If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26979 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-28 10:46:48 AM  
Dimensio: Your above statement constitutes neither a demonstration that any of the rebuttals made against your previous assertions are flawed nor a concession that your previous statements were false.

If you can put all your whaargarbl into a video and send me a link, I promise, I'll nominate you for a Golden Crodocuck award. It's very prestigious. Kent Hovind won the inaugural award.
 
2009-03-28 01:38:46 PM  
colon_pow:

there is some disagreement on the definition of the term species. i would replace it with "kind".




You had me going there for a while.

CDP is much better at it though. A good troll has to include a shibboleth to let the insiders know. Just being "way over the top, full retard" isn't enough, due to Poe's law. You also have to be funny. Your trolling isn't very funny, and is actually rather annoying. You clog the thread with crap that doesn't get a laugh for anyone except you, so as trolling goes, although you "caught" a lot of suckers, you're still not very good. Your style is too much /b/ and not enough a.f.u

That's not to say that you should quit, but please do at least put some effort into it. Just spouting obnoxious nonsense in order to get a rise out of people doesn't display much creativity.
 
2009-03-28 02:23:30 PM  
heinekenftw: And it has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Not quite true; both are results of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

colon_pow: see my previous reply. species have undergone variation.

And again....

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.


colon_pow: i don't believe that all life has a common ancestor.

However, you have not stated your philosophical basis for rejecting the above reasoning.
 
2009-03-28 02:35:58 PM  
This thread should be used in schools to teach internet trolling, and the basic combating of.
 
2009-03-28 04:15:15 PM  
maddogdelta: If you can put all your whaargarbl into a video and send me a link, I promise, I'll nominate you for a Golden Crodocuck award. It's very prestigious. Kent Hovind won the inaugural award.

As I do not employ dishonest claims as a means of disputing established science, I do not believe that I would be eligible for such an award. I believe that Mr. Ray Comfort, of the Way of the Master ministries, is a more appropriate recipient of the next award.
 
2009-03-28 04:59:33 PM  
Barney Frank is proof Darwin was full of shiat.
 
2009-03-28 05:39:05 PM  
Dimensio: I do not believe that I would be eligible for such an award. I believe that Mr. Ray Comfort, of the Way of the Master ministries, is a more appropriate recipient of the next award

Oh shiat. Sorry. I completely farked that up. That was directed at colon_pow. You may deal with me in any manner you feel appropriate.
 
2009-03-28 08:50:45 PM  
maddogdelta: Oh shiat. Sorry. I completely farked that up. That was directed at colon_pow. You may deal with me in any manner you feel appropriate.

A spanking! A spanking!
 
2009-03-29 12:21:21 AM  
Dimensio: colon_pow: maybe that's all you got.
the little lady calls.

good night all you heathens.

You have still provided no rational argument. You have lied repeatedly, you have dishonestly changed the subject of discussion and you have demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding not only of the subject of evolution, but also of scientific methodology and even of the very article to which this subject relates. You cannot be considered a credible source of information on any subject. Your willfull and dishonest evasion of all facts that directly contradict your false claims demonstrates further that you are entirely unwilling in honest discussion, and further supports my hypothesis that creationists, in general, are willing to lie as a means of supporting their position and that they, in general, willfully ignore reality.


you are the single most boring and tiresome person i have ever encountered here on fark. you sing a one note song. no offense, but that is the way i see it. see rev 3:16

anyway, so much for a discussion on whether the weaknesses of evolution should be discussed in a classroom. there are obviously many who cannot bring themselves to even admit that there are weaknesses, although they would admit that there are areas where more research is needed. can you not then admit that these are (for now at least) weakness in the theory?
 
2009-03-29 12:26:15 AM  
colon_pow: can you not then admit that these are (for now at least) weakness in the theory?

'Weakness' is an unscientific term that has little meaning. That was one of the primary arguments for striking it from the standards.

If you wish to argue that there are areas for which data is currently lacking, you may do so, but that is part and parcel for the activity of scientific investigation, which is covered by analysis and evaluation.

Saying that there is data not yet collected is like arguing that humans breathe oxygen. Whoopety-farking-doo.
 
2009-03-29 12:52:19 AM  
colon_pow: anyway, so much for a discussion on whether the weaknesses of evolution should be discussed in a classroom. there are obviously many who cannot bring themselves to even admit that there are weaknesses, although they would admit that there are areas where more research is needed.

So, lots of research going on in high-school biology classrooms in Texas, huh.

