Canuckistani Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 So far, I see science lending more and more support for the Bible.....and more desperate scrambling from darwinists to plug up holes on the leaky bucket that they sit on. Dawkins seems to be the first casualty - made to look like a fool....and a coward. I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you find that comforting. Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) . Obviously you realise on some level that the hollowness of your arguments needs to be disguised behind loudness and schoolyard taunts. So unsophisticated. [ed.: sp., +] What do you think? You behave like schoolkids! You respond like schoolkids. You keep regurgitating that, "earth is 6,000 years old," though it's been explained numerous times that most Christians don't believe that - so of course, there's the question of comprehension. Furthermore... Just look at this reply above to the test. Fact: that's utterly untrue. That's the equivalent to a toddler saying, "Noooooh." Period. End of discussion. Anyway, the whole premise of this topic is a taunt at Christianity. You get someone who can dish back with sound arguments you can't rebutt - and now you're crying foul. Of course I find this funny. Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) You respond like schoolkids. Then please prevent yourself from being labelled a hypocrite by responding to my questions instead of just deliberately deleting them when formatting your reply. [ed.: c/e] Edited January 30, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 betsy expects pre-set and inarguable answers to everything, like those the Bible provides..... Except, um, where the Bible is just metaphorical. Yes, that's it; it's all the parts of the Bible proven true by science that are inarguable truths.... Except, um, science is stupid. Oh, dear. Science should be metaphorical now? Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Whatever parts of the Bible that are historical have been proven to be historical through scientific discovery and study. But, you reject scientific discovery and study, ergo, by your own logic, no part of the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate. What do you think ARCHEOLOGY is? You don't think it's science? You understand now about school kids? Most likely with failing grades to boot, in science. Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 What do you think ARCHEOLOGY is? You don't think it's science? No. Do you reject it as conjecture and hooey imagined by scientists all backing up each other's fantasies, like you do for any other field of science when some scientific fact or theory is raised by someone you disagree with? Quote
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 What do you think? You behave like schoolkids! You respond like schoolkids. Because the 'teacher' is treating us like kids. You keep regurgitating that, "earth is 6,000 years old," though it's been explained numerous times that most Christians don't believe that - so of course, there's the question of comprehension. Furthermore... What won't they believe next? That the ark was impossible to build? That's the equivalent to a toddler saying, "Noooooh." Period. End of discussion. Exactly, this is why some here have used BYE BYE so many times. Anyway, the whole premise of this topic is a taunt at Christianity. You get someone who can dish back with sound arguments you can't rebutt - and now you're crying foul. Of course I find this funny. What is the title of this thread again? Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Whatever parts of the Bible that are historical have been proven to be historical through scientific discovery and study. But, you reject scientific discovery and study, ergo, by your own logic, no part of the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate. That's like saying before earth was determined to be round, it really was flat. You're saying what hasn't been proven to be historically true is false, until it's proven to be true. Never mind your ergos. Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 betsy, on 30 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:What do you think ARCHEOLOGY is? You don't think it's science? g bambino: No. Okay. Quote
guyser Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 . You get someone who can dish back with sound arguments you can't rebutt - and now you're crying foul. Of course I find this funny. Let us know when you present one. Most people laugh when they have nt the slightest clue what they are talking about. Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) So, allow me to seek clarity from you: What "argument" did you mean, exactly, when you said Creationist argument is supported by the fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world? Do you mean it supports the argument that an intelligent entity created the universe? And, if so, how? [ed.: sp., +] I responded to Squid's comment. The_Squid, on 28 January 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:Science isn't sure of the timeline, betsy: Which supports the argument being thrown by Creationists: something's not right with your carbon-dating, guys! ha-ha-ha! Some scientists - and young earth Christians - are saying something about the inaccuracy of carbon dating. Having said that, let me declare again what I've stated before, that I go where evidences lead. If tomorrow it's been discovered by and concluded that the earth is in fact 6,000 years old....I'll go with it. Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy Quote
Canuckistani Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 So let me get this straight, Betsy. You don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but do believe that the entire earth, right over Mt Everest, was covered in water and that only one family of humans survived this catastrophe and went on to populate the earth? When did this happen? How is it all evidence points to humans originating in Africa? I thought they landed at Mt Ararat? I guess inbreeding is no problem for the bible, nor is incest, since the ancestors of Noah, Adam et al, only had one woman available. Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) That's like saying before earth was determined to be round, it really was flat. You're saying what hasn't been proven to be historically true is false, until it's proven to be true. No, I am not. I'm saying that whatever parts of the Bible that are historical have been proven to be historical through scientific discovery and study. But, you reject scientific discovery and study, ergo, by your own logic, no part of the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate. You use something you don't believe in to prove something you do believe in. [ed.: c/e] Edited January 30, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Okay. Good. Now, answer my question, please. Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I responded to Squid's comment. I don't care. I aksed you my own questions: What "argument" did you mean, exactly, when you said Creationist argument is supported by the fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world? Do you mean it supports the argument that an intelligent entity created the universe? And, if so, how? You already made it clear the age of the Earth is not the argument you were referring to. Hence my questions above. [ed.: +] Edited January 30, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
