Pope Francis: Big Bang and evolution are real.

[Ron Harrigan]

you are out to lunch. god is a failed hypothesis and explains nothing. I would never design something this shitty.

When all of the facts are on the side of creation, and none in support of evolution, what is an evolutionist to do? Deny, ignore, misrepresent and lie about what is known. Evidence for both the historical fact of creation and the mechanisms by which it occurred are established by mountains of data. That you are unaware of that evidence - or more likely, not interested in becoming informed - is irrelevant.

[Thong Maniac]

Among the most remarkable characteristics of evolutionists is not just how tenaciously they hang onto fallacious beliefs in the face of all facts. It is how, once the absurdity of their claims has been pointed out, rather than climbing out of the hole they have already dug, they double down and dig still deeper. It would be amusing if it weren't so terribly sad.

Sorry bro, not gonna wind up in an argument over basic biology against magical thinking/wishing. its painful to think in 2014, this "debate" is still out there. This is why other countries are really out shining us in scientific discovery, business, etc,

[Ron Harrigan]

Sorry bro, not gonna wind up in an argument over basic biology against magical thinking/wishing. its painful to think in 2014, this "debate" is still out there. This is why other countries are really out shining us in scientific discovery, business, etc,

Deep breath. This has nothing to do with 'basic biology'. You are merely repeating standard dogma. To what end? What is the basis for supposing that your standard dogma is correct and that everyone else holds 'magical' beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that the development of critical thinking skills might be more useful than indoctrination? What happens when the received wisdom that you choose to impart is contradicted by new information?

[mr.turbo]

The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.

what was sir isaac newton smoking when he said this?

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]

 

[Thong Maniac]

Deep breath. This has nothing to do with 'basic biology'. You are merely repeating standard dogma. To what end? What is the basis for supposing that your standard dogma is correct and that everyone else holds 'magical' beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that the development of critical thinking skills might be more useful than indoctrination? What happens when the received wisdom that you choose to impart is contradicted by new information?

Im the indoctrinated one? I studied life sciences for my degree.


Your right, "god" did it. God works in mysterious ways. You win.

To add to your point, sure, show me proof of a god or gods and id gladly accept. Infact, I hope there is as that would be cool as shit

[mazrim]

That you are unaware of that evidence - or more likely, not interested in becoming informed - is irrelevant.

Most aren't unfortunately. There is quite a bit of talk of media bias in what they choose to portray on this forum by many but when it comes to this matter very few take the initiative to actually look at "facts"/what data is most likely to support, etc.

[gcb]

The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.

You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.

[mr.turbo]

my personal feeling is the bible contains some truth but its puzzling to decipher.

The individual who created it seems to have been motivated by certain agendas.

nobody wants to admit what the druids were doing in the basement of the cathedrals.

look at the scandals with the vatican these days.  

these fellows are not to be trusted.

[mr.turbo]

You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.

brother harridan is at his best in this mode  

[Ron Harrigan]

Im the indoctrinated one? I studied life sciences for my degree.


Your right, "god" did it. God works in mysterious ways. You win.

To add to your point, sure, show me proof of a god or gods and id gladly accept. Infact, I hope there is as that would be cool as shit

What can I say? Please pick up a book, and become better informed about the rudiments of creation (and science more generally).

http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

[Thong Maniac]

What can I say? Please pick up a book, and become better informed about the rudiments of creation (and science more generally).

http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

Bible education vs. life science/biology degree....hmmm, nah im good. Thanks though.

Nice source from creation.com lol

[Ron Harrigan]

You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.

The most remarkable thing about creation denialists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.

[Thong Maniac]

The most remarkable thing about creationists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.

Fixed. your not so different than us who feel differently. Your just on the other side of the fence. That same paragraph can be totally applied to you and others.

[gcb]

The most remarkable thing about creation denialists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.

You sound like you're cherry picking - It's hard I know - everything they taught you about god is a lie and you can't handle it.

[Ron Harrigan]

Bible education vs. life science/biology degree....hmmm, nah im good. Thanks though.

Nice source from creation.com lol

Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?