Out of curiosity, what scientific theories do you consider free of "weakness"? And, for the thirtieth time, why don't you hold your pastor to the same standard of proof?
 
2009-03-29 06:16:34 AM  
colon_pow: you are the single most boring and tiresome person i have ever encountered here on fark. you sing a one note song. no offense, but that is the way i see it. see rev 3:16

Don't look in the mirror when you type, mmmmkay?


anyway, so much for a discussion on whether the weaknesses of evolution should be discussed in a classroom.

You have yet to present any. All of yours were quotes from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, which have all been thoroughly shown to be completely ignorant babble.

there are obviously many who cannot bring themselves to even admit that there are weaknesses,

I have put this to you many times, and I will again. Come up with a weakness. Get it published in a reputable scientific journal, and you will win the Nobel Prize.

Don't you want money, fame, and real scientific backing for your whaargarbl? Go for it!

Wait....you are anti science. I forgot.

although they would admit that there are areas where more research is needed. can you not then admit that these are (for now at least) weakness in the theory?

Which you can't even demonstrate even exist.
 
2009-03-29 12:27:20 PM  
ninjakirby: colon_pow: can you not then admit that these are (for now at least) weakness in the theory?

'Weakness' is an unscientific term that has little meaning. That was one of the primary arguments for striking it from the standards.

If you wish to argue that there are areas for which data is currently lacking, you may do so, but that is part and parcel for the activity of scientific investigation, which is covered by analysis and evaluation.

Saying that there is data not yet collected is like arguing that humans breathe oxygen. Whoopety-farking-doo.


case in point.
 
2009-03-29 12:29:25 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: colon_pow: anyway, so much for a discussion on whether the weaknesses of evolution should be discussed in a classroom. there are obviously many who cannot bring themselves to even admit that there are weaknesses, although they would admit that there are areas where more research is needed.

So, lots of research going on in high-school biology classrooms in Texas, huh.

Out of curiosity, what scientific theories do you consider free of "weakness"? And, for the thirtieth time, why don't you hold your pastor to the same standard of proof?


case in point. other scientific theories are not plagued by weaknesses.

oh, and if i had a pastor i would hold him to the same standard of proof.
 
2009-03-29 12:31:29 PM  
maddogdelta: colon_pow: you are the single most boring and tiresome person i have ever encountered here on fark. you sing a one note song. no offense, but that is the way i see it. see rev 3:16

Don't look in the mirror when you type, mmmmkay?


anyway, so much for a discussion on whether the weaknesses of evolution should be discussed in a classroom.

You have yet to present any. All of yours were quotes from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, which have all been thoroughly shown to be completely ignorant babble.

there are obviously many who cannot bring themselves to even admit that there are weaknesses,

I have put this to you many times, and I will again. Come up with a weakness. Get it published in a reputable scientific journal, and you will win the Nobel Prize.

Don't you want money, fame, and real scientific backing for your whaargarbl? Go for it!

Wait....you are anti science. I forgot.

although they would admit that there are areas where more research is needed. can you not then admit that these are (for now at least) weakness in the theory?

Which you can't even demonstrate even exist.


case in point.

google it

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

take your fingers out of your ears,
stop going na na na na na i can't hear you.
 
2009-03-29 02:08:42 PM  
colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

Perhaps you might look at Google Scholar for a more specific and well-sourced example? Oh, wait... there's only ten results. =(

"Like YECs, IDCs stress alleged "weaknesses" in evolution more than positive evidence for their position." ...

"Certain groups, however, particularly active in the United States, have exaggerated and fabricated weaknesses in evolution theory in order to discredit it" ...
 
2009-03-29 02:12:55 PM  
abb3w: colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

Perhaps you might look at Google Scholar for a more specific and well-sourced example? Oh, wait... there's only ten results. =(

"Like YECs, IDCs stress alleged "weaknesses" in evolution more than positive evidence for their position." ...

"Certain groups, however, particularly active in the United States, have exaggerated and fabricated weaknesses in evolution theory in order to discredit it" ...


tbn2.google.com

leave my theory alone!!!
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-29 02:56:31 PM  
colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

And I get 545,000 hits when I google holocost weakness,

So far you have presented no valid scientific evidence to support even one of your so-called weaknesses. You are just parroting to talking points from the fundie websites that I mock with my other post.

See have reviewed every site that you have pulled these "weaknesses" from in the course of my research.

I strongly suggest that you do a little independent research, much like I did.

