Customer Discussions > Science forum

Creationism..................... can't science offer a credible alternative?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 326-350 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 9:59:46 AM PDT
Oh don't worry Chris. We gave up on you a while back, this is just amusement now.

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 11:26:28 AM PDT
John:
"the poor design of the human body is in humankind's fall from God's good graces"

This is one of the most crackpot things I've ever read! I sure hope you're not affiliated with OU there in Athens!

Posted on May 23, 2012 4:40:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 4:42:01 AM PDT
Folks welcome back to........
The Silliest Atheist Contest

Folks the Atheists they was trying to debate Creationists.
On the Origin of Life.
Not much debate-wise, but great comedy-wise.


Folks, on this origin of life. The only credible explanation is this one: supernatural.
Creationism

See Peer reviwed Science its got no experimental results.
And nowadays Peer Reviewed Science admits its hopeless in theory.

Anyhow, the Creationists they said this:
"There isnt a credible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life"

And now get ready folks. Contestant 2 he said this:
"No, but there is a scientific one"
Quote unquote. I kid you not folks.
Folks does it get sillier than that? Science its got an explanation. Oh Yessirre! Its just not credible.

Not credible? Our Atheist Contestant 2, he says no problemo.
What a howl huh folks.
And it gets better folks. All the Atheists thought this guy made sense!!!!

Let's have a hand for Contestant No 2.

But what's this folks?
Our Contestant 2 he said he's NOT an Atheist. But then he says "Ahem, there is no evidence of supernatural forces" No supernatural forces but he's not an Atheist?

Folks we're here to make you laugh.
So lets have another hand for Contestant No 2

Folks, let's take a break
We'll be back with more of The Silliest Atheist Contest.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 5:33:30 AM PDT
John McClain says:
Hi Christopher!

Just to remind you, you still haven't answered that question. Here it is again incase you've forgotten what it was:

So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 6:15:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
That's an interesting notion to discuss in the Religion forum. This one's about science, though.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 6:16:32 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 23, 2012 6:21:10 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 7:16:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 7:20:50 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Christopher Haynes says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]
Folks welcome back to........
The Silliest Atheist Contest..."

**Next up, "The Ugliest Believer Contest"...

"Anti-Gay Pastor: Parents Must `Squash Like A Cockroach' The Gay Out Of Kids

...Pastor Sean Harris told parents they are "authorized," and that he was "giving them a special dispensation" to attack their children. "Give them a good punch," and "crack that wrist," Harris told parents, if their four-year old boy, for example, "starts acting a little `girlish'." Pastor Harris added that parents should tell their four-year olds to "man up, son, get that dress off you get outside and dig a ditch..."

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-pastor-parents-must-squash-like-a-cockroach-the-gay-out-of-kids/politics/2012/05/01/38837

**Followed by the exciting new Game Show... "Ignorance is Right!"

"How to reduce HIV in Zimbabwe? Make women uglier.
Zimbabwean senator suggests that women shave their heads, dress badly and stop taking baths to reduce their attractiveness."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/chatter/how-reduce-hiv-zimbabwe-make-women-uglier

"On women circumcision, he said: "Women have got more moisture in their organs as compared to men so there is need to research on how to deal with that moisture because it is conducive for bacteria breeding. There should be a way to suck out that moisture...."

http://nehandaradio.com/2012/05/12/women-should-shave-their-heads-to-stop-hiv-senator/

****
This is why I believe CH is a Poe. He's too perfect a foil to point out the idiocy of creationism to be otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:29:14 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Bubba says: A big problem with his scenario for the homophobes in this scenario, is that the str8s would continue to produce babies, and some 10% of them would be gay or bi-sexual; the gay population would eventually recover.
>heterosexuals: the largest producers of homosexuals.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:48:22 AM PDT
barbW says:
"The farther out in time you go, the more things get perturbed by the passage of comets, interaction with asteroids, and so on. It would be essentially impossible to run things back that far and have accuracy down to a day."

You seem to believe this could work if we could be more accurate. I assume the Mr. Hill believed it too. Large computers and good data on how objects out there were perturbed? I just don't get the logic, since we have no relevant data at all. Or do we?

