|
Post by John E on Jun 20, 2009 12:03:23 GMT -5
Just the other day, I heard someone on the radio talking about the Hadron Collider. They said that even if they CAN recreate the big bang, it will just prove that the big bang required an intelligence to create it, since it took intelligence to re-create it. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 20, 2009 14:53:57 GMT -5
Thanks to this thread I now want to read this. Mostly due to morbid curiosity. Too bad I'm not willing to give AIG a cent.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 20, 2009 15:31:32 GMT -5
I think on the battery, the Mythbusters did some tests on the battery theory. The gilding and a possible use at the shrine were considered plausible. But I don't remember any other details on that subject. Electroplating was another idea. But the battery hardly put out a charge strong enough to get more than the most minute use out of
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Jun 21, 2009 0:19:33 GMT -5
Current, at first I thought that cartoon was a POE/Satire, but then I looked at the title and realized it was CreationWise... And to think that anybody can seriously believe something like that is just astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on Jun 21, 2009 2:20:09 GMT -5
It took me a while to remember what AIG is... I thought you were talking about that insurance company or something. But then, that's because I'm typing this at, like, 3:00 in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 21, 2009 23:53:25 GMT -5
www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons/after-eden/the-ventriloquistThis is foot & mouth because this equates scientific observation with opinion, & therefore, even if AIG DID use good science & logic, it couldn't be trusted, anyway. www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons/after-eden/making-lunchIs that some ignoring scientific laws I hear? This isn't "difficult to understand," this is just bad logic. Circular reasoning. Watch this: By its very definition, an eternal universe has always existed--nothing created it. Time, you see, had no beginning. Since space & time are linked, there has been time for as long as there has been space. As such, in an eternal universe, time requires no cause, because it has always been. This concept is completely illogical, & if you don't see that, there's something wrong with you. Is that some emotional appeal, I'm hearing? AIG keeps maintaining that Creationism & Intelligent Design are not the same thing, however, evidence shows otherwise: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Jun 22, 2009 1:14:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 22, 2009 1:44:39 GMT -5
This next quote is a doozy:
Then what's with all of the "God's word vs. man's falliable, changing opinion" Creationwise comics, hmm?
See above, but add alongside those the ones mocking theistic evolution.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Answers In Genesis.
But I'm supposed to buy into your "creation scientists" who just look for whatever they can to confirm the book of Genesis in the literal sense? Yeah, right....
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 22, 2009 2:02:34 GMT -5
Science: Butterflies that are well-camoflauged don't get eaten as often. Therefore, they survive to pass on their traits, therefore, you get more camoflauged butterflies.
Not science: Butterflies that are well-camoflauged don't get eaten as often. God did it.
AIG's not big on the whole "proving its claims" thing, is it?
|
|
|
Post by deusmalum on Jun 23, 2009 15:43:54 GMT -5
I'll also be putting this in the thread about Carico. This is the closest thing to a definition of "kind" they have on their article. They also try to make it look like "species" is just unclear, but it isn't. If 2 animals can interbreed & create a fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Concise, clear definition. Nothing like the vagueness of "kind." Ignorant non-biologist question: How is the delineation between non-sexually reproductive species made? Honest question.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 23, 2009 18:50:48 GMT -5
Simple answer, poorly. Not so simple answer, it's at least somewhat arbitrary. Species don't actually exist, they're a classification. So, what is done is a set of traits are picked as "unique" for a species and that is where they are placed. This can change in the future if there are enough differences pointed out. Reproductive isolation is the closest we can get to an objective definition. And even that is poor due to hybrids (horse+donkey=mule) and ring species.If you're feeling really ambitious you could read Carl Zimmer's What is a Species? If you have the time, I recommend reading this, he is a good writer and very knowledgeable.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Jun 23, 2009 19:32:25 GMT -5
For some reason, I find ring species, like the Larus gulls, very interesting. Maybe because they remind me so much of dialect continua, I'm an amateur linguist. And certainly because I can't see how they can originate by any other mechanism than evolution.
Interesting article, by the way. I'll read it thoroughly tomorrow, when I'm a bit more awake. It is half past two here in Norway as I write.
|
|
|
Post by deusmalum on Jun 25, 2009 10:36:47 GMT -5
Simple answer, poorly. Not so simple answer, it's at least somewhat arbitrary. Species don't actually exist, they're a classification. So, what is done is a set of traits are picked as "unique" for a species and that is where they are placed. This can change in the future if there are enough differences pointed out. Reproductive isolation is the closest we can get to an objective definition. And even that is poor due to hybrids (horse+donkey=mule) and ring species.If you're feeling really ambitious you could read Carl Zimmer's What is a Species? If you have the time, I recommend reading this, he is a good writer and very knowledgeable. Thanks! That makes sense. I always figured even with sexually reproductive species differentiating between similar members of separate species was a bitch. I'll check the article out. This just makes me more glad I decided not to go into biology.
|
|
Nightboomfer
New Member
The Modern Science of Awesome
Posts: 28
|
Post by Nightboomfer on Jul 2, 2009 13:48:33 GMT -5
...what? Are they shooting THEMSELVES in the foot with this one? I'm not sure. Seriously, half of their cartoons are "LOL Darwin fish is silly, guise!" Again, what? I just... what? I'm going to stop now... before my brain starts leaking out of my ears.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 2, 2009 14:41:24 GMT -5
...that comic seriously makes me want to vomit. Every single thing that's wrong with the world - from bad dreams to children starving to death - happens because God got pissy about some guy eating a piece of fruit. That's just fucked up. The one where the guy's yelling at the Discovery Channel was hilarious though.
|
|