Freethought & Rationalism Archive

10-05-2002, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:


And shown a touching concern for the opinions of Bible-believing Christians in that first post - very broad-minded for an atheist.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was some unwritten rule that you have to be an asshole to Christians. I guess that only applies on these boards.

10-05-2002, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neruda:
I think he's pulling the old "I'm devoid of religion" trick on us, guys. He's trying to claim atheism in an attempt to make his creationist viewpoints seem more realistic.

What trick are you pulling, the "I'm too lazy to actually read the guy's posts" trick? What creationist viewpoints are you talking about? I don't believe in a creator so how the hell could I believe in creationism?

Quote:

I'm not fooled. but just to play along, I would like to ask zzang to give an example of a young-earth, atheistic explanation of the origin of life and of the universe. This should be good...

Learn to read. I never said that the Earth was young. In fact on the matter of an explanation (of life at least), this is exactly what I said:
"...my answer is I have no idea what the explanation for the diversity of life is..."

Neruda · 10-05-2002, 06:10 PM

pfff. gimme a break.

You don't believe in evolution and you've been using the decaying magnetic field argument as evidence for a young earth throughout this entire thread! If you haven't, well, you sure had me fooled. Those are creationist viewpoints, and not those of a rational person. Comments like yours could only have been written by a creationist.

Anyway, if you truly aren't a creationist, then why do you read and believe creationist literature instead of study real science? Maybe if you tried doing the latter, you would come to realize that evolution is a fact.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]

10-05-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neruda:
pfff. gimme a break.

You don't believe in evolution and you've been using the decaying magnetic field argument as evidence for a young earth throughout this entire thread! If you haven't, well, you sure had me fooled. Those are creationist viewpoints, and not those of a rational person. Comments like yours could only have been written by a creationist.

Please re-read the thread. In none of my posts do I mention anything about a young Earth. You have completely fabricated that. My original point with the magnetic field which was lost with an argument as to whether or not its decaying is that evolutionists hold a double standard. Now that aside, the only thing I have mentioned about time is that the decay of the magnetic field would be a problem for evolution taking place for millions of years. But that doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth! The Earth could be trillions of years old for all we know, but the Earth's magnetic field cannot be used as an argument for a young Earth (at least not the years you people assume I believe it to be, I have no idea how old the Earth is). But I see that the general theme here is, if you don't agree with us then you're irrational/ignorant.

Quote:

Anyway, if you truly aren't a creationist, then why do you read and believe creationist literature instead of study real science? Maybe if you tried doing the latter, you would come to realize that evolution is a fact.

I study all sides of the argument (which is not limited to creationist and evolutionist for your information).

Duvenoy · 10-06-2002, 02:54 AM

I find this thread slightly amazing.

zzang, you say that you doubt both evolution and creation pretty much equally, if I've read it right. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence discovered, evaluated and indeed, fought over during peer review, by highly trained and dedicated people, in favor of the ToE, what then, is your hypothesis?

I don't 'believe' in the Theory of Evolution, myself. I merely accept it as the best explanation for the data produced thus far. If you or anyone can come up with reliable evidence supporting anything better, I'll drop the ToE in the compost like yesterday's fishbones. But that evidence would have to be very damned good to counter what is currently before us.

doov

scigirl · 10-06-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

From zzang:
the only thing I have mentioned about time is that the decay of the magnetic field would be a problem for evolution taking place for millions of years. But that doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth!

Ok am I missing something here? I have absolutely no idea what zzang is talking about.

Zzang - are you saying that somehow the decay of the magnetic field somehow would have interfered with random mutation or natural selection? In other words, it affected the genetic changes of a population? Do you have any papers or websites supporting this view? Thanks in advance,

scigirl

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

Neruda · 10-06-2002, 09:44 AM

Like scigirl, I'm a little lost with respect to zzang's last post as well. All I really want to do is point out that he obviously doesn't do much research or else maybe he would have a better idea of how old the earth was and based on what evidence. (Trillions of years old for all we know? What an obtuse statement!) To me, it doesn't seem like zzang is at all interested in researching science, and instead has become the only atheist alive to take creationist arguments seriously. What an odd claim to fame that is...

