Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[SaiyanZ]

The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

I know this as a fact because a bunch of people who I don't know, wrote about it in a language I don't understand, on bits of parchment thousands of years ago, which was then put together into one source, hundreds of years later, and translated into legibility by some other people I don't know. Everything in that one source is fact and I live my life by it. Just because.

 

[Swa]

We stop looking at fossills for answers and start looking at DNA to improve health.

I never knew how TOE contributed to anything anyway.

Though not the correct answer a very good point. As I stated in the other thread evolution is the perfect example of theory that explains everything explains nothing. Philip Skell outlines how it is the basis of the other biological sciences that has given us our understanding of how biology operates and not speculations on how anything might have arisen. Evolution whether true or not is more of a distraction and only brought in after research has been conducted. It can also be a dangerous distraction at times.

What if the earth is really 6000 years old?

Nice dodging the question. Living in ignorance is bliss as they say.

These relentless troll posts about PD in the NS forums are so annoying.

Questions like "What if creation were true" in a Science forum is just blatantly stupid.

What if the FSM is real? what then huh? what then?!

Take a look who are the actual ones trolling. The fact you can't answer the question shows you don't even understand it.

 

[porchrat]

No if you think this has nothing to do with science then you are implying the exact supression of information the churches did to science in the dark ages. Science has no sensitive topics nor does it simply dismiss any ideal without facts. To you to might seem like rubbish but if you a person of science you must debate every aspect because what is science? ultimately its a study that defines the natural percieved by human beings.

Creationism does not constitute science. It isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as a creation scientist. The very term is an oxymoron.

ID does not constitute science either. Once again the intelligent designer's existence is not falsifiable. ID cannot make reliable and objective falsifiable predictions because there is no standard for "designeyness" in genetic material. This stuff isn't science it is religion in a labcoat.

I'm all for discussing science in the science section but this crap honestly does not belong here.

From now on I won't argue I'm just going to use the RBP button. Carry on with the religious schit in this section if you can't help yourself and we will leave it up to the mods to decide.

 

[CoolBug]

Though not the correct answer a very good point. As I stated in the other thread evolution is the perfect example of theory that explains everything explains nothing. Philip Skell outlines how it is the basis of the other biological sciences that has given us our understanding of how biology operates and not speculations on how anything might have arisen. Evolution whether true or not is more of a distraction and only brought in after research has been conducted. It can also be a dangerous distraction at times.

Nice dodging the question. Living in ignorance is bliss as they say.

Take a look who are the actual ones trolling. The fact you can't answer the question shows you don't even understand it.

It's a stupid question that I can't take seriously.

 

[Swa]

Creationism does not constitute science. It isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as a creation scientist. The very term is an oxymoron.

ID does not constitute science either. Once again the intelligent designer's existence is not falsifiable. ID cannot make reliable and objective falsifiable predictions because there is no standard for "designeyness" in genetic material. This stuff isn't science it is religion in a labcoat.

I'm all for discussing science in the science section but this crap honestly does not belong here.

From now on I won't argue I'm just going to use the RBP button. Carry on with the religious schit in this section if you can't help yourself and we will leave it up to the mods to decide.

Neither is evolution.

It's a stupid question that I can't take seriously.

Because you don't know the answer.

 

[unskinnybob]

ID / Creationism belongs in PD not science. ID = non-science or even nonsense.

 

[Swa]

So many posts on discussing what ID is or isn't yet nobody giving a simple answer to the question.

 

[Unhappy438]

So many posts on discussing what ID is or isn't yet nobody giving a simple answer to the question.

Thats because your question is horse schit, Coolbug has explained why.

 

[cyghost]

This begs the question though when evolution eventually always turns philosophical then does it still belong in science? My contention has always been that both creation and evolution rests on philosophical grounds. Either that should be accepted as part of science or it should no longer be part of science.

This is so incredibly stupid, that I didn't think the poster was serious. Apparently, he is...

It only always turn "philosophical" because idiots that do not understand what it is in the first place, seem fit to "question" it. Meanwhile in the real world, biological scientists continue unabated to do real science and enhance our knowledge of the universe with respects to life.

Creationism or its retarded younger brother ID, does no ****ing science. Ever. It has produced nothing; it has predicted nothing and it leaves us with more questions than actually answering anything.

So "philosophisize" away all you want, despite objections to that being done in the science forum, given that we HAVE a philosophical subforum, but please don't pretend not to see the clear and obvious distinction. That only expose your ignorance for everyone to have a laugh at.

 

[Techne]

From now on I won't argue I'm just going to use the RBP button. Carry on with the religious schit in this section if you can't help yourself and we will leave it up to the mods to decide.

Lol, Nick333 won't like this, but to each his own.

