Creationist child abusers close doors

Rana said:
What about plant life submerged in salt water? Fresh water species exposed to salt water or vice versa? How did they survive? Did Noah take two of each kind of plant and water creatures on the arc?
Click to expand...

is there some feeling on your part that they needed to be?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well evolutionary theory is foundational to the science of biology. You really can't understand biology as a science unless you comprehend the theory of biological evolution. Most don't. They confuse biological evolution with the origins of life and human origins. Or you have others with religious convictions who are offended by one of evolutionary theories factual aspects, common descent who try to make artificial distinctions about evolutionary theory that technically don't exist. The macro/micro evolution argument they make is a perfect example. Biologist really don't make such a distinction. According to evolutionary theory all this is required for macroevolution to occur is microevolution and lots of time, so that particular distinction creationist try to attack in really meaningless.

I actually would find creationist arguments pretty damned funny and would disregard them as the utter waste of time that they are if it wasn't for the scientific illiteracy of the American public and the impact that they have on public policy in regards to science education.

Besides from that, of what use is creationism to me as a biologist? It has no practical value. I can make no testable prediction using it, therefore it has no value in terms of practical application. From a reasoning standpoint the reasoning behind creationism is based on the argument from authority logical fallacy. In short, I can do no productive scientific work using creationism.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is profoundly useful. A large number of useful predictions have been made using this theory for a long, long time now and it has stood scrutiny for over 150 years. In fact, virtually all the applied branches of biology are applied evolutionary theory. So at the end of the day PMP can make all the arguments he wants to that there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

However, there are predictions made very frequently based on large scale evolution, above the species level, that are independently reproduced and verified very often. It's this practical usefulness that really makes a hash of the argument that there is no evidence for macro-evolution cause there is and has been or else biologist wouldn't be able to apply the theory in practical application yet that is done on a very regular basis by biologist.

So in that respect I find PMP's argument silly because his opinion has no practical use to me as a biologist where as evolutionary theory, even above the species level, is applied all the time by biologist. Which means from a scientific and pedagogical standpoint creationism and Intelligent Design are an utter waste of time in that no one uses them. They have no application at all, which means from a scientific standpoint, their utterly useless concepts.

Now outside the narrow confines of science that may not be true but within the realm of science, it most certainly is.
Click to expand...

Very well written! Thanks.
 
patriot66 said:
Ok I will play your stupid little game, where does biological evolution say life started, and I better get an answer or i will drive the 20 minutes to Cbus and find you, and laugh hysterically GO BLUE.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's your stupid little game. You are trying to change the subject from the known lies on that test (we know they are lies because the science proves it) to something on which the science is still somewhat hazy. Creationist ridiculously demand that science be completely certain on all possible questions or that it can all be rejected as speculative. Meanwhile, the small group on this board all sharing the same faith can't come to a coherent consensus on the flood. Was it real or just an allegorical fiction? Was it local or worldwide? And back to the points in the OP does it explain all fossils. You all add extra biblical nonsense and ignore reality to soothe your doubts about what is obviously an absurd story.
 
Professor Baxter said:
LOL, that's your stupid little game. You are trying to change the subject from the known lies on that test (we know they are lies because the science proves it) to something on which the science is still somewhat hazy. Creationist ridiculously demand that science be completely certain on all possible questions or that it can all be rejected as speculative. Meanwhile, the small group on this board all sharing the same faith can't come to a coherent consensus on the flood. Was it real or just an allegorical fiction? Was it local or worldwide? And back to the points in the OP does it explain all fossils. You all add extra biblical nonsense and ignore reality to soothe your doubts about what is obviously an absurd story.
Click to expand...

I've brought this up before and will probably do it again.

I've never seen any group that says it doesn't believe in a particular thing, try so hard to try and make others believe as they do; yet those who choose to not believe in God or the Bible, seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing exactly that.

By the way; I would say the same thing if there was a bunch of religious believers on here, trying to convince the non-believers.
 
patriot66 said:
Ok I will play your stupid little game, where does biological evolution say life started, and I better get an answer or i will drive the 20 minutes to Cbus and find you, and laugh hysterically GO BLUE.
Click to expand...
Biological evolution doesn't state where and when life started and that's my point. You don't even know what the theory of biological evolution even is, do you?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
is it any more hilarious than pretending there is proof of it on a large scale without any supporting evidence of a scientific nature?.......
Click to expand...
But there is. Vast amounts of it. The fact that you refuse to accept this is your problem. In the mean time biologist use that information daily. So why should they care about your non-scientific beliefs that have no practical scientific value for them?
 
Professor Baxter said:
How did pond scum (freshwater algae) survive the flood?

Of course, they are related. I thought you were focusing on abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
why would I limit myself when there are so many aspects to your stupidity......as to pond scum, there are many options......I suspect there have even been situations following tsunamis where salt water has flooded inland ponds where "scum" has survived a short influction of salt and come back......or it could have newly evolved since that flooding.....for that matter there's no clear indication the flood was salt water in the first place.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a test given by one man in one school?......can I find something said by one atheist to ridicule all of you?.......
Click to expand...

The test was a standard one devised by AnswersInGenesis. The test is the context of this discussion and the criticism I was making against creationist anti-science nonsense.

I don't care what a single cultist like you believes about the flood. Believe in whatever nonsense you want. The problem is when these idiotic fairy tale beliefs are taught in place of science.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why would I limit myself when there are so many aspects to your stupidity......as to pond scum, there are many options......I suspect there have even been situations following tsunamis where salt water has flooded inland ponds where "scum" has survived a short influction of salt and come back......or it could have newly evolved since that flooding.....for that matter there's no clear indication the flood was salt water in the first place.....
Click to expand...

A short and localized flood would do a lot of damage. A worldwide flood lasting nearly 6 weeks would lead to mass extinction for more than just land animals.

The flood would have mixed fresh and salt water.

Have you already forgotten the calculations on how long it takes life to evolve.

Again, this is all a big messy pile of extra biblical nonsense that you have added. It defeats the purpose of adhering strictly to the word of the Bible. It is much more rational to treat the flood as a parable or allegory from either a theological or scientific perspective.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The test was a standard one devised by AnswersInGenesis. The test is the context of this discussion and the criticism I was making against creationist anti-science nonsense.

I don't care what a single cultist like you believes about the flood. Believe in whatever nonsense you want. The problem is when these idiotic fairy tale beliefs are taught in place of science.
Click to expand...

so are your fairy tales......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top