|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |