005, 08:35:34 PM »
Quote from: "Mark the Illuminatus"
Evolution HAS and DOES occur.

Evolution has been OBSERVED occurring.

Speciation has been OBSERVED occuring.

Ok, I pretty much agree with what you said here, except this:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

Flat Earth Q&A / So, how did you end up on this site?
« on: November 11, 2005, 04:38:27 PM »
I read about the flat earth society in a Geography book so I decided to research it a little and found the link at Wikipedia.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why is it important?
« on: November 11, 2005, 04:33:10 PM »
Apparently the rest of the round earthers (not all, just the majority of them) are offended that someone thinks differently than they do, so they feel it necessary to come here and flame and bash the flat earthers. When in reality it doesn't matter in the slightest. I personally see no reason to not just let these people believe what they want whether I agree with them or not.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 10, 2005, 09:25:48 AM »
There is no need to start going into the Cambrian area because we are talking about dating fossils to hundreds of millions of years ago and the only reliable method for dating is carbon-14 which can only be used to date back to about 50000 years ago, all the other methods can have variables of millions of years which (in my view) makes them very unreliable.

Let me rephrase what I said in my original post, There is evidence of evolution, plenty infact as long as when you say evolution you mean nature adapting and changing slightly over the course of many hundreds of years, however, if you mean evolution as in humans evolving from some sort of Ape creature (which is what most people mean when they say evolution), than no there is no evidence for this at all and it is nothing more than a guess.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 09, 2005, 06:14:47 PM »
Ok lets get a few things straight so you'll understand what I'm arguing here. I believe that there is a god, but I could just barly be called a christian, I don't believe most of what is in the bible because it is nothing more than a book that was written by men, edited many times where large parts were cut from it, and it has been translated numerous times changing slightly every time no doubt. I don't believe the creation in the bible but I do believe that the universe was created by a god. The only reason I believe that there was a flood is because the bible and christianity are not the only places or religions it has been mentioned in.

Some of the most horrible things in history where committed in the name of christianity, most of them by the catholic church.

I also believe that most religions are all worshiping the same god just under different names. Now, on to the discussion.

Quote from: "Brylian"
Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both.

So if they can live in either I would say that is more evidence they did not evolve, because they would have no reason to, why would they need to make changes to survive if they could survive perfectly well no matter where they were.

Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites.

I would say a flood would wipe them out as well as any other creature. And that would also easily explain why they died out suddenly.

And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?

Because their food source is not grass and trees and plants, crocodiles eat other animals (from my understanding) whales eat various different sea creatures such as plankton and small fish (depinding on the type of whale) and as for turtles, once again Different species have different diets. The leatherback feeds only on jelly fish, the hawksbill only on sponges, the loggerhead feeds on a selection of bottom-dwelling invertebrates and kemps ridley turtles have a preference for crabs. The green turtle is thought to be omnivorous but largely herbivorous, feeding mainly on seagrasses and algae. But they all eat sea creatures, which would not have all died out in a flood.

My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.

But like Poorboy said, even if they where created in 7 days that does not mean they couldn't adapt and change slightly over thousands of years. And all of them suddenly changing at about the same time would be even more evidence for a flood. Not a slow evolution.

Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient  Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance.

I can't deny or confirm this because I have never seen a doorway in ancient ruins. However, if you believe in the bible peoples ages shortend dramatically (from seven to nine hundred years to about sixty to eighty today) so I see no reason for peoples hight to not change as well, in fact one may have been the cause of the other.

and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).

read the beginning of my post.

And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).

Actualy that happend in 1967 and they did have calculators, what they calculated was the mathmatical probability of evolution and found that it was almost mathmaticaly impossible. The reason evolution remains a theory is because it can't be proved, and it can't be fact unless it can be.

You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.

you said yourself they where all wiped out at around the same time, which indicates that they didn't "slowly evolve" into anything. They simply died out.

