A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why are evolutionists anti-science?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th 06, 03:24 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why are evolutionists anti-science?


¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" skrev i melding
...
In article . com "Sharkvriol"
writes:
Elmer wrote:
Sharkvriol wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:

Skywise wrote:

Why do Evolutionists simply "believe" life evolved from non-life?

It's not a belief. It's a matter of what the weight of the evidence
demonstrates.

And what evidence might that be?

The big bang


I see, You were around I imagine, to see it.. And yet real astronomers
are drifting from the Big Bang.


Funny...I work in the community of real astronomers, and I read
New Scientist very week, Scientific American every month, and
the New York Times science page every day ... and I'm not aware
of any mass disillusionment with the Big Bang.

You know something I don't?


The Big Bang is a paradigm, it means that hell will freeze before they will
admit that it should be a shift in this belief.


Actually the Big Bang is simply the best idea that fits the data so
far. If it can be reconciled with new data, it will be. If it can't, it
will either be modified or thrown out.

Moron theists seem to like to justify their own rigid positions by
misunderstanding those of scientists. Just because they can dismiss
your fairy tales out of hand doesn't mean their own ideas are
inflexible.

Yet, the evidence is pointing towards a continous creation of stars and galaxies.


What evidence is this?

If there ever was a big bang, who knows
but the scientists claiming it weren't there, yet they are extremely doctrinal about it.


Who's doctrinal? In what ways are they doctrinal? Can you actually cite
an example, or is this an unfounded assertion?

  #2  
Old February 28th 06, 04:18 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why are evolutionists anti-science?



Chris Johnson wrote:
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" skrev i melding
...
In article . com "Sharkvriol"
writes:
Elmer wrote:
Sharkvriol wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:

Skywise wrote:

Why do Evolutionists simply "believe" life evolved from non-life?
It's not a belief. It's a matter of what the weight of the evidence
demonstrates.
And what evidence might that be?
The big bang

I see, You were around I imagine, to see it.. And yet real astronomers
are drifting from the Big Bang.
Funny...I work in the community of real astronomers, and I read
New Scientist very week, Scientific American every month, and
the New York Times science page every day ... and I'm not aware
of any mass disillusionment with the Big Bang.

You know something I don't?

The Big Bang is a paradigm, it means that hell will freeze before they will
admit that it should be a shift in this belief.


Actually the Big Bang is simply the best idea that fits the data so
far. If it can be reconciled with new data, it will be. If it can't, it
will either be modified or thrown out.

Moron theists seem to like to justify their own rigid positions by
misunderstanding those of scientists. Just because they can dismiss
your fairy tales out of hand doesn't mean their own ideas are
inflexible.

Yet, the evidence is pointing towards a continous creation of stars and galaxies.


What evidence is this?


Actually there *is* evidence for "continuous creation" of stars (not galaxies, however) - As new generation stars are
starting up from the remains of previous supernovaes and novaes. There are pretty pictures provided by the Hubble Space
Sbservatory. Other than that - it's just the sameold-sameold cretinoiod garbage from clueless religious fanatics,
Jesus-peddling fundamentalists, willfully pig-ignorant Talibans and all-around retards such as 'saba', "jabby' and
'skywise' (I must have forgotten some category in that terminally infested hive?...)

If there ever was a big bang, who knows
but the scientists claiming it weren't there, yet they are extremely doctrinal about it.


Who's doctrinal? In what ways are they doctrinal? Can you actually cite
an example, or is this an unfounded assertion?



--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking back in space N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) Astronomy Misc 39 February 21st 06 02:38 PM
WHERE THE BULLSHIT ENDS AND THE TRUTH BEGINS Ed Conrad Misc 0 January 17th 06 12:48 AM
Science Journalism Geoffrey A. Landis Policy 62 October 16th 05 08:23 AM
Microphone on Mars Darin Boville Amateur Astronomy 27 February 2nd 04 07:45 AM
Invitation to have your name listed in support of well motivated ethics and ideals in science David Norman Amateur Astronomy 0 November 22nd 03 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.