nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 07:11, April 10, 2008
, 07:11, April 10, 2008Still no idea
::If the IDers don't have any funding, who keeps bankrolling groups like the Creation Museum?
::If the IDers don't have any funding, who keeps bankrolling groups like the Creation Museum?
::If you want scientists to tolerate 'alternatiove theories', '''Come up with some'''. Velikovsky-style efforts to rewrite the laws of physics in order to treat the Book of Genesis as a science textbook don't convince anyone who isn't already a True Believer. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::If you want scientists to tolerate 'alternatiove theories', '''Come up with some'''. Velikovsky-style efforts to rewrite the laws of physics in order to treat the Book of Genesis as a science textbook don't convince anyone who isn't already a True Believer. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::: You've continued to demonstrate that you don't understand the creation/evolution issue, yet you keep talking about it under the self-delusion that you do.
::: But to start with the first point, you have not convinced me at all how it would falsify evolution (which you wrongly equate with science). You don't explain, for example, how it would mean that science was wrong about fossil formation, sedimentation, or those "twenty other things". The ''only'' thing that I could see that would be upset that you mentioned are "the timeline of Earth's history", and then only one little bit of that, and ''possibly'' "when humanity evolved".
::: If human and dinosaur fossils were found together, the ''only'' thing it would mean (other than explanations such as intrusive burials, etc.) is that either (a) dinosaurs survived well past their 65-million-years-ago extinction, or (b) that humans evolved 65 million years ago, not around a million years ago. The first option is far more plausible, so I believe that evolutionists would simply claim that at least some dinosaurs survived until much more recent times, such as around one million years ago. Now the question is, how would some dinosaurs surviving until relatively recent times invalidate evolution? We already have examples of living things that supposedly went extinct around 65 million years ago turning up alive (Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine), and evolution didn't miss a beat. What real difference would it make if a T-rex was found in million-year old sediments? I asked if you could unequivocally demonstrate how this would falsify evolution. You ''haven't even come close'' to demonstrating it. All you've done is restate the claim in other ways.
::: Therefore your derisive comments about "Planet Conservapedia" are nothing more than ''ad hominem'' abuse, seemingly in an attempt to divert attention from your lack of an answer.
::: What would it take me to admit that creationism was wrong? See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism]]
::: The creation museum was built by creationists, not ID proponents. But yes, it's true that creationists and ID proponents have ''some'' funds available, but are not funded for research like evolutionists are. The only funds they have are donations from private individuals, which are a drop in the bucket compared to evolutionary funding. But if you are suggesting that creationists and ID proponents have done ''no research at all'', then you are wrong, as with the extremely limited funding they have, they have done ''some'' research. Sometimes at their own cost.
::: Again, your derogatory comments about rewriting the laws of physics show that you have no idea what you are talking about. How about coming up with some decent arguments instead of ''ad hominem'' attacks, rhetoric, and falsehoods?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)