PDA

View Full Version : Is creationism science or not?



Jose Fly
March 23rd, 2016, 03:26 PM
I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science". The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.

But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

Nick M
March 23rd, 2016, 06:17 PM
Creationism? Isn't that something like calling construction "buildingism"?

musterion
March 24th, 2016, 05:16 AM
Us: All life was created by God, Who is unbound by the universal "box" which contains us. He, not we, defines what existence means and, as Creator, is entitled to make any demands upon us.

Fly: All life accidentally arose from lifeless minerals and returns to lifeless minerals. In the meantime, existence means only as much or as little as the individual chooses to ascribe to it.

Watered down so Fly can comprehend:

Us: "God is God. We all answer to Him."

Fly: "I am God. I answer to no one but me."

Watered down even further:

Us: We are as God made us: dust imbued with His breath of life.

Fly: I am a preachy rock ape with the temporary (and ultimately meaningless) capacity for thought. My life's passion is to validate myself by convincing you that you, too, are a rock ape.

Nick M
March 24th, 2016, 06:28 AM
Great response.

ok doser
March 24th, 2016, 07:11 AM
So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this.

why?

you've already admitted that your sole purpose here is to troll

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 07:58 AM
Creation explains the proper way science can only conclude its results.

jamie
March 24th, 2016, 08:07 AM
Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?


If by creationism you are referring to the young earth theory, I don't buy it.

Stripe
March 24th, 2016, 08:13 AM
I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science".Darwinists survive by keeping discussions vague and malleable. When they fail to be precise, we find it an invitation to make such statements.

If you were to engage rationally, we would be forced to speak within the confines of your presuppositions, use your language and consider your evidence to provide reasons to doubt your ideas.

However, you prefer to insulate your religion against such things.


The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.:AMR:

Would you prefer us to assume that what we believe is nonsense?

Darwinists are terrified when people have beliefs that do not mesh with their own. Get over yourself; have the discussion instead of launching these meta-threads that do nothing but put more words between your ideas and critical thinking.


But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.
Nope. We provide evidence.

See any thread on the subject that you like. :up:

Your assertions are demonstrably false.

Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?
Science is the practice of holding your ideas about the physical world up against data and evidence. To do this in a useful manner, you need to express concepts that are testable and falsifiable.

Creationists practice science far more than the religious devotees of Darwin do.

And it is guaranteed that your sole aim here is to pull a "creationism isn't science" quote-mine out to wave about, while having no serious devotion to understanding anything related to science.

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 08:36 AM
If by creationism you are referring to the young earth theory, I don't buy it.

Suppose it could be shown that there were two creations performed on this planet and that being the cause for our inability to find a "missing link"?

jamie
March 24th, 2016, 09:12 AM
Suppose it could be shown that there were two creations performed on this planet and that being the cause for our inability to find a "missing link"?

:thumb: Yes, there was already water on the earth which means the sun warmed the earth when the re-creation began.

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 09:27 AM
:thumb: Yes, there was already water on the earth which means the sun warmed the earth when the re-creation began.

I am not thinking of a watery creation but one that existed that was destroyed by the same water written of.

jamie
March 24th, 2016, 09:35 AM
I am not thinking of a watery creation but one that existed that was destroyed by the same water written of.


Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

Jose Fly
March 24th, 2016, 09:40 AM
So far it looks like we have at least one in this thread (Stripe) who feels that creationism isn't science.

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 09:56 AM
Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

True and why should it have to since life as we know it to be purposed by God is all He has desired to be made known. . Science points to the "how of it all" and pretty much confirms such a preexistence while providing no missing link that would reveal a gradual 'change'..

Stripe
March 24th, 2016, 10:20 AM
So far it looks like we have at least one in this thread (Stripe) who feels that creationism isn't science.Nope.

Prediction confirmed.

You're an anti-science fool, chasing the religion of Darwin.

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 01:37 PM
Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

But even the unlearned would readily admit that water did the job. What's your point?

jamie
March 24th, 2016, 05:06 PM
But even the unlearned would readily admit that water did the job. What's your point?


The point is simple, we don't know that God destroyed the world by water. That's your speculation but not mine.
I believe the water came later.

Cross Reference
March 24th, 2016, 06:11 PM
The point is simple, we don't know that God destroyed the world by water. That's your speculation but not mine.
I believe the water came later.

Based on what when evidence says it otherwise?

jamie
March 24th, 2016, 07:22 PM
Based on what when evidence says it otherwise?


What evidence?

Cross Reference
March 25th, 2016, 07:18 AM
What evidence?

Yes. (my bad for the confusion)

alwight
March 25th, 2016, 07:57 AM
Us: All life was created by God, Who is unbound by the universal "box" which contains us. He, not we, defines what existence means and, as Creator, is entitled to make any demands upon us.
Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. :Plain:

Jose Fly
March 25th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. :Plain:

Well the consensus view here seems to be that creationism is not science and is just a religious belief.

