Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

Fromabove
I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

What you used in that post was about as far from Calculus as lime Jell-O is from Calculus.

Fromabove

Goteborg

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

edit on 3 28 2014 by Goteborg because: corrected inaccuracy.

I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

It isn't slang at all. Like I already stated, multi-variable calculus exists and it is usually NOT time based (since time is always an independent variable). So you are wrong.

Fromabove

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.

To be clear on this: you're saying evolutionary theory is not based on legitimate science, and that if evolution were to be replaced as the leading theory in its field, the replacement theory would have to be scientifically sound?

And following that, what scientifically sound theory are you proposing in place of evolutionary theory?

No theory is needed. Life exists. Why can't it be said that life just is and study that, and that the universe is, and study all of it's wonders. Then we could leave unanswerable question like where life began and what caused the universe to be as thoughts to ponder. Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

But it CAN answer those questions. It is already doing it with Evolutionary theory and now has extended to how life began with the Abiogenesis hypothesis.

reply to post by Fromabove

Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

And they have.

Religion cannot answer such questions with any evidence outside of a "Holy Book" and so it should admit it doesn't know

Fair enough? What about that?!

Yeah, I kinda slammed my fist down there....sorry, I'll scoop up the spilled salt...*blushes* Oh well...I still mean it. Can you let go of your bias toward religion? Or are you still fighting off the demons of atheism?

Fromabove

Goteborg

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

edit on 3 28 2014 by Goteborg because: corrected inaccuracy.

I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

Slang doesn't show up on the Internet? Really? Apparently your understanding of the Internet is about as deep as your understanding of calculus.

A helpful hint for you, you might want to consider the possibility that there are members of this forum who do really hold degrees in mathematics and related fields and know a total load when they read it. Take the advice, ignore it...it's your call.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

LOL!!!
All my life it's been a habit of mine to sit toward the front and raise my hand frequently.
When I went to graduate school, one of the profs happened to intro the class with a statement about how sometimes the quieter type people don't get a chance to speak, so if all you eager outspoken folks can give them a chance to speak.....

Oh well.
Sorry, offtopic.

But yes, I truly don't understand why some people are so determined to hang to ideas that have been shown to be weak (if not mythical).

Maybe it just can't be explained. Like a woman who's a mother not being able to explain or describe accurately what it's like to become a mother.

Anyway, I still vote for science + God = okay. But either way, I have no dog in the fight. I'm mostly here just auditing; and playing 'facilitator'. lol

Actually I think you've done quite well all through this thread. It's hard to stay on topic on this subject. To stay more on topic I think a good question would be why would some people like Mr. Ham think he would need air time. He would never change anyone's mind who is rooted into evolution theory.

I believe in creation. I also believe i adaptation and change "within" a species. I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can see the remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian. But still, I would love to enjoy a science show that stays in the science arena and stays away fro philosophy. I still plan to watch it so I can comment about it.

Goteborg
A helpful hint for you, you might want to consider the possibility that there are members of this forum who do really hold degrees in mathematics and related fields and know a total load when they read it. Take the advice, ignore it...it's your call.

I think someone may think that we still take our shoes off to do math problems and wants to try and put one over on us.

Slang. Too funny.

reply to post by Fromabove

I was all gung-ho with evolution and the whole nine yards of it. But I kept asking question which led to even more questions, then frustration, and so I no longer accept it as a viable theory.

Your inability to grasp the science of the theory is not an argument against it. The fact you keep referring to abiogenesis as part of the theory of evolution shows you have not grasped the science.

No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years

Please explain what is the logical or biological barriers that would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

Not in a reasonable time where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

So if it happened faster you would then concede? In your mind would that time span need to be about 6 days?

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

And they have.

Religion cannot answer such questions with any evidence outside of a "Holy Book" and so it should admit it doesn't know

Fair enough? What about that?!

Yeah, I kinda slammed my fist down there....sorry, I'll scoop up the spilled salt...*blushes* Oh well...I still mean it. Can you let go of your bias toward religion? Or are you still fighting off the demons of atheism?

No, I'm not fighting them off. Science cannot answer questions to things it doesn't know. Now, scoop that salt back into the cup.

Fromabove

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

LOL!!!
All my life it's been a habit of mine to sit toward the front and raise my hand frequently.
When I went to graduate school, one of the profs happened to intro the class with a statement about how sometimes the quieter type people don't get a chance to speak, so if all you eager outspoken folks can give them a chance to speak.....

Oh well.
Sorry, offtopic.

But yes, I truly don't understand why some people are so determined to hang to ideas that have been shown to be weak (if not mythical).

Maybe it just can't be explained. Like a woman who's a mother not being able to explain or describe accurately what it's like to become a mother.

Anyway, I still vote for science + God = okay. But either way, I have no dog in the fight. I'm mostly here just auditing; and playing 'facilitator'. lol

Actually I think you've done quite well all through this thread. It's hard to stay on topic on this subject. To stay more on topic I think a good question would be why would some people like Mr. Ham think he would need air time. He would never change anyone's mind who is rooted into evolution theory.

It's not about changing someone's mind who has a preconceived bias. It is about educating people about the various different sciences and how we view the universe. If the show happens to change someone's mind on things, all the better. But educating someone isn't the same thing as arguing a point.