Then you will have a truly informed opinion, instead of repeating long discredited non-scientific garbage.
 
2009-03-29 03:28:36 PM  
CDP: colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

And I get 545,000 hits when I google holocost weakness,

So far you have presented no valid scientific evidence to support even one of your so-called weaknesses. You are just parroting to talking points from the fundie websites that I mock with my other post.

See have reviewed every site that you have pulled these "weaknesses" from in the course of my research.

I strongly suggest that you do a little independent research, much like I did.

Then you will have a truly informed opinion, instead of repeating long discredited non-scientific garbage.


i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?
 
2009-03-29 03:33:53 PM  
colon_pow: i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

You don't have 2 million weaknesses, you have 2 million unconfirmed hits in a google search engine.

colon_pow: i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

Uhhhh . . . no it means there are people with overactive imaginations.

Do the multiple faked UFO sightings prove that there are aliens?
 
2009-03-29 03:48:40 PM  
colon_pow: i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here.

We're not asking for 2+million. Just one. Get it published and you will win the Nobel Prize.

(you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Now you are getting into my territory. On this planet, we obey the laws of thermodynamics. That includes biology, which doesn't seem to have a problem with thermodynamics.

If you want, abb3w will show you the math that demonstrates evolution follows because of the 2nd law.

Second, if you are going to use the creationist weasel words to define thermodynamics, then you have no understanding of thermodynamics at all. Thermodynamics, like Quantum Mechanics, is most accurately expressed through mathematics. As soon as you translate it into any language other than math, it always gets worded incorrectly.
 
2009-03-29 03:54:31 PM  
heinekenftw: colon_pow: i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

You don't have 2 million weaknesses, you have 2 million unconfirmed hits in a google search engine.


good catch. you're pretty sharp.

colon_pow: i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

Uhhhh . . . no it means there are people with overactive imaginations.

Do the multiple faked UFO sightings prove that there are aliens?


not so sharp here. fakeries are the result of either desperation, or attention whoring. and maybe other reasons.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-29 04:09:00 PM  
colon_pow: CDP: colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

And I get 545,000 hits when I google holocost weakness,

So far you have presented no valid scientific evidence to support even one of your so-called weaknesses. You are just parroting to talking points from the fundie websites that I mock with my other post.

See have reviewed every site that you have pulled these "weaknesses" from in the course of my research.

I strongly suggest that you do a little independent research, much like I did.

Then you will have a truly informed opinion, instead of repeating long discredited non-scientific garbage.

i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?


You really, really need to review your talking points before you post.

This comes from the Creation Ministries International's web site.


Arguments we think creationists should not use:

'The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.' This law says that the entropy ('disorder') of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn't always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat-otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth-to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

They also say:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds-it's the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is 'the truth' (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the 'doubtful' arguments.


Link (new window)



Please explain how hoaxes that were exposed by the scientific community are a weakness?

If anything it shows the strength of the peer-review process.

So when are you going to submit your peer-reviewed paper on these so-called weaknesses?

That is how one would go about acknowledging these so-called weakneeses.
 
2009-03-29 04:18:43 PM  
CDP: So when are you going to submit your peer-reviewed paper on these so-called weaknesses?

That is how one would go about acknowledging these so-called weakneeses.



I think he's just lazy. I've given him some sample topics for investigation, which if evolution were not true, then there are tests that could be performed which would crush evolution as a scientific theory, if the results of those tests were what ID would predict.
However, for some reason, he doesn't want to do them. If they come up the way ID/creationism predicts they will, then the Nobel Prize is in the bag.
 
2009-03-29 04:22:18 PM  
CDP: colon_pow: CDP: colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

And I get 545,000 hits when I google holocost weakness,

So far you have presented no valid scientific evidence to support even one of your so-called weaknesses. You are just parroting to talking points from the fundie websites that I mock with my other post.

See have reviewed every site that you have pulled these "weaknesses" from in the course of my research.

I strongly suggest that you do a little independent research, much like I did.

Then you will have a truly informed opinion, instead of repeating long discredited non-scientific garbage.

i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?

You really, really need to review your talking points before you post.

This comes from the Creation Ministries International's web site.


Arguments we think creationists should not use:

'The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.' This law says that the entropy ('disorder') of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn't always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat-otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth-to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

They also say:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds-it's the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is 'the truth' (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the 'doubtful' arguments.


Link (new window)



Please explain how hoaxes that were exposed by the scientific community are a weakness?

If anything it shows the strength of the peer-review process.