Btw, here have a look at this,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Again, read the beginning of my post.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 08, 2005, 08:59:24 PM »
Quote from: "Brylian"
Its physically impossible for a creature we find was actually an amphibian (pliosaurs), to suddenly be stuck on land was not an issue. A flood would NOT wipe these creatures out. You have no logical explanation for their extinction, and its not only Pliosaurs and its unlikely as well for Pleosaurs. Also its not only Pliosaurs and Pleosaurs that would have to have died out, Trillobites, Acrosyphamore's, and various other marine mammals that have all meraculously have died out (piece by piece over time).

The flood would have wiped out their food supply, and since herbivores need to eat such vast amounts of plants to survive it is easy to see why a flood would cause them to go extinct.

Gum their food? Insects do not chew their food, many birds don't, neither do dolphins, and yet they have not died out, strange how that works isn't it? Dinosaurs would strip ferns and leave's with their jaggered teeth, and digestion did not require the food to be broken down any more as the body would do it for it. Much like our body would if we were to swallow something without chewing it, it would digest but its easier for our stomach to digest piece by piece.

Exactly, not having chewing teeth proves nothing, other than the fact that they didn't chew their food.

How grass relates to evolution is that there are NO dinosaur remains that contain grass, yet grass contains virtually the same materials as fern's, so why in NO dinosaurs waste at all do we find evidence of grass?

Perhaps because dinosaurs didn't eat grass. Or maybe because grass as we know it couldn't grow on a pre-flood earth (and you can't deny that a flood would spread alot of nutrients).

the fact that virus's are evolving everyday indicates that life evolves. From one form to another, from one area to another. Some fish have changed the colour of their skin in order to relate to their specific environment, as it gives them more protection, is this not showing that animals evolve?

It shows that nature adapts, which can be called evolution if you like. But it does not show that man came from an ape or that all life came from a fish type creature or that birds came from dinosaurs.

And as they slowly add more features for survive are they not turning from one creature to another?

How do we know they keep adding more features to survive? we can't observe it happening, all we can see is bacteria that already have a gene, pass that gene on, they aren't just making genes at random, that bacteria already hade the ability to have that gene, just not all of them did.

This is not related to dinosaurs, but I'm going to quote myself from another thread.

have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.

Flat Earth Q&A / In support of the flat earth idea
« on: November 08, 2005, 04:11:02 PM »
Quote from: "Superhead"
In this space, lets assume[/u] there are a finite number of worlds .

You know what they say about assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.

You can't prove something thats based on an assumption.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 08, 2005, 03:48:37 PM »
First off, it's never a good idea to start off an argument by saying you can't spell the name of something you have been studying for ten years.

Quote from: "Brylian"

Where do u lie on this?

Why couldn't a flood have wiped them out? do you think that there was some sort of invisible wall around the oceans and they would only have stayed in a specific area? what if they swam over what would become dry land once the water dried up? and how do you know that they are all extinct? we can't go down very far in the ocean yet. who Knows what we'll find.
We find that dinosaurs who's carbon dating (as well as layer dating) is before 200 million BC do not have chewing teeth, and after that time, most herbivores do.

What did they do, gum their food?

We also find that some of the smaller dinosaurs, such as consagnathus, slowly grew their arms outright and over time developed feathers on their arms.

how do you know this? do you have a time machine that allows you to go back and watch?

Doesn't it seem logical that this works in perfect co-ordination with evolution? Where does ur god stand on this?

Not really it doesn't, since all you are doing is guessing as to what those dinosuars where actually like.
We do have fossilised Dinosaur remains and what we see is that there is no grass at all in any of the dinosaur & their waste. Not even slight evidence, considering that grass the absolute primary plant species that exist, doesnt it seem strange that none of these wastes contain any grass in them at all? If ur a large herbivore that digests on minor plants usually ferns and grass is a minor Plant with virtually the same minerals as ferns, then shouldnt it be logical that we find fern AND grass remain in the waste. Isnt it far more logical that because we find no such evidence that grass slowly evolved from ferns into grass?

