The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[robvalue]

Err....

We were in the middle of talking about evolution, and you bring up Noah's Ark.

I don't care how the discussion started, it's not an appropriate thing to discuss scientifically. The flood, as I'm sure you're aware, has been scientifically debunked. And the whole story is absurd on every level. So if you think that really happened, we are on two different planes of reality and there's nothing to discuss.

[Huggy Bear]

Err....

We were in the middle of talking about evolution, and you bring up Noah's Ark.

I don't care how the discussion started, it's not an appropriate thing to discuss. The flood, as I'm sure you're aware, has been scientifically debunked. And the whole story is absurd on every level. So if you think that really happened, we are on two different planes of reality and there's nothing to discuss.

Actually the discussion was about whether or not Jesus was married...

According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't. Must I go through all the cases where science has proven to be wrong?

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

[robvalue]

Ah! Right. I give up. For good this time. I'll leave you with this.

Science admits when it is wrong, and it learns. Religion makes unfalsifiable claims which cannot be.proved wrong, but which are utterly useless and have never achieved anything. Any time religion does make a testable claim, it falls flat on its face and science kicks seven shades of technicolor out of it.

Admitting you have been wrong in the past is a good thing. Stubbornly sticking to a position regardless of new evidence is willful ignorance. I hope one day you'll join the first group.

[Mr Greene]

What evolution deniers need to understand is that speciation can take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. It will happen eventually. The fact that you demand it happen within an arbitrary timescale convenient to you is irrelevant. It's like saying a car can't get to 60 mph if it doesn't get there in 2 seconds.

We have seen it happen, in organisms with a short life span. The fact that you personally haven't witnessed it is also irrelevant.

I think you're using the wrong units, evolution works across generations rather than years. Thus a species with a short life cycle will evolve faster than one with a long life cycle. This is why geneticists use Drosophila as it has a life cycle of 10 days. As such we have bred different species of Drosophila as previously noted.
Huggy will now stick his fingers in his ears and recite the 'La-La'La' song...

[robvalue]

Sure, you're right. That's why I said "can" take that long, but it is much better to phrase it in terms of generations.

That's much less confusing. Thanks!

See there? I admitted I was not using the best terminology and ideas. I was mistakenly using a less explanatory model. That doesn't mean I'm now wrong about everything in the future. It means I'm capable of learning and improving.

One more thing Huggy... you use science almost all the time. Reading a sentence, interpreting the words, relating it to your experience, forming a reply and typing it, that is a scientific method of sorts. A non-scientific method would be to just believe that the best possible reply would magically be beamed into the person's brain, or to write a reply to a different question, using someone else's experiences instead of your own, and also talking about pumpkins. If you think you're not using science, you don't know what science is. You would be unable to properly function without it, so theists are not somehow devoid of it. At its simplest, it's using reason and evidence to make the best decisions, collect useful information and form successful predictive models. If you think you don't do that 99% of the time, you need to rethink. You'd be dead, in jail or unwilling to move through indecision.

(Religious) theists just fail to or refuse to use it in regard to their religious beliefs.

[Cato]

According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't.

Let me guess, you pulled this from the same place you're storing the remnants of last night's dinner.

[Crossless2.0]

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

Whether 'defiantly' is intended (it works) or not (much funnier), off we go to the Hall of Shame, where all such idiocy belongs.

[robvalue]

False dichotomy: either science is 100% accurate all the time ever, or we can discount it as entirely useless whenever it's convenient to do so.

Reality is not black and white.

[Mr Greene]

I'm explaining what the Bible Defines as a species. Every seed must bring forth of it's own "KIND". This simply means, as long as fertile offspring are able to be produced, they are the same species.

Which is why it's nonsense to assume the Bible states Noah took two of every single animal in the world aboard the ark, when it clearly states he took two of each species, big difference.

Again wrong, according to the book of Jewish BS there were 14 sheep and 14 cows on the Ark;
Genesis: 7:2

Each with about 5 square millimetres of room..

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. He took more of the clean animals. Whatever the fuck that means. God made unclean animals then moans that they are unclean.