So when are you going to submit your peer-reviewed paper on these so-called weaknesses?

That is how one would go about acknowledging these so-called weakneeses.


i did not claim that the 2nd law began at the fall. and i don't claim that the 2nd law is bad. i've never heard that line of reasoning. strawman much?

about the hoaxes. the simple matter that they were perpetrated in the first place smacks of desperation.
 
2009-03-29 04:42:56 PM  
colon_pow: i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.


colon, you didn't answer me last time I asked.

If I wrote 1+1=7 on a blackboard, would that be a weakness in mathematics, or would that just make me wrong?

If I said the sky was a fluorescent orange, would that be a weakness in atmospherics, or would that just make me a liar?

Someone perpetuating a lie by circumventing the scientific process is not a weakness in evolution. It's a weakness in a few individuals who have no problem lying to achieve fame.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)


2 million+ hits on Google does not equate to 2 million+ weaknesses in evolution. You are aware, I hope, that a page with the text "there are no weaknesses in evolution" will generate a hit just as well as a creationist's website?

As abb3w mentioned, only 10 hits appear in Google Scholar. The number of hits something gets in a standard Google search is not a metric as to how true something is. Otherwise I'd be throwing out my globe; flat earth gets almost 16 million hits.

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.


You can say it all you want, that doesn't make it true. The only way a hoax counts as a weakness is if you redefine "weakness" to include hoaxes.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they're perceived weaknesses. You certainly seem to perceive them as such.

It does not behoove the scientific community to acknowledge them as weaknesses, because they're not. If I was doing a magic trick, you might perceive a floating ball, but telling you that you're right, that the ball is in fact floating, would be a lie.

What the scientific community should do is take these perceived weaknesses, and point out that they're not weaknesses at all. If public perception is wrong, they need to correct that faulty thinking.

... Which is exactly what we've been doing to you in this thread. How 'bout that.
 
2009-03-29 04:47:06 PM  
VonAether: colon_pow: i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

colon, you didn't answer me last time I asked.

If I wrote 1+1=7 on a blackboard, would that be a weakness in mathematics, or would that just make me wrong?

If I said the sky was a fluorescent orange, would that be a weakness in atmospherics, or would that just make me a liar?

Someone perpetuating a lie by circumventing the scientific process is not a weakness in evolution. It's a weakness in a few individuals who have no problem lying to achieve fame.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

2 million+ hits on Google does not equate to 2 million+ weaknesses in evolution. You are aware, I hope, that a page with the text "there are no weaknesses in evolution" will generate a hit just as well as a creationist's website?

As abb3w mentioned, only 10 hits appear in Google Scholar. The number of hits something gets in a standard Google search is not a metric as to how true something is. Otherwise I'd be throwing out my globe; flat earth gets almost 16 million hits.

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.

You can say it all you want, that doesn't make it true. The only way a hoax counts as a weakness is if you redefine "weakness" to include hoaxes.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they're perceived weaknesses. You certainly seem to perceive them as such.

It does not behoove the scientific community to acknowledge them as weaknesses, because they're not. If I was doing a magic trick, you might perceive a floating ball, but telling you that you're right, that the ball is in fact floating, would be a lie.

What the scientific community should do is take these perceived weaknesses, and point out that they're not weaknesses at all. If public perception is wrong, they need to correct that faulty thinking.

... Which is exactly what we've been doing to you in this thread. How 'bout that.


which is exactly what they need to do in the public schools.
why the resistance to that?
 
2009-03-29 04:51:57 PM  
oh, CDP, thanks for the link
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-29 04:54:38 PM  
colon_pow: CDP: colon_pow: CDP: colon_pow: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for weaknesses in evolution. (0.17 seconds)

And I get 545,000 hits when I google holocost weakness,

So far you have presented no valid scientific evidence to support even one of your so-called weaknesses. You are just parroting to talking points from the fundie websites that I mock with my other post.

See have reviewed every site that you have pulled these "weaknesses" from in the course of my research.

I strongly suggest that you do a little independent research, much like I did.

Then you will have a truly informed opinion, instead of repeating long discredited non-scientific garbage.

i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

i'm just saying there are weaknesses.

perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?

You really, really need to review your talking points before you post.

This comes from the Creation Ministries International's web site.


Arguments we think creationists should not use:

'The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.' This law says that the entropy ('disorder') of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn't always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat-otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth-to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

They also say:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds-it's the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is 'the truth' (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the 'doubtful' arguments.