It's always nice when everyone can agree. :)

themuzicman
March 25th, 2016, 10:35 AM
There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.

Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

Cross Reference
March 25th, 2016, 10:38 AM
Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. :Plain:

Why say "mythical" when you can't defend your own unbelievable opinion due to absence of facts?

Stripe
March 25th, 2016, 10:39 AM
Well the consensus view here seems to be that creationism is not science and is just a religious belief.

:darwinsm:

Darwinists will say anything.

Jose Fly
March 25th, 2016, 10:50 AM
There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.

Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

Cross Reference
March 25th, 2016, 10:53 AM
Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

LOL!! Copulation for procreation! How does evolution accomplish the same thing and with such pleasure?? Yeah!! Don't leave out the "pleasure " part!! Go fer it. I can hardly stand it!!! LOL!! I love these scientific experiments!! ;)

alwight
March 25th, 2016, 11:09 AM
Why say "mythical" when you can't defend your own unbelievable opinion due to absence of facts?Just because you say it is unbelievable, whatever specifically you are referring to, doesn't actually mean that others don't find the explanation of the evidence compelling enough to accept it as rational and true.

If you have the evidence to lift your creationist claims above "myth" status then now would be a good time to produce it.

Cross Reference
March 25th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Just because you say it is unbelievable, whatever specifically you are referring to, doesn't actually mean that others don't find the explanation of the evidence compelling enough to accept it as rational and true.


No evidence that compels to accept. Not even a little bit that is rational and true. Yer dreamin'

alwight
March 25th, 2016, 11:21 AM
No evidence that compels to accept. Not even a little bit that is rational and true. Yer dreamin'If you ever try to consider some of the evidence for yourself and want some actual understanding of it then by all means do let me know.:Plain:

themuzicman
March 25th, 2016, 12:15 PM
Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

It doesn't need to be an either/or.


Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationist+scientists

Jose Fly
March 25th, 2016, 01:58 PM
It doesn't need to be an either/or.

That's true, but in this case the creationists on this board agree that creationism is a belief and not a science. You are the exception.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationist+scientists

Cute, but basically a non-answer. If you ever come up with actual examples of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses, let me know.

Cross Reference
March 25th, 2016, 02:51 PM
That's true, but in this case the creationists on this board agree that creationism is a belief and not a science. You are the exception.



Cute, but basically a non-answer. If you ever come up with actual examples of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses, let me know.


I would take you up on that if you could come up with a cure for a common cold.

Jonahdog
March 25th, 2016, 04:59 PM
I would take you up on that if you could come up with a cure for a common cold.

A bit irrelevant to the question that was asked.

Stripe
March 26th, 2016, 02:46 AM
There are scientists seeking [to provide evidence for] the hypothesis of creationism. Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

:thumb:

alwight
March 26th, 2016, 03:23 AM
There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.


Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

Cross Reference
March 26th, 2016, 06:46 AM
It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.

Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

Calling evolution theory, fact, is the apex of stupidity. Therefore it makes no sense to continue . .:deadhorse: No disrespect intended but, you do smell like used wet hay.

alwight
March 26th, 2016, 08:48 AM
Calling evolution theory, fact, is the apex of stupidity. Therefore it makes no sense to continue . .:deadhorse: No disrespect intended but, you do smell like used wet hay.Your reading comprehension is about on a par with the straw man who wanted a brain since I didn't actually say the ToE is fact.:nono:
However formal theories are never formally proven, but if it helps I personally consider it a virtual fact for all intents and purposes. If that makes me stupid in your eyes then that's just something I'll have to learn to live with. :Plain:

Stripe
March 26th, 2016, 09:43 AM
It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.

Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

Nope.

Science is about testing ideas against evidence, regardless of the idea.

You're a bigot, pretending that people who holds to ideas you hate cannot practice science, while Darwinists get a pass.

alwight
March 26th, 2016, 02:36 PM
Nope.

Science is about testing ideas against evidence, regardless of the idea.
Science is actually about rationally explaining the evidence not plucking ideas out of thin air to put to the test.


You're a bigot, pretending that people who holds to ideas you hate cannot practice science, while Darwinists get a pass.Straw man, firstly you make up a lie about what I supposedly hate and then use it to falsely imply bigotry. You are a very dishonest fellow indeed Stripe, but most of us already know that and wouldn't want you any other way. ;)

Stripe
March 26th, 2016, 07:23 PM
Science is actually about rationally explaining the evidence not plucking ideas out of thin air to put to the test.False dichotomies are a favorite fallacy of the Darwinist.

Science can be used to test any idea that would affect the physical world.


Straw man.Nope.


