Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - coachsparky

Pages: 1 ... 370 371 [372] 373
5566
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:17:29 AM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
If you look at it as a slight change, then you can draw that conclusion, however if you look at it as a non linear rate of change, then it says a lot more than what evolutionist can dismiss as non relevant.
Yes, I do suppose if you try to interpret in a nonsensical manner, with an a priori desired result you could be able to get it to something that might be relevant for a creationist.  But I am taking about scientists and they usually are pretty reasonable people who do not jump to those kinds of nonsensical postions.

5567
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 09:14:30 AM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
Sparky, did you read my post?
Yes I did, if you like I can post information that will show you that while many mainstream scientist accept that there may well have been a "slight" change in the speed of light over time, it would minimally affect the age of the universe calculations.  However, while still a topic of research, it is a long way from being proved that there has been any change in the speed of light.

5568
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:55:10 AM »
Quote from: "Viratas"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "Viratas"
In all honest I rarely give it any thought at all. I believe in a God although I am not religous. I belive a creaot created the things we have. and that those things have adapted....

I may be wrong, but this is an issue I could careless if I am or not. I like my theory and it does not impede on my day to day life. I sleep ok either way on this issue.
Just curious how you resolve the scientific facts of the length of time it took life to come from the very first single celled life forms to human beings with your belief in creation.  It certainly does not work with the story in the first book of the Bible which was written some 3.799999 years after the first life come one earth and some 144,000 years after the first homo sapiens came on earth.
Sparky, it would take me awhile to address my thoughts on religion and how it relates to this topic. My point was I believe in something higher then me and that something had to create something at some point.

It was the flaw in Plato's arguement on Knowledge as well. He did not believe in a God and that all things are already in us and that we do not learn anything,

The point he ran into is that it had to start somewhere, either we learned it or someone put it there....

Anyways, I do not think I am related to a sponge.
I am not asking your view on religion viratas, I am asking about your views on scientific fact.  Like the first living cells came into being approximately 3.8 billion years ago.  The first multicellular organisms came into some 500 to 600 million years ago.  Many aquatic phyla came into being during the cambrian explosion between 450 million and 380 million years ago.  Land based life came into being long after, and the first humans not till about 150,000 years ago?  These are scientific facts.  Not I did not use the word evolved, because I do not know for a 100 percent fact that is how it happened, just the timing of how different life forms came to be is a fact.  Now to me, evolution is the most reasonable explaination for that long time line between the different life forms "springing" into being.  It most certainly blows in insurmountable hole in the story in the first book of the Bible and requires an absolute rejection of reason to accept.

5569
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:48:50 AM »
Quote from: "RedWrestler"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "ctc"
Hey Red Wrestler,

I highly recomment answersingenesis.com  Type in a subject in the top search engine and get answers to your questions from a creationists point of view.
Or you could just read the Bible and believe that those people who wrote it between 6000-2000 years ago knew more about the natural world than anyone on earth knows today.  Basically just reject all information that humanity through intensive research and testing has been able to learn over the last 6000 years and you will know what they put and say on answersingenesis.
i resent that sparky, that is wrong...
How is what I said, which as far as any intelligent person can deduce, is fact, wrong?  Give me an example of how it is wrong?

5570
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:37:59 AM »
Quote from: "Viratas"
In all honest I rarely give it any thought at all. I believe in a God although I am not religous. I belive a creaot created the things we have. and that those things have adapted....

I may be wrong, but this is an issue I could careless if I am or not. I like my theory and it does not impede on my day to day life. I sleep ok either way on this issue.
Just curious how you resolve the scientific facts of the length of time it took life to come from the very first single celled life forms to human beings with your belief in creation.  It certainly does not work with the story in the first book of the Bible which was written some 3.799999 billion years after the first life come one earth and some 144,000 years after the first homo sapiens came on earth.

5571
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:34:59 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
RW,
Let me share a tip.  Ignore the boy.  As you can see in his intrepretation of my Richard lewitin quote, he struggles.  Only a fool would argue with a fool.  Thead carefully.
We all know the only fool on here is you, you even admitted it yourself.  I love it.  Thanks for putting any doubt about it to rest.  Not that there was any doubt among anyone that knew you.

