12 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was not referring to any one in particular.
If you are referring to me, then have the honesty to say so directly. An if you are referring to me, then your accusations are totally unfounded. I do not assume that all creationists or all theists are ignorant of science. If I think someone is ignorant of a particular aspect of science, I think so based on what they say about it. You for example clearly ...[text shortened]... This has nothing to do with you being a creationist. Nor am I insulting you by pointing it out.
"You for example clearly do not understand the concepts involved in the articles talking about the universe being 'flat'."
To a degree I do now after some research and reading your's and other's posts. I didn't when I started this thread. I still don't really get it. After all it's all just theory based on the knowledge available.
sonhouse seems to think science is very close to discovering when the universe first "came into existence" down to the nanosecond. I find that very interesting. I will remain skeptical as long as there is only a theory.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwFirstly, 'just theory' is not the best way of putting it. In science, a Theory is a tried and tested understanding of the world.
To a degree I do now after some research and reading your's and other's posts. I didn't when I started this thread. I still don't really get it. After all it's all just theory based on the knowledge available.
Secondly, the question of whether or not the universe is 'flat' is currently an unanswered question. So it isn't even a theory yet. There may be a hypothesis that it is flat and a competing hypothesis that is isn't. But the question itself is not 'just theory'. Also the finding that if it is not flat then it doesn't have more than a given amount of curvature, is based on good evidence - so again, 'just theory' isn't the best description.
So given that you admit that you didn't understand the concept when the thread started, why are you now accusing atheists in general of automatically assuming you are ignorant because you are a creationist? It should also be clear to you that RJ has no idea what he is talking about either.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Theory of Evolution is not science then, because it is NOT a tried and tested understanding of the world. So you see, some things called a theory are really just an hypothesis.
Firstly, 'just theory' is not the best way of putting it. In science, a Theory is a tried and tested understanding of the world.
Secondly, the question of whether or not the universe is 'flat' is currently an unanswered question. So it isn't even a theory yet. There may be a hypothesis that it is flat and a competing hypothesis that is isn't. But the que ...[text shortened]... creationist? It should also be clear to you that RJ has no idea what he is talking about either.
14 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is because all the evolution evidence I am aware of has been discredited as based on biased speculations, misrepresentations, assumptions, or out right fraud. I am not anti-science, but the evolution theory is really not science. It is a political worldview that has been forced on the public in the disguise of being real science.
All you do is poo poo any evolution evidence without studying it. You have no credibility to do that. You are only venturing an opinion backed up by your ridiculous anti science political motivated video's.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAgain, you have no credibility to say that. You are just venturing opinion without ever actually going to the trouble of learning the subject. I daresay you haven't even LOOKED at a fossil or compared any of them to similar ones. Till you have, you are just spouting your usual blathering bullshyte.
That is because all the evolution evidence I am aware of has been discredited as based on biased speculations, misrepresentations, assumptions, or out right fraud. I am not anti-science, but the evolution theory is really not science. It is a political worldview that has been forced on the public in the disguise of being real science.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseEvolutionists should stop blathering about 65 million years old dinosaurs and then acting surprised when the find soft tissue in their bones, but should just admit that these dinosaurs must be no more than a few thousand years at most.
Again, you have no credibility to say that. You are just venturing opinion without ever actually going to the trouble of learning the subject. I daresay you haven't even LOOKED at a fossil or compared any of them to similar ones. Till you have, you are just spouting your usual blathering bullshyte.
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are trolling once again. Making totally unsupported statements, only opinions based on zero knowledge.
Evolutionists should stop blathering about 65 million years old dinosaurs and then acting surprised when the find soft tissue in their bones, but should just admit that these dinosaurs must be no more than a few thousand years at most.
15 Nov 14
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract
You are trolling once again. Making totally unsupported statements, only opinions based on zero knowledge.
Evolution Embarrassed YET AGAIN! Dinosaur Soft Tissue - NOT "Biofilm!"
Soft Tissues in Triceratops Horn
Dinosaur with skin discovered
15 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsTrolling is not science, thank the forces of good for that. You are not only a troll, but an extremely odious and arrogant one. Your so-called video's are not science, they are political based tracts with one agenda, to get votes. You push ANY assshole with that agenda. That makes you the poster boy for trollness.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract
Evolution Embarrassed YET AGAIN! Dinosaur Soft Tissue - NOT "Biofilm!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btnIltCgnf0
Soft Tissues in Triceratops Horn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QdrxFLxVaE
Dinosaur with skin discovered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knoJEOqaq0E
You would do MUCH better on a soapbox in Hyde park, more people would be converted than ANYONE here. The wino's there will listen to you all day if you bring a few bottles of rum and pass that around, you will get a splendid audience that way.
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou claimed that I made unsupported statements. That was the support. 😏
Trolling is not science, thank the forces of good for that. You are not only a troll, but an extremely odious and arrogant one. Your so-called video's are not science, they are political based tracts with one agenda, to get votes. You push ANY assshole with that agenda. That makes you the poster boy for trollness.
You would do MUCH better on a soapbox in ...[text shortened]... you bring a few bottles of rum and pass that around, you will get a splendid audience that way.
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseHeck, I'd even listen to him for a bottle of rum. 🙂
You would do MUCH better on a soapbox in Hyde park, more people would be converted than ANYONE here. The wino's there will listen to you all day if you bring a few bottles of rum and pass that around, you will get a splendid audience that way.