Firstly you make up a lie about what I supposedly hate and then use it to falsely imply bigotry.I might be wrong about what you hate, but when you say: "Creationism ... is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence" and it "has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science," it shows that you believe people of a particular worldview cannot practice science. Hence, bigotry. This bigotry is based on a hatred for anyone who rejects your religion.


You are a very dishonest fellow indeed Stripe, but most of us already know that and wouldn't want you any other way. ;)
And now we know your hatred is of people.

Greg Jennings
March 26th, 2016, 07:33 PM
Why say "mythical" when you can't defend your own unbelievable opinion due to absence of facts?

You must be joking......What evidence do you have to support anything you believe, remind me?

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 03:58 AM
I might be wrong about what you hate,Yes, indeed you are wrong, clearly that probability doesn't prevent you from making up stuff anyway.


but when you say: "Creationism ... is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence" and it "has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science," shows that you believe people of a particular worldview cannot practice science. Hence, bigotry. This bigotry is based on a hatred for anyone who rejects your religion.
I don't try to account for all YECs while the OECs can at least accommodate some science into their perhaps more realistic timescales.
I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.
The AiG statement of faith includes:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.


And now we know your hatred is of people.I couldn't possibly hate you Stripe, you are too funny. :)

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 04:44 AM
You must be joking......What evidence do you have to support anything you believe, remind me?


Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 05:04 AM
Yes, indeed you are wrong.The evidence says otherwise.


I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.Which makes you a bigot. Creationists are just as capable as anyone else of adjusting what they believe in the face of the evidence.


The AiG statement of faith.Repeating your bigoted ideology doesn't make you less of a bigot. The exact opposite, in fact.

It does not matter what a person believes; it matters that their ideas are subject to the evidence.


If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.I don't work for AIG. I'm not associated with it to begin with.

Did you have something of value to contribute?


I couldn't possibly hate you.I didn't make this personal. You hate those you show apathy for. Try to deal with what you say instead of pretending you said something else.

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 06:01 AM
Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

Injections!!??? What injections?

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 06:09 AM
Injections!!??? What injections?
Given birds of a feather, flock to together and "every species produces after its own kind" when left to themselves, is It plain enough. Now what do you suppose it can only mean irrespective of what means man uses? Perhaps for you I should have used the term, "interfered with"?

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 07:10 AM
Perhaps 'placed in novel and sub-optimal environments to see what evolution can do'?

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 08:12 AM
Perhaps 'placed in novel and sub-optimal environments to see what evolution can do'?

Why? Creation covers the whole spectrum if it is left to itself to be understood.

Creation has a purpose. What purpose can there be for believing evolution except to discredit creation, which is really what it is all about, correct?

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 08:33 AM
Yes, indeed you are wrong.
The evidence says otherwise.Nevertheless you are wrong.



I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.
Which makes you a bigot. Creationists are just as capable as anyone else of adjusting what they believe in the face of the evidence.I will actually agree that creationists are sometimes just as capable of science as anyone, only they will reject even their own scientific conclusions if it seems to contradict Genesis, which is rather the opposite of science.

I don't know what makes you think I'm intolerant of creationists (bigoted)? I don't want creationists locked up or banished from society like so many of them seem to want to be the fate meted out to those that they deem as undesirables (gays, atheists, adulterers etc), according to their interpretation of an ancient scripture. Far from it, creationists are very entertaining and since flat Earthers are rather thin on the ground these days then it's the anti-science of YE creationists particularly that I find to be of great interest and entertainment value rather than not to be tolerated. :up:



The AiG statement of faith.
Repeating your bigoted ideology doesn't make you less of a bigot. The exact opposite, in fact.Responded to above.


It does not matter what a person believes; it matters that their ideas are subject to the evidence.Yes agreed, science stands or falls by the testable evidence, real facts and the laws of physics, not something merely asserted as true, which requires that something miraculous and/or supernatural occurred, typically only from an evidence-free adherence to an ancient scripture.



If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.
I don't work for AIG. I'm not associated with it to begin with.Not what I asked you, do you reject it?
If you don't then I will simply continue to conclude that you reject science.


Did you have something of value to contribute? Attack is the best form of defence perhaps? If what I do contribute is of some value then that is for others to decide and something you can respond to it or not.



I couldn't possibly hate you.
I didn't make this personal. You hate those you show apathy for. Try to deal with what you say instead of pretending you said something else. Many creationists seem to want to project the hate they personally seem to have for those who reject their ideology. Perhaps because they are frustrated that mainstream science does not seem to support their beliefs and cannot be distorted into fitting, nor can their beliefs be presented as science in school science classes, perhaps because creationism just isn't science? :think:

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 09:12 AM
Nevertheless you are wrong.Your words betray hostility toward our ideas — see your closing rant — while the only counter you have is "you're wrong."

Convincing would be to engage rationally with the ideas and challenges you face rather than responding solely with ridicule and illogic.

