Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

In this case, I think it would be good to understand, what was the Biblical definition for the word, otherwise it is not possible to understand it correctly. When Bible was written, modern definition didn't exist, therefore modern definition is not necessary correct, if we want to understand what Bible is saying.

This doesn't answer my question as to why we should turn to the Bible for scientific matters when it has nothing to say about them?
Who cares what the Bible says? How about we examine the scientific evidence instead?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, Ad hominem's don't work. Only way to win is to give a good reasonable explanation and proof for your claims, if you want to win.

There's no ad hom.

The dude is a fraud and a liar and demonstrably so - he served prison time for it. He claims to have taught science when he's not actually a science teacher and is not educated in the field. Everything he "teaches" about evolution is wrong and he knows it, because it's been pointed out to him endless times in endless debates with scientists who actually know what they're talking about. He's still giving the exact same speeches on evolution he was giving thirty years ago. He refuses to learn. He refuses to be honest. He refuses to admit his mistakes, and therefore cannot be trusted as a science expert of any kind.

You choose to go with that guy, instead of going with the demonstrable evidence produced by scientists across multiple fields of science that all point to the exact same conclusion - that evolution is a fact of life.

You'd rather throw down with a charlatan? You might want to re-think that one.

I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm trying to have conversations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wouldn't call it evolution that offspring is not identical. Differences in the outlook of offspring doesn't mean new species to me, as we don't call for example "white" and "black" people different species, even though there is a difference in color.

Well, what you described is evolution, just a super-ramped up version of it. You don't accept evolution, but at the same time, you think it happened really, really fast. In other words, your position is nonsensical.


Perhaps you should go and learn about what you're talking about, before you talk about it. Cool concept, eh? What you've written here doesn't make any sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. If the problem is in the assumption what were the original conditions, it may be that the method itself is correct, just the assumption of what was the original state is not correct. It doesn't revoke the whole principle, even though it also could be wrong in some way.

Then show how it's inaccurate.

Also that is not true.

Then demonstrate that instead of just saying it.

Genetics can be in many ways correct, even if evolution theory is not true.

But, this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

And there it is, the inevitable attempt to denigrate science as some sort of religion. Made by a religious person who puts all their faith in unverifiable Bible claims, no less.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. If the problem is in the assumption what were the original conditions, it may be that the method itself is correct, just the assumption of what was the original state is not correct. It doesn't revoke the whole principle, even though it also could be wrong in some way.

Also that is not true.

Genetics can be in many ways correct, even if evolution theory is not true.

But, this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

Please respond to the points in post #2 of this thread that trashed your argument beyond repair.

 

[1213]

If you think that the only difference between the American black bear, the Asiatic black bear, the brown bear, the giant panda, the polar bear, the sloth bear, the spectacled bear and the sun bear is merely the color of the fur and the size.... what can I say....

What do you think is the biggest difference between them?

 

[1213]

High School level Physics supports my statements. ...

If you think mountains rise, as the current plate convection theory suggests, I think you are very much in contradiction with basic physics. It is the same as claiming, if you and a small kid stands next to you on trampoline, you would rise and the lighter kid would sunk deeper on the trampoline.

 

[1213]

...You choose to go with that guy...

I don't choose to go with any person. I choose to go with best arguments.

 

[1213]

Then show how it's inaccurate.

I thought it is the one who makes the claims who should show that they are correct. The idea of radiometric dating is based on assumption that the original state of a sample is such that it gives very long times. But, there is no way to know what was the original state of for example some rock, when it was formed thousands of years ago.

 

[1213]

Please respond to the points in post #2 of this thread that trashed your argument beyond repair.

I didn't find anything like that from post #2, did you mean something else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think is the biggest difference between them?

Diet, dental and intestinal difference to accomodate for difference in diet (panda for example for 95% of their food intake rely on bamboo where's a grizzly or polar bear is full carnivore - panda's are almost exclusively herbivore).

Polar bears hibernate, panda's just migrate

They are so far apart that they can't produce off spring either. Not even infertile off spring. For comparison: lions and tigers are still able to produce hybrid offspring known as "ligers" (eventhough those would be infertile as well).

A few millenia is not nearly enough to account for these differences. Not even close.
As already said, you would require a form of super-duper-evolution on steroids to accoplish such a thing, with speciation happening every other day at least.

It's beyond ridiculous to even suggest such ludicrousness.


I strongly advice you to read up on the subjects you are religiously hellbend to dispute before you continue disputing them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you think mountains rise, as the current plate convection theory suggests, I think you are very much in contradiction with basic physics. It is the same as claiming, if you and a small kid stands next to you on trampoline, you would rise and the lighter kid would sunk deeper on the trampoline.

