nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: − + − − ::Actually do you have anything more compelling than a preferential objection to the idea that natural law and chance are responsible for the evolution of the universe? Not to be confused with biological evolution which is an actual science. If you do have more than a preferential objection I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to hear it. Otherwise unless you can prove the existence of an intelligent designer or prove that the universe could not have come into existence through chance acting upon natural processes you cannot claim that the idea of an intelligent deisgner is "more logical". − − ::Evolution science, which is only concerned with biological evolution, is a mathematically based science which makes the observation that the living things in this world exist within a nested heirarchy, and that nested heirarchies are created by branching. This makes evolution a scientific theory mainly because it subjects evolution to falsifiability. Afterall if it isn't falsifiable it isn't scientific. All a creationist has to do is find a creature that doesn't fit into the nested heirarchy, like a dragonfly who produces chlorophyl or has a plant cell wall. I think it highly significant that no one's been able to do this. {{unsigned|DeathMunky}} Line 78:
Line 74: − − :If you're pointing to their biology as your evidence for their being hunters or carnivorous scavengers after the fall, could you explain what evidence you're pointing to for them being herbivorous before the fall? Just out of curiosity. {{unsigned|DeathMunky}} Line 153:
Line 147: − − ::Actually more than just being supported by very little scientific evidence, any view in which the earth or entire universe is no more than 10,000 years old is completely disproven by scientific fact. I'm sorry you prefer the ostrich method of learning to actual honest research. You are aware that starting from a conclusion and accepting evidence which supports your prefered conclusion while rejecting out of hand anything which negates it is not a valid reasoning trail, right? Line 179:
Line 171: − − ::It's actually not. Scientific theories have to meet certain criteria. And they are: 1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations (ie. it must be testable). 2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. 3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. 4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. 5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. 6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.") 7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem"). The criteria here is taken from Wikipedia, which I already know many here have a problem with, that's why this site was made, but I would love to see a valid logical argument made against these criteria. In other words, one that doesn't rely entirely upon any formal or informal fallacies of reasoning.
Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex (view source)
Revision as of 18:10, September 8, 2007
, 18:10, September 8, 2007Back to last version before DeathMonkey Vandalism
:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetans. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.
Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.
::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
== Redirect oddity? ==
== Redirect oddity? ==
::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=65031&oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=65031&oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
== Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==
== Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==
:Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)