You smearing your bigotry far and wide and claiming innocence when called on it does not convince.


I will actually agree that creationists are sometimes just as capable of science as anyone.And you should know by now that I'm far too smart to be caught by your dissembling tactics.

This is called being damned with faint praise; creationists are not "sometimes" just as capable, they are always just as capable. Anything else is bigotry.


only they will reject even their own scientific conclusions if it seems to contradict Genesis, which is rather the opposite of science.Nope.


I don't know what makes you think I'm intolerant of creationists.Your words expose your bigotry. See your closing rant.


Not what I asked youYour exact wording, in fact. Of course I do not want to be "disassociated" with the contractual terms of an organization I do not have any connection to. Your question is a non sequitur.


do you reject it? AIG can make whatever rules they like for the people they have in their outfit. This line of questioning does nothing to diminish the fact you are a bigot.

Shall we start demanding that you "reject" all the problematic ideas Darwinists have before we will accept that you can join a scientific discussion?


If you don't then I will simply continue to conclude that you reject science.
Only because you're a bigot; terrified to put your ideas up for examination. You'll talk about anything before you'll allow a rational discussion that might challenge your precious religion.


If what I do contribute is of some value then that is for others to decide and something you can respond to it or not.We're waiting. :up:

Many Darwinists seem to want to project the hate they personally seem to have for those who reject their religion. Perhaps because they are frustrated that science does not support their beliefs and cannot be distorted into fitting, nor can their beliefs be presented as science in rational discussions, perhaps because Darwinism just isn't science? :think:

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 09:18 AM
Why? Creation covers the whole spectrum if it is left to itself to be understood.

Creation has a purpose. What purpose can there be for believing evolution except to discredit creation, which is really what it is all about, correct?

I have no interest in disproving creationism. Really.

All I am interested in is stopping the misrepresentation of science. So much of that goes on here that it seems a deliberately dishonest group activity.

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 09:37 AM
All I am interested in is stopping the misrepresentation of science. So much of that goes on here that it seems a deliberately dishonest group activity.

Darwinists like to gang together to produce a wall of noise so that rational discussion is impossible.

Have a look at any sensible OP challenging their precious religion. As soon as a threat is perceived, a torrent of nonsense and ridicule will rain down. It's the only means of survival the Darwinist has.

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 09:54 AM
Your exact wording, in fact. Of course I do not want to be "disassociated" with the contractual terms of an organization I do not have any connection to. Your question is a non sequitur.

AIG can make whatever rules they like for the people they have in their outfit. This line of questioning does nothing to diminish the fact you are a bigot.
I realise that calling me a bigot may well be all you can muster as a somewhat unconvincing response, but being the dyed in the wool creationist you are may take its toll on the grey cells over the years or so it seems.:kookoo:

I wasn't asking you to disassociate yourself from AiG Stripe, I wanted you to tell me that if science seemed both to you and mainstream science to contradict a literal Genesis, you wouldn't simply conclude nevertheless that the Genesis scripture must nevertheless somehow be right anyway, that it always trumped everything else, even if your own conclusions matched with mainstream science, regardless of how rigorous, well evidenced and conclusive the science seemed to be. Is that really so hard for you to put on the record?

I think you know very well what I was asking you to confirm, so how about you stop playing dumb for once and give an honest answer, does a literal Genesis scripture automatically trump any genuine science for you or not?

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 10:24 AM
Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

I agree with you that life exists. But can you provide actual evidence that it definitely came from God or nah?

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 10:54 AM
I agree with you that life exists. But can you provide actual evidence that it definitely came from God or nah?

Your own body should suffice for ratonal thinkers. What would it take for science to duplicate it? How many sensors would MIT need just to make one robotic knee to simulate a human one? The number would astound you! Next, you might think of asking the same question re the human eye? Naah, evolution is nonsense.

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 11:05 AM
Your own body should suffice for ratonal thinkers. What would it take for science to duplicate it? How many sensors would MIT need just to make one robotic knee to simulate a human one? The number would astound you!

That would all be excellent testimony if the conversation we are having was, "Can humans create life?" But nobody said that humans can create complex living things so it's a moot point. However, experiments do show that organic molecules develop from inorganic ones in early Earth conditions. If you don't understand the significance of that, please look it up.
Once life developed, it makes sense that it would have evolved and adapted just as life does now until all ecological niches were filled.

So what evidence do you have that humans are God-made? How do you know they aren't Zeus-made?

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 11:10 AM
That would all be excellent testimony if the conversation we are having was, "Can humans create life?" But nobody said that humans can create complex living things so it's a moot point. However, experiments do show that organic molecules develop from inorganic ones in early Earth conditions. If you don't understand the significance of that, please look it up.
Once life developed, it makes sense that it would have evolved and adapted just as life does now until all ecological niches were filled.