 

[Techne]

No if you think this has nothing to do with science then you are implying the exact supression of information the churches did to science in the dark ages. Science has no sensitive topics nor does it simply dismiss any ideal without facts. To you to might seem like rubbish but if you a person of science you must debate every aspect because what is science? ultimately its a study that defines the natural percieved by human beings.

So, you think it is ok to discuss ID and creationism in this section?

 

[Swa]

Creationism or its retarded younger brother ID, does no ****ing science. Ever. It has produced nothing; it has predicted nothing and it leaves us with more questions than actually answering anything.

Fits evolution to a tee.

 

[cyghost]

Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers says you are wrong. *shrugs*

 

[Swa]

Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers says you are wrong. *shrugs*

Name one then.

 

[porchrat]

He trolled you righteously Don't mind it, he is an expert at it!

Thanks for pointing it out. The muppet is so good at it I didn't even realise it was happening.

 

[cyghost]

Name one then.

To what end? What can possibly entice me to go down that hole here? In another thread you have not offered a single, not one single, sound logical and or scientific argument against evolution yet you claim you have. You have not given one single credible evidence for creationism, yet claim you have.

I can't argue against that type of delusional. No one can. And while I wouldn't mind doing that in PD, 'cause it has been known to provided endless entertainment, I ain't doing that here. Sorry to disappoint. So ask me that question again when you are allowed to post in PD and I'll gladly provide you with name upon name and lol as you try and discredit them You have been allowed to sully the science forum enough as it is.
You can of course use google and find a million billion trillion such papers yourself but meh, what would that prove right? Dumb evolutionary biologists wtf do they know? Godsdone™ it and who cares how or why?

 

[cyghost]

Thanks for pointing it out. The muppet is so good at it I didn't even realise it was happening.

Swa is attempting the same with me; luckily I am wary like a fox and cannot fall for his tricks... or have I outfoxed myself once again?

 

[porchrat]

Swa is attempting the same with me; luckily I am wary like a fox and cannot fall for his tricks... or have I outfoxed myself once again?

I won't fall for Swa's trolling as he is on ignore. One of the best decisions I have ever made. Now I don't need to read his rza level rants about thermodynamics and whatnot.

My word I've just read that paragraph back to myself I just can't believe what has happened to this section...

 

[Swa]

To what end? What can possibly entice me to go down that hole here? In another thread you have not offered a single, not one single, sound logical and or scientific argument against evolution yet you claim you have. You have not given one single credible evidence for creationism, yet claim you have.

I can't argue against that type of delusional. No one can. And while I wouldn't mind doing that in PD, 'cause it has been known to provided endless entertainment, I ain't doing that here. Sorry to disappoint. So ask me that question again when you are allowed to post in PD and I'll gladly provide you with name upon name and lol as you try and discredit them You have been allowed to sully the science forum enough as it is.
You can of course use google and find a million billion trillion such papers yourself but meh, what would that prove right? Dumb evolutionary biologists wtf do they know? Godsdone™ it and who cares how or why?

You weren't quite clear on what they supposedly prove me wrong so ask yourself to what end. Also you keep claiming nothing was provided but the thread and the evidence provided in it speaks differently.

Swa is attempting the same with me; luckily I am wary like a fox and cannot fall for his tricks... or have I outfoxed myself once again?

Yes you have by not answering the question. Because if you do it will refute your canards.

 

[RiaX]

Creationism does not constitute science. It isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as a creation scientist. The very term is an oxymoron.

ID does not constitute science either. Once again the intelligent designer's existence is not falsifiable. ID cannot make reliable and objective falsifiable predictions because there is no standard for "designeyness" in genetic material. This stuff isn't science it is religion in a labcoat.

I'm all for discussing science in the science section but this crap honestly does not belong here.

From now on I won't argue I'm just going to use the RBP button. Carry on with the religious schit in this section if you can't help yourself and we will leave it up to the mods to decide.

I did not say its science, its a load of crap as far as i am concerned. They say science is full of holes and "god" created everything because all of them are brainless, however I will discuss it and explain it in a civil manner with use of science. I can easily ignore them and im aware by engaging in debate Im giving them a sense of importance, like i care about their nonsensical gods and goblins. Shame though, even if their is no hope I will try and educate these apes to understand the real natural world, not lord of the rings bible ed ect ect ect.

You could argue a creationist/ID fool is the missing link between a human and an ape lol

Edit**

-Im new so the level of intelligence and delusion of Swa has me very interested , His delusional ideal on thermodynamics shows me he probably never did mathematics behind it.
-His "evidence" that never comes to light in a decent point form.
-And his attitude that I dodge his questions and that asking questions about what I've said provides evidence ?!?!? lol if he was my student i'd fail him in an instant. Love these guys who argue out of context nit pick then claim "straws" because they dont understand and THINK they know how real science works when they havent put a foot in a lab how pathetic