Draco Malfoy
New Member
That part, it is correct english grammer to use doesn't, instead of dont, in that sentence.
also sense is spelled as so, not sinse.
Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?
- Thread starter Tym
- Start date
also sense is spelled as so, not sinse.
Brazko
Well-Known Member
Draco Malfoy
New Member
Ok, but mabey next time you post a question asking about how shitty your english is, you should make sure your english is completely correct., I know you are being sincere...... but shhhhhhhhhh I know
Brazko
Well-Known Member
I apologize for you not being able to understand and grasp with intellect the sarcasm...
Get your swag up and stop fucking with broomsticks...
Get your swag up and stop fucking with broomsticks...
Draco Malfoy
New Member
I still dont understand you. (Put Your Helmet On) so im going to stop trying to.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Geocentrism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism
Demons/Evil Spirits cause disease - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
The Earth is older than 6,000 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
..there are three examples.
Hence the importance of the scientific method. It doesn't mater who does what, all that matters is that the scientific method is followed so that any other scientists hundreds or thousands of years later can recreate the exact same experiment and record the exact same measurements and come to the exact same conclusions. THAT is what makes science so useful. THAT is why in a million years, if humans are still around, they will still remember the name Isaac Newton. If some scientist has a bias working towards some preconceived conclusion, another scientist who comes along later and performs the same experiment will get different results. That is what makes real science so strong, the same experiments happen all the time with consistent results, reproducible results, predictable results.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
You did not clearly say anything. You said "the term creationist although defined varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought." I think I know what you mean, but just to clarify, when I say creationist I mean a person who believes in a literal supernatural intervention that created life. More specifically in post #34 I mean a person who believes humans were created as is (rather than having evolved from the first organism ever) by god or some kind of designer. The only one who thinks someone with "creationist methodology" (whatever that means) will be defined as a creationist while simultaneously NOT believing in a literal creation is YOU.
Those people absolutely have "an inability to understand and apply intelligence". They do by the very definition (as provided above) of being a creationist. How they get to their conclusion without the slightest bit of evidence is beyond me.
TaoWolf
Active Member
Your opinion is it's meaningless. The fields of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and History all recognize it not only as existing but as being fundamentally important to mankind's history and society. Take it up with scientists in those fields if you want to argue your opinion with someone. Besides that, is it not meaningless to individuals as is evident in religion, art and architecture. You are using fuzzy logic to arrive at the conclusion that the term is meaningless.
We are in agreement about science not being able to prove anything physically and beyond all doubt (we both disagree with what Tym stated). Hence why I stated 'science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories.' As far as the rest of what you stated, put that into context of what Heisenberg and Planck claim in regards to the quantum universe and you'd better understand what the rest of my point is/was and that we are not in disagreement. Or include what Einstein put forth with theories of relativity. Science does not equal right/wrong, physical/non-physical, yes/no. Science even recognizes the limits of observing the universe around us, let alone our ability to test it or predict it accurately. Even according to Einstein's scientific theory of relativity (if you disagree with Heisenberg and Planck), the heart of everything we observe and measure is all subjective and limited in meaning to only that which the observer can observe.
We are still in agreement. Especially in regards to relativity, I'm in complete agreement... Which is why I find topics pitting science against spiritualism in general, or creationism in particular, to be disingenuous and circular. And more often than not are just insincere exercises in stereotyping a group of people at an emotional level.
Brazko
Well-Known Member
Ok, do you believe the term Atheist gets misrepresented although it is clearly defined? Well, believe it or not the term Creationist gets used the same way, sorry to break it to you but it does happen.... Please don't hide behind ignorance for the sake of arguement..
As you have defined it, I would say that person would be a creationist...
And those people do have the ability to understand and apply intelligence. To sit and explain every predicament that person may have obstructing their growth is one thing, to say they are incable of understanding and intelligence is another.
As you have defined it, I would say that person would be a creationist...
And those people do have the ability to understand and apply intelligence. To sit and explain every predicament that person may have obstructing their growth is one thing, to say they are incable of understanding and intelligence is another.
