vipertaja

Yet another Finnish net-creationist?
Someone has broken a few laws of physics here...

Thief of Time

Hey, nothing wrong with finland. They brought us Nightwish.

... and you, too. Welcome.

vipertaja

Thank you.
Nah...my point is that creation in Finland is something one really has to dig for to
find and a creationist using the heresy of technology is even rarer I'd assume.
(The few here seem usually VERY conservative...y'know, no TV or computer or such)

PoodleLovinPessimist

People really shouldn't write about a particular science in a particular language unless they have a fairly complete grasp of at least one of those items. Trying to parse the author's... unusual... syntax gave me quite a headache.

vipertaja

I have a hunch that he translated the source kind of "in one go" if you know
what I mean. Translating from finnish to english would require some major
restructuring of sentences to make it "sound right".

IanC

How depressing to see the same old tired arguments come around. I suppose I'd better get used to it.

edit: reading more:

How can anyone read this and take it as valid when it has such bad grammar that it would be laughed at at GCSE?

EDIT2:
The stupidity actually hurts.

Ian

Grengor

So... why hasn't the OP come back yet?

FatherMithras

Because his arguments are poopy. He is a driveby poster.

Per Ahlberg

More likely a timezone effect: prime posting time in California translates to middle of the night in Finland. We'll see whether he comes back within the next twelve hours.

Cheers, Per

Oolon Colluphid

Well well well... still here, eh? Righty-ho...
Not off to a good start. Is this translated, or is English not this person’s first language? To what does the terminal "it" refer -- to creation, or evolution? Yes, it is difficult for an educated person to believe in literal creation.
Yes. The myths of Bronze Age goatherders just don't cut it these days.
Define "haphazard". Once one starts understanding physics and cosmology, the development of the universe becomes more reasonable; once one understands that replication leads to competition for resources, leading to any imperfect replicas that happen to have an advantage out-competing its rivals and so replacing them over the generations, it becomes clear that there’s not much that is ‘haphazard’ in it, merely unpredictable.
Well, we've observed it, and can see its effects in the rocks and in adaptations and in jury-rigged designs and in convergent forms and in island biodiversities. So it is a substantiated belief. :huh:
Nope, that's abiogenesis. Evolution says very little about the origin(s) of life. (It predicts the sorts of things to look for, but not how they may have come about.)
And in the previous hundred years of thought by, eg, Erasmus Darwin (Charles 'merely' discovered the main mechanism). And in Darwin's contemporaries, such as Wallace. And in the hundred and fifty years of study since.
Well, you could accept what those who spend their lived studying these things say. Or you could study it yourself and decide for yourself.

Or you could ignore all the effort that's gone into understanding the world, and believe ancient myths. Tough choice, admittedly.
You mean, the stuff that keeps scientists employed? Cool! Maybe there’s something here they've not thought of -- heads up, here's some new areas of research, guys!
Double cool! So this is a biology textbook too! Yay! (Mind you, there's plenty on the market already, but you can never have too much of a good thing.)
Um, they're going to struggle to benefit from this writing. It desperately needs a better translator and/or copy editor.
Ah. I see I'm not in the target audience, for I consider it possible that Darwin got it wrong (just very, very unlikely), and I ain't moving on till this implied evidence is laid out. (Unless I've seen it all before... but what are the chances of that...?)
Again, it contains English words, but it's not English. Perhaps the author's been reading too much Lewis Carroll? First mention of slithy toves and I'm outta here.
Honest examples? Goody!
No. That life would evolve becomes "a logical, absolutely unavoidable chain of reasons and consequences", sure. But not the path it took.
Once again, I hereby announce that, for all I know or care, life may have started by chemistry, by the touch of God’s hand, from the breath of the IPU (mhhnbs) or the noodly appendage of the FSM or sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Evolution is what you get once there is life.

So abiogenesis arguments do nothing at all to undermine 'Darwin'. They don't so much attack a straw man as beat the crap out of the wrong scarecrow in an entirely different field.
Is someone questioning that people are made of chemicals?
Timeless space? Newsflash: look up 'spacetime'.
Basically, yes. But not 'merely', as I suspect this will be implying.
Um, is he saying that cells were created in supernovae?
I see that all the important cosmology and geology journals are being fully referenced.

So what, in the end, was the point of PetriFB's cut-n-paste post? It's the introduction to the usual pile of creationist poo, so not only is it poorly written, not only is it clearly misguided, not only is it poorly informed, not only is it disastrously confused... it doesn't even say anything! It is content-free blather.
It is a tale /
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury /
Signifying nothing.