I don't see what you're trying to prove here, are you saying that since there is no evidence of grass, that somehow proves evolution?
further expanding on the last paragraph, we find that herbivores of the Triassic through to Cretaceous digested certain ferns that no longer exist, and didnt feed on plants that now do exist. Infact virtually ALL the plants that were digested by dinosaurs do not exist anymore, However these plants have been fossilised, and we can tell that, although u wouldnt believe it, 360-65 million years old, Doesnt it seem logical that the plants evolved from these plants cousins. Besides from what we can see from these plants is that they were high in protein and energy (high kilajules) AND they died out almost exactly when dinosaurs did.

Ok, so why couldn't it have been the flood that wiped them out? you said yourself they died out the same time as the dinosaurs. Thats just as much evidence for a great flood than it is for evolution.

I COULD go into other areas, like ice age evolution

 Every bit of evidence for an ice age could just as easily be credited to a flood.

That virus's are evolving all the time in responce to powerful anti-virus's

That same thing would happen with or without cross species evolution, it proves nothing other than that if a single bacteria has a gene that makes it immune to something all the bacteria produced by it will also have that same gene.

And more importantly, the fact that HUMANS have evolved from being 4 foot high everage 5000 years ago to 6 foot high average now.

Show me the evidence for this because I have never seen any.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 07, 2005, 12:44:05 PM »
Quote from: "Nrg"
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species.

For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.


1) Abrupt appearance
2) Diversity at the start, and
3) Stasis.
Certainly the fossil record does not prove evolution. On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct. This is the creation idea.

The fossils further support the Flood. While no evolutionary trends can be seen bridging the basic kinds and producing new ones, we do see a transition from totally marine at the bottom to more terrestrial toward the top. At every level the dominant fossil is marine, but more and more land-dwelling fossils creep in. What more pursuasive testimony to the Biblical model could there be?

John Morris, Ph.D.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Evolution???
« on: November 07, 2005, 09:13:13 AM »
Quote from: "Nrg"
What "glitches" are you talking about, Virgo?

Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theory?
« on: November 02, 2005, 07:02:05 AM »
First off I want say nice post SciTy.

Quote from: "Realist"
I see all science theory as theory.

just by the by, when something in science is talked about as a theory it is something that has been tested in the real word by many objective skeptics and has made accurate predictions, once again in the real world. This is in contrast to the pop-culture version of the word which means an idea (hypothesis), while im not saying you should blindly accept everything labeled by science as a theory, the whole idea behind a theory is that it can stand up to criticism (evidence i mean, not opinions or conspiracy theories), it must be realized that any theory (in the scientific term) has stood up to independent tests of everyday people (using undeniable, logically correct methods and standing all by themselves without results from other tests being needed to support them), these people are just like you or me they can be ANYONE who has studied and gone to university, if you or anyone desired they could start becoming one of these people (with a bit of study) at the drop of a hat (and a wad of cash in some countries) and they could see for themselves the evidence presented for every scientific theory and fact currently around. To be a theory the great majority of these people must agree that all the evidence presented strongly suggests it and it can be destroyed by just one piece of evidence (even from a non-scientific source which is then tested by scientists) that shows otherwise.
People (well me at least) get angry because they know this, while this scientific method is the best way of finding something out, many people will much rather ignore the scientific community and listen to journalists or some boffoons on the internet trying to push their unfounded ideas onto others.[/u]

See here is the problem with theorys. I have just come up with a theory, my theory says that all of you people who post on this board don't exist, you are in fact nothing more than figments of my imagination, and I am actualy just a crazy man tapping on a stump on prehistoric earth.

Now prove me wrong.
You can't can you, because you don't actualy exist.