So what evidence do you have that humans are God-made? How do you know they aren't Zeus-made?

Make a life is what I asked. Can you do that from your lab? What is required? What kind of results do you need to see from the organic molocule testings to make heart beat?

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 11:14 AM
I wasn't asking you to disassociate yourself from AiG.You want to demand that its contract conditions are applicable to your assertion that creationists do not practice science.

Your demand is simply inadmissible. Are you going to disassociate yourself with all the things Darwinists say before you enter a discussion?


I wanted you to tell me that if science seemed both to you and mainstream science to contradict a literal Genesis, you wouldn't simply conclude nevertheless that the Genesis scripture must nevertheless somehow be right anyway, that it always trumped everything else, even if your own conclusions matched with mainstream science, regardless of how rigorous, well evidenced and conclusive the science seemed to be. Is that really so hard for you to put on the record?Then ask me. Stop pretending AIG's contract conditions have something to do with whether creationists can practice science.


Does a literal Genesis scripture automatically trump any genuine science for you or not?
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I don't hold to a "literal" Genesis. I accept the plain meaning, unless there is good reason otherwise.

False dichotomies are also irrational. There is more to life than science. Genesis — which is founded on the power of God — could be true, while no scientific inquiry could ever penetrate the entirety of His work.

You need to learn to respect what we believe and what science is, as well as recanting your bigoted notions that creationists are less scientific.

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 11:18 AM
Make a life is what I asked. Can you do that from your lab? What is required?
Are you asking for a human to make a human being from scratch? What do you think this is, Frankenstein? We can clone a human, sure. And we can grow organs, like your beating heart. But we cannot magically poof a human being into existence.


What kind of results do you need to see from the organic molocule testings to make heart beat?
You are aware that hearts aren't present on the vast majority of organisms, aren't you? At any rate, we can grow them.

Your question doesn't make much sense. Hearts are pure organic material. We are quite well aware of the action potential electrical system that powers the beating motion.

Beyond that, I don't know what you are referring to.


You've yet to offer any evidence of your God being the universe's creator other than offering your own inability to conceive how nature could've done it herself.


I'm not saying that you're totally wrong. Maybe God did create everything. But if he did, then he did it in the way that we've learned the universe and our planet was formed from scientific research. He didn't throw it all together in six days

Cross Reference
March 27th, 2016, 11:20 AM
Are you asking for a human to make a human being from scratch? What do you think this is, Frankenstein?

They why persist for evolution as fact??

End of discussion.

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 11:26 AM
They why persist for evolution as fact??

End of discussion.
:think:
Hmmm....ok...I'm going to ask you a very easy, straightforward question. There are no wrong answers here, I just want to know:

What is your definition of evolution?




I've got a feeling it's a bit different from the actual one

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 11:44 AM
You need to learn to respect what we believe and what science is, as well as recanting your bigoted notions that creationists are less scientific.You might get more respect if you didn't treat Genesis as though it were an immutable historical narrative, which is something you've said before iirc, or do you want to tell me otherwise now?
An immutable historical narrative which must always trump science, right?

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 11:58 AM
You might get more respect...I am not looking for respect.

You need to think carefully through the words I use; I don't use them lightly.

Respect for what people believe is not a concept that demands acceptance; it means that if you want to disagree with it, you have to enter into rational dialogue with its adherents. You and many other Darwinists — by your own admission — refuse to take anything seriously. You are solely here to mock and ridicule. You're a troll.


...if you didn't treat Genesis as though it were an immutable historical narrative, which is something you've said before iirc.I claim Genesis is historical narrative, so we will chalk this up as another example of you simply making things up that might suit your agenda.

And notice that the claim of historicity is a scientific claim; testable and falsifiable. You need to engage on that belief and quit demanding that a belief is equivalent to non-science, which is correctly called bigotry.

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 12:24 PM
Respect for what people believe is not a concept that demands acceptance; it means that if you want to disagree with it, you have to enter into rational dialogue with its adherents. You and many other Darwinists by your own admission refuse to take anything seriously. You are solely here to mock and ridicule. You're a troll.As you so ably demonstrate Stripe you just don't get straight answers from those like you at least, there is perhaps nothing but ridicule and mockery left for those who have indeed sought honest answers in the past, but now really don't expect to get them.:(


I claim Genesis is historical narrative, so we will chalk this up as another example of you simply making things up that might suit your agenda.What on earth are you talking about?
How does me being correct about what you said previously become something I made up? :idunno:
You do believe that Genesis is an immutable historical narrative, right?
A yes or no answer is all that is required btw.


And notice that the claim of historicity is a scientific claim; testable and falsifiable. You need to engage on that belief and quit demanding that a belief is equivalent to non-science, which is correctly called bigotry.Come on, the belief that the universe is only a few thousand years old has already been falsified in so many different ways by all the natural sciences, but creationists, for their own obscure reasons, will not even consider that Genesis may not be the literal truth that they believe it to be, regardless of the science that they are shown over and over again.:Plain:

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 12:29 PM
What on earth are you talking about?Words. Learn to read. :up:

How does me being correct about what you said previously become something I made up? :idunno:
Easy. You were not correct.

You do believe that Genesis is an immutable historical narrative, right?Evolutionists hate reading.

Come on, the belief that the universe is billions of years old has already been falsified in so many different ways by all the natural sciences, but Darwinists, desperate to protect their religion, will not even consider that Genesis might be something to consider, regardless of the science that they are shown over and over again. :Plain:

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 12:32 PM
:doh:
More time wasted trying to get sense out of Stripe, will I never learn?

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 12:50 PM
:doh:
More time wasted trying to get sense out of Stripe, will I never learn?

It is a pointless task - he has nothing to offer even the other YECs on ToL in discussions. He has become self parodying.

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 12:55 PM
:doh:
More time wasted trying to get sense out of Stripe, will I never learn?


It is a pointless task - he has nothing to offer even the other YECs on ToL in discussions. He has become self parodying.
Feel free to never talk to me again. :up:

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 12:55 PM
Your own body should suffice for ratonal thinkers. What would it take for science to duplicate it? How many sensors would MIT need just to make one robotic knee to simulate a human one? The number would astound you!

Like this one from MIT that just has a spring, two dampers and a clutch? No sensors at all, as it happens.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/cheaper-high-performance-prosthetic-knee-0731

alwight
March 27th, 2016, 01:13 PM
Feel free to never talk to me again. :up:
I'll try. :Plain:
(after this)

gcthomas
March 27th, 2016, 03:34 PM
I'll try. :Plain:
(after this)

That's a good plan.

Good night. Time to batten down the hatches.

Jonahdog
March 27th, 2016, 03:45 PM
I am not looking for respect.



If you were you would not lie as you do.

musterion
March 27th, 2016, 04:34 PM
So far it looks like we have at least one in this thread (Stripe) who feels that creationism isn't science.

Hold on a second.

Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?

TELL US RIGHT NOW, PLEASE, WHAT WOULD YOU GET OUT OF YOU CONVINCING ANY OF US THAT YOU'RE RIGHT?

If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.

If materialism is true, then it still doesn't matter. When you die, you'll never know you were right.

Either way, if you're correct then it doesn't matter. NOTHING matters, ultimately. When we die it's the big Lights Out for us all.

So why are you debating this?

I'm going to guess that it's not because you're convinced that materialism is true. That's not what's driving you and the others like you. If you really believed it, you wouldn't waste your time. I know I wouldn't.

What's bugging you is the chance -- and you have admitted that there is a chance, even an outside one -- that Genesis is true.

That's what you can't abide. That is the only thing to explain you arguing for years against (if you're correct) our equivalent to having faith in the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

In other words, you're not fooling anyone. You're clearly unconvinced of what you claim is the truth. That is what drives you to the chronic irrationality of arguing against (if you're correct) the meaningless phantoms of our minds which do not affect you in the slightest.

It shows you are possessed by a form of insanity.

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 04:42 PM
It is a pointless task - he has nothing to offer even the other YECs on ToL in discussions. He has become self parodying.

I agree, but think you're leaving at least one out. 6days has been reduced to mantras and illogic as well. I wouldn't say he's particularly fruitful to engage with either

MichaelCadry
March 27th, 2016, 04:42 PM
So, Stripe has no place here, eh? He can believe in Creation, but not Creationism. It is a word that means the acts of Creation as a whole, written of in Genesis. We're not trying to create a new science whatsoever. I'm not surprised that Stripe would say 'Feel free to never talk to me again.' Just like Evolutionism means the acts of Evolution as a whole. You see. The computer here won't even let me type that word Evolutionism without acknowledging it as a proper word, but it lets me type the word Creationism. You just started this thread to keep others' busy responding and replying here rather than some other thread. And you made 6days be the main reason for starting this thread. Hopefully everyone will be notified of your actions and deceit. How dare you target 6days and post to Stripe the way you do?!! God sees it all and exposes it all.

Michael

Greg Jennings
March 27th, 2016, 04:44 PM
Feel free to never talk to me again. :up:

No doubt their time would be better spent by engaging rational folk. On that we can agree

Jonahdog
March 27th, 2016, 05:16 PM
What's bugging you is the chance -- and you have admitted that there is a chance, even an outside one -- that Genesis is true.



Nope, not a chance, not an outside one, nor an inside one. Not a chance that the earth is 6000+/- years old, nor that the universe was created in a week by your god, nor that there was a world wide flood, nor that evolution is not true and an accurate explanation of the real world.