Link (new window)



Please explain how hoaxes that were exposed by the scientific community are a weakness?

If anything it shows the strength of the peer-review process.

So when are you going to submit your peer-reviewed paper on these so-called weaknesses?

That is how one would go about acknowledging these so-called weakneeses.

i did not claim that the 2nd law began at the fall. and i don't claim that the 2nd law is bad. i've never heard that line of reasoning. strawman much?

about the hoaxes. the simple matter that they were perpetrated in the first place smacks of desperation.


That straw man comes from a Creationist web site.

And exactly what desperation are you talking about?

Is that the best that you have?

Does that mean that you discredit the Bush administration due to the WMD hoax that they presented to the world?

In the 150 years since Darwin presented his Theory no one has presented even one peer-reviewed paper falsifying his theory.

Among the scientific community the only controversy is how it happened, not if it happened.

What evidence do you have for an alternative theory?
 
2009-03-29 04:58:12 PM  
CDP: What evidence do you have for an alternative theory?

i'll get back to you on that in 4 or 5 hrs. right now i'm working on my nobel prize.

chow for now
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-29 05:02:28 PM  
Thanks for the laugh,

I have go to run to do a little volunteer work this afternoon.
 
2009-03-29 05:11:31 PM  
colon_pow: i say the fact that there have been numerous hoaxes presented would constitute a weakness.

To the theory? No. That's a weakness to human nature.

Now, if you could show that the theory still primarily relied on one of those hoaxes for validity, you might have a point. However, it does not.

colon_pow: perhaps you want to say they are only perceived weakness. what's the harm in acknowledging them?

Because ultimate basis for such perception is usually religious; explicitly including such "weaknesses" in the curriculum requires either ignoring that they are "wrong" (constituting a violation on the First Amendment's antiestablishmentarian requirement) or addressing how the underlying religious premises are "wrong" within the philosophy of science (constituting a violation of the First Amendment's requirement of free exercise).

Kids can raise the questions; and the science teachers should note the answers for science, that some religions come to different answers, and that if the kids have questions about why the answers differ, they should talk to their parents or their own pastor.

colon_pow: you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Technically, the 2nd Law is probabilistic; so it just says the timescale required to observe an significant "violation" in a equilibrium closed system of any size is pretty absurd. See the fluctuation theorem entry for more math than you can shake a stick at.

However, evolution doesn't rely on such violations; rather, Evolution is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

maddogdelta: If you want, abb3w will show you the math that demonstrates evolution follows because of the 2nd law.

"Point at". Actually walking someone else all the way through it is a bit beyond my skill level. Go print out the PDF, find a PhD candidate in Physics, and buy them drinks while they walk you through it.

/More exactly, "inherent perversity"; in some contexts other than science, it's not a weakness.
 
2009-03-29 05:46:45 PM  
colon_pow: about the hoaxes. the simple matter that they were perpetrated in the first place smacks of desperation.

Actually, it smacks of scientists who lost all their credibilities. I'm not even sure if the Piltdown man, for example, was done by a scientist.

Either way, the theory of evolution still stands strong, even in light of hoaxes perpetrated by either idiot creationists or idiot evolutionists.
 
2009-03-29 06:40:27 PM  
weaknesses in evolution = 2,490,000 results
"weaknesses in evolution" = 549 results
"no weaknesses in evolution" = 620 results
no weaknesses in evolution = 5,150,000 results

Repeating for weakness instead of weaknesses: 4,320,000 / 4,130,000


Your rigorous statistical analysis has left me speechless.
 
2009-03-29 06:42:54 PM  
abb3w: "Point at". Actually walking someone else all the way through it is a bit beyond my skill level. Go print out the PDF, find a PhD candidate in Physics, and buy them drinks while they walk you through it.

Get 'em drunk enough and you'll find out they've just been making shiat up the whole time.


www.smbc-comics.com
 
2009-03-29 07:15:36 PM  
colon_pow: i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

I'm starting to smell troll. A damn good one if so. To paraphrase CS Lewis, colon_pow either (1) arrived at his faith without the help of a clergyman, as he claimed above; (2) is lying; (3) is insane; or (4) is a troll. Not all of these options are mutually exclusive, of course.
 
2009-03-29 08:11:31 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: I'm starting to smell troll. A damn good one if so. To paraphrase CS Lewis, colon_pow either (1) arrived at his faith without the help of a clergyman, as he claimed above; (2) is lying; (3) is insane; or (4) is a troll. Not all of these options are mutually exclusive, of course.

