Off Topic Aliens

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PISKIE said:
The book seems to have been fairly widely condemned as lacking any sound scientific validity by the academic community though. It seems to reference archaeological case studies, but doesn't really present any valid scientific theory itself, other than a creationist view of the world. For a 900 page book that sounds like an awful lot of waffle.
Click to expand...

Read the book, and you will understand why the "scientific" community panned it.

It doesn't put them in a very good light.
 
thefanwithnoname said:
That wasn't the discussion, you said some of what I pointed out was creationist bollocks, I said are these guys creationist? You then went on a rant and incessant questioning

Gould differed to Dawkins and said the fossil gap made a mockery of gradual evolution and was more of a punctuated equilibrium guy

Point being evolutionists disagree on certain points so nothing is a given or creationist bollocks
Click to expand...
You claimed various things were issues with evolution.
I pointed out that they were actually creationist bollocks and not issues at all. That's true.

Gould having a differing view on an aspect of evolution isn't an issue.
He certainly didn't think so, did he?
Scientists will always challenge bits of any theory. That doesn't mean that there's an overall problem with it.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
You claimed various things were issues with evolution.
I pointed out that they were actually creationist bollocks and not issues at all. That's true.

Gould having a differing view on an aspect of evolution isn't an issue.
He certainly didn't think so, did he?
Scientists will always challenge bits of any theory. That doesn't mean that there's an overall problem with it.
Click to expand...

There is an overall problem in context of where we started yes. Nothing to do with creationist bollocks

Let's look at where I entered into this debate with you. You transcribed a few words from a video and dismissed it. The start of which was in reference to questioning evolution. I said what was wrong with what he said and so it began

Bottom line is no one denied evolution but it has to be questioned and likesnof you get very uncomfortable when it does

Gould and Dawkins are both evolutionists but they had heated debates and differed quite a lot on many points.

I know you like wikki so you can look up Gould v Dawkins and you will see that their stances do indeed create issues with evolutionary theory and the side you wish to take

Also it does beg the question is evolution theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? The answer is a categorical no and yih don't need creationist bolloxks to.reach that conclusion or in fact deny it overall
 
thefanwithnoname said:
There is an overall problem in context of where we started yes. Nothing to do with creationist bollocks

Let's look at where I entered into this debate with you. You transcribed a few words from a video and dismissed it. The start of which was in reference to questioning evolution. I said what was wrong with what he said and so it began

Bottom line is no one denied evolution but it has to be questioned and likesnof you get very uncomfortable when it does

Gould and Dawkins are both evolutionists but they had heated debates and differed quite a lot on many points.

I know you like wikki so you can look up Gould v Dawkins and you will see that their stances do indeed create issues with evolutionary theory and the side you wish to take

Also it does beg the question is evolution theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? The answer is a categorical no and yih don't need creationist bolloxks to.reach that conclusion or in fact deny it overall
Click to expand...

Given the thread, presumably, if you don't accept evolution as it's currently understood, you put it down to aliens?
 
thefanwithnoname said:
There is an overall problem in context of where we started yes. Nothing to do with creationist bollocks

Let's look at where I entered into this debate with you. You transcribed a few words from a video and dismissed it. The start of which was in reference to questioning evolution. I said what was wrong with what he said and so it began

Bottom line is no one denied evolution but it has to be questioned and likesnof you get very uncomfortable when it does
Click to expand...
Look back at what I said. I didn't say that he shouldn't be questioning evolution.
The man suggested that nobody did it. You're doing it now. People do it all the time.
He's clearly wrong, isn't he?
 
thefanwithnoname said:
Bottom line is no one denied evolution but it has to be questioned and likesnof you get very uncomfortable when it does

Gould and Dawkins are both evolutionists but they had heated debates and differed quite a lot on many points.

I know you like wikki so you can look up Gould v Dawkins and you will see that their stances do indeed create issues with evolutionary theory and the side you wish to take

Also it does beg the question is evolution theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? The answer is a categorical no and yih don't need creationist bolloxks to.reach that conclusion or in fact deny it overall
Click to expand...
You're wrong. It's proven.
People disagree about different aspects of it, but the broad theory is a proven as germ theory or the theory of gravity.
No non-scientist publicly questions them, because there's no religious aspect to them.
There isn't even one to evolution, but some people think that there is. It's that simple.

Question it all that you want, but do it in a way that's worthwhile.
Throwing out old, false information just makes you look ignorant.
 
DMD said:
Given the thread, presumably, if you don't accept evolution as it's currently understood, you put it down to aliens?
Click to expand...

No thatvwouls be Dawkins. He is an evolutionist and believes it could be aliens who are the creator of us

As for me I don't deny evolution per se, but I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of it as presented by some. Darwin's books are IMO very much like the bible full of stories etc and not like what then likes of Dawkins present.
 
thefanwithnoname said:
No thatvwouls be Dawkins. He is an evolutionist and believes it could be aliens who are the creator of us

As for me I don't deny evolution per se, but I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of it as presented by some. Darwin's books are IMO very much like the bible full of stories etc and not like what then likes of Dawkins present.
Click to expand...

So what do you believe if not evolution, and why are you arguing it on a thread about aliens?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Look back at what I said. I didn't say that he shouldn't be questioning evolution.
The man suggested that nobody did it. You're doing it now. People do it all the time.
He's clearly wrong, isn't he?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is wrong in the context of what he said no.

Atheist always say religon doesn't question but it does, yet I see where they are coming from and not literal
 
thefanwithnoname said:
I don't think he is wrong in the context of what he said no.

Atheist always say religon doesn't question but it does, yet I see where they are coming from and not literal
Click to expand...
You've literally proven him wrong yourself. He's saying that people don't question evolution and you are. <doh>
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
He also says that god is possible, though slightly less so.
He's not saying that this is something he believes or that there's any evidence for it.
Click to expand...

Seemed to be serious about the aliens in the vid

As for evidence then we come full circle, he bases some of his evolutionary stuff on what he believes rather than evidence
 
I think this nails it.

You must log in or register to see media
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back