Stripe
March 27th, 2016, 05:59 PM
I'll try. :Plain:
(after this)


That's a good plan.

Good night. Time to batten down the hatches.
No doubt their time would be better spent by engaging rational folk. On that we can agree



Evolutionists hate defending their ideas.

Jonahdog
March 27th, 2016, 07:04 PM
This is how I understand it.

Science is the study of the natural or what we can observe.
Religion is the study of the supernatural or what we can't observe.

Science proves things without reasonable doubt.
Religion states things which are true.
How do you study what you cannot observe?

musterion
March 27th, 2016, 09:04 PM
Nope, not a chance, not an outside one, nor an inside one. Not a chance that the earth is 6000+/- years old, nor that the universe was created in a week by your god, nor that there was a world wide flood, nor that evolution is not true and an accurate explanation of the real world.

Then what difference does it make.

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 06:06 AM
Hold on a second.

Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?

TELL US RIGHT NOW, PLEASE, WHAT WOULD YOU GET OUT OF YOU CONVINCING ANY OF US THAT YOU'RE RIGHT?

If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.
When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"
The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know and generally don't get them it seems. :Plain:

musterion
March 28th, 2016, 06:37 AM
Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here

Thank you but what is that point? Spell it out, please, because your fellows will ignore it, assuming they even see it.


but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.

That is false and you know it. Some here go out of their way to insult our faith as if it's the most utterly asinine thing ever conceived. They're not drive-by trolls -- they're regulars who have said such for years. Do not pretend they're being objective and dispassionate about it. You've seen them at work: they cannot tell us exactly how Life, The Universe and Everything began but THEY KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT the Genesis account is false. Why? Just because. Whenever they do that -- daily -- it is a claim to ultimate truth.


When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything(a) then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know(b) will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"(c)

a) Because we -- unbelievers all, some formerly harder against God than you are -- chose to taste of what He invites all to taste and see. That invitation is open to all; it is closed only to those who have rejected it, and even then it's closed only on their end.

b) Those in hardened unbelief are just as convinced and certain of whatever they believe as we are. That's why they're here, hence the post you replied to.

c) Ask them - and yourself - the exact same thing about your unbelief. Not about why you think the Bible is false, but about how you KNOW that whatever you believe is absolutely and exclusively true.


The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded(b) they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know(b) and generally don't get them it seems.(d)

d) Because their minds are made up a priori that no possible answer we can provide will be satisfactory, thus any questions they ask are, at best. dishonest. They're looking for debate and argument of closed minds, not the discussion between open ones.

And guess what? Same goes for theists (at least those like myself) who ask questions of you. In our minds, your view is utterly exploded. Vice versa is true. So actual honest discussion is not even remotely possible because no one on either side is really looking for it. Which, I'll be blunt, makes your objections above likewise less than honest.

I do thank you again for allowing my point.

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 07:01 AM
Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.
When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"
The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know and generally don't get them it seems. :Plain:

How more stupid can thinking be written?

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 07:46 AM
How more stupid can thinking be written?
Thank you for not going into any specific detail, it would be too tortuous to unravel I'm sure.
But you can consider me insulted if it make you happy. :)

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 07:58 AM
Thank you for not going into any specific detail, it would be too tortuous to unravel I'm sure.
But you can consider me insulted if it make you happy. :)
Actually, it's pathetic.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 08:32 AM
Darwinists survive by keeping discussions vague and malleable. When they fail to be precise, we find it an invitation to make such statements.

If you were to engage rationally, we would be forced to speak within the confines of your presuppositions, use your language and consider your evidence to provide reasons to doubt your ideas.

However, you prefer to insulate your religion against such things.

:AMR:

Would you prefer us to assume that what we believe is nonsense?

Darwinists are terrified when people have beliefs that do not mesh with their own. Get over yourself; have the discussion instead of launching these meta-threads that do nothing but put more words between your ideas and critical thinking.


Nope. We provide evidence.

See any thread on the subject that you like. :up:

Your assertions are demonstrably false.

Science is the practice of holding your ideas about the physical world up against data and evidence. To do this in a useful manner, you need to express concepts that are testable and falsifiable.

Creationists practice science far more than the religious devotees of Darwin do.

And it is guaranteed that your sole aim here is to pull a "creationism isn't science" quote-mine out to wave about, while having no serious devotion to understanding anything related to science.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XltWe4PZLN4/Td7A3YKsjlI/AAAAAAAALGk/JnDPKzu4eF8/s1600/tmp.jpg

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 09:27 AM
Thank you but what is that point? Spell it out, please, because your fellows will ignore it, assuming they even see it.I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.
Cross Reference however I don't mind so much.



