Creationism museum to open in Alberta
Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20 Next
Blue_Nose @ Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:27 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I'm too hostile? I posted videos I thought were funny because one is actually shot on the tailgate of a pickup truck - I was certain it must be a spoof before I watched it.
Now that you watched the video and know these people are serious, you still consider them blissfully delusional at best, and a pathetic joke at worst. Still, I am pretty sure you only posted it to mock them and those who support them.
Regardless, I don't know why you would "support" the handing of complete control over one's life to someone else, imaginary or otherwise.
grainfedprairieboy @ Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:02 am
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
You seem to think that since they believe their personal strength comes from Jesus that I'm somehow against their rehabilitation - on the contrary, I'm impressed by their strength, but I would be happier if they'd claim the credit for themselves, as it's not Jesus who did the work for them. Placebo is a proven tool, but it's still just mind games.
And they feel it was Jesus who assisted them and gave them strength.
You can no more prove that God does not exist and helped them they can prove he does and did. There are far too many street people or others trying to overcome some paraphilla or addiction and whatever works for them I advocate plenty more.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Regardless, I don't know why you would "support" the handing of complete control over one's life to someone else, imaginary or otherwise.
We do it all the time in the military as just one example.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Not the same museum, but the same idea:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpT88Jw-f4[/youtube]
Durandal @ Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:00 pm
Cool, next time I go in Alberta I'll go there !
Answers in Genesis
Bad times ahead for the atheist extreamists...
DerbyX @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:10 pm
Creationist have been saying evolution is dying since Darwin first proposed it and yet we get stronger everyday.
No answers in genesis.
Durandal @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:47 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Creationist have been saying evolution is dying since Darwin first proposed it
That's because Darwin's tests to "prove" his theory were so riduculous it didn't take long to declare him false.
The stubburn evolutionists, continued, even if the founder of their ideology is the best ever example of trash science they claim to fight.
$1:
and yet we get stronger everyday.
Funny, with these creation museums opening in Germany, Canada, and the USA, I'm under the feeling that the tide is changing.
$1:
No answers in genesis.
Yeah I know this site two and I say it coming. It's good to have both sides of the story.
Personnally I have been an evolutionist (or rather an evolution-theist) for most of my life and to me evolution (out of the religious/political context) was something extreamly fascinating.
Now that I'm openig my horizons a little more, reading on a panoply of creationist websites (links below), I had it all wrong.
http://www.creationnisme.ca/index.jsp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Francais/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
and a documentary...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmvpf_ ... rwinisme-1
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmw4o_ ... rwinisme-2
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmz7e_ ... rwinisme-3
After all, it's just a little bit of common sense. Take the bird, for example. Bird's wings a like an airplane, made in a way that more air passes under than over the wing, therefor lifting the plane in the air.
It took us, humans, with our great intelligence and our incredible technology, centuries to figure that simple thing out. Evolutionists will tell you that a stupid frog is supposed to have invented the wing.
No, actually it's more complicated than that, creationists can explain. It's "science", "science" explains who some unicellular animals knew the law of phisics so well they could -- after trying for billions of years of course
-- come up with a wing that could defy the law of gravity. How ? Well, science explains, but it's complicated to explain. But how can we know for sure ? Agh, SCIENCE !!!
LightStarr @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:31 am
A bird's wing is an incredibly complicated device, that does not "defy" gravity.
Durandal @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:02 pm
LightStarr LightStarr:
A bird's wing is an incredibly complicated device, that does not "defy" gravity.
Yes you are right.
Flying defies gravity.
And you fly with wings.
LightStarr @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:08 pm
Its not really defying gravity as they are constantly being forced down by it and use lift to push back up.
xerxes @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:16 pm
Durandal Durandal:
LightStarr LightStarr:
A bird's wing is an incredibly complicated device, that does not "defy" gravity.
Yes you are right.
Flying defies gravity.
And you fly with wings.
Humans don't need to fly to find food and shelter. All of those things are on the ground.
LightStarr @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:18 pm
We also developed tools to get the things in the air. Hurray for the bow.
DerbyX @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:51 pm
Durandel Durandel:
That's because Darwin's tests to "prove" his theory were so riduculous it didn't take long to declare him false.
Show one "proof" that isn't dealt with by any number of evolutionary biologists, archeaologists, physicist, or any other realted science.
Our science is peer reviewed and fully testable. Yours is pseudo-science crafted to support religious teachings and fails all basic science tennents.
Durandel Durandel:
Funny, with these creation museums opening in Germany, Canada, and the USA, I'm under the feeling that the tide is changing.
I hardly think anyone connected to evolution (and related conspiracy science) is the least bit concerned about a few privately funded crackpot museums considering the volume of scientific institutes around the globe.
Back in Uni one of our profs gave us a photocopy listing various quotes and proclamations concerning the impending demise of evolution with associated dates. Unsurprisingly it was virtually every year and one is hard pressed to find any scientific journal (of the many hundreads) verifying this.
$1:
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Durandel Durandel:
Yeah I know this site two and I say it coming. It's good to have both sides of the story.
Personnally I have been an evolutionist (or rather an evolution-theist) for most of my life and to me evolution (out of the religious/political context) was something extreamly fascinating.
Now that I'm openig my horizons a little more, reading on a panoply of creationist websites (links below), I had it all wrong.
Personnally I have been an evolutionist (or rather an evolution-theist) for most of my life and to me evolution (out of the religious/political context) was something extreamly fascinating.
Now that I'm openig my horizons a little more, reading on a panoply of creationist websites (links below), I had it all wrong.
There are virtually no arguments that creationists have that we haven't been able to deal with.
Index to creationist claims.
Durandel Durandel:
After all, it's just a little bit of common sense. Take the bird, for example. Bird's wings a like an airplane, made in a way that more air passes under than over the wing, therefor lifting the plane in the air.
A good example of a strawman argument. You have a poor understanding of flight. What happens is that the air rushing over upper part of the wing has its path alter and so has less pressure the the air below the wing. This results in a net upward thrust based on pressure differential.
Thats not the hole story though. Birds also take advantage of natural updrafts called "thermals" and finally birds gain additional upward thrust by using their flapping motion to increas forward speed. If you double the speed, the bird gets 4 times the lift. If the bird triples the speed it will get 9 times the lift. Of course nature has evolved other methods of pseudo-flight such as "gliding" or "floating", ie seed dispersal mechanism.
This is certianly no evidence for creationism and is certainly no problem for evolution to explain. In fact we have fossil records showing structural differences from primitive wings to the more adapated modern wings.
Durandel Durandel:
It took us, humans, with our great intelligence and our incredible technology, centuries to figure that simple thing out. Evolutionists will tell you that a stupid frog is supposed to have invented the wing.
Strawman attack#2. Evolution has never said that an organism "invented" anything. You make it sound as if the animals get togeather in workshops to decide what to evolve or "invent" next.
Its quite obvious that you are yet another example of a creationist "claiming" to have formally been an "evolutionists". Its quite clear you have no understanding whatsoever of just what evolution entails.
BTW, humanity had to work out the basic underlying principal behind flight. You make it sound that primitive birds had to "understand" the physics of flight before inventing/evolving it.
Lets take human anatomy, specifically blood groups. The fact that 200 years ago we didn't understand what blood groups were and what factors determined them but that didn't stop us from having them did it?
Take genetics. Gregor Mendel, through observation saw the underlying effects of dominant & recessive gemes and the effects of genetic inheritence between parents and offspring.
He knew nothing about the actual mechanism by which this was accomplished.
Durandel Durandel:
No, actually it's more complicated than that, creationists can explain. It's "science", "science" explains who some unicellular animals knew the law of phisics so well they could -- after trying for billions of years of course -- come up with a wing that could defy the law of gravity. How ? Well, science explains, but it's complicated to explain. But how can we know for sure ? Agh, SCIENCE !!!
Strawman attack#3. Your poor understanding of flight is eclipsed only by your poor understanding of evolution. Like most creationists you argue scientific points that you simply have no understanding of.
"flight" doesn't "defy gravity". Gravity works based on verifiable physical principals. So does flight. To achieve flight you need to produce upward thrust with a force greater then the pull of gravity.
Of course there a many forms of "flying" that animals have adapted themselves to:
Types of aerial locomotion
* Falling: Decreasing altitude under the force of gravity, using no adaptions to increase drag or provide lift.
* Parachuting: Defined as falling at greater than 45 degrees from the horizontal with adaptations to increase drag forces. Very small animals may be carried up by the wind.
* Gliding: Defined as falling at less than 45 degrees from the horizontal. Lift caused by some kind of aerofoil mechanism, allowing slowly falling directed horizontal movement. Streamlined to decrease drag forces to aid aerofoil. Often some maneuverability in air. Gliding animals have a lower aspect ratio (wing length/wing breadth) than flyers.
* Flying: Flapping of wings to produce thrust. May ascend without the aid of the wind, as opposed to gliders and parachuters.
* Soaring: Appears similar to gliding but is actually very different, requiring specific physiological and morphological adaptations. The animal keeps aloft on rising warm air (thermals) without flapping its wings. Only large animals can be efficient soarers.
These forms of aerial locomotion are not mutually exclusive and indeed many animals will employ two or more of the methods. Two other common forms of aerial locomotion for humans that are not employed in the rest of the animal kingdom are heli-propulsion and the balloon.
Durandal @ Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:30 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Show one "proof" that isn't dealt with by any number of evolutionary biologists, archeaologists, physicist, or any other realted science.
Darwin's tests for example.
Faced to his theory, people asked him "ok, but who did it first start ?", so he showed them the experiment he made...
> He placed a piece of meat on a table.
> Waited a couple of days/weeeks.
