Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[B. Rabbit]

I can already smell it. Go ahead and change the subject and say that I am bashing religion. That's fine but as long as you avoid it I am going to claim that I have disproven your god and therefore creationism goes out the window. Much, no... exactly like you are doing by claiming to have disproven evolution. BTW, you sure you don't want me to call somebody and have them check out this thread? Nobel Committee, Hawking, Discover, the Pope? It will be very valuable one day to see the day gore3000 destroyed the theory of evolution.

BTW2: How old is the earth? You're ashamed to say? You lie and say you won't answer because it is irrelevant? Oh. ok. I understand if you are embarrassed. I would be too.

BTW3: You should never have called me a racist.

[PatrickHenry]

Another reminder: notwithstanding constant dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled), we are all waiting for g3k to answer a simple question: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: 2sting
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stinging; specifically : the thrust of a stinger into the flesh b : a wound or pain caused by or as if by stinging
2 : STINGER 2
3 : a sharp or stinging element, force, or quality
4 : an elaborate confidence game; specifically : such a game worked by undercover police in order to trap criminals

[Aracelis]

At least one of the techniques for geological dating which we read so much about, i.e. varves, has turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking

Would you please post a link to this information?

[Tribune7]

Well now ... It's certainly true that our scientific advances have been accomplished in a society that is essentially Christian. Yet our method of thinking about such matters is inherently Greek. It was ol' Aristotle --

No, (Francis) Bacon's scientific method of inductive reasoning was the rejection of Aristotle's method of deductive reasoning. Science was the product of Christian Europe, not ancient Greece.

If it wasn't why didn't the Greeks split the atom? It took us about 350 years to accomplish this feat since Novum Organum. Independent Greece lasted about that long after Aristotle's death and, of course, Aristotle's methods were adopted by the Romans and even Europe up until Bacon.

If the nuclear science was too dificult how about steamships or a smallpox vaccine?

Aristotle was certainly not stupid but you can make a case that his four elements (or the adoption by conventional wisdom that there were just four elements) may have actually held back scientific advancement. This is what I fear the extreme emotional instance on following a basically Darwinian model may do with science today.

On a related matter, did you ever consider how much better the descriptions of nature that are in the Bible hold up so much better than those of Aristotle or any other ancient work?

[titanmike]

Would you please post a link to this information?

Sure. Here's one such link.

If you don't like that one, do a google search on 'varves' and 'mount st. helens' and pick one. There's lots to choose from.

[RadioAstronomer]

He is either not a physicist or he is totally dishonest. Such a person does not deserve any apology.

Wrong again (as usual)

Are you going to apologize for your erroneous remark you made to me on post #1276?

Did you even read post #1303?

[RadioAstronomer]

If you don't like that one, do a google search on 'varves' and 'mount st. helens' and pick one. There's lots to choose from.

Lets see one from a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal instead of a creationist website.

[PatrickHenry]

No, (Francis) Bacon's scientific method of inductive reasoning was the rejection of Aristotle's method of deductive reasoning. Science was the product of Christian Europe, not ancient Greece.

Even so, would you regard geometry and Aristotilian logic as being dependendent on the Zeus axiom? Your answer must be "Yes," for it is only by that same reasoning that our modern science can be said to be dependent on the God axiom.

[Aracelis]

If you don't like that one, do a google search on 'varves' and 'mount st. helens' and pick one. There's lots to choose from.

You made an unsupported claim, I simply asked for your references. I suspected that the bulk of your opinion was based upon Creationist propaganda, and now you have confirmed my suspicion. Thank you.

[titanmike]

"Peer-reviewed" journals are a closed system and web sites an open system. On top of that, the subject is simple enough for anybody to understand. A major methodology by which scientists have purported to claim vast ages for geological formations has been unmistakably shown to be bunk. There's nothing anybody could say in a "peer reviewed" journal which would change that.

[Aracelis]

Lets see one from a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal instead of a creationist website.

I quit expecting real science from these individuals a long time ago. Arguing with these closed minds is futile.

[titanmike]

You made an unsupported claim, I simply asked for your references. I suspected that the bulk of your opinion was based upon Creationist propaganda, and now you have confirmed my suspicion. Thank you.

I told you how to do a search for more info on the topic. I don't have any cure for laziness. Sorry.

[PatrickHenry]

On a related matter, did you ever consider how much better the descriptions of nature that are in the Bible hold up so much better than those of Aristotle or any other ancient work?

I've never thought about it. Can you give some examples?

[Aracelis]

unmistakably shown to be bunk

We really should define terms. You and your references are expressing an opinion.

[titanmike]

In fact, sloth was one of the seven original deadly sins if I remember correctly.

[Aracelis]

sloth was one of the seven original deadly sins

Lame and unimaginative at the very least. But keep 'em coming, it's a boring sunday afternoon and I need some laughs.

[PatrickHenry]

Lest we forget: notwithstanding constant dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled), we are all waiting for g3k to answer a simple question: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.

[PatrickHenry]

"Peer-reviewed" journals are a closed system and web sites an open system.

Ooooh, ooooo! Great point! You can't find great stuff like this in one of those stodgy old, closed-minded peer-reviewed journals: TIME CUBE .

[Doctor Stochastic]

Peer-reviewed journals are not a closed system. They do require that you can make a coherent argument though. If you believe that what you read on web sites is more accurate, you may be surprised.