The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The environmental impact of creation > Comments

The environmental impact of creation : Comments

By Ian Plimer, published 20/4/2015

At the court hearing, God was cross-examined and asked why He wanted to undertake this massive project, especially as it appeared that it was extremely unlikely that any social benefit would derive from His venture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
Runner, April 20 writes; "I think it is hilarous that the same dishonest tactics that Ian used against creationist are now being used by the warmist religion against him." But she fails to realise that her hilarity is a guise for confusion. One can be reasonably certain that she has never read the Good Professor's book, Telling Lies for God. Lies against creationists? There's the hilarity! His book brilliantly reveals who the liars are and the dishonesty that saturates creationism and its adherents. Runner has no answer to the facts and vents her spleen in generalities. Her posts are more aligned to gain approval from her deity than to inform the unbeliever
Posted by Pogi, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 3:42:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty writes; ">The science supports the existence of evolution<

No it doesn't, it just supports the probability of adaptation compelled by change. And simply put, that single fact supports intelligent design!"

Your contrived and misrepresentative definition, simply put, is NOT A FACT but an arbitrary assertion dishonestly wrought in words that superficially emulate scientific expression. Adaptation by an organism to changing environmental influences is an established fact no better supported than by the example of Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. The islands of the Pacific are natural laboratories demonstrating this law of nature a thousand-fold. The break-up of Pangea by tectonic forces demonstrates this on a global scale. Thus science supports the theory of evolution, a SCIENTIFIC theory so well supported by observation, predictability and experiment that it would be perverse not to regard it as a fact. It is however always subject to falsifiability but no evidence has been found that contradicts it in any way.

Also; "The entire theory of evolution is comletely dependent on a single celled organism erupting by pure change from, wait for it, a primordial soup for which there is no evidence;" Which of course is utter codswallop. Such an assertion is revealing of the profound intellectual indigence of the asserter. The science of abiogenesis deals with the origin[s] of life on Earth. It is a completely separate discipline of science within the biological sciences and is the subject of intense study. That our itellects are so far unsuccessful in solving the problem of how life emerged provides no genuine scientific reason to give up and shout "God must have done it!" [continued in my next post
Posted by Pogi, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 5:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The first "live organism" was not a single living cell. It was a combination of chemicals that are naturally attracted to each other because of the vacancies of position in the circulating elactrons. As 2 atoms of hydrogen are attracted to 1 atom of oxygen to make di-hydrogen oxide or WATER. Now I'm not saying water is alive, I am simply explaining what chemical attraction is. The smallest entity of a combination such as this that can exist on its own is a molecule. Over millions of years of varying conditions on Earth in thousands upon thousands of environments, untold numbers of molecules formed and broke up time after time until one molecule became so different it had the ability to replicate itself. That is how science currently sees the scenario in broad terms. A living cell, a highly complex mechanism, is predicted to have evolved several million years later.

The great MLK jr, a flawed but noble character admired by believer and unbeliever alike, said; "Nothing in the world is so dangerous as sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Creationism is constructed with both of these traits as pillars of foundation. And by your post Rhosty you have demonstrated how representative you are of the great man's lament
Posted by Pogi, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 5:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu

The article attacks:-

Unions
Greens
The anti nuclear lobby
Anti pollution lobby
Renewable energy
Gaia
God
Astrologers
WWF
Vivisectionists
Gays
Animal liberationists
Communists
The left
Bureaucracy
EIS
And indirectly science
Human intelligence

On the other it promotes:-

The capitalist system
The market
Greed
Any type of development
Nuclear power
Fossil fuels
Economists
Hunting

While the article is probably aimed at Australia, the list is broadly international in scope.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 5:41:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

"I think this right up there with such conservative satire as "Julia Gillard on the menu" and "Abbotts tax plan". Although to be fair, Abbotts tax plan was really described as more of a 'morbid joke' than satire.

Ho ho, what a laugh we had at your expense.

I'll look forward to your advertising your Adelaide Fringe Festival gig on OLO Ian!

I'll be there with bells on."

Well, I suppose it was a valiant attempt...(why can't righties do satire well, I wonder?)....too long and rambling. I think Ian got carried away with the whole narrative - not to mention, he obviously thinks he's pretty good at this humour lark.

If it had been a little snappier and not so windbaggingly long, it might have evoked a titter from moi.

Still, all the righties here seem happy with a bit of long and rambling third rate satire...which is not surprising.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 7:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Warmair,

It is indeed interesting how the same material can be read in so many different ways.

Yes, if the article is to be taken literally, then it is indeed paranoid. I admit that I read this article more in the way a child would watch a Charlie Chaplin movie, concentrating on the way he walks and falls rather on some grand social manifesto.

The message I got is: "You could even be God, yet you couldn't do what you want because the government will be out to get you." Why government and not "Unions; Greens; Anti-Nuclear lobby..."? because only government can take you to jail if you disobey: without it, the others might bark all the way but the convoy shall pass.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 7:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy