Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Justin70 · 04-12-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble
"Algae along with fungi and all plants must have evolved from a few seeds that managed to survive the flood. In just a few thousand years. �

Socratism:

"You should read about Charles Darwin's studies on this very subject.

In addition, the latest information in the area of genetics seems to support the notion that rapid diversification from existing types is a "built-in" feature of the sexual reproduction process called meiosis. This feature would seem to be what permits effective adaptation to rapid changes in the environment, something that would not be possible in a process dominated by such a slow and haphazard process as "random" mutation only.

Most informed creationists recognize this adaptive capability of rapid change in response to equally rapid changes in the environment. What is disputed is whether this presumably "built-in" type of variation can be extrapolated to support the "goo to you via the zoo" concept."

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=4

Is this depressing or just funny?

It actually takes EFFORT to be this stupid. Perhaps he would wanna go out and check some sources to see if he's right? Did that ever cross his mind? Perhaps ask himself: "Are their any counter arguments to this idea?"

<sigh>

Duvenoy · 04-13-2003, 04:47 AM

Last night, I spent about 3 hours just wandering through the 'Biology' section.

Soc & Son: Oy veh!

But, on the other hand, some few of the members seem to be knowledgable, or at least reasonable.

I have a question. In his profile, Socrates describes himself as a scientist, yet he mentions no field of research. Nor have I seen any mention of his studies in his posting. This has rung the chimes on my Bullshit Detector.

Have I missed something and the Soc actually is some sort of scientist? Of is he lying through his teeth to impress the Theologyweb gullible?

I should probably ask over there -- I'm signed up -- but I'm not yet sure if I want to get involved in fights with such rampant and bellegerent ignorance.

doov, the bashful lurker.

gcameron · 04-13-2003, 05:00 AM

Socrates has a PhD in "evolution evisceration."

pz · 04-13-2003, 05:21 AM

I think Socrates is a scientist like I'm a theologian.

The big difference between us is that I don't brag about begin a practitioner of a philosophy I despise. I don't know why he does -- it's just another of the kind of creationist nonsense that only the most shallow thinkers can accommodate.

tgamble · 04-13-2003, 06:05 AM

It's been mentioned that his degree is in chemistry. Obviously this makes him an expert on everything from biology to linguistics.

anyway, here's some more stuff to make you loose all hope for the future of mankind.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=4

Carbon 14 cannot possibly continue to exist longer than 50,000 years. Period. It is an unstable element, and disintigrates at a steady rate until it has completely broken down. So if an object contains Carbon 14, the absolute maximum age of that thing is 50,000 years.

Which makes it very interesting that we've found unfossilized dinosaur remains with carbon 14. Interesting that old earthers claim all petroleum is from prehistoric plant material, and yet there's never been a sample of petroleum from anywhere in the world that didn't test positive for carbon 14.

500,000 years??? LOL 64 million years? Atheist Archon, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are doing nothing less than just making stuff up in order to be part of the conversation.

Vorkosigan · 04-13-2003, 06:49 AM

500,000 years??? LOL 64 million years? Atheist Archon, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are doing nothing less than just making stuff up in order to be part of the conversation.

The sad part is that after Rufus annihilates this poor lad into nothingness, he will still insist that he won. The problem is not merely that they are ignorant, they are not even aware of how ignorant they are. One poster even showed up on a thread the other day to just bash me for being better read than the other participants. <sigh>

There's not much point in posting there except that one gets sucked into the arguments and it feels rude to bail on what you started. I don't feel like arguing with Holding, since sooner or later it will simply devolve into a snit fit, and the others are largely so ignorant that it is hard to know where to begin with them. Although I enjoy Socrates -- there's hardly a better argument for atheism than the behavior of Socrates.

Vorkosigan

Butters · 04-13-2003, 11:18 AM

Who else thinks Socrates and Socratism are the same person? As long as he's taking his meds of course.

mfaber · 04-13-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble
"Algae along with fungi and all plants must have evolved from a few seeds that managed to survive the flood. In just a few thousand years. �

Socratism:

"You should read about Charles Darwin's studies on this very subject.

In addition, the latest information in the area of genetics seems to support the notion that rapid diversification from existing types is a "built-in" feature of the sexual reproduction process called meiosis. This feature would seem to be what permits effective adaptation to rapid changes in the environment, something that would not be possible in a process dominated by such a slow and haphazard process as "random" mutation only.