I believe in creation. I also believe i adaptation and change "within" a species. I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can see the remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian. But still, I would love to enjoy a science show that stays in the science arena and stays away fro philosophy. I still plan to watch it so I can comment about it.

I don't believe this statement. Christian fundamentalists are notorious for taking offense to things that contradict their world view, claiming that the concept in question is attacking Christianity or something. Evolution is just one of those concepts that these fundamentalists do that with. You appear to be doing it in this very thread actually.

reply to post by Fromabove

No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years. Not in a reasonable time where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

Okay now you're havering. Pick a point of view, please.

You said above that you have no problem with the Bible and a multi-billion-year-old universe. Then the fact that things change incrementally (to us, almost imperceptibly ) over time fits in with it very nicely. We KNOW how viri (viruses) mutate, and bacteria - as fast as we can concoct antivenoms for it. Yet you're still denying?????? Good lord, man. Stem cells, brain cells, all poised and ready for whichever battle it's 'host' finds itself....

At birth.

Sorry, but again, you're now bordering on being obtuse. And certainly evasive.

Pa leeeeze, give the calculus thing a break now. Let's just admit calculus exists and is useful even for determining events in the progression of time. Will call them years or something and set them in order like decades, centuries, and eons and such.

And no, evolution is not a proven fact, religion or not. I don't need religion to tell me evolution does not work, and that there is not empirical evidence to support it.

No one has been able to show the slow and steady change of one animal form into another through years of progression. Such changes should be easy to find should they not? But no, they only give you a before and after picture.

As for micro-evolution, I call it adaptation because a bacterium is still a bacterium and a virus is a virus. Now show me a virus mating with a bacteria and creating a new species, that would be cool wouldn't it?

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years. Not in a reasonable time where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

Okay now you're havering. Pick a point of view, please.

You said above that you have no problem with the Bible and a multi-billion-year-old universe. Then the fact that things change incrementally (to us, almost imperceptibly ) over time fits in with it very nicely. We KNOW how viri (viruses) mutate, and bacteria - as fast as we can concoct antivenoms for it. Yet you're still denying?????? Good lord, man. Stem cells, brain cells, all poised and ready for whichever battle it's 'host' finds itself....

At birth.

Sorry, but again, you're now bordering on being obtuse. And certainly evasive.

I always said that DNA is a program and that all cells are created and designed, even stem cells. We can't confuse adaptation with evolution.

I personally don't have a problem with billions of years. But for evolution theorists haven't shown any reasonable and believable timeline.

Fromabove
Pa leeeeze, give the calculus thing a break now. Let's just admit calculus exists and is useful even for determining events in the progression of time. Will call them years or something and set them in order like decades, centuries, and eons and such.

Agreed, calculus exists. Just not in any of your posts.

And no, evolution is not a proven fact, religion or not. I don't need religion to tell me evolution does not work, and that there is not empirical evidence to support it.

Maybe you should check out the links that Grimpachi usually posts, they prove evolution quite succinctly.

No one has been able to show the slow and steady change of one animal form into another through years of progression. Such changes should be easy to find should they not? But no, they only give you a before and after picture.

Spoken like a true creationist.

Aphorism
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

Nature may very well be "God at work", and all that we will ever know is how Nature works. I don't see how the show has violated that or suppressed it. or are you saying that by doing that they are indirectly supporting creation?

I also maybe don't quite get your point. I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about. Science and theology don't have to be enemies.
Religion isn't a necessary part of the equation of "why what occurs, occurs".

Yes I'm saying there is no difference between saying "God created it", "Nature created it" or "The Universe created it". All presuppose creation or volition of some supreme creative force.

The Cosmos spoke in this language, as do creationists.

What, in your mind, would be a better phrase? "Nature resulted in this"?

reply to post by Krazysh0t



There is no open conversation with you on this because I can see you're determination to defend evolution. We should stay on topic so that we can at least have some dialogue.

You and I will always disagree and that will just waste yours and my time.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Thankyou for your compliment. I stand by my remarks. I also understand calculus. But we can still go round the bushes if you want.

Fromabove
I also understand calculus.

About on par with abiogenesis, evolution and what the definition of a scientific theory and hypothesis are.

reply to post by Fromabove


No my determination is to get you to post ANYTHING of relevance to back up your position. I've asked over and over and over again and all I get is lip service and poorly written accounts about how you think evolution happens. I've been more than patient waiting for this and feel that you are doing me a disservice by insulting my intelligence with concepts like "time progression math is slang for calculus", thinking that the creation of life has something to do with evolution, shoddy mathematical "proofs" with no math at all in them, and other things. I CAN'T have an open mind to your view of things, because YOU haven't backed up your position well enough. For instance, I have YET to see you post link ONE backing up your claims, then you have the GALL to call me close-minded. PLEASE! Learn how to debate son. And no, going by this thread's content, you DON'T know calculus (or at least don't know it as well as you claim you do).

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

There is no open conversation with you on this because I can see you're determination to defend evolution. We should stay on topic so that we can at least have some dialogue.

You and I will always disagree and that will just waste yours and my time.

I wouldn't qualify his posts as defending evolution when there's nothing to defend it from. We're educating you, not battling you. Unless, of course, you want to fight the scientific facts. In which case, go right on ahead.