-
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!
For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?
- Thread starter MSizer
- Start date
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But you miss out on all the debating fun!
On this forum? There are endless debates! Heck, I even debated on this thread for awhile, but lost interest since I didn't really have a dog in the hunt!
themadhair
Well-Known Member
So having good science isn’t of interest to you? Have a look around your environment sometime and note just how much your nation is reliant on technology. Good science, which helps continue the technological way of life we all currently enjoy, should be important. Guess not.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sigh - you sure do love to fight.
I appreciate science, but no, it's not of great interest to me generally. What I mean by that is that, beyond my yearly subscriptions to National Geographic and The Smithsonian, I don't do much reading on the topic. I didn't care much for science classes in school either.
Different bites for different likes, madhair. I prefer reading on the topics of history, sociology, theology, philosophy, and the arts.
That doesn't mean I don't APPRECIATE science or scientists. I am ETERNALLY grateful that they are doing their work - and that I don't have to.
I'd rather go create something artsy. And guess what - I think that's legitimate.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
It appears you are somewhat apathetic at the moment Kathryn. Why is that you never seem to have those bouts of apathy before you post anti-science crap (like you did with vestigials)?
If you were being genuine when you claim to be “eternally grateful” for the work of scientists then surely you wouldn’t do such things before suddenly developing a bout of apathy.
If you were being genuine when you claim to be “eternally grateful” for the work of scientists then surely you wouldn’t do such things before suddenly developing a bout of apathy.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What on earth are you talking about? One doesn't have to have a degree in a scientific field to have heard about vestigial organs - but I freely admit that I'm no expert on the topic. I did a bit of googling and found a couple of sources that seemed to make sense to my unscientific mind and I thought they were interesting enough to post on the thread. One of them, as I recall, was a well respected and widely used neutral DICTIONARY and seemed like an objective source.
Surely you're not suggesting that if we're not experts on a topic, we shouldn't post on the threads related to a topic. If that's the case, the site would become suddenly silent.
Unlike some people here, I'm not here simply to further an agenda. I am here to learn as well as to teach - in other words, I'm here to further mutual understanding of different positions.
I have no problem, therefore, admitting if I make a mistake, or if I'm apathetic, or if I'm just finally bored with a topic and moving on to something else more interesting.
And just for the record, I DO genuinely appreciate the work of scientists. That doesn't mean I am not simultaneously rather uninterested in some of the details.
Wonder if a scientist would care that much about which particular sort of hair makes the best paintbrushes for different types of paint, or how I use graph paper to scale a 10 x 18 foot mural from a 4 x 6 inch photo? They may appreciate the outcome but probably wouldn't care to immerse themselves in the little details of painting the set for a play, or painting a bulldog on the side of a fieldhouse.
Surely you're not suggesting that if we're not experts on a topic, we shouldn't post on the threads related to a topic. If that's the case, the site would become suddenly silent.
Unlike some people here, I'm not here simply to further an agenda. I am here to learn as well as to teach - in other words, I'm here to further mutual understanding of different positions.
I have no problem, therefore, admitting if I make a mistake, or if I'm apathetic, or if I'm just finally bored with a topic and moving on to something else more interesting.
And just for the record, I DO genuinely appreciate the work of scientists. That doesn't mean I am not simultaneously rather uninterested in some of the details.
Wonder if a scientist would care that much about which particular sort of hair makes the best paintbrushes for different types of paint, or how I use graph paper to scale a 10 x 18 foot mural from a 4 x 6 inch photo? They may appreciate the outcome but probably wouldn't care to immerse themselves in the little details of painting the set for a play, or painting a bulldog on the side of a fieldhouse.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
You copy&pasted a piece of crap regarding vestigials. You also completely misrepresented the definition given by Answers by deliberately restricting your version of it to humans in an attempt to back up the crap you posted. Said crap was explained to you and suddenly you became apathetic and played the “I really respect scientists so please ignore the dishonest crap I just posted” card.
Let me be frank here Kathryn. You posted total **** regarding vestigials and then used that crap as a basis for arguing against revisionism of history in science. The irony is that it was your source that was doing the revisionism. This was pointed out to you by myself and others. Do you admit a mistake? Of course not, you got your ignorant little dig in and now hide behind the façade of apathy. Now you are like “Wot, me? I’m not here to forward an agenda! I just happen to experience apathy why my crap gets called.”
Instead of claiming to respect the work of scientists, how about displaying respect by acknowledging that you have talked **** about their work from earlier in this thread? Just a thought.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What- we can't copy and paste conflicting views in here anymore? And I don't recall misrepresenting anything I posted.
Furthermore, I disagree (and backed up that disagreement with other sources) with the assertion that the DEFINITION of vestigial organs has not changed over the years. Being the "word" person that I am, I did a bit of research on the evolving (and changing) definition of the term and then posted it.
Words change meanings over time and I understand that. I just thought it interesting that the meaning of that particular term changed along with scientific advancements. Still do, as a matter of fact.
I am not going to rehash those arguments from days (may be weeks) ago, no matter how much you may want to. I've clearly stated that I am not of a scientific bent, and I left this conversation many days ago, not because anyone disagreed with me, but because frankly, the minutia of the scientific topic began to bore me.
Besides that, I am not a Creationist or an atheist, as I stated earlier, so I don't really have a dog in this hunt. The posts I put up were from other sources and maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right, maybe they were sort of wrong and sort of right simultaneously - I really don't know and don't have enough interest in the topic to do more research into it. Since others WERE more interested in the minutia of the topic, I left the thread alone to let them hash it out.
And here I am again, arguing some point I don't even care that much about! With an inflammatory poster who for some odd reason is spring loaded for me.
But don't worry, madhair - I won't put you on my ignore list. You're not bothering me nearly enough for that.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Don’t worry Kathryn. You got in your ignorant dig accusing folks of revising the history of science. Time to play apathy rather than show some actual respect to the scientists that you claim to have.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Only those that endorse crap similar to your vestigial nonsense no doubt.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
bingo
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
so Kathryn, none of the scientists associated with Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research then... as they are very up front about their bias. Anything they think goes "against the bible" is false, no matter what the evidence says.
AIG
ICR
wa:do
AIG
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis
ICR
Foundational Principles
wa:do
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
No, it (the data) just is misunderstood.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
It is
Besides your reveled revelations, what evidence do you have of this. Or are you just speculating?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
hardly... it's dismissed out of hand. (and on "principle")
wa:do
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What data is misunderstood by whom?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
The age of the universe based on the speed of light. There are 3 theories presented that attempt to explain a 6K yrs old universe by properly interpreting the data.
AIG has an article refuting an old universe. Or at least the author thinks it does.