And if you come back saying that you don't take their arguments seriously, well then why the hell are you so hung up about this stupid magnetic field argument?

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]

ps418 · 10-06-2002, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Zzang: My original point with the magnetic field which was lost with an argument as to whether or not its decaying is that evolutionists hold a double standard.

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong. There is no double standard.

Quote:

Now that aside, the only thing I have mentioned about time is that the decay of the magnetic field would be a problem for evolution taking place for millions of years.

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong about that too. We have a 'geologic record' of the earth's magnetic field going back billions of years, the specifics of which totally contradict the decaying-since-creation hypothesis.

Quote:

But that doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth! The Earth could be trillions of years old for all we know. . .

No, it couldn't. There are good reasons to believe that the earth is not trillions of years old.

Quote:

but the Earth's magnetic field cannot be used as an argument for a young Earth

That's right. I'm glad you recognize this.

Quote:

But I see that the general theme here is, if you don't agree with us then you're irrational/ignorant.

Nope. You are/were ignorant beacause you are/were unaware of crucial information (such as data on the paleointensity of the GM field), and were making statements which are simply contrary to fact (such as your claim that all we know are that the field has reversed and that it is losing energy).

Oolon Colluphid · 10-06-2002, 11:38 AM

Guys, guys... zzang is merely a troll. Evidence: the glee with which he jumped to arguing, rather than address the replies / refutations Nat and I gave to matters he raised.

DNFTT.

Oolon

pz · 10-06-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Guys, guys... zzang is merely a troll. Evidence: the glee with which he jumped to arguing, rather than address the replies / refutations Nat and I gave to matters he raised.

Yes. I really think he ought to get together with dk and Vanderzyden to discuss these weighty matters.

10-05-2002, 06:10 PM	#63
Neruda Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 80	pfff. gimme a break. You don't believe in evolution and you've been using the decaying magnetic field argument as evidence for a young earth throughout this entire thread! If you haven't, well, you sure had me fooled. Those are creationist viewpoints, and not those of a rational person. Comments like yours could only have been written by a creationist. Anyway, if you truly aren't a creationist, then why do you read and believe creationist literature instead of study real science? Maybe if you tried doing the latter, you would come to realize that evolution is a fact. [ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

10-06-2002, 09:44 AM	#67
Neruda Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 80	Like scigirl, I'm a little lost with respect to zzang's last post as well. All I really want to do is point out that he obviously doesn't do much research or else maybe he would have a better idea of how old the earth was and based on what evidence. (Trillions of years old for all we know? What an obtuse statement!) To me, it doesn't seem like zzang is at all interested in researching science, and instead has become the only atheist alive to take creationist arguments seriously. What an odd claim to fame that is... And if you come back saying that you don't take their arguments seriously, well then why the hell are you so hung up about this stupid magnetic field argument? [ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2002, 02:54 AM	#65
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	I find this thread slightly amazing. zzang, you say that you doubt both evolution and creation pretty much equally, if I've read it right. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence discovered, evaluated and indeed, fought over during peer review, by highly trained and dedicated people, in favor of the ToE, what then, is your hypothesis? I don't 'believe' in the Theory of Evolution, myself. I merely accept it as the best explanation for the data produced thus far. If you or anyone can come up with reliable evidence supporting anything better, I'll drop the ToE in the compost like yesterday's fishbones. But that evidence would have to be very damned good to counter what is currently before us. doov

10-06-2002, 11:38 AM	#69
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Guys, guys... zzang is merely a troll. Evidence: the glee with which he jumped to arguing, rather than address the replies / refutations Nat and I gave to matters he raised. DNFTT. Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.