Replies

I've seen this list. Its the stupidest argument going. Was Newton aware of the evidence we have for Big and Biological Evolution?

So Issac Newton is stupid and ignorant according to you. How brazenly arrogant. Let me guess, until you came on the scene, everyone was a drooling imbecile. Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape.

I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).

Also, it seems that you are sticking to the debate tactics of fellow evolutionist Joseph Goebbels in repeating a big lie often enough by somehow suggesting that only evolutionary thinking allows a person to invent the internet.

Just because you are a Christophobe isn't proof that evolution is science. Evolution is just the ramblings of God haters looking for any reason to call an ape "Daddy" .

So Issac Newton is stupid and ignorant according to you. How brazenly arrogant. Let me guess, until you came on the scene, everyone was a drooling imbecile.

You can be refuted with Newton's own words, "If I have seen a little farther than others, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Science advances by building on the efforts of those who went before. Newton and numerous other brilliant scientists prior to 1800 had no opportunity to formulate the Theory of Evolution because science and our knowledge of the world had not advanced to that point.

Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape.

The time-honoured response of the creationist who has lost the argument

But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.

... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill

The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.

. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top.

So now plate tectonics, an observed and well understood phenomenon is completely wrong too. Continental drift has been tracked and measured. If you wish to show that plate tectonics is "laughable" then you need to discredit the ample evidence for it.

Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).

Yes, it is silly to stick to a set of bronze-age religious beliefs that have been shown in numerous ways to conflict with the evidence. You have not substantiated your repeated assertions that mainstream science is in conflict with the evidence.

Also, it seems that you are sticking to the debate tactics of fellow evolutionist Joseph Goebbels...

Fallacy that because a bad person believed the theory it must be tainted

...in repeating a big lie often enough by somehow suggesting that only evolutionary thinking allows a person to invent the internet.

The science behind the technology of the internet is the same science that you reject. The fact that the growth of the internet has shown some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour is a separate issue that you appear to be confusing with the science and technology involved.

Just because you are a Christophobe isn't proof that evolution is science. Evolution is just the ramblings of God haters looking for any reason to call an ape "Daddy" .

More empty rhetoric. Incidentally, I am an ape too (like everyone else).

I thought some more about the error that you are making in this paragraph:

I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).

Part of your misunderstanding appears to lie in a confusion between "Theories" and "Hypotheses". It is true to say the the creationist vs mainstream examples above are different hypotheses about the observed phenomena. However a hypothesis is not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.

For a hypothesis to become a theory it must go through a demanding set of processes. Scientists try to tear it to pieces by finding logical or evidentiary errors. Observations and tests are suggested which have the potential of falsifying the hypothesis. Predictions are made using the hypothesis and scientists look to see if the predictions come true. Scientists examine the hypothesis to see if there could be a simpler natural explanation of the observed phenomena.

Hypotheses such as evolution, relativity, and plate-tectonics have passed these tests which is why scientists now refer to them as Theories (which has a completely different meaning to the lay word theory which is a synonym of hypothesis.) There is no statement of scientific truth stronger than a Theory (contrary to the common misconception that Laws are more certain than Theories, which is not so, laws are usually just simple mathematical relationships that fall out of certain theories)

The creationist hypotheses like the "Grand Canyon as damburst" and "mountaintop fossils resulting from the flood" on the other hand fail on every count. They don't make successful predictions, they fail the falsification tests, and they tend to be complicated, relying on a number of "miracles" to work at all.

B:I've seen this list. Its the stupidest argument going. Was Newton aware of the evidence we have for Big and Biological Evolution? So Issac Newton is stupid and ignorant according to you. How brazenly arrogant. B: LOL. Reuben, please indicate where I've calimed any such thing, or retract your post and apologize for lying. Let me guess, until you came on the scene, everyone was a drooling imbecile. B: Obviously my simple argument is way over your head. Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape. B: A ver distant one, but yes indeed. I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, B: Reuben is confused as to how one collects and evaluates evidence. Reuben's example is no more different than the simple child that looks at the clouds and imagines he see a cat or a dog. Simple fact is Reuben, your theories have no evidence. When has a dam burst produced a meandering river? for example. you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. B: No, Reuben, I see continental uplift. Just like what is happening in Fennoscnadia and is still happening in the basin and range. You see, we can meausre the, slow, motions of the of the Earth's crust. You're ignorant and wrong. Start getting use to the words "ignorant and worng". You'll be hearing them from me a lot. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", B: Even Leonardo DiVinci figured out what was wrong with this. THe problem is, is not only our fossils found on the mountain tops, they are found within the mountain itself. If Reuben can't figure out why this is a problem, then he is a few centuries out of touch. Or does Reuben think DiVinci was an idiot? you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories B: Noachian Flood theory is laughable. The early geologists gave up up on it by the early the 18th century. of how mountains rose up from no where, B: Again, Reuben is projecting his own, incredible ignorance onto others. THis is the thing that really bugs me about creationists. They are so cluless, they actually believe that nobody has answers to questions they dream up, when in reality they've been studied for centuries. And yet Reuben accuses me of ignorance? Thats too funny. Mountain can arise in two major ways. The most common is collisions between continent bearing plates. For example the Himalayas ae forming at the boundary between the Indian plate and Eurasia plate. They are still growing as indicated by geodetic measrements. GPS is good for other things besides guiding missles. Another important process which makes mountains is volcanic activity. I live on an old volcanic mountain. Its called Oahu. I guess Reuben never heard of a volcano? Never seen one? Never heard of GPS? Just all figments of my imagination? Eh? Reuben crawl out form under your rock and get educated. THis country has enough slackers as it is. for no know reason, B: no know reason? You mean no reason Reuben knows about. Which is quite a different thing than "no known reason". Who is the arrogant one, Reuben? and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. B: Oh its plenty disturbed in places. LOL. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" B: THey are, and you've scibbled several things that are wrong. You have no knowledge, no credibility. You've made a great case as to why creationism is devoid of anything of value. THanks.