What is this "science" of which you speak? (Page 3)

oh_good_laughs: Sits, new geology?, try old geology, dope.

Sits, the one who always turns the discussion away from the topics, the one who starts an Evolution forumn and then later admits he's inadequate to discuss the subject. Sits.. the old guy.

oh_good_laughs: You.. you blatherskite you.

StuckInTheSixties: "starts an Evolution forumn and then later admits he's inadequate to discuss the subject"

I defy you to prove that.

oh_good_laughs: No, by "new Geology", you imply that my idea is new, when it isn't. The term 'young Earth', may be what your trying to say.

StuckInTheSixties: Unfortunately, the thread is no longer available, but I remember it quite well. The distinction you used was between "new geology" and "old geology," and the term you used to make that distinction was "new geologist."

Obviously, these terms are offshoots of the idea of "young earth," "new science," or any of the other terms used for the pseudo-science that attempts to give creedence to Biblical literalism.

Still waiting for you to prove this:

"Sits, the one who always turns the discussion away from the topics, the one who starts an Evolution forumn and then later admits he's inadequate to discuss the subject."

That thread you're referring to, and inaccurately characterizing, still exists. Either prove I said that with a link, and by copy/pasting my words, or show yourself to be a liar. Your choice.

oh_good_laughs: Sits, you have like 50 pages, anyone can look at it and see. Your blather is smeared on every page.

XFixYourBrainX: "Scientists control the testing and its results. So let the scientists test, and let the rest of the world test their results."

Geoff says in reference to my comment, "If that isn't an accusation of a conspiracy, I don't know what is."

No, your just offended. Scientists have been known to be wrong. But your not a scientist. Scientists do a pretty good job, but they should stay out of guessing how species evolved. If anyone can agree with me on the next sentence.

"Creationism theory should be rejected and so should evolutionary theory."

StuckInTheSixties: risen says:
"Sits, you have like 50 pages, anyone can look at it and see. Your blather is smeared on every page."

Liar.

Prove me wrong.

StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman quotes:
" 'Creationism theory should be rejected and so should evolutionary theory.' "

Pokerman, are you quoting YOURSELF again?

XFixYourBrainX: Ah shyt better make that a statement!

LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, of any conversation, of any topic, it seems you always have to be dragged along. Pfft, take a bus.

So then am I to understand that what you said ("New Sceience", as a predicted, has no actual meaning?

XFixYourBrainX: RisenSun says, "Lipton, of any conversation, of any topic, it seems you always have to be dragged along. Pfft, take a bus."

Not dragged along. Just follows, but who is the leader?

XFixYourBrainX: Sixties,

Do you agree or not with my statement?

"Creationism theory should be rejected and so should evolutionary theory."

thawalkingman: Science is a conspiracy:

Science is the conspiracy of the brightest minds of mankind to alleviate ignorance.

StuckInTheSixties: PokerMan says:
"Sixties, Do you agree or not with my statement? 'Creationism theory should be rejected and so should evolutionary theory.' "

Creationism, aka Intelligent Design, is a cynical, dishonest attempt by fundamentalist Christians to weaken science. It's religion in a bad disguise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

The Theory of Natural Selection, aka Evolution, has been substantiated countless times, in countless ways, by countless numbers of scientists. It is the foundation of all branches of science that study anything having to do with life.

I reject Creationism. I embrace Evolution.



thawalkingman says:
"Science is a conspiracy: Science is the conspiracy of the brightest minds of mankind to alleviate ignorance."

Beautifully said. Bravo!

XFixYourBrainX: thawalkingman says,

"Science is a conspiracy:

Science is the conspiracy of the brightest minds of mankind to alleviate ignorance."

Marvelously said

It is working greatly.

Intelligence towards knowledge is on the rise and is gaining popularity for once in history.

Geoff: I'm going to make a new rule for myself: "Don't speak to people who have more opinions than apostrophes."

It is rule I intend to live by.

oh_good_laughs: Sits, wow.. Just because you accept Evolution, does not mean you have to reject Creationism. Evolution is not a replacement for Christianity. But it doesn't surprise me that you thought that.

Also, i almost thought you came up with information on Evolution to discuss (natural selection), but it appears you have simply copied/pasted from Wikipedia..

Sits, your dialog on science is identical to Muslims in their faith sharing.

Comrade_: How can someone accept both Creation & Evolution? Isn't it a case of choose one. Either you're a product of an intelligent designer or a product of gradual changes (species variation/mutation). You can't pick and choose.

LiptonCambell: I don't see why you'd have to choose one or the other. I mean, I'm not a creationist, but I can certainly agree that its possible to hold creationist beliefs and still believe in evolution- you'd just believe God had a lighter touch than what we see described in the bible....

StuckInTheSixties: risen says:
"Just because you accept Evolution, does not mean you have to reject Creationism."

I never said so. I said that I (me) reject creationism.

risen says:
"Evolution is not a replacement for Christianity. But it doesn't surprise me that you thought that."

I never said that either. But it doesn't surprise me that you'd put words in my mouth.

risen says:
"almost thought you came up with information on Evolution to discuss (natural selection), but it appears you have simply copied/pasted from Wikipedia."

I didn't copy/paste anything from Wikipedia other than their link.

risen says:
"Sits, your dialog on science is identical to Muslims in their faith sharing."

I'm not familiar with Muslim "faith sharing" (whatever that is). Any resemblance (if there is any) is entirely coincidental. What are you implying by that statement? What's the point?

oh_good_laughs: The resemblance being, copy/pasting. My statement was really only for derogatory purposes.

StuckInTheSixties: Oh.

Okay.

I'm really offended.

*yawns*

XFixYourBrainX: TheCaveman says, "How can someone accept both Creation & Evolution? Isn't it a case of choose one. Either you're a product of an intelligent designer or a product of gradual changes (species variation/mutation). You can't pick and choose"

You don't have to pick one. People want something to conform to, or feel left out if they don't. People feel like they have to believe in something, naturally at a young age were consciously taught to believe.

StuckInTheSixties: †TheCaveman† says:
"How can someone accept both Creation & Evolution? Isn't it a case of choose one. Either you're a product of an intelligent designer or a product of gradual changes (species variation/mutation). You can't pick and choose."

And following that ...

Pokerman replies:
"You don't have to pick one."

This might be a first, but I actually have to agree with Pokerman on this one (though undoubtedly for different reasons). I see no reason why a person can't believe in a God/Creator that creates a universe that conforms with science, including Natural Selection. There are many people with exactly that belief.

A God/Creator that created a universe that conforms to science is no more credible/incredible than any other sort of God/Creator. A God/Creator that can do ANYTHING we can imagine is no more credible/incredible than any other sort of God/Creator.

However ...

Like any other theist dogma, such a belief would be based upon FAITH, and hence, there is no objective, tangible evidence to substantiate that sort of belief.

People believe what they believe. I think Caveman understands that.