Originally posted by sonhouse Now the last argument you have is crumbling before your eyes: No missing link to modern humans. Well there is one now. I feel sorry for your loss.
I'm an atheist, and your post confuses me. Please explain?
EDIT - I think religious ppl, probably xtians, will give me at least 3 recs for this post. Minus one for this Edit.
Originally posted by dj2becker Science cannot explain everything. You should know that.
God can.
God if he exists can explain everything. However that doesnt help us as he does not seem willing to pass on those explanations to us and stating that he can explain things does not explain anything either.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I'm an atheist, and your post confuses me. Please explain?
EDIT - I think religious ppl, probably xtians, will give me at least 3 recs for this post. Minus one for this Edit.
Just talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
Originally posted by sonhouse Just talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
I think his point is, if you have some info, post a link. If you're not going to cite sources or provide backup for statements, you're sounding like an ID freak...
Originally posted by sonhouse Just talking about the argument creationists use, You nasty scientists never find the missing link kind of fossil, especially human. No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one. Thats what I meant, one more cornerpost of creationism knocked out from under them. Won't make much differance I suppose, irrational arguments can trash any evidence but I thought I would throw this out there to see what saluted.
Interesting how everyone seems to agree that supposed lack of proof for evolution is considered a cornerpost of creationism.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ No he's demonstrated that your 'logic' can be applied to anything at all to discredit it. Of course when you fill it full of misinformation then of course you get an incorrect 'proof'.
Dating methods do not assume the rate of processes have remained the same. They do assume that all the physical constants (gravitational constant, nuclear force constant ...[text shortened]... ave remained the same. Once again if you have evidence that this isn't true then speak up.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Your catastrophy would have to alter the laws of physics. This cannot be the case, or there would be evidence, for example, in the spectral emissions of stars. Your turn to provide [b]evidence that the laws of physics have changed.[/b]
There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant.
Reading this thread, I'm reminded again of why it sucked to be an anti-evolution Creationist: the evidence is always against you! If I had come across this news ten years ago, I would have immediately run to my favorite YEC source (then a newsletter, today a website) and poured through it looking for explainations as to why the skull had to be a hoax or yet another embarrasing scientific error.
The worst thing is that archaelogists and paleontologists will keep making these discoveries, and it won't make a single bit of difference to a YEC.
Originally posted by telerion Reading this thread, I'm reminded again of why it sucked to be an anti-evolution Creationist: the evidence is always against you! If I had come across this news ten years ago, I would have immediately run to my favorite YEC source (then a newsletter, today a website) and poured through it looking for explainations as to why the skull had to be a hoax or ye ...[text shortened]... sts will keep making these discoveries, and it won't make a single bit of difference to a YEC.
Yet it does not seem to amaze you that two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach two different conclusions...
Originally posted by dj2becker Yet it does not seem to amaze you that two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach two different conclusions...
Why should it, people make different judgements on the same thing all the time. The difference with YECs is that their judgements are heavily biased by a ferevent and presuppositional belief in YE-pseudoscience.
Originally posted by Starrman Why should it, people make different judgements on the same thing all the time. The difference with YECs is that their judgements are heavily biased by a ferevent and presuppositional belief in YE-pseudoscience.
Yeah, yeah...
The YECs can say exactly the same thing about the crack-pot evolution pseudoscicence, which is heavily biased by a ferverent belief in crack-pot evolution, which has so many holes punched through it that it needs a lot of crack-pot bearded ape-men to defend it...
Instead of throwing around insults which make you look like a crack-pot ape-man it would be a lot more useful to discuss the issues at hand.
So are you going to supply anything useful to this conversation?
27 Mar '06 11:151 edit
Creationists, ID'ers: stick this in your throa...
Back to Top