Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Nov '14 16:28
    http://phys.org/news/2014-10-massive-geographic-triggered-explosion-animal.html
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    02 Nov '14 03:30
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2014-10-massive-geographic-triggered-explosion-animal.html
    That doesn't explain anything.
  3. 02 Nov '14 09:51 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That doesn't explain anything.
    How would you know? You have repeatedly demonstrated you are far too stupid to accept any rational/scientific explanation that doesn't fit with your religious beliefs.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Nov '14 20:16
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That doesn't explain anything.
    Why are you worried about such things since you KNOW the world is only 6000 years old, none of that should matter.
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Nov '14 08:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Why are you worried about such things since you KNOW the world is only 6000 years old, none of that should matter.
    I don't know how old the earth is any more than you do. However, the best evidence we have can only account for about 6,000 years at most.
  6. 04 Nov '14 09:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2014-10-massive-geographic-triggered-explosion-animal.html

    "I'm not claiming this is the ultimate explanation of the Cambrian explosion," Dalziel said. "But it may help to explain what was happening at that time."


    I would guess that there were many factors contributing to the cambrian explosion, and many intricate combinations of these factors. What I found most interesting is this:


    It appears ancient North America was initially attached to Antarctica and part of South America, not to Europe and Africa, as has been widely believed.


    That should raise a few eyebrows.
  7. 04 Nov '14 09:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know how old the earth is any more than you do. However, the best evidence we have can only account for about 6,000 years at most.
    Evidence like tree rings? Evidence like how fossils are neatly arranged into strata, each strata of such character that it couldn't possibly have come about through a catastrophic flood event? Evidence that shows man and dinosaur appearing in completely different strata? Evidence like how inbreeding leads to deteriation through the loss of genetic variety, yet literally thousands of different species of animal "kinds" were produced from groups of two to (what) four individuals each in less than a thousand years (taking the concept of punctuated equilibrium to the absurd extreme)? What best evidence points to a 6000 year old earth exactly?

    Don't tell me: the bible.
  8. 04 Nov '14 10:31 / 12 edits
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Evidence like tree rings? Evidence like how fossils are neatly arranged into strata, each strata of such character that it couldn't possibly have come about through a catastrophic flood event? Evidence that shows man and dinosaur appearing in completely different strata? Evidence like how inbreeding leads to deteriation through the loss of genetic variety, ye ...[text shortened]... treme)? What best evidence points to a 6000 year old earth exactly?

    Don't tell me: the bible.
    It would seem that, to the Christian fundamentalists, apparently there is no evidence existing anywhere to see that contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible -any said evidence is just all "lies" (part of some absurd vast insane world mass conspiracy by virtually all none Christian fundamentalists including all scientists just to personally spite them ) or "assumptions" or "false" etc.
    For the rest of us with eyes and ears and some curiosity and a brain with at least some insanity and, above all, a willingness to think, the evidence is blindingly obvious there as a known fact for all to see for those willing to just take a look and, obviously, someone would have to be completely stupid to deny it -like denying the evidence that the Earth is round ( for religious reasons I presume ) because it is just all "lies", "assumptions" and, perhaps one of the most stupidest statements, "we cannot know anything", etc.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Nov '14 13:26
    Originally posted by humy
    It would seem that, to the Christian fundamentalists, apparently there is no evidence existing anywhere to see that contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible -any said evidence is just all "lies" (part of some absurd vast insane world mass conspiracy by virtually all none Christian fundamentalists including all scientists just to personally spite [i]t ...[text shortened]... "assumptions" and, perhaps one of the most stupidest statements, "we cannot know anything", etc.
    The real problem is we are supposed, here in the US, to have separation of church and state. That is what YEC fundies want to change. If they ever for some unknown reason win their battle they would drop all pretense at comparisons to evolution and just kick out all evolutionists in a new cultural revolution ALA 1968 China. THAT is the ultimate goal, to control the entire US.

    Don't think they would be satisfied to win one state over to their creationist lies, they would push even harder to win even more weak minds to amass a majority which then takes over the entire country.

    Fortunately that will never happen, ESPECIALLY if I can help it. I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Nov '14 15:14
    Originally posted by C Hess

    "I'm not claiming this is the ultimate explanation of the Cambrian explosion," Dalziel said. "But it may help to explain what was happening at that time."


    I would guess that there were many factors contributing to the cambrian explosion, and many intricate combinations of these factors. What I found most interesting is this:


    ...[text shortened]... urope and Africa, as has been widely believed.


    That should raise a few eyebrows.
    Yeah, that is stupid, but sonhouse believes anything that is wriiten in science papers as long as the writers are not creationists.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Nov '14 15:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    It would seem that, to the Christian fundamentalists, apparently there is no evidence existing anywhere to see that contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible -any said evidence is just all "lies" (part of some absurd vast insane world mass conspiracy by virtually all none Christian fundamentalists including all scientists just to personally spite [i]t ...[text shortened]... "assumptions" and, perhaps one of the most stupidest statements, "we cannot know anything", etc.
    We do not deny the earth is round. We just deny the absurd claim that life forms on earth were not designed by an intelligent being. You are claiming things more complex than televisions, airplanes, and computers just "evolved" by some chance "magic" happenings. I am not stupid enough to believe that nonsense, but apparently you and sonhouse are. Some people say you believe in "from the goo to the zoo to you" theory.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Nov '14 15:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The real problem is we are supposed, here in the US, to have separation of church and state. That is what YEC fundies want to change. If they ever for some unknown reason win their battle they would drop all pretense at comparisons to evolution and just kick out all evolutionists in a new cultural revolution ALA 1968 China. THAT is the ultimate goal, to con ...[text shortened]... never happen, ESPECIALLY if I can help it. I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.
    I want freedom to believe and teach the truth, which certainly is not the theory of evolution.
  13. 04 Nov '14 19:24 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We do not deny the earth is round. We just deny the absurd claim that life forms on earth were not designed by an intelligent being. You are claiming things more complex than televisions, airplanes, and computers just "evolved" by some chance "magic" happenings. I am not stupid enough to believe that nonsense, but apparently you and sonhouse are. Some people say you believe in "from the goo to the zoo to you" theory.
    We do not deny the earth is round.

    (1) the evidence

    (2) not having a religious reason to deny (1)

    Note: Reason (2) is redundant for me because, unlike you, I have no religion and therefore no religious reason to deny anything anyway.

    "evolved" by some chance "magic" happenings

    stupid straw man: natural selection is not chance and obeys natural laws i.e. no magic involved.
  14. 04 Nov '14 19:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We do not deny the earth is round. We just deny the absurd claim that life forms on earth were not designed by an intelligent being. You are claiming things more complex than televisions, airplanes, and computers just "evolved" by some chance "magic" happenings. I am not stupid enough to believe that nonsense, but apparently you and sonhouse are. Some people say you believe in "from the goo to the zoo to you" theory.
    What is it about complex that makes you think design? I don't remember who first pointed this out, but good design is most often characterised by its simplicity and purposefulness. Complex designs are bad designs because they waste resources and energy.
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Nov '14 22:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    What is it about complex that makes you think design? I don't remember who first pointed this out, but good design is most often characterised by its simplicity and purposefulness. Complex designs are bad designs because they waste resources and energy.
    I am not referring to inefficient complex designs. I am referring to the advanced complex designs in nature with greater functions and efficiency than man has ever been capable of designing. Bill Gates of Microsoft stated, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

    I am not going to be able to discuss this in the Science Forum anymore, because I was just reminded of a promise that I had forgotten.