I'm overwhelmed with a feeling of vicarious shame.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think mountains rise, as the current plate convection theory suggests, I think you are very much in contradiction with basic physics. It is the same as claiming, if you and a small kid stands next to you on trampoline, you would rise and the lighter kid would sunk deeper on the trampoline.

Okay, you don't understand basic physics either. Well actually you don't understand analogies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't choose to go with any person. I choose to go with best arguments.

No, you don't. You go with the myths that you learned as a child.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't find anything like that from post #2, did you mean something else?

Sorry wrong thread. Post #2 in evidence for NOAH'S FLOOD

Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you think mountains rise, as the current plate convection theory suggests, I think you are very much in contradiction with basic physics.

Then you think wrongly. Some of those mountains are still getting higher following the plate collision that threw them up.

I choose to go with best arguments.

Your version of what is the best argument is whatever position supports Christian creationism. The critical thinkers here use a different standard for judging such arguments, one that uses only valid reasoning applied to evidence, and since the science largely contradicts the dogma, it's to be expected that the conclusions will be different.

As I've mentioned, and it doesn't seem to have had any impact on your posting, you're making a mistake offering yourself as a competent judge of evidence and argument. You've shown that you've never developed the necessary skills or fund of knowledge to do that properly. Do you disagree? Do you think that you should be considered a competent judge of what physics supports? You seem to. If so, whatever makes you believe that you know physics or geology/orogeny? You show no familiarity with any of it. And it makes you look bad. One poster has already expressed vicarious embarrassment for you. I feel the same way, and I'd like to help if you'll consider an idea:

How about presenting something more like this: "This is what I believe. I believe it with all my heart. I can't not believe it, nor would I want to. God is an irresistible intuition to me. I can't justify my belief, nor need I. It doesn't matter to me that you think science contradicts my beliefs, or that I can't demonstrate their correctness to you."

What do you suppose the response to that would be from those who repeatedly correct you now when you offer scientific opinion? Let me give you my answer: "Yes, of course, but that's not how I feel or think, and not what I believe." I wouldn't disrespect that. I don't respect faith as a path to truth, but your insight, courage, and honesty would elevate you in the eyes of these critical thinkers as much as is possible for a creationist.

The problem occurs whenever you leave the faith lane and begin speaking like an evidence-based thinker, as if you know science and as if you can reason without fallacy. Every time you do that, you get the equivalent of a driving citation for an illegal lane change. Wouldn't it be better for you if that stopped? If so, I just showed you how to stop it.

This is friendly advice carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. Let's see if you can find any value there, or at a minimum, offer an answer that addresses it - why you do or don't like the idea.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought it is the one who makes the claims who should show that they are correct. The idea of radiometric dating is based on assumption that the original state of a sample is such that it gives very long times. But, there is no way to know what was the original state of for example some rock, when it was formed thousands of years ago.

Your knowledge of science is amazingly abysmal.

Actually, radiometric dating is based on the rate of decay, and the original state of radioactive minerals is known. The rate of decay can be compared to recent documented events in history.

Radiometric dating is not the only basis for determining age. It is tested and compared to other ways of dating such as continuous sedimentary with no evidence of world flood, and continual annual cyclic lamella lake deposits over thousands of years. Radiometric dating can be compared to the incremental annual growth of corals hundreds of thousands of years, and tree rings of ancient trees. There are numerous other ways radiometric dating can be compared and verified.

It remains a problem that you have failed to provide an adequate explanation of limestone formations and associated oral reef deposits hundreds of feet thick,

 

[shunyadragon]

Bible doesn't tell anything that indicates drifting of continents, which also is not probable, if we understand basic physics.

Basi physics is the basis of understanding continental drift. Please explain the basic physics to use that supports your argument based on textbook physis. Basic physics also determines radiometric dating, sedimentary deposits billions of years old without a world flood, and the nature of our Earth, sun-centered Solar System and galaxies not mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible does not say anything about glaciers, ice ages, and dinosaurs.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think mountains rise, as the current plate convection theory suggests, I think you are very much in contradiction with basic physics. It is the same as claiming, if you and a small kid stands next to you on trampoline, you would rise and the lighter kid would sunk deeper on the trampoline.

This is the most outrageous explanation possible.

Again, please provide the basic physics of the energy needed in a time frame for the existence of the mountains, volcanics, of the known features of the earth with absolutely no evidence of a world flood based on the actual visual evidence of the thousands of feet of sedimentary formations.

You still have not provided an adequate explanation of the limestone and oral formations that deposition in a world flood is impossible based on basic physics

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't choose to go with any person. I choose to go with best arguments.

Nothing provided represents an argument with evidence, just assertions based on ancient tribal scripture and mythology.

Where is the evidence?