> Vlam ! Larvaes appeared, just like that, out of a nothing... woah ! without God ! This man must be right ! The Bible must be false !
> Thus started the scientific "evidence" for evolution. One chance science was not enough advenced at that time, because evolutionism would have been born-dead.
Of course, nowdays, evolutionists have better "evidence" and made new "tests" to support the theory. They made a tremendous scientific back-flip when we dicovered that a fly simply lay her eggs on the peice of meat.
$1:
Our science is peer reviewed and fully testable. Yours is pseudo-science crafted to support religious teachings and fails all basic science tennents.
I could as well say that YOUR pseudo-science is crafted to support ANTI-religious teachings and fails all basic science tennets.
After scientific findings catched up with Darwin's and Engels pseudo-science, evolutionists needed to make sure the theory would stay alive, so they made sure that science said what they wanted it to say. Because some Atheist had (and still have) interests in evolutionism other that "scientific truth". See this ducumentary...
THE REAL FOUNDATIONS OF COMMUNISM / http://www.dailymotion.com/tunisiano14/ ... communisme
"Darwin, what I just read is splendid."
-- Friedrich Engels writing to Karl Marx, after having read The Origin of Spicies by Darwin
"This book [The Origin of Spicies by Darwin] contains the basis of history for our point of view [communist ideology]."
-- Karl Marx replying to Friedrich Engels
Imagine if evolutionism would not have worked for the Far Left... just imagine...
$1:
I hardly think anyone connected to evolution (and related conspiracy science)
I'm happy you talked about "conspiracy science", it will allow me to make a paralel with "man-made glabal-warming".
Both a very politicized, and both have one side that has a manopoly (but no consensus) of "scientists".
Still, we can kill the CO2 argument very easely... just look :
GLOBAL WARMING ON MARShttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsro ... 1208a.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece
GLOBAL WARMING ON JUPITERhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02470.html
GLOBAL WARMING ON PLUTOhttp://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
So there's a giant global warming affecting the entire solar system, but somehow it's because of my CO2. Go figure.
Scientists that point that out either receive death treats or gat labaled as "dangerous religious neocon capitalist". Exact same for creationists.
Man-made global-warming is the "science" designed to destroy economic growth (i-e : capitalism). Evolution is "science" disigned to eradicate faith in our Lord.
$1:
a few privately funded crackpot museums considering the volume of scientific institutes around the globe.
The Darwinists were also a few crackpots at one time yet they managed to eventually become very powerfull (thanks to many bolshevik revolutions !).
The contrery can (and will) happen again.
$1:
There are virtually no arguments that creationists have that we haven't been able to deal with.
Sure sure.
Because I'm only a begginer in evolutionism, I won't be able to proove you completely false on every aspects of this subject, unlike other topics where I have greater knowledge (Iraq survival count + Hitler's faith), so I will limit myself to basic stuff like wings and and birds. Be happy, you have the advantage here, unlike other places...
$1:
Durandal Durandal:
After all, it's just a little bit of common sense. Take the bird, for example. Bird's wings a like an airplane, made in a way that more air passes under than over the wing, therefor lifting the plane in the air.
You have a poor understanding of flight. What happens is that the air rushing over upper part of the wing has its path alter and so has less pressure the the air below the wing. This results in a net upward thrust based on pressure differential.
An other graph here : http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Im ... iagram.gif
$1:
This is certianly no evidence for creationism and is certainly no problem for evolution to explain.
OK, explain it.
$1:
Evolution has never said that an organism "invented" anything. You make it sound as if the animals get togeather in workshops to decide what to evolve or "invent" next.
No, I just laghing at your theory, that's all.
$1:
BTW, humanity had to work out the basic underlying principal behind flight. You make it sound that primitive birds had to "understand" the physics of flight before inventing/evolving it.
Well, the primitive birds/frogs/unicellular beasts/dinosours/whatever you prefer certainly HAD to know the "mechanism by which this was accomplished".
Then who did they came up with
$1:
Lets take human anatomy, specifically blood groups. The fact that 200 years ago we didn't understand what blood groups were and what factors determined them but that didn't stop us from having them did it?
And... that explains why a stupid mollusc managed to come up with a way to fly, right ?
Right, I new it !
Oh, and BTW, I'm Durandal, not Durandel.
Durandal @ Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:37 pm
xerxes xerxes:
Humans don't need to fly to find food and shelter. All of those things are on the ground.
Same for stupid molluscs.
Actually, many (probably most) birds find their food on the land, and all find their shelter on the ground/trees/clifs, where the moluscs didn't need to fly to get there...
Durandal @ Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:43 pm
LightStarr LightStarr:
Its not really defying gravity as they are constantly being forced down by it and use lift to push back up.
The first mollusc bird-wannabe certainly was faced with an enormous challenge when he began to try flying. He had to circumvent the law of gravity... to defy it. You know what I mean.
Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20 Next