Meh. Others smelled troll before too, but colon_pow has a pretty lengthy train of comments--he's just been more vocal in this thread than I've seen him in others.

There's a reason Poe's Law exists, though. It takes no talent to ape a full-bore creationist. FloydA mentioned the need for a "shibboleth" to be an interesting troll, and it makes sense. If you think your "call" is simply tossing out a FSTDT-style comment once in a while...

Basically, if you're a talentless troll or a Creotard, you'll get smacked down all the same.
 
2009-03-29 09:15:10 PM  
cthellis: FloydA mentioned the need for a "shibboleth" to be an interesting troll, and it makes sense.

What's a sibboleth? =)
 
2009-03-29 09:33:29 PM  
abb3w: What's a sibboleth? =)

One of my friend's City of Heroes characters?


;-)

In this case, it's it would be something like CDP's comic at the end of his long posts. People who aren't paying attention get trolled, but he puts a spoiler in full view.
 
2009-03-29 09:52:37 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: colon_pow: i'm not going to go into every 2+million weaknesses of the theory here. (you would just say, given enough time and chance, anything is possible, even violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

I'm starting to smell troll. A damn good one if so. To paraphrase CS Lewis, colon_pow either (1) arrived at his faith without the help of a clergyman, as he claimed above; (2) is lying; (3) is insane; or (4) is a troll. Not all of these options are mutually exclusive, of course.


#1
 
2009-03-29 10:25:15 PM  
cthellis: Meh. Others smelled troll before too, but colon_pow has a pretty lengthy train of comments--he's just been more vocal in this thread than I've seen him in others.

I tend to disagree, in that I think success at trolling has only one metric: the number of people who are "strung along" in the thread. By that standard he does pretty well.

But what I can't figure out is what the point is in trolling a dead thread full of dead-end skeptics.

Leaning towards door #3 myself.
 
2009-03-29 10:59:54 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: I tend to disagree, in that I think success at trolling has only one metric: the number of people who are "strung along" in the thread. By that standard he does pretty well.

Doesn't count for anything unless there's a method to your madness. There's a reason Poe's Law exists...

Now if Bevets ever revealed himself to be a troll, we would bow down and WORSHIP him (ironic, no?) for merit of supreme dedication to YEEEEARS, but random crap is just random crap.

The troll himself might have fun, but then dipshiats who like to teabag everyone and shout curses in Counter Strike have fun doing THAT, too. Trolling without distinction is the rough equivalent.
 
2009-03-29 11:15:08 PM  
the time will come. damascus will be destroyed. the ONE will appear. He will bring peace to the middle east. the christians will be taken.

re read these threads. read the bible. it will be clear. good luck.
 
2009-03-29 11:16:24 PM  
colon_pow: the time will come. damascus will be destroyed. the ONE will appear. He will bring peace to the middle east. the christians will be taken.

re read these threads. read the bible. it will be clear. good luck.


idiot
 
2009-03-29 11:26:39 PM  
Halli: colon_pow: the time will come. damascus will be destroyed. the ONE will appear. He will bring peace to the middle east. the christians will be taken.

re read these threads. read the bible. it will be clear. good luck.

idiot


study the prophesies. you will be convinced.

google biblical prophesies.

the proof is there.
 
2009-03-29 11:41:06 PM  
oh, and if you ever need your ass kicked, come to tucson
 
2009-03-30 12:01:21 AM  
Guffaw
 
2009-03-30 12:08:01 AM  
colon_pow: the time will come. damascus will be destroyed. the ONE will appear. He will bring peace to the middle east. the christians will be taken.

re read these threads. read the bible. it will be clear. good luck.


Oh god the end of times! Woohoo!

How many times has the world ended?

there was 09/9/99 and 01/01/00 and 5/6/75 and . . .

Anyways, I for one can't wait for the day jesus comes down to earth to kick ass and chew bubble gum, only to find out he's all out of bubble gum. It'll be awesome, watching Him mow down the heathen unbelievers from his raptor mount, firing blessed fire from his M249 SAW. Golden bullets biatches! He'll be unstoppable, crushing mecca with his fist . . . literally. Oh man the duel between Him and Mohammed will be epic!
 
2009-03-30 12:31:59 AM  
cthellis: People who aren't paying attention get trolled

Much like you just did; look again. =þ
 
2009-03-30 12:50:26 AM  
cthellis: Get 'em drunk enough and you'll find out they've just been making shiat up the whole time.


www.smbc-comics.com


i2.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report