|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Why even bother making them other than for us to gawp at? |
You got it. Our millenia-old book states.."the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork."
| Quote: |
| How (back to red shift) are these no more than 6,000 years old? |
God would necessarily have made an "old" universe. Otherwise nothing would function.
Its a bit like all those irreducibly complex structures and functions. They had to have been made fully operational from the beginning.
| Quote: |
| red shift (again), the doppler effect and so forth. |
galactic red shift is a combination of Doppler and gravitational red shift.
http://creationwiki.org/Red_shift
But its all immaterial anyway as the fossil record shows zero evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Globutron wrote:
| Quote: |
The first jawed fish appeared 500 mya, the first amphibians appeared 400 mya, the first reptiles appeared 320 mya, and the first birds appeared 200 mya.
nautilus wrote:
No they didn't. |
Oh, well that proves it then. 
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| Because the fossil record proves evolution never happened. |
No, it doesn't.
There. I just won that argument nautilus style.
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
pangaea wrote:
How does a timespan of 90 million years remotely support your theory? You've just used it in defense of creationism. Either the date is valid or it's not. You either agree with the date, or your defense is invalid. Pick one, but you can't have it both ways.
Ok miss side-stepper.
Let me rephrase it for you.
How does the fact that nothing has changed, as revealed by the fossil record, remotely support your theory?
Quote:
some animals are well suited to their environments and have not needed to adapt to environmental pressures.
ie, all of them.
Quote:
Sharks and crocodiles come to mind.
And everything else.
Quote:
That doesn't refute evolution.
yes it does. fully.
Are all the fossils lying? is this a mass fossil conspiracy? |
Was what you wrote supposed to prove something? Because you just sound like an obstinate child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| But its all immaterial anyway as the fossil record shows zero evolution. |
You keep saying this. Evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| But its all immaterial anyway as the fossil record shows zero evolution. |
You keep saying this. Evidence? |
Actually its up to you to provide evidence that anything has evolved.
Because of all the millions of fossils we've unearthed, all are of creatures unchanged today. Or creatures that went extinct. If mass evolutionary change was as widespread, dynamic and a fact, then the fossil record should be dominated by intermediate forms. Stuff changing step by step into other stuff. recogniseably so. But it doesn't: there aren't any. Nothings changed.
The fossil record says evolution never ocurred.
Pangaea says it did.
Fossil record vs pangea. Hmm.
I think I'll go with the fossil record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Suggesting that the majority of scientists are cooperating in some kind of global misinformation campaign is paranoia to the nth degree. |
I'm sure most of them genuinely believe it all.Most North Koreans probably believe Kim Jong Il is awesome.
But they're mistaken. |
I'm having trouble reconciling that you had the gall to make that analogy. Suggesting that the scientific community is as oppressed and misinformed as the North Korean people doesn't validate your claim. It just makes you look more paranoid, and insults North Koreans in the process. To suggest that their plight is comparable to this invisible conspiracy you've dreamed up is pure inanity.
Anyway, it's likely an anonymous poll of the North Korean people-should that be possible-would probably reveal that most of them do not think KJI is "awesome". Close to half of them are starving after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
Very nice! |
Good of you to take defeat so well.
Because the fossil record proves evolution never happened. |
I didn't "take defeat." I praised tomato's comment, which is along the same lines as mine. You're delusional.
I'm going to follow your way of arguing:
Yes it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Actually its up to you to provide evidence that anything has evolved. |
It's becoming increasingly obvious-if it wasn't already perfectly so 20 pages ago-that no evidence is good enough for you. You're firmly entrenched in your creationist dogma, cherry picking scientific findings that you claim support it while dismissing any inconsistencies in your argument as faith-based, supernatural occurrences.
What possible evidence can disprove that the animals for the ark were gathered supernaturally? What possible evidence can disprove the claim that the universe was created "old"? I could claim the universe was created "old" a few hours ago and no one could refute it. As best as I can tell, the only evidence you would accept would involve time travel.
I anxiously await your witty retort where you pick out my first sentence and heartily proclaim that "no evidence" is exactly what we have, followed by a  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| all are of creatures unchanged today. Or creatures that went extinct |
As opposed to... A creature that is alive now, was alive the same before, but was also different before at the same time?
This thread has provided lots of examples of intermediary, just not to a point that you and creationists can't pick on one or two points in order to 'utterly disprove' them.
Back to physics... White hole cosmology is... wrong. Entirely.
It completely violates Special Relativity, and it's backwards in that it disregards the scientific process - You can't use it without giving it a result first, and THEN experimenting TO the result. It's not scientific.
Let alone that it COMPLETELY violates special relativity. It ignores the part where light would compress within the hole. It doesn't make sense.
Russel Humphrey and Robert Gentry, from this creation article are dismissed by scientists. Not because they're threatening their careers or their conspiracy, but because he uses pseudoscience. It is only found on creationist websites.
| Quote: |
| He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge |
Even Creationists themselves don't appreciate Humphrey's irrational actions and temper mood swings. Nothing he has done is conclusive in evidence or experiments.
| Quote: |
| zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old." Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. |
Especially this point in bold:
| Quote: |
| First, the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion."Second, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda." Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility. |
ANYWAY, that aside, it doesn't even hint at you acknowledging gravity and thus the age of the universe.
It does however show you have a solution to everything. The god decieved us all by giving us an old universe to look at, which he made only a few thousand years ago but because time is of no issue for the designer he can manipulate it to be billions of years, right?
And then he made the earth which is only a few thousand years old indeed, but somehow manages to allow the earth to disregard most if not all the rules of physics, but he can't create differentiating DNA for species, and thus we are all linked because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Yet it makes sense Cosmologically speaking to differentiate one huge part.
SO he really is a deceiving liar, set out to fool us all. There's no other reasoning. Because he has fooled us. Which inevitably was the decline of his followers... He gave us free will but manipulated us into deceiving HIM.
Niceeee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
We have to work backwards now anyway. The whole fossil point is pointless unless you accept the age of the earth.
If you can't do this then none of your arguments will ever be realistic in the realm of science. So your arguments about transitional fossils will and are moot.
You need to change at least from a young earth creationist to just a regular creationist. At least I have a bit of respect for those guys who actually see the science.
They're the nicer kind of creationist who try to conjoin science and faith and wonderful harmony. Instead of shoving their middle finger in ones face and cursing them sarcastically. They are aware this should be left to the atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
To suggest that their plight is comparable to this invisible conspiracy you've dreamed up is pure inanity.
Close to half of them are starving after all. |
Isn't this just survival of the fittest? By the right of evolutionary supremacy...as revealed by the high priest of the ape-cult...only the stronger ones will survive.
Anyway, was this just a diversion to deflect from the fact that the fossil record proves nothing evolved?
| Quote: |
| It's becoming increasingly obvious-if it wasn't already perfectly so 20 pages ago-that no evidence is good enough for you |
Oh, all the millions of fossils identical to today are proof enough..that nothing ever evolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
To suggest that their plight is comparable to this invisible conspiracy you've dreamed up is pure inanity.
Close to half of them are starving after all. |
Isn't this just survival of the fittest? By the right of evolutionary supremacy...as revealed by the high priest of the ape-cult...only the stronger ones will survive. |
*sigh* yes, try and pin human atrocity on evolution again. Shall we compare them to Christian atrocities? I never tire of a good ol' "my ideology is more ethical than yours" pissing contest.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Anyway, was this just a diversion to deflect from the fact that the fossil record proves nothing evolved? |
Much as repeating "pigs can fly" over and over doesn't prove it so, neither does your harping on this falsehood.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's becoming increasingly obvious-if it wasn't already perfectly so 20 pages ago-that no evidence is good enough for you |
Oh, all the millions of fossils identical to today are proof enough..that nothing ever evolved. |
Yes, say it one more time. That'll make it true... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I get it:
If you show us enough species which did not evolve over a long enough period of time, that will somehow prove that no species has ever evolved.
I can give you a long list of people I've known who were not named Smith.
Will that prove that there are no people named Smith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| God would necessarily have made an "old" universe. Otherwise nothing would function. |
Just to flesh out your point.
These literalists are well advised in their own interest to go to Omphalos, written by Philip Gosse and published in 1857, just two years before Darwin's Origin appeared . . . Eric Korn put this view in sharper focus: "The argument is not that fossils were put into rocks to make the world seem older, to confuse geologists or to test people's faith; merely that if the world was created by divine fiat, it could only be created as a going concern, with a created (not faked) past . . . the geological evidence could no more tell you when the world was created than the age of a character could tell you how long a play had continued since the rise of the curtain." . . . True, all true. The geologic record means absolutely nothing as indicator of the past apart from an antecedent faith in that past . . . In terms of strict logic, Gosse is irrefutable.
-Robert Nisbet, Prejudices |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