WIP Posted January 30, 2013 Author Report Posted January 30, 2013 That was in 2011. A year later......that SPECULATION of interbreeding got shot down.....only to be replaced by another speculation. http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19250778 See what advance technology does. Now, it doesn't take long to shoot down one speculation after another..... You guys should've learned by now. Brag about it when it's already a done deal. Put that champagne back in storage. Interesting contribution....I'm surprised....but I did notice from my searches that there are a couple of evangelical sites seizing on this dispute re: Neanderthal DNA as some sort of proof against modern theories of human origins....somehow if it can be proven that Neanderthal shared DNA with modern humans comes from a common ancestor rather than later admixture, this proves we are descendents of Noah! Good luck publishing that one in scientific journals. As usual, I noticed that the Beeb has once again given us a very brief and very sketchy report on a new published study in PNAS. They are becoming one of the worst sources now for learning about new scientific discoveries....they're still a public broadcaster right? Isn't science education still important over there? Anyway, looking around at some of the other news sites that commented on the findings, they provide a little more detail, but not exactly what I was looking for: I wanted something from this biologist, Anders Ericksson, showing specific comments relating to the HLA groups that other scientists believed provided the Cro Magnons with the improved resistance to disease to survive and thrive in Europe. Apparently an earlier Cro Magnon group either died out or migrated out of Europe for unknown reasons. The backstory to this drama meshes with the tragic story behind government charges against Aaron Schwartz; and here's how: one of his big criticisms and major concerns was regarding how these science journals get their university studies sent to them free of charge. A journal's only costs are the panel of referees who weigh the merits of each study applying to be published. They take all of the research and charge high fees for those who want access to it. So, in this specific case, we have PNAS locking up everything aside from a brief abstract providing no details. So an outsider who does not have the PNAS subscription, even educated science bloggers, are as much in the dark as anyone else wondering who's right about how the similarities between Neanderthal and modern human DNA got there. As for "proving" no neanderthal/human mixing, this is one vs. pretty much everyone else in the field from a quick glance of what's been published so far. So, you are cherrypicking that one study and claiming it is proof against everyone else, because it more closely matches your predispositions...but not completely, if you chose to think about it a little more deeply! A new challenge (and remember this story of whether or not we mixed with neanderthals has been going on for years) from the other side is mentioned by this anthropologist regarding a comparison of specific HLA genes:August 16, 2012 Neandertal STAT2 haplotype in Eurasians and August 13, 2012 The date of Neandertal admixture: 47-65kya contend that the admixture could not be the product of genes held in common. I can't say who's right, especially trying to wade into technical gene research articles; but if we are going by consensus of expert opinion, the odds have shifted decidedly in favour of the argument that modern humans have at least some share ancestry from neanderthals. And then there's the Denisovans! It seems that trying to explain away the genetic characteristics found in common with Melanasians and other south eastern Asians are even harder to explain away. The story of human origins gets more complicated by the day. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 I don't care. I aksed you my own questions: What "argument" did you mean, exactly, when you said Creationist argument is supported by the fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world? Do you mean it supports the argument that an intelligent entity created the universe? And, if so, how? You already made it clear the age of the Earth is not the argument you were referring to. [ed.: +] Cite where I said that.....I want to read what I wrote. Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Interesting contribution....I'm surprised....but I did notice from my searches that there are a couple of evangelical sites seizing on this dispute re: Neanderthal DNA as some sort of proof against modern theories of human origins....somehow if it can be proven that Neanderthal shared DNA with modern humans comes from a common ancestor rather than later admixture, this proves we are descendents of Noah! Good luck publishing that one in scientific journals. As usual, I noticed that the Beeb has once again given us a very brief and very sketchy report on a new published study in PNAS. They are becoming one of the worst sources now for learning about new scientific discoveries....they're still a public broadcaster right? Isn't science education still important over there? Anyway, looking around at some of the other news sites that commented on the findings, they provide a little more detail, but not exactly what I was looking for: I wanted something from this biologist, Anders Ericksson, showing specific comments relating to the HLA groups that other scientists believed provided the Cro Magnons with the improved resistance to disease to survive and thrive in Europe. Apparently an earlier Cro Magnon group either died out or migrated out of Europe for unknown reasons. The backstory to this drama meshes with the tragic story behind government charges against Aaron Schwartz; and here's how: one of his big criticisms and major concerns was regarding how these science journals get their university studies sent to them free of charge. A journal's only costs are the panel of referees who weigh the merits of each study applying to be published. They take all of the research and charge high fees for those who want access to it. So, in this specific case, we have PNAS locking up everything aside from a brief abstract providing no details. So an outsider who does not have the PNAS subscription, even educated science bloggers, are as much in the dark as anyone else wondering who's right about how the similarities between Neanderthal and modern human DNA got there. As for "proving" no neanderthal/human mixing, this is one vs. pretty much everyone else in the field from a quick glance of what's been published so far. So, you are cherrypicking that one study and claiming it is proof against everyone else, because it more closely matches your predispositions...but not completely, if you chose to think about it a little more deeply! A new challenge (and remember this story of whether or not we mixed with neanderthals has been going on for years) from the other side is mentioned by this anthropologist regarding a comparison of specific HLA genes:August 16, 2012 Neandertal STAT2 haplotype in Eurasians and August 13, 2012 The date of Neandertal admixture: 47-65kya contend that the admixture could not be the product of genes held in common. I can't say who's right, especially trying to wade into technical gene research articles; but if we are going by consensus of expert opinion, the odds have shifted decidedly in favour of the argument that modern humans have at least some share ancestry from neanderthals. And then there's the Denisovans! It seems that trying to explain away the genetic characteristics found in common with Melanasians and other south eastern Asians are even harder to explain away. The story of human origins gets more complicated by the day. Whether evangelicals sites are "seizing on this dispute" is not the issue. That's irrelevant. Quote
segnosaur Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Wouldn't it be Noah's fault for drinking in the nude and falling asleep (presumably drunk) where people can find him? ....who even drinks in the nude? Beside Noah of course... Well, there was that one woman in Florida, who got captured naked on her porch by Google's "street view" cameras, holding a jug of some liquid... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20105351-501465.html Quote
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Well, there was that one woman in Florida, who got captured naked on her porch by Google's "street view" cameras, holding a jug of some liquid... http://www.cbsnews.c...351-501465.html Yeah don't do anything in your own yard if you don't want Google to see it. It's a different topic but more and more we see privacy being tromped upon all over the place. Quote
betsy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) betsy, on 30 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:What do you think ARCHEOLOGY is? You don't think it's science? g bambino: No. Archaeological science has particular value when it can provide absolute dates for archaeological strata and artifacts. Some of the most important dating techniques include: radiocarbon dating — especially for dating organic materials dendrochronology — for dating trees; also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates thermoluminescence dating — for dating inorganic material (including ceramics) optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)/optical dating — for absolutely dating and relatively profiling buried land-surfaces in vertical and horizontal stratigraphic sections, most often by measuring photons discharged from grains of quartz within sedimentary bodies (although this technique can also measure feldspars, complications caused by internally induced dose-rates often favor the use of quartz-based analyzes in archaeological applications) electron spin resonance, as used (for example) in dating teeth potassium-argon dating — for dating (for example) fossilized hominid remains by association with volcanic sediments (the fossils themselves are not directly dated) http://en.wikipedia....logical_science So now you're supporting what not only young earth Christians - but what ALL CREATIONISTS, are saying: your fossil record is full of crap! That's ADHOMINID for you! Don't bug me with your silly questions and demands for answers! Consult your tea leaves. If you believe that archeology is not a science, and yet you believe in evolution - obviously you don't mind believing in quacks. Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Cite where I said that.....I want to read what I wrote. Well, I could adopt your tactic and say: "It's back where you wrote it. Go read through what you wrote." But, well, here you go, replete with infantile fonts, emoticons, and taunting: Hello? How many times does it need to be explained that, "the earth is 6,000 years old," is not believed by most creationists? Ha-ha-ha. Covering our ears and yelling, "la-la-la I don't hear youuuu," are we? I conceded your point about not all creationists believing the Earth is 6,000 years old. Ergo, that wasn't the argument you were referring to when you said Creationist argument is supported by the fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world. In the same post quoted above, you went on to say: Creationist is someone who believes that the world was created by a transcendant being. Since you raised that, was that the Creationist argument you were referring to? I want to be clear. Quote
g_bambino Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) So now you're supporting what not only young earth Christians - but what ALL CREATIONISTS, are saying: your fossil record is full of crap! No. If you believe that archeology is not a science... I don't believe that, and said so already. Don't bug me with your silly questions and demands for answers! You'd look less like a flailing fool if you answered them. [ed.: +] Edited January 30, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
Sleipnir Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) but what ALL CREATIONISTS, are saying: your fossil record is full of crap! Premise: 1) Creationists claims that the fossil record is full of crap. 2) Creationists claims that god created everything. 3) God created the fossil record. Therefore creationists claims that god is full of crap, okay..... Edited January 30, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2013 Report Posted January 31, 2013 Can you guys stop trying to use logical arguments with a theist. Obviously she's not interested in being rational. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.