Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Christopher Ball · 06-03-2012, 06:49 AM

(06-03-2012 06:32 AM)kevlar Wrote: How wrong can you get. The time-span that you you pretend science finds in geology has nothing to do with the understanding of the theory of evolution . Why can't you get that very BASIC principle through your incredibly thick scone?[/b]
If you need any more padding, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Are you saying ‘the theory of evolution would have been diagnosed without the understanding of deep-time … I think Not!
Are you saying ‘if the planet was deemed to be young the evolution theory would still be on track … wakey-wakey

~~kevlar~~ · (This post was last modified: 06-03-2012 06:59 AM by kevlar.)

(06-03-2012 06:49 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2012 06:32 AM)kevlar Wrote: How wrong can you get. The time-span that you you pretend science finds in geology has nothing to do with the understanding of the theory of evolution . Why can't you get that very BASIC principle through your incredibly thick scone?[/b]
If you need any more padding, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Are you saying ‘the theory of evolution would have been diagnosed without the understanding of deep-time … I think Not!
Are you saying ‘if the planet was deemed to be young the evolution theory would still be on track … wakey-wakey

Oh deary me. Have you even looked at the ToE? It is not reliant in anyway on a YEC or the real thing. Your particular cult believes that all animals that came off the Ark 4000yrs ago have evolved to become the millions of creatures now. Nothing to do with the age of the planet for the stupid people, why should it make any difference to us?

Oh! you weren't included in the us.

Christopher Ball · 06-03-2012, 07:32 AM

(06-03-2012 06:57 AM)kevlar Wrote: Oh deary me. Have you even looked at the ToE? It is not reliant in anyway on a YEC or the real thing. Your particular cult believes that all animals that came off the Ark 4000yrs ago have evolved to become the millions of creatures now. Nothing to do with the age of the planet for the stupid people, why should it make any difference to us?

Oh! you weren't included in the us.

A cult’ … if the subject matter wasn’t so serious that would be quite funny
Not sure where you got the idea that I think we came from the biblical Ark 4000 years ago because I think our predecessors came from the swamp and we were given birth by a phantom pregnancy but that’s way off the scale even by my imagination.

Painkiller · 06-03-2012, 09:03 AM

Chris, it's not about "your science vs. our science", it's about "the scientific method vs. stuff you made up". You have been told clearly and specifically what you need to do to have your theories accepted as science, and you've told us that you can't be bothered. If you want to move forward, the ball's in your court, but you can't be surprised if people ignore your claims until then.

Christopher Ball · 06-03-2012, 09:55 AM

Thankyou Painkiller but science takes time, and until all of science actually knows about this blunder, may I suggest you use a little commonsense and logic and be one step ahead.
Don’t just sweep it under the carpet because it's new, or because it's not written down by some important person with a few letters after they name.
Even though you may think so, science is not infallible, absolutely and unbelievably far from it.

Painkiller · 06-03-2012, 10:06 AM

(06-03-2012 09:55 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: Don’t just sweep it under the carpet because it's new, or because it's not written down by some important person with a few letters after they name.

At this point, I can only assume that you're misunderstanding what people are saying on purpose, because it's easier to paint yourself as a victim of prejudice and fear than to actually take on board what's being said to you.

Absolutely no-one has criticised your idea because it's new, or because you don't have letters after your name. People have explained very reasonably and politely (not to mention repeatedly) what the Scientific Method is and how to apply it, and you've stated quite clearly that you're not prepared to do that. That's fine, Science isn't the only way to do things, but for you to insist that you have "real science" and that mainstream science is utterly flawed, while full-on refusing to accept what Science actually is is just ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but as Equal said I think it's time that you ask yourself some honest questions about why people refuse to take your theories seriously as science. You can keep telling yourself it's because their blind or refuse to listen, but I think you owe it to yourself to at least consider the alternative.

Christopher Ball · 06-03-2012, 11:25 AM

(06-03-2012 10:06 AM)Painkiller Wrote: I think you owe it to yourself to at least consider the alternative.

Wow! If you’re suggesting I don’t know the reverse to what I’m preaching you would be wrong, very wrong.

I also know what science is and how it works, and when I say real science’ it’s just a figure of speech. You have round pebbles at the top of the beach and square at the bottom, physics, ie, real science, does not work like that

I’m sure you know that but for some reason you won’t admit it, all I get is stupid remarks … why?

Painkiller · 06-03-2012, 11:33 AM

No, Chris, by "at least consider the alternative", I meant that you should consider the possibility that people don't reject your ideas because they're afraid of change, disdainful of the unqualified or too invested in established scientific understanding, but because your ideas don't really make any sense. I realise we're probably quite different people, but if I'd have invested as much time and energy into an idea as you have, I'd listen very carefully to what the opponents of the theory say and consider very seriously the possibility that they might be right.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you do understand what science is at all. I think you've decided that the Theory of Evolution is wrong and gone looking for reasons to say that it is, without actually researching what it is you're opposing. When you say "real science", you mean "the things that I have decided". You've flat-out refused to use scientific methodology, continue to make statements about how scientists work without backing up those claims at all, and now you're insisting that we all secretly know you're right but refuse to admit it. I'm not sure what we've done to earn such disrespect, but if you are recieving some "silly remarks" now, I suspect that's the reason why.

**StarStuff** · 06-03-2012, 02:01 PM

In how many different threads do we need to have this discussion?

If Chris hasn't gotten it yet, he's never going to. I think it's time we give up on him, and thereby stop allowing him to hijack threads.

**EqualAtheist** · 06-03-2012, 02:41 PM

Lets not forget that it took Chris almost if not 300 posts, to make one citation to what he thought he was proving wrong. I just hope if Chris ever has a heart problem, he makes sure to tell the doctors, that they science they will be using to save his life is wrong because of pebble beaches, and a theory that he has, that I already showed a link to, Twice, is already known.