Supergrunch

Yes. Everyone should learn to play go. And we should have more debates. And maths. And science. :wink:

I think the community here has been hanging on a thread for a while, and last night seems to have broken this thread. Now everyone has split up into separate factions, and the whole place seems anarchic... Get it together people. Some of us want to use this as a forum, and not just hide in threads where there's no lunacy. By the way, after reading that through, I realise that I should probably point out that the aforementioned thread is entirely metaphorical.

Ho hum... I'd just like to be able to enjoy both Eurofusion and N-Europe without having to take sides. After all, this place is my spiritual home... :wink:

Frankly, this discussion is irrelevant. Unless you generally want to fool youself, then you will believe what you think is true, whether it is more comfortable to believe such a thing or not. And it isn't about creationism anyway.

I know, it was a good post, and I read it all the way through, but I was just pointing out that most of the creationists wouldn't.

りゅ Doesn't make it much easier...

If you want something hard to pronounce, try "ryu" (japanese). It's one syllable, and the "r" is a cross between an "l", an "r" and a bit of "d".

Which is why I posted the wikipedia link to radiometric dating earlier. The only problem with a post like yours is that the creationists won't bother to read it and will just deny it all, even though it's all correct.

A nicer experiment to demonstrate the same osmotic principle, with better design (although only qualitative) is as follows: Get 5 different concentrations of salt solution (0M, 0.2M, 0.4M, 0.6M, 0.8M and 1M works well). Now cut little strips from a celery stick, in the direction of the stem. Due to the waxy cuticle on top, and the turgid cells beneath, the strips will bend back a little. Now if you leave a strip in a petri dish of each solution for half an hour or so, you'll end up with each strip being bent a different amount depending on the solution. This looks quite impressive.

Yes, I know what you mean, but I don't allow woolly science. :wink: Like intelligent design...

Try dropping a helium balloon or a bird... theory not proven. You have to go more in depth than that.

Although he's a good biologist, Dawkins fails to understand the point of religion. It's unfortunate, because many atheists do.

Not just that, I think it's also partly that people seem to have a hard time comprehending it due to the vast amounts of time involved... a bit like the way people have a hard time comprehending a four dimensional cube. This is because humans haven't evolved (nyer ) to cope with these concepts. But keep it up, you're talking a whole lot of sense.

Science is not atheist, although many scientists are atheists. As you say, to "believe" in creationism, one must be religious. One can "believe" in evolution whether you are religious or not. Science merely tries to explain the universe... I don't see how that is the antithesis of religion. And I wasn't trying to claim you started the argument. My point was that as long as there are people who believe in creationism (such as yourself), those who do not (such as myself) will argue against them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Yes, it is a model. Everything in science is a model. But models are not a case of faith, they are trying to describe the world based on evidence, whereas faith is not based on evidence. I also accept the fact that any model could be proven wrong. Someone faithful to their religion does not accept the fact that their religion might be rubbish. You assume I an an atheist. That is a very big assumption, and if you had read the rest of the thread, you would know it isn't true. We have creationism vs evolution arguments because of people like you.

When you say "theorums", I assume you mean "theroems". Ironically, a theorem is by definition proven to be true, so the word can only really apply to maths and there is definitely no faith involed. But anyway, science is about using theories to model observed events. Hence these theories are not completely correct, but the best fitting one is chosen, until someone comes up with a better one. Now, at the moment, evolution is the best model for "where life comes from", and is likely to remain so for a long time. If you wish me to acknowledge creationism as a proposed model, then it definitely does not fit the observtions best. Hence this is not a case of faith, but an application of the scientific principle. In fact, I'd be interested to see your rationale behind your beliefs. Why can't one species evolve into another?

Oh okay... it's still the same, anyway.

Yes, you do want a y axis that covers positive and negative, as if something gets lighter, its percentage increase is negative. Incidentally, when you say "0.5M", do you mean of salt solution?

Iaido, kendo, iaijutsu, kenjutsu, aikido, daito... And looking badass.

Lot's of people have trouble with this. Can you see that if a self replicating molecule capable of mutations comes about the rest of evolution will follow? If so, we have to consider how likely such a self-replicating molecule came about. I think that given a complex chemical system (such as a primordial soup) and millions of years, then the chances are that such a molecule will construct itself. Many people think this first molecule was RNA, but it could also be clay or crystals, which replicate imperfections in their growth pattern.

Yes, these things are a problem. People are presenting their unscientific views as science, and may end up convincing people that creationism is science. If you disregard theories through personal preference and instead promote something that isn't even a theory, then you only serve to damage science and other people.

Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions and flaws. But unless you genuinely believe it to be written by God, then you shouldn't expect it to be consistent, as it is a product of so many different people and times. Additionally, much of it is simply meant as parables, including the story of the creation. People shouldn't abandon their faith or stick rigidly to the parables presented just because science has come out with a theory for "creation" that doesn't agree with this.

Fair enough... maybe they should be banned. There, that was easy for you.

I think the difference between guns etc. and swords is that today swords are normally designed and produced for collecting (or martial arts or whatever), whereas guns and explosives are designed and produced to be used as weapons. To be fair, I can see that they could be dangerous- I wouldn't mind if they only sold blunt swords. And simply out of interest, I'd like to hear about crimes committed with swords, because I've never come across them before. I know that sounds like I'm trying to be sarcastic, but I'm not. Nevertheless, I haven't signed the petition, because I don't care that much.

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that God coordinated evolution... I don't necessarily believe it though. Is that what you mean?