Fed up of non believers

[Obelix]

 

Check out Jean-Baptiste Lamark. Darwin was bringing up the rear on theories that had already been proposed.

 

Find a regular two pound coin, and read the comment around the edge, from a somewhat famous English scientist... (and Master of the Royal Mint)

[SpikeMac]

Find a regular two pound coin, and read the comment around the edge, from a somewhat famous English scientist... (and Master of the Royal Mint)

 

Or buy this book, and read it.

[ivanava]

So what will the difference be then? Do you think they will be human?

 

One will be a biological life form and the other will be mechanical machine, on the out side they could look identical but inside they will be very different.

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 07:14 ----------

 

Just because you cannot (or more likely choose not) to understand it MrSmith, it doesnt mean that it's waffle.

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2014 at 23:53 ----------

 

 

Conservation of momentum. The Earths rotation is slowing down due to friction from the oceans. The momentum has to go somewhere, so the Moon recedes.

 

What is with this obsession that some of you have with Mr Smith?

 

Back on topic.

 

If you understand how the universe, space and time game into existence from nothing, please enlighten us in easy to understand English. My guess is you have got to the God problem, God started it, were did God come from, I have no idea.

No substitute God for Big bang or singularity.

[redwhine]

For your enjoyment and edification...

 

 

Enjoy!

[mjw47]

Dear me, some of you lot are hard work. I mentioned Lamark purely as a retort to SnailyBoy. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that science develops as a result of ongoing research based on previous theories.

 

Apart from the odd eureka moment here and there of course.

 

And it is perfectly legitimate to use the expression 'bringing up the rear' it's exactly the same but less elegantly phrased as 'standing on the shoulders of giants' isn't it?

[SnailyBoy]

I didn't refer to him as an authority, I claimed he expressed the anomaly between the two theories quite well, which I believe he did.

 

Did you, I must have missed that. All you did was post a link to a 'Creation Science' website

 

No you didn't say he did, however, what you did do was infer that because I referred to his explanation of the anomaly existing between Entropy and Evolution, I therefore must agree with his conclusion regarding creationism, which is a bit of a stupid conclusion on your part.

 

I regard Dr Samuel Johnson as a very intelligent person, and agree with most of his views. However, he was of the opinion, as many of his compatriots at the time were, that swallows turned into fishes in the winter and lived in rivers and streams.

That did not in any way invalidate the rest of his work, did it?

 

Come on, Henry Morris spouted his 'Creation Science' nonsense despite evidence to the contrary and could hardly be considered a legitimate scientist when he died in 2006. Not a fair comparison to Dr Samuel Johnson working with the evidence available over 200 years before.

 

The burden of proof is overwhelming? Despite the 'Missing Link'? Fair enough, as I said it is the religious that have a problem with that conclusion, because it effectively devalues humanity. Personally, I don't give a rats rear end one way or the other.

 

Actually I said the 'Evidence' for evolution was overwhelming. I suggested that you present the evidence for 'Intelligent Creation' that you mentioned and we can go from there

 

As for Darwin, you do realise he wasn't the first to come up with the theory don't you?

 

Check out Jean-Baptiste Lamark. Darwin was bringing up the rear on theories that had already been proposed.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

Edited February 26, 2014 by SnailyBoy

[mjw47]

Did you, I must have missed that. All you did was post a link to a 'Creation Science' website

 

 

 

Come on, Henry Morris spouted his 'Creation Science' nonsense despite evidence to the contrary and could hardly be considered a legitimate scientist when he died in 2006. Not a fair comparison to Dr Samuel Johnson working with the evidence available over 200 years before.

 

 

 

Actually I said the 'Evidence' for evolution was overwhelming. I suggested that you present the evidence for 'Intelligent Creation' that you mentioned and we can go from there

 

 

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Yes you obviously did miss it, I made it quite clear in post 251 that I don't believe in creationism and I don't accept Morris' conclusions. I also explained that I provided the link because I felt his explanation of the differences between the two theories would be easy to understand even for the obtuse amongst us. Obviously I was wrong on that point.

 

Would you now do everyone a great favour and shut up about Morris? I know you want to cling to him like a comfort blanket but you're beginning to look a little silly.

 

The reference to Johnson was to illustrate that even though someone may hold a ridiculous viewpoint on one subject, it doesn't invalidate every other view they may hold.

Obviously that one got past you also.

 

As I have absolutely no idea as to whether intelligent design or random primordial soup development is responsible for us being here - and have never claimed otherwise - I won't be supplying any evidence.

 

My whole position is that neither I ,nor anyone else for that matter, actually Knows.

An open mind is required,try it sometime.

 

You referenced Darwin, thought I'd give you some other evolution theorist to refer to next time, no problem, no need to thank me.

[SnailyBoy]

Yes you obviously did miss it, I made it quite clear in post 251 that I don't believe in creationism and I don't accept Morris' conclusions. I also explained that I provided the link because I felt his explanation of the differences between the two theories would be easy to understand even for the obtuse amongst us. Obviously I was wrong on that point.

 

Would you now do everyone a great favour and shut up about Morris? I know you want to cling to him like a comfort blanket but you're beginning to look a little silly.

 

The reference to Johnson was to illustrate that even though someone may hold a ridiculous viewpoint on one subject, it doesn't invalidate every other view they may hold.

Obviously that one got past you also.

 

As I have absolutely no idea as to whether intelligent design or random primordial soup development is responsible for us being here - and have never claimed otherwise - I won't be supplying any evidence.

 

My whole position is that neither I ,nor anyone else for that matter, actually Knows.

An open mind is required,try it sometime.

 

You referenced Darwin, thought I'd give you some other evolution theorist to refer to next time, no problem, no need to thank me.

 

So you didn't say" the inference being that you appear to believe that evolution disproves the existence of intelligent creation.

 

It doesn't, it merely means that intelligent creation decided to go about it in that particular way.“

 

Kind of suggests you advocate the notion of 'intelligent creation'.

 

Maybe you could expand further, obviously with references to recognised scientific journals.

[mjw47]

So you didn't say" the inference being that you appear to believe that evolution disproves the existence of intelligent creation.

 

It doesn't, it merely means that intelligent creation decided to go about it in that particular way.“

 

Kind of suggests you advocate the notion of 'intelligent creation'.

 

Maybe you could expand further, obviously with references to recognised scientific journals.

 

What I meant was simply that the theory of evolution does not of itself prove the absence of, nor indeed the presence of, a 'creator'.

 

What part of ' As I have absolutely no idea as to whether intelligent design or primordial soup development is responsible for us being here - and have never claimed otherwise.' Do you not understand?

 

Religion would claim that evolution is Gods way of designing. Non believers would claim that evolution does away with the need for a God. Me?As I have already said, I don't know, and am still waiting for evidence either way, understand?

 

You on the other hand appear to have made your mind up, therefore the need to provide proof is down to you.

 

Perhaps you could start by showing where proof exists of the effect of evolution on the human species?

 

You know, a direct fossil link showing a clear connection from a sub human creature developing through several stages until we get to Homo Erectus.

 

As I understand it whilst such evidence exists in the animal world, as yet it hasn't been found in regard to humans, (neanderthals don't count by the way) I stand to be corrected however so fire away.

[barleycorn]

I couldn't help noticing- but isn't this where Krauss seems to re-define the word nothing??

 

When you read the book you realize that by "nothing" Krauss is not referring to "non-being" or to "total absence of reality", but to something fundamental from which the universe began.

 

Even Sam Harris had a problem with this when they both interviewed each other. Sam Harris says:

 

 

 

All Karuss has done is play linguistic gymnastics to try and fool those who don't read between the lines.

 

Krauss actual position is that the universe come from something (not from nothing). He states:

 

 

 

Hmmm.. a masterpiece of illogical thinking.

 

Yep, it all depends on how you define nothing. I personally don't think it was a particularly well advised sound bite.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 14:52 ----------

 

What I meant was simply that the theory of evolution does not of itself prove the absence of, nor indeed the presence of, a 'creator'.

 

What part of ' As I have absolutely no idea as to whether intelligent design or primordial soup development is responsible for us being here - and have never claimed otherwise.' Do you not understand?

 

Religion would claim that evolution is Gods way of designing. Non believers would claim that evolution does away with the need for a God. Me?As I have already said, I don't know, and am still waiting for evidence either way, understand?

 

You on the other hand appear to have made your mind up, therefore the need to provide proof is down to you.

 

Perhaps you could start by showing where proof exists of the effect of evolution on the human species?

 

You know, a direct fossil link showing a clear connection from a sub human creature developing through several stages until we get to Homo Erectus.

 

As I understand it whilst such evidence exists in the animal world, as yet it hasn't been found in regard to humans, (neanderthals don't count by the way) I stand to be corrected however so fire away.

OK, challenge accepted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

 

jb