0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
There is no way the 2 could have co-existed unless paleantological, geological and carbon dating theories are seriously flawed.
Evidence against evolution is this nonsense ?
There is evidence that primitive humanoids existed 2 million years ago (Richard Leakey discovered 1.5 million-year-old remains near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya and recently remains have been found in west Africa that have been dated at 2 million years old) but, as you say, dinosaurs became extinct (with a few exceptions such as crocodiles) 65 million years ago. There is no way the 2 could have co-existed unless paleantological, geological and carbon dating theories are seriously flawed.
Some have gone so far as to say that Nature should perhaps not have published that letter.
On the other hand, science is all about informed debate...
True; I could not agree more, and that's why we set up the Naked Scientists - to improve the public perception of science and scientists. Through our podcasts, website and this forum I think we're making progress!
In response to that half hour programme, one person (from the UK) contributed about 5 vitriolic emails accusing me, and the BBC, of being one-sided, un-impartial and small minded.
Someone from Cambridge University wrote to the radio show the other day asking the question "Did God invent Darwin?". Genius.
True; I could not agree more, and that's why we set up the Naked Scientists - to improve the public perception of science and scientists. Through our podcasts, website and this forum I think we're making progress!Chris
The danger of the IDiots is their ubiquity. Then I noticed Dr. Maciej Giertych's affiliation: he is with the Institute of Dendrology, in Poland. You see - branches everywhere!
This "argument" seems to be pretty one sided.
First thing on the plate, the tendency for you people to call my particular community a bunch of ID(iots).
The proper term to place on that particular group of people, who have different views than you do, are creationists.
And I am calling your group Evolutionists respectively.
Second: You seem to be throwing away the possibility that the universe was created by a higher being, just because it was an idea that was put forth by people from more than 200 years ago, and therefore unreliable. Not the best form of logic.
There are many Scientists who are creationists, and many of them are good scientists,
even though our atheist community has a definition of a "good" scientist to be an evolutionist.
The real definition of a good scientist is one who examines the facts, and comes to his own conclusion.
Neither theory has been entirely proven, or entirely disproven, and should be treated as such.
Dendrology ? Branches indeed...
I'd be interested to know what colour of (to use his preffered term) creationists science_guy belongs..
I am of what most people might call an old earth creationist.
the old Earth creationist view of things is that God created everything, including nature. Because God does not lie, then his record that we find in nature is true, though subject to different views and explanations that we, as scientists, put out to the community. Therefore, If we find evidence that the Universe was created 15 billion years ago, then that must be when it was created.
There are many words for "day" in hebrew, but the one that was used in the bible is translated to "any period of time in which somthing is accomplished", or somthing similar to that effect.
I agree that it is not possible to know wether the "Big Bang" was an act of will from some "Intelligent Designer" it is a matter of belief.
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gaps" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.
To take a religious example, it strikes me that to stand up and say you're a creationist on this forum must you must feel a bit like Daniel in the lion's den?!
I'm also curious as to why you (seem to) think that because you are a believer in the traditional creation you are a proponent of ID.Unless you are a proponent of ID as well of course.
the belief of creationism is that an intelligent being created, or designed, the universe. Is that not what a proponent of ID is?.
Firstly, I was so proud of my dendrology-branches joke that I felt real disappointment when Helio picked it up only via eric's comments.
[joke]Besides, what do I have to fear from a bunch of guys in lab coats? [/joke]
QuoteI'm also curious as to why you (seem to) think that because you are a believer in the traditional creation you are a proponent of ID.Unless you are a proponent of ID as well of course.the belief of creationism is that an intelligent being created, or designed, the universe. Is that not what a proponent of ID is?
ID(iots) are destructive and nihilistic.They have only the extinction of Darwinism, Evolution and the evidence for Natural Selection in mind as their objectives.They do not seem (to me) to believe in anything except wanton intellectual vandalism.ID(iots) offer nothing, no new information, nothing that can be understood, nothing that can be used to make anyone's life better.Creationism still follows it's own internally consistent 'laws'. It gives support and comfort to those who require it.Science follows internally consistent laws arrived at by observation and experiment. It gives sureity and repeatability to those who require it.ID follows no laws. It has no internal self-consistency. It gives nothing to anyone.It would strip sciene of it's validity by destroying the methodologies that allow it to function and it would also strip traditional creationism of it's comfort and solidity by founding it's distorted tenets on the ashes of Darwinism.ID offers nothing.ID is utterly empty.
ok... I see your point. But, I still see calling them ID(iots) is rude and uncalled for.
Scientists are usually supposed to be above such antics.