When longitude was calculated by sailors using the moons of Jupiter they obviously had volumes of good data to reference. If our planet had slowed in the past I can't think of way in which we could determine the amount -- since we have no earlier data. It is an interesting question.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:50:48 AM PDT
barbW says:
yes, but we could do it today, because everything is self-consistent (we hope).

The background of stars would be my guess.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:53:47 AM PDT
barbW says:
interesting, the fruit they ate designed them?

Ancient people probably thought that eating meat was healthier than we think today.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:55:26 AM PDT
barbW says:
"but the name is best known as the male lead of "The Music Man," where "Professor Harold Hill" is the eponymous huckster engaged in a scam of selling music uniforms and instruments to the citizens of "River City," Iowa."

Wow, if I know you, you're probably right, Charles, but it sounds a little cynical. lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:57:59 AM PDT
barbW says:
"Yes, by all means, discuss it. Simply calling it "lame" is not a legitimate counterargument. What specifically do you disagree with in Snopes article? What evidence do have that the original story is accurate?"

I called it lame because it's a powerful word. If I'm lucky, posters respond to such words.

The Snopes article isn't very scientific and doesn't answer the question. Please help me if you think it does.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:59:22 AM PDT
barbW says:
"See, biblical literalists too often need to create a bible that doesn't exist to explain the one that does."

can I steal this?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 9:03:28 AM PDT
barbW says:
thanks, Irish, I wondered if it would be funny or just 'lame'.

I was relying to John Smith's post, which reminded me of this old canard.

canard
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from French, literally `duck,' also `hoax,' from Old French caner `to quack.'

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 9:26:56 AM PDT
barbW says:
This man is actually concerned about people concluding that Christianity is silly.

"They're aggravating because non-Christians can use urban legends such as this to "prove" how silly Christians are, or how silly Christianity is."

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 9:37:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 9:58:55 AM PDT
barbW says:
http://0-imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov.iii-server.ualr.edu/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html

this doesn't address the question of how we would detect a change in the rotation that happened in the past. Microfossil beds which give us diurnal periods and tidal data from long ago can be used to estimate (extrapolate backward to) the 9 hr day resulting from the Theia interaction. What else do we have?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:57:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 11:02:00 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Gays and lesbians reproduce by sexual reproduction, today it is usually done using artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilisation.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:59:23 AM PDT
I thought they budded.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 11:02:48 AM PDT
Bubba says:
LOL

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 11:13:49 AM PDT
Bubba said:

"Gays and lesbians reproduce by sexual reproduction, today it is usually done using artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilisation."

Oh no you don't. Gays and lesbians can't reproduce, so they seduce the hapless children of fine heterosexual people into The Gay Agenda (TM), at apparently a relatively consistent rate throughout history. You're not fooling anyone here, I hope you know!

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 11:29:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 11:29:59 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Oh, damn, I guess we're screwed then :) Back to budding.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:09:24 PM PDT
werranth413,

you didn't even have to ask!

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:01:52 PM PDT
barbW says:
thanks Charles, it really effectively describes a modern problem, as you know..
Your reply to barbW's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 12:57:36 AM PDT
john lachman says:
Brian - Fair enough, but the problem is that the original question in this discussion re Creationism is about religion and not in the slightest about science.

Science, as I see it, is about evidence in the material world ie the world of our senses, while Creationism, is religion, and resides in the world of our imaginations.

Creationism, held forth as science, is a complete fraud and does a disservice to both science and religion because it creates a false conflict in order to gain attention.

Imagination/idea is wonderful. Science, of course, only came after we imagined it, a tool created in order to test other imaginings, to find material fact from fantasy.

Religion, on the other hand, is about how we might live our lives in relation to each other and the other creatures we share the planet with. As I see it neither science or religion need to know why or how it all came to be, since what is of most importance is what works for survival.

Science has been quite successful in that regard while religion has been a rather dismal failure. Although, it is, apparently, a rather more difficult job to exorcise the genetically evolved demons of, say, greed or vengence, than it is to figure out the periodic table or atomic structures.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  168
Total posts:  3980
Initial post:  Apr 18, 2012
Latest post:  4 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions