Originally posted by scottishinnzLack of proof from those that say those small changes continually add up.
You seem awefully sure of that. Proof of your statement, have you?
All that is available that we can see are the small changes, what those
do or not goes beyond anything you can present as proof. You can tell me
what you think, what you believe, but you cannot show me those changes
doing things like put together a nervous system over time where there
wasn’t one before through the evolutionary time line with some creature
and its ancestors without coming up with another story to believe or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI said what I meant, you cannot know how much drift there was over
Simple really, just look at where the fault lines are today, look at the rate of drift, then back extrapolate. Perhaps you are suggesting that the rate of continental drift has slowed at just the right amount to delude us into thinking that the last supercontinent was millions of years ago, when it was, in fact, in 1920.
the last 7K years if you do not know the starting point. You may know
the current rate of drift, but that does not mean that it was always
so, or that other things did occur.
Kelly
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy is Kelly opposed to valid science?
You were saying that we can't really know because its just guesswork and theory. What I am trying to point out is that gravity, continental shift, evolution etc are all observed phenomenon and there is no reason to think that they didn't happen in the past. By collecting data we can accurately infer where the continents were, what evolutionary precursors lo ...[text shortened]... objects fell from the sky etc. Its all valid science. I don't know why you are so against it.
Now there's a question.
There is a belief among some conservative christians that social and political liberalism are the root of all wrong in society.Liberal tradition originates in the Age of Reason at about the same time as the origin of the scientific method. The arguement seems to run that if you discredit science then you discredit liberalism at the same time. The sciences of biology and geology are most opposed because they challenge biblical literalism and biblical literalism is highly useful to sociial concervatives.
So, on a nutshell, Kelly and his ilk oppose science because they wish to send us back to the dark ages to live in unreasoning thralldom of priests and soothsayers.
Hope this helps
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI'm not opposed to valid science, I just don't like people using the
Why is Kelly opposed to valid science?
Now there's a question.
There is a belief among some conservative christians that social and political liberalism are the root of all wrong in society.Liberal tradition originates in the Age of Reason at about the same time as the origin of the scientific method. The arguement seems to run that if you discred ...[text shortened]... o the dark ages to live in unreasoning thralldom of priests and soothsayers.
Hope this helps
term fact when they are discussing a belief.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI have no desire to move anyone to the dark ages, but it is easy to
Why is Kelly opposed to valid science?
Now there's a question.
There is a belief among some conservative christians that social and political liberalism are the root of all wrong in society.Liberal tradition originates in the Age of Reason at about the same time as the origin of the scientific method. The arguement seems to run that if you discred ...[text shortened]... o the dark ages to live in unreasoning thralldom of priests and soothsayers.
Hope this helps
your prejudices in this, pointing that out to you will not I suppose
help you see it, which is a shame.
Kelly
Originally posted by NosracForget that Hovind has no intention of recognizing the tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. Let's talk in terms that YOU can understand.
Let's talk in terms you all can understand:
Who wants $250,000.00????
It's up for the offering at: http://www.drdino.com or 1-877-479-3466
to anyone who can give any emprical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.
Good luck
Nosrac
Kent is losing is shirt right now for evading taxes. Why should any of us believe that he can pay up? Hell, he reported to the IRS that he has almost no money.
The man is a liar and a crook.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are huge amounts of evidence for evolution. You just won't accept it, because to do so would damage your religion. Ever heard of vested interests?
Lack of proof from those that say those small changes continually add up.
All that is available that we can see are the small changes, what those
do or not goes beyond anything you can present as proof. You can tell me
what you think, what you believe, but you cannot show me those changes
doing things like put together a nervous system over time where t ...[text shortened]... some creature
and its ancestors without coming up with another story to believe or not.
Kelly
I can't show you the nuclear reactions happening inside the sun either, nor the earths mantle, does that mean they don't exist?
In my view of nature, competitive interactions between individuals drive the whole thing, in your view, worms exist to feed sparrows, and gazelles willingly leap into the waiting mouths of lions, for that is their purpose in life.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSmall little changes in something that cause it to be nothing more than
It HAS been observed, but you just won't accept it.
We cannot show you the interactions between quarks, does that make nuclear physics "faith" too?
what it is, is not the same thing as having those changes add up to
where through time something that didn't have them has its descendents
to grow eyes equipped with lids a brain and so on getting them all to
work together and so on. That you don't have, you only 'imagine' it
nothing more and many other evolutionary believers call it a fact when
it is only between their ears and no where else.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzAccepting that evolution isn't true damages your belief system too,
There are huge amounts of evidence for evolution. You just won't accept it, because to do so would damage your religion. Ever heard of vested interests?
I can't show you the nuclear reactions happening inside the sun either, nor the earths mantle, does that mean they don't exist?
In my view of nature, competitive interactions between individuals ...[text shortened]... gazelles willingly leap into the waiting mouths of lions, for that is their purpose in life.
big deal! I have heard of vested interests, I just am amazed you
don't see you have as much in this as I do. I can even point out to
you that many other believers in God can accept evolution and are
quite content, I don't because it doesn't add up, except to the true
believers in it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayor to put it another way
I'm not opposed to valid science, I just don't like people using the
term fact when they are discussing a belief.
Kelly
i]Originally posted by KellyJay[/i]
I'm not opposed to valid science, I just don't like people using the
term fact when they are discussing a fact that undermines my belief.
Kelly
Thats a little clearer isn't it