Industrial-Sized Deals Shop all Back to School Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Beach House $5 Off Fire TV Stick Off to College Essentials Shop Popular Services pivdl pivdl pivdl  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Nintendo Digital Games Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation STEM Toys & Games
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Scientist fired over Intelligent Design?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:36:31 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:33:50 PM PDT
John McClain says:
"You are making stuff up because you are now desperate."

On page 45, you say:
"I only entered into the plate discussion because he was talking about past movement rates and the responses yacked about today's movement rates.......they may be the same, the may be different....I have no idea"

You're not making the connection here, are you?

Posted on Apr 11, 2012 12:28:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2012 12:28:49 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:25:03 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:19:49 PM PDT
John McClain says:
"I gave you the information.

You just need to read it now John and stop messin around with me."

That's fantastic, but what you have to answer for are the cases where plates spent tens or hundreds of millions of years NOT slowing down, as can be verified by separate dating methods. After all, the whole reason we are off on this tangent is because the results of current dating methods conflict with the good doctor's religious nonsense and you felt compelled to defend him. Do you or do you not accept the dates given by our current dating methods concerning the age of the planet?

Posted on Apr 11, 2012 12:16:24 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:15:52 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:12:05 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:09:08 PM PDT
John McClain says:
"I don't know anything about it so I can't explain it."

If you don't know anything about it, you can't tell others they don't know.

"I just know others have done research that indicates that the speeds may have varied in the past."

Cite them. And are you talking about one plate's speed varying in the past or different plates? Different plates can move at different speeds...

The problem is that you don't seem to understand the simple fact that in the context of tens or hundreds of millions of years, a plate can be shown to move at the same speed. We know this because it can be verified when dating using separate techniques.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:08:59 PM PDT
Yes evolution is scientifically testable.

Here is a scientifically testable prediction evolutionary theory makes:

Genomic analysis will show that any two currently existing life forms have a common ancestor, and there exists a mutational pathway to each from the common ancestor.

Cite one counter-example and evolutionary theory will have to be revamped.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:06:53 PM PDT
That wasn't the website I found but I'll check it out too.

I like to see all sides....

Posted on Apr 11, 2012 12:06:10 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 12:03:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2012 12:04:42 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Jason said:
"I didn't save it Deckard.
I'll see if I can find it in my history though."

Don't bother. Here it is: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

And his reasons were not based on the bible, but on geology. He just tried to make it fit into a biblical interpretation.

"BTW, it was obviously a biased site....."

Biased is one word that you could use. Idi0tic is another.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:57:02 AM PDT
I didn't save it Deckard.

I'll see if I can find it in my history though.

BTW, it was obviously a biased site.....

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:56:18 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:55:41 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Jason said:
"They claimed that the first person to propose tectonic plates shifting was a Christian. His research? The Bible. They actually had a valid point. He was the first to propose this theory yet he gets no credit at all....."

Link?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:55:32 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:51:13 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"He may be correct or incorrect in his belief. It is the same argument at AGW.........it is not "settled"........screaming it is just makes one look foolish and it doesn't make it "settled" at all."

The dating correlations settle it. That's why you don't address them. Are you going to?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:44:54 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:40:23 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Yes, evolution is scientifically testable, and has been reproduced in the lab.

Seriously, do some Googling. You'll find plenty of information on this.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:12:48 AM PDT
Deckard says:
M. Russell said:
"And evolution is scientifically testable? Scientists have recreated evolution in a lab setting? If you're going to refute ID at least refute it on proper principles."

So if we can't do it in a lab, then it's not science? Astronomy isn't a science? Geology's not a science? Meterology's not a science?

Creos/IDers shouldn't be lecturing others on the proper principles of science.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:11:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2012 11:13:19 AM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<And evolution is scientifically testable? Scientists have recreated evolution in a lab setting?>>

yes, and yes. examples and links all throughout this thread (and every other thread here on this topic).

<<If you're going to refute ID at least refute it on proper principles.>>

done, and done. again, all throughout this thread, and every other thread here on this topic. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:06:43 AM PDT
"And evolution is scientifically testable? Scientists have recreated evolution in a lab setting?"

Ever heard of the academic discipline "population genetics"?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:03:41 AM PDT
M. Russell says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 11:02:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2012 11:02:40 AM PDT
"This research is a mere 40 years old........that is significant in research this new and complicated."

Medical ways of curing cancer are of similar age. I'm sure in the future people will think that our current methods of chemotherapy and radiation are barbaric and relatively ineffective.

Still, I've never heard anyone (let alone a creationist) say "well, the science is new, it changes all the time, you can't rely on it, I'll wait a couple of decades before I decide on how to treat my cancerous growths".
[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:  72
Total posts:  1337
Initial post:  Mar 11, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 26, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions