Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
LOL....I think I'll do myself a favor and logoff for the evening.

Perhaps you should do us a favor and not come back until you have educated yourself a little bit.

I've educated myself quite well. How about you? You seem to parrot the one-liners you've been fed since birth...ever do any real science and question its validity?

 

[Soggy]

That this statement is false

Yes, it proves that your statement is false.

 

[gary-ramey]

If you have a point in here, it's totally lost.

The point is signficant mutations are always fatal to the animal and the only example that website could bring up were the color of moths and how they were affected by pollution.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
That this statement is false

Yes, it proves that your statement is false.

except that statement belonged to Warthaug

 

[MikeFerrara]

You are ducking the question.

I always try to duck questions that don't make sense.

Originally Posted by MikeFerrara
Fluid flow is driven by a pressure differential.

And what is it that you think creates the pressure differential? A god? A black hole? Chocolate bars? No ... it's density differences between water masses.

Congrats! Unlike sheck, you are at least able to see that without a pressure differential there is no flow.

I'm no oceanographer but I still wouldn't guess that black holes or chocolate bars are behind it.

 

[Thalassamania]

I thought I did that with a fairly clear explanation that the scientific prowis of any scientist should generally be greather than the scientific prowis of a non-scientist.

One more time...the determining factor is knowledge of science NOT the presence or absense of religion.

I won't play because Thal seems to want to make the issue religion vs science, when the issue should be science vs science.

I'm not asking for anyone to demonstrate overall knowledge of anything. All I'm asking for is a single example of where the religionists believe X=A, science says that X=B, there's a hullabaloo over what the proper value of X is and it turns out that the religionists' view that X=A is correct. Is that too much to ask for? I can give you many examples of where it turned out that X=B. You can't come come up with even one? I can only conclude (operating beyond the endpoints of my data set, which is not usually a good idea, but is something that religionists are very used to and approve of) that anytime science and religion come into conflict, science is always right. So ... evolution is a fact, Darwin's explanation of the origin of species is pretty close, humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, some form of abiogenesis is a fact, the earth is not 6000 years old, there was no flood, Noah is a fairy tail, etc., etc., etc. Now ... are we all in agreement? If not, can anyone cite anything at all that would lend any credence to the religionists' past track record of unerring inaccuracy?

 

[Soggy]

I've educated myself quite well.

Dude, you don't even demonstrate the most rudimentary understanding of anything in the natural world. You didn't know why there was sedimentary layers on mountains for goodness sake. I really mean it when I say that most 6th graders likely have a better grasp of biology and physics than you have demonstrated. Maybe it's just that you are so stubborn that you can't admit when you're wrong and maybe you're just blinded by your faith, but something is really missing from your understanding of the world.

How about you? You seem to parrot the one-liners you've been fed since birth...ever do any real science and question its validity?

One liners? I've read books on astrophysics, relativity, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, evolution, and a number of other topics. Not to mention, I try to keep up with current scientific research and I do question the validity of some science. For example, I think string theory isn't great science for a number of reasons. Additionally, I'm married to a good Catholic girl and attend church services pretty frequently as a result of family obligation, so I'm not ignorant to Christian beliefs.

 

[sheck33]

Of course my statement was an incomplete explanation of ocean currents.

However, please give me an example of fluid flow where there is no pressure differential.

Obviously, because there is no path for fluid to flow. The missing component here isn't "external pressure" but a path for fluid to flow. Now poke a hole in the bottom of the container and watch the fluid begin to flow.

Two ocean masses that have different densities will flow, the pressure differential is not the driving force.

Incorrect.

 

[Soggy]

The point is signficant mutations are always fatal to the animal

No, it didn't say that. You can't just replace the word "sometimes" with "always" and make it true.

 

[MikeFerrara]

We disagree about enough, let's not argue about the things we agree on. I'm pretty sure the salinity and temperature differences cause density differences, which cause pressure differences. We all know that if you put ice in one side of a bath tub and hot water in the other, we get currents. The same goes for changing the salinity.

I absolutely agree.