Most informed creationists recognize this adaptive capability of rapid change in response to equally rapid changes in the environment. What is disputed is whether this presumably "built-in" type of variation can be extrapolated to support the "goo to you via the zoo" concept."

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=4

Is this depressing or just funny?

What is worse...algae and fungi ARE NOT plants and don't reproduce from seeds, using combinations of cell division (yeasts), fragmentation, daughter colony formation and sporulation instead.

Fungi were removed to a kingdom all their own

Algae used to be regarded as "plants that never really left the water, but most have been removed to the Protista Kingdom.

Duvenoy · 04-13-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters
Who else thinks Socrates and Socratism are the same person? As long as he's taking his meds of course.

Hmm. There's a thought. A Soc and his sock? Why not?

doov

Jayjay · 04-13-2003, 01:52 PM

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate the effort some of you are doing debunking creationism. I've noticed that I have too short temper to even read creation/evolution message boards nowadays, much less post (I've tried in the past though) but it's comforting to know that at least some people are out there shoveling the crap the creationists keep throwing...

Carry on! :notworthy:

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

04-13-2003, 04:47 AM	#12
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Last night, I spent about 3 hours just wandering through the 'Biology' section. Soc & Son: Oy veh! But, on the other hand, some few of the members seem to be knowledgable, or at least reasonable. I have a question. In his profile, Socrates describes himself as a scientist, yet he mentions no field of research. Nor have I seen any mention of his studies in his posting. This has rung the chimes on my Bullshit Detector. Have I missed something and the Soc actually is some sort of scientist? Of is he lying through his teeth to impress the Theologyweb gullible? I should probably ask over there -- I'm signed up -- but I'm not yet sure if I want to get involved in fights with such rampant and bellegerent ignorance. doov, the bashful lurker.

04-13-2003, 05:00 AM	#13
gcameron Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Western U.S.A. Posts: 293	Socrates has a PhD in "evolution evisceration."

04-13-2003, 05:21 AM	#14
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	I think Socrates is a scientist like I'm a theologian. The big difference between us is that I don't brag about begin a practitioner of a philosophy I despise. I don't know why he does -- it's just another of the kind of creationist nonsense that only the most shallow thinkers can accommodate.

04-13-2003, 06:05 AM	#15
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	It's been mentioned that his degree is in chemistry. Obviously this makes him an expert on everything from biology to linguistics. anyway, here's some more stuff to make you loose all hope for the future of mankind. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=4 Carbon 14 cannot possibly continue to exist longer than 50,000 years. Period. It is an unstable element, and disintigrates at a steady rate until it has completely broken down. So if an object contains Carbon 14, the absolute maximum age of that thing is 50,000 years. Which makes it very interesting that we've found unfossilized dinosaur remains with carbon 14. Interesting that old earthers claim all petroleum is from prehistoric plant material, and yet there's never been a sample of petroleum from anywhere in the world that didn't test positive for carbon 14. 500,000 years??? LOL 64 million years? Atheist Archon, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are doing nothing less than just making stuff up in order to be part of the conversation.

04-13-2003, 06:49 AM	#16
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	500,000 years??? LOL 64 million years? Atheist Archon, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are doing nothing less than just making stuff up in order to be part of the conversation. The sad part is that after Rufus annihilates this poor lad into nothingness, he will still insist that he won. The problem is not merely that they are ignorant, they are not even aware of how ignorant they are. One poster even showed up on a thread the other day to just bash me for being better read than the other participants. <sigh> There's not much point in posting there except that one gets sucked into the arguments and it feels rude to bail on what you started. I don't feel like arguing with Holding, since sooner or later it will simply devolve into a snit fit, and the others are largely so ignorant that it is hard to know where to begin with them. Although I enjoy Socrates -- there's hardly a better argument for atheism than the behavior of Socrates. Vorkosigan

04-13-2003, 11:18 AM	#17
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Who else thinks Socrates and Socratism are the same person? As long as he's taking his meds of course.

04-13-2003, 01:52 PM	#20
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	I'd just like to say that I really appreciate the effort some of you are doing debunking creationism. I've noticed that I have too short temper to even read creation/evolution message boards nowadays, much less post (I've tried in the past though) but it's comforting to know that at least some people are out there shoveling the crap the creationists keep throwing... Carry on! :notworthy:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.