5572
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:27:55 AM »
Quote from: "Viratas"
Mine belief is a Mix. I believe we were created and have adpated not evolved.
So you believe that creation took some 4 billion years Viratas?  The first "created" living creature on earth came some 3.8 billion years ago.  Then different forms show up slowly during the next 3.6 billion years with the first human being showing up some 150,000 years ago.  Is that what you believe in, gradual creation?  Interesting, wrong, demonstably so, but interesting.

5573
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:24:48 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Hey Red Wrestler,

I highly recomment answersingenesis.com  Type in a subject in the top search engine and get answers to your questions from a creationists point of view.
Or you could just read the Bible and believe that those people who wrote it between 6000-2000 years ago knew more about the natural world than anyone on earth knows today.  Basically just reject all information that humanity through intensive research and testing has been able to learn over the last 6000 years and you will know what they put and say on answersingenesis.

5574
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 08:20:42 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "Valkyrie Wrestling"
So, What is you favorite part of evolutionism or creationism?
I find it extremely entertaining that creationist, who have already rejecting the use of their minds for its intended purpose, then delude themselves into thinking they have science (which in reality is pseudoscience) on their side.
Good morning to ya sparky,

I'm kind of slow mentally and I have trouble understanding what the following statement means.  It appears to me to be a Darwinist saying that Darwinism is against science.  Please set me straight.

   Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard wrote:
 â€œOur willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of its failure to scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.â€

5575
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 07:35:44 AM »
Quote from: "Intensity guru"
Can you address the Stein statement of intense pressure to accept the status quo in regard to evolution? Pressure that stands as a roadblock to further research and alternative theories is oppression right?
It does not exist.  There is no intense pressure to accept the status quo.  In fact, during your exposure to true theoretical science in academia, you quickly recognize that the most respected scientist are the ones who think outside the box and come up with completely unique and innovative, yet scientifically provable positions.  Nothing stands as a roadblock to further research to alternative "scientific" theories.  The problem IDers (=creationists) have is there is zero science in their theory.  It was dreamt up by lawyers as indicated in the wedge document.  Now get some real scientists coming up with a scientific theory that challenges evolution and you might have something.

5576
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 07:13:24 AM »
<a href='http://davenport.mediacomtoday.com/entertainment/index.php?display=story&article=D964E9M81&pd=20090204' target='_blank'>http://davenport.mediacomtoday.com/enterta...M81&pd=20090204[/url]

Interesting article on Ben Stein, he is getting his come uppance for supporting pseudo science.  What I find laughable is a guy who has clearly demonstrated that he does not have a clue what is science and what is not science, makes a statement as ignorant as this;

"I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists," Stein wrote in an e-mail to the newspaper. "I want all scientific inquiry to happen not just what the ruling clique calls science."

The guy has now attained the distinction of being a public joke.

5577
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 05:44:11 AM »
Quote from: "Valkyrie Wrestling"
So, What is you favorite part of evolutionism or creationism?
I find it extremely entertaining that creationist, who have already rejecting the use of their minds for its intended purpose, then delude themselves into thinking they have science (which in reality is pseudoscience) on their side.

5578
Rules & Regulations /
« on: February 03, 2009, 05:33:37 PM »
Quote from: "Viratas"
Will be posted soon. Be on good behavior till then
Viratas, you sure do not have many rules, all I can figure so far is I cannot use the F-bomb which I never would anyway or post nudes.  I am not into them either, unless she already lives with me. :)

5579
Off-Topic /
« on: February 03, 2009, 05:16:54 PM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
Hey sparky.
Hey DrMuscle, are you the reincarnation of mnmuscle?

5580
Off-Topic /
« on: February 03, 2009, 05:10:30 PM »
You guys are pretty good at ignoring your brains natural ability to reason if you really really believe what he says.  BTW, humans on average live longer now than the ever ever have, and they are on average taller now then they ever ever were.  Of course if you choose to reject all actual physical evidence, well then, that is where your rejecting you brains natural ability comes in.

Pages: 1 ... 370 371 [372] 373