Now just because my theory can't be proven wrong (to me) does that mean it's true? because that is how science "proves" theorys.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Creationism?
« on: October 30, 2005, 07:48:21 PM »
But I only like it if you came up with it yourself.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Creationism?
« on: October 25, 2005, 05:48:30 PM »
Let me explain why I don't believe in evolution. Evolution says that it's survival of the fittest, the strong survive and the weak go the way of the Dodo, the problem I have with that is, why are there still weak species? why are there still puny plants? I know science can give answers but the problem with those answers is that humans are the only creatures to ever cause another species to go extinct, apparently it's only survival of the fittest to us, if a species is not strong enough, we kill it off.
Second: have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.

look at it this way. If all the atoms in the moon where to all start spinning in the same direction at the same time, the moon would actualy leave it's orbit around the earth. However, the odds of this happing are almost zero, because there are so many millions upon trillions of atoms in the moon it is impossible. it is mathematically possible but it will never happen

Creationism has been proven wrong, as you said evolution does occur (even if only in small amounts) so it has been abandoned by all but the most hardcore christians and now it has been modified to ID. The difference between ID and evolution is that evolution has made and still makes predictions which were able to be disproven but were actually proven right. Creationism made a prediction (that evolution does not occur) but was wrong, ID (saying that evolution does occur but specitation does not occur) has not yet been tested and shown to be right so it is not yet a theory. Furthermore the logic and maths used to hypothesise ID have been proven to either be circular logic or just plain wrong, bringing into question whether it can even be called a hypothesis.

The problem with this, is that while evolution can be observed, we can't observe one species changing into another, and until we can, there is no evidence whatsoever that says they do.

Science starts from nothing and builds up, it is not biased as it makes no prior assumptions about anything, there is absolutely nothing to be biased towards aside from individual peoples biases which defer widely. This means that when a scientific hypothesis is made it is being tested for truth by people who think it is true and it is being tested for falseity by others. If there is a dispute between a reasonably large number of scientists, each commenting about their relevant field of speciality (i.e. no theologans or lawyers disscussing biology like ID's founders) then there is reason to doubt the theory, there is almost no dispute within science over evolution and creationism, if there was a reason to doubt evolution (which by the way is more concrete than our current theory of gravity) or the tiniest bit of evidence against it then it would be presented by science. Scientists don't want to prove religion wrong, in fact early science was very friendly with religion and trust me when i say there are plently of religious scientists, but most scientists value logical conjecture over belief and speculation which is why this is only an issue within religion, education and politics and not science itself.

That would be true except that, while science it's self may be unbiased, scientist aren't (they are only human after all) it's just human nature to see things the way you want them to be. Scientists don't disagree with eachother on ID-evolution because a god is not something that can't be explained by logic, which is what science is based on.

thank you for making my point.... this arguement is flawed because every scientist in whatever field was making a conspiracy would have to be lying (with religion on the other hand most never see any evidence for what they preach) meaning that some of my long time friends would already be a part of the lie.

When I say religion I don't mean the dictionary definition, I mean just the basic idea. I am not saying science is realy some sort of secret cult, what I mean is, science is a religion (or, like one any way) because like I said before, nothing can be proved (hmm, maybe I should stop using that word, as it seems to create confusion, whene I say proved, I don't mean it in the scientific sense, I mean it as showing something to be truth or fact) to say that something has been shown by science to be "proved" means it is truth, and since nothing can be proved, it is simply a matter of belief.

we already disscussed the proof issue and you know that my use of the word proof basically refers to a large amount of solid evidence towards and little solid evidence against an idea. In this way the occurence of evolution and natural selection is proven, it hasn't just failed to be disproven it has made precise predictions or experiments which have been proven true. The creation of new species (a different prediction to it just occuring) from this process however has not been tested outside of the insect world, and even there few experiments have been conducted.

So, basicly by that definition, proof is, like I said, nothing more than belief (logicaly backed belief, but belief none the less) which is the core of every religion.

Have you ever stoped to think, that, just because creatinism may be wrong, that doesn't mean evolution is right?.

P.S I like you signature, by the way.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27