Jump to content

Hellbender

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hellbender

  1. 2 seconds ago I got this PM from a "mrs dainey". Unfortunate, if it is true, but nonetheless it sounded like a chain E-mail. Did anyone else get this? (If you want I can post the whole message.)

     

    Dearest one in the lord

    i am Mrs dainey peter' date=' I was married to Mr Stephen

    peter. who was a contractor with the government of Cote D'Ivoire before

    he died in the year 2001 after few days in the

    hospital The doctor said his death was as a result of

    poison.We were married for so many years without a

    child. Before his death we were both born again

    Christian. Since his death I decided not to remarry or

    get a child outside my matrimonial home which the

    Bible is against. When my late husband was alive he

    deposited a trunk box with a security company here in

    Cote D lvoire.Which contains the sum of Us$3.million

    dollars.Presently this money is still in the custody

    of the security company in Cote D lvoire.....[/quote']

  2. That sounds great, but can you mix Latin and Greek like that?

    AFAIK, Linnaean names only need to be Latinized, or in other words to sound Latin. Sometimes other elements are mixed in as well. For instance a person's name can be mixed in and organism's Linnaean name (like Galeocerdo cuvieri, you can see Georges Cuvier's name in the tiger shark's latin name) or sometimes the place the organism is from or was found, such as Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, the hellbender, which can be found in the Allegheny region of the United States. So I suppose it is okay to mix Greek and Latin, if I can think of any examples of this I will post them.

  3. A lot of it is also because their creationist pastors and mentors are ignorant of the subject and unable to apprise them on alternative thought in this regard.

    Now you show your true colors. Why the hell would a high school student go to a pastor to learn science? Why do you think they teach evolution is school in the first place?

    There's other stuff out there by creationists explaining alternative interpretations of what is observed relative to how it came to be.

    And they explain it as? See on one side there is scientists saying that natural processes are responsible for the phenomena they observe. They learn from it, and it broadens our understanding of the world. Creationists aren't follwong the scientific method. They are looking at things and saying "oh there's god's handiwork, oh theres some more" which is subjective. Mainstream scientists don't say whether or not a god or gods are responsible for their observations. For all they know, everything you see that seems natural could be the work of the supernatural. But there is no way this can be proven, much less detected or measured; hence assumptions like these fall under the realm of metaphysics, which is not part of science.

    Imo, there's objective science often being presented on both sides of the debate.

    As I have stated above, this is not the case. When religious beliefs (and don't fool yourself, ID is still religion-based) try to masquerade as science, it is the paragon of subjectivity.

    This is not to say that some creationists make fools of themselves at times in their weak arguments. Both sides have them also.

    Which side continuously brings up the same arguments that have been refuted in books published as long as 30 years ago, or which one side often refuses to address points made by their opponents that make them uncomfortable? For that matter, which side never gets the freaking point?

  4. Wrong! My contention has always been that secularist scientists have been indoctrinated on their theories throughout their education from primary grades on up.

    Why is this you think?

    There is no deliberate conspiracy. They are sincere in what they practice and believe. Since no alternative ID viewpoint has been allowed as consideration in any phase of their education' date=' they have simply not considered another viewpoint, for the most part.[/quote']

    Why is this you think?

    ID special creationist scientists often interpret what is observed differently than the more secularist ones do, after investigating certain aspects of the alternative view.

    Yeah, a real scientist will usually ponder what the observation can tell them. Your "special creation scientists" will just say "god did it."

    Many ID scientists, previous to becoming such, had a more secularist viewpoint on the interpretaion of what is observed. Henry Morris, founder of ICR is one example.

    Try to replace "secularist" in your head as "objective scientific".

  5. I think it is necessary for basic physics students to be exposed to both sides of a theory-even if one is metaphysical in nature. IF is a perfect alternative to the humanistic theory of gravity, and I support it being taught in schools.

     

    PS I elect Edisonian for the "creepiest avatar" award....

  6. That guy was a christian, thats all thats needed to explain why he tried to dispove the chimp genome project.

    If you allow me to nitpick for a second, while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to. Many christians (and other religious folk) have the brainpower to reconcile their beliefs with fact.

  7. Regardless of the context of the book,

    i wan't talking about the context of the book, I was talking about the quote.

     

    the quote by this scientifically prestigious author was quite emphatically clear that as for the fossil record, the "tree," in Gould's view consists of branchless "nibs," and a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions being used by evolutionists to make the case for it.

    To continue your sentence for you: ",because secularist scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to prop up a theory that they know to be false to promote their godless philosophies." That about right?

    I'm afraid there is no such thing as an "unsubstantiated assumption" in a scientific theory. If there is no immediate evidence, there may be many other reasons why scientists will think something. The fossil record for snakes is far from complete (thanks to their delicate skeletal structure), but they infer from other things that snakes evolved from early lizards, through comparative anatomy, homology, etc. (Plus the fact that snakelike (legless and glass lizards) creatures have in a sense, started to evolve from lizards again, which we can see happening). So it isn't just an "unsubstantiated guess" if there isn't this perfect, flawless and clear fossil line. Scientists can go on much, much more.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.