Tym
Well-Known Member
ROTFLMAO dude. I don't need an online thesaurus, I have an education, I use this terminology in my career every day. In fact, I have to consciously "dumb down" (a term we jokingly use in the lab) my vocabulary when posting in forums and when dealing with the public. It would be impossible for me to communicate coherently any other way.lol..THIS is why your full of yourself. if you actually read your own words and understood how you used them, youd see what a fool you are. Your grasp of science is meager at best, an online thesaurus wont make you sound smart btw.
show me something science has disproven? my request is simple for someone of your obvious magnitude in insight and scientific knowledge. science is whatever you find as fact, but whos science do you believe?! your own? some guys research you read? what if hes just as fractured, jaded and closed minded as you? history, is something we learn about, but thats only because we observe what others TOLD us was their experiences.does THAT make those experiences fact because we read them? no.
my words stay simple and poinient. i wont get pulled into an intellectual fight with someone who is CLEARLY..unarmed.
peace brother.
Where did I say science has disproved anything? Even if I had, it would be simple for me to do so.. The earth is round, not flat. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. These and MANY other claims have been disproved by science. You are correct, that question is simple, even for someone with little to no understanding of science. I can give you so many more examples, but I'm sure you can think of your own. It doesn't take a rocket scientist..
One thing I can tell you don't grasp about science is that it is based on repeatable, demonstrable, empirical evidence. That is what I accept. Belief has nothing to do with it. I don't "Believe" in things. I accept them, or reject them based on the evidence provided. A claim is nothing without evidence.
Simple? Yes. poinient?? LOL, I would love for you to define that word for me.. That would be a laugh..
Intellectual fight? Why would you consider this a fight? Can't two people have a discussion without getting hostile? Who needs to be armed? I'm not here to fight.
Tym
Well-Known Member
Lol.. I wonder how many people here are even able to understand that jokeActually, from the standpoint of general relativity, the sun does orbit the earth.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You misunderstand. No joke. From the perspective of an Earth-centered reference frame, the Sun does indeed orbit around the Earth. In GR, all reference frames are equally valid. There is nothing particularly special about inertial reference frames in GR.Lol.. I wonder how many people here are even able to understand that joke
TaoWolf
Active Member
Actually, the earth is traveling in a straight line through space and time according to relativity *as well*. =PActually, from the standpoint of general relativity, the sun does orbit the earth.
Tym
Well-Known Member
Hehe.. Yeah, and it's also falling into the sun.. lol. It just keeps missing it
TaoWolf
Active Member
No, it's the exact same principle of drawing a straight line (the path) on clear saran-wrap (space/time)... and then wrapping the saran-wrap around a light pole (the sun). The line is still a straight line of the same length that is traveling in the original position across the clear sheet of plastic... But from a different perspective that includes the light pole - we would see a wobbly line that goes in circles around the light pole... Looking it at as still being a straight line is correct as is it also correct to see it as a wobbly line wrapped around a light pole. Want to say it's still a straight line? Go for it. Want to say it's a wobbly line encircling a light pole? Go for it. It's all relative.Hehe.. Yeah, and it's also falling into the sun.. lol. It just keeps missing it
Tym
Well-Known Member
I know, it was a joke
TaoWolf
Active Member
Right on - I'm not meaning to be overly anal about relativity... it's just one of those basic concepts that can defy logic and make you have to literally bend your mind around corners, while at the same time being so elegantly simple and straight-forward. It's a crazy universe we live in where straight lines can be crooked lines at the same time, defy letting us look at the paths of lines without altering that path and so not be able to ever truly determine the true path... and while the definition of straight is dependent not upon the line itself but also the line relative so something else... Blows my mind to think about.
Tym
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's why I love physics
Our ability to make sense of non intuitive concepts, our ability to understand alternate dimensions, space and time, wave particle duality. While still offering promises of new discoveries and so many things still waiting for explanations. We are building machines like the LHC, and WMAP, we can contrive and execute complex projects and experiments such as the QDot (quantum dot). I would say we live in a particularly special time, but I know now that science has a firm foothold (unless we do manage to destroy ourselves), the discoveries and experiments in the distant future will be far beyond anything we will ever be a part of.Life is a trip, Who needs spirituality and religion when you have reality? Lol.