[mr.turbo]

this so called debate is characteristic of a false dichotomy

my understanding is that evolution doesn't adequately account for gaps and leaps in species development

what is the anthropological antecedent of something like industrialization?

why is a crocodile the same its been for millions of years?

[Thong Maniac]

Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?

Again, insert yourself into this paragraph you wrote and it applies to you. I dont care if you pick up a book or not. You were raised on this stuff from a young age and could be smacked in the face with scientific discoveries and never budge on your dark aged belief structure. The difference here is, show me proof of a god and I will glady be pumped an excited. You on the other hand, would never accept hardcore science, as you can always disprove by saying "god works in mysterious ways". Its the total "trump card".

[gcb]

Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?

Stop being arrogant and provide evidence for what you are saying. Creationism is NOT accepted as mainstream science - I don't believe that for one second - show me the evidence.

[Ron Harrigan]

You sound like you're cherry picking - It's hard I know - everything they taught you about god is a lie and you can't handle it.

Among the essential characteristics of scientists: an ability to evaluate evidence. A characteristic of evolutionists is an inclination to ignore evidence. Those behaviours are incompatible. I understand from what you write that you yourself are generally ignorant of the basis for creation. That of course has no bearing on the reality of the science. Your ill-considered mention of God is a red herring that has nothing to do with our scientific understanding of how creation occurred. I recommend picking up a book. There are several authoritative summaries aimed at non-scientists.

[gcb]

this so called debate is characteristic of a false dichotomy

my understanding is that evolution doesn't adequately account for gaps and leaps in species development

what is the anthropological antecedent of something like industrialization?

why is a crocodile the same its been for millions of years?

You don't seem to understand evolution.

Evolution explains the mechanism - just like physics can explain the mechanism for the functioning of a car.
The specifics for any given situation require more detailed information - the gaps don't disprove evolution - they just tell us we don't have all the information.
Why does there need to be an antecedent for industrialization?
Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.

[Ron Harrigan]

Again, insert yourself into this paragraph you wrote and it applies to you. I dont care if you pick up a book or not. You were raised on this stuff from a young age and could be smacked in the face with scientific discoveries and never budge on your dark aged belief structure. The difference here is, show me proof of a god and I will glady be pumped an excited. You on the other hand, would never accept hardcore science, as you can always disprove by saying "god works in mysterious ways". Its the total "trump card".

Neither of your latest posts makes any sense. So I encourage you to look into what is known about creation using the sources recommended.

[gcb]

Among the essential characteristics of scientists: an ability to evaluate evidence. A characteristic of evolutionists is an inclination to ignore evidence. Those behaviours are incompatible. I understand from what you write that you yourself are generally ignorant of the basis for creation. That of course has no bearing on the reality of the science. Your ill-considered mention of God is a red herring that has nothing to do with our scientific understanding of how creation occurred. I recommend picking up a book. There are several authoritative summaries aimed at non-scientists.

Concrete - it's strong and makes a good foundation, both in science and construction. Where is your concrete evidence?

[Ron Harrigan]

Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.

Your issue is not that you know nothing about evolution - though your knowledge is admittedly paltry. It is that you stray away from what is known to make assertions about evolution for which there is no evidence. Denial, misrepresentation, quote mining, straw men and sophomoric insults don't constitute an argument.

[gcb]

Your issue is not that you know nothing about evolution - though your knowledge is admittedly paltry. It is that you stray away from what is known to make assertions about evolution for which there is no evidence. Denial, misrepresentation, quote mining, straw men and sophomoric insults don't constitute an argument.

OK - you're just a troll - with clever words. You have provide no arguments and no concrete evidence of anything. That is why science ultimately rejects your viewpoint.

[Ron Harrigan]

OK - you're just a troll - with clever words. You have provide no arguments and no concrete evidence of anything. That is why science ultimately rejects your viewpoint.

Why you are so fearful of 'science' only you can know. But it's really simple. Some of us have a lot of trouble believing stuff on the basis of authority, in the absence of evidence, and particularly when beliefs are contradicted by evidence. That's much of what evolutionists insist on believing by the way. There is no evidence AGAINST science. How could there be evidence against reality?