Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No, we are kindly elevating your religion, pathetic as it is, everybody needs something to Believe In.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution has been observed... right?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Isn't it ironic that they generally represent various forms of belief that take a very dim view of false witness, yet practice it with a tenacity. I would say skill, but I see no real skill employed.
I have to console myself that you and so many others educated in science will provide information or a perspective that never occurred to me. That is the real value of these discussions. Sometimes one of the anti-science people will copy something they found on the internet. Something worth looking into. Beyond that, they might as well be pigeons for all that they contribute to these discussions.
I wish I had thought of it.
Wow! You just don't have anything to offer in this discussion do you.
gnostic
The Lost One
Nope, I have had better and more honest discussions with pigeons than with creationists.
At least pigeons get the message and find their way home with it.Nope, I have had better and more honest discussions with pigeons than with creationists.
I started out agreeing w/ much of your post until this:
Where was this accurately predicted? When was this discovered?
You are overlooking the many radiations of life that have occurred; they fit no model
Where was this accurately predicted? When was this discovered?
You are overlooking the many radiations of life that have occurred; they fit no model
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Ah, so that explains the plagiarism and claims to have read books that you clearly did not, etc. you engage in to prop up your superior religion. Sounds about right.
Shall I just conclude that you lied when you pretended to have read "Missing Links: In Search of Human Origins" and that you did not just glean the quote (that you've not yet provided) from a creationist propaganda site?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Not even the YEC model?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
One guy who used to debate creationists alongside me would put it as "They don't seem to understand the difference between 'truth' and 'lie'".
Thanks, and right back at ya!
Me too.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I didn't get it from a site. Do you have anything to say about the actual disagreement among the scientists or are you just nitpicking?
Pot and kettle.
Of course, I don't see you saying anything about having read the book.
We Never Know
No Slack
Pot and kettle? Is that kind of like you believing in a god and that the same god created things but yet for sake of saving face you bash others that hold and fight for the same belief that you are affraid to defend?
There is a strange dichotomy here that seems to surround the idea that lying for their belief is OK even though it is prohibited to lie.One guy who used to debate creationists alongside me would put it as "They don't seem to understand the difference between 'truth' and 'lie'".
Thanks, and right back at ya!
Me too.
The discovery of Tiktaalik was made from predictions based on the theory.
What radiations do not fit the model?
Tiktaalik was an
To be accurate, Predictions are about future events...this was inference.
Tiktaalik is not observed in every strata between fish and amphibians.
Tiktaalik was an inference.
To be accurate, Predictions are about future events...this was inference.
Tiktaalik is not observed in every strata between fish and amphibians.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually, in science, predictions are about making the best estimate using PROBABILITIES based on STATISTICAL DATA.
We not talking about predictions as telling the future made from woo such as fortune telling, horoscopes/astrology, tarot card, soothsaying, divination, prophecy, vision, numerology, and so on.
The predictions as used in science, can be about FUTURE, but it can be about the PAST too. Predictions are about using probabilities, not some magical or supernatural powers. Probabilities are about determining the likeliness or unlikeliness of something happening, so of course some predictions work well, hence such predictions can achieve levels of precision or accuracy, but of course, sometimes the predictions don’t work out, and that’s when you would know the models (eg hypotheses or theories) have either need modifications or they have been debunked.
Such predictions in the past, are often involved using some mathematical equations in physics working with probabilities (of the statistical data). And the only ways to verify the predictions, are through finding testable observations/evidence.
And probability-based predictions have been used in all sorts of disciplines and fields, such astrophysics, physical cosmology, geophysics (eg stratigraphy, plate tectonics), archaeology, paleontology, various dating techniques, etc.
Of course, when predictions are used, they are not perfect, predictions in hypotheses and theories can be wrong.
Anyway, predictions are just about predicting future events. And accurate predictions come from finding evidence and hard work, and through gaining experiences.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well like my old friend noted, it seems like they have a different idea of what a "lie" is, to where if something is offered in defense of their faith, it can't be a lie.
It's like one time when a creationist insisted that no new species has ever evolved. After I got her to agree to a workable criterion for when a population became a new species, I showed her a well-studied and documented example that met the criterion. She responded with something like "I'm done talking with you", and then just went to other threads and repeated her argument that no new species has ever evolved.
The forum was collectively stunned. Several people confronted her and said she was lying. Her response was along the lines of "it's not a lie, because God's word says God creates species, not evolution".
IOW, it can't be a "lie" if it's in support of the Bible.
That is my take on that tactic. It is like beating a dead horse after a while.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh, I see. You're just a troll.
No point wasting any more time on a troll who doesn't care to learn.