That is false and you know it. Some here go out of their way to insult our faith as if it's the most utterly asinine thing ever conceived. They're not drive-by trolls -- they're regulars who have said such for years. Do not pretend they're being objective and dispassionate about it. You've seen them at work: they cannot tell us exactly how Life, The Universe and Everything began but THEY KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT the Genesis account is false. Why? Just because. Whenever they do that -- daily -- it is a claim to ultimate truth.We both have a perspective and I don't lie about what I think I know. I've been here a while now and I still have to walk on eggshells regarding what is deemed to be insulting to faith. If YECs claim to know beyond doubt then it really isn't very good to moan when a similar level of certainty is bounced back at you. In my experience most non believers, outside a heated debate, simply don't often claim to be absolutely certain. But (say) knowing that the age of the universe is measured in billions of years not thousands is something I'm virtually as certain about as makes no difference.
I also have as little doubt that Genesis was never even meant to regarded as a literal narrative as makes no difference.
I very much doubt that the Christian God is true but I don't reject the idea of some divine entity, only not one based in an ancient scripture clearly written by people who filled in the gaps in their knowledge with supernatural suppositions.



a) Because we -- unbelievers all, some formerly harder against God than you are -- chose to taste of what He invites all to taste and see. That invitation is open to all; it is closed only to those who have rejected it, and even then it's closed only on their end.
The same applies to any religious group, if there was only the one religion then I might even be religious myself, that alone would be excellent evidence of something real, but since people have always tended to create their own individual beliefs then I can easily discount them all.


b) Those in hardened unbelief are just as convinced and certain of whatever they believe as we are. That's why they're here, hence the post you replied to.I don't agree that it is being certain about disbelief, that doesn't really make sense to be certain about something negative, for me it's more about being certain that the other guy's beliefs are untrue.


c) Ask them - and yourself - the exact same thing about your unbelief. Not about why you think the Bible is false, but about how you KNOW that whatever you believe is absolutely and exclusively true.It's those like you who are proclaiming a "truth", it's the positive claim which needs to be scrutinised not a disbelief.


d) Because their minds are made up a priori that no possible answer we can provide will be satisfactory, thus any questions they ask are, at best. dishonest. They're looking for debate and argument of closed minds, not the discussion between open ones. That's not how it seems to me, some people simply require at least some rational evidence based reasoning which is not what seems to be available.


And guess what? Same goes for theists (at least those like myself) who ask questions of you. In our minds, your view is utterly exploded. Vice versa is true. So actual honest discussion is not even remotely possible because no one on either side is really looking for it. Which, I'll be blunt, makes your objections above likewise less than honest.

I do thank you again for allowing my point.I have no problem with people who believe perhaps by tradition, intuition or just spiritual feeling, but that isn't what science is about, and if you want to trump any inconvenient science with an ancient scripture alone then I think you must expect some flak not to mention disbelief. ;)

Jose Fly
March 28th, 2016, 09:28 AM
Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?

What makes you think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything?


If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.

If materialism is true, then it still doesn't matter. When you die, you'll never know you were right.

Either way, if you're correct then it doesn't matter. NOTHING matters, ultimately. When we die it's the big Lights Out for us all.


Yes, yes....we're all familiar with Pascal's Wager. :rolleyes:


So why are you debating this?

Because it's hilarious.


I'm going to guess that it's not because you're convinced that materialism is true. That's not what's driving you and the others like you. If you really believed it, you wouldn't waste your time. I know I wouldn't.

Awwww, looks like your guess was wrong. Tell him what he's won Johnny! Well Jose, Musterion will be going home with "Theology online, the home version". :chuckle:


What's bugging you is the chance -- and you have admitted that there is a chance, even an outside one -- that Genesis is true.

That's what you can't abide. That is the only thing to explain you arguing for years against (if you're correct) our equivalent to having faith in the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

Either that or this is just a really, really funny subject to engage in.


In other words, you're not fooling anyone. You're clearly unconvinced of what you claim is the truth. That is what drives you to the chronic irrationality of arguing against (if you're correct) the meaningless phantoms of our minds which do not affect you in the slightest.

It shows you are possessed by a form of insanity.

Does that equally apply to those who've been arguing on the other side of the aisle for years? Or does the "arguing for years = insecurity and insanity" pathway only apply to people who disagree with you?

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 09:31 AM
I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.
Cross Reference however I don't mind so much.


We both have a perspective and I don't lie about what I think I know. I've been here a while now and I still have to walk on eggshells regarding what is deemed to be insulting to faith. If YECs claim to know beyond doubt then it really isn't very good to moan when a similar level of certainty is bounced back at you. In my experience most non believers simply don't often claim to be absolutely certain, but say knowing that the age of the universe is measured in billions of years not thousands is something I'm virtually as certain about as makes no difference. I also have as little doubt that Genesis was never even meant to regarded as a literal narrative as makes no difference.
I very much doubt that the Christian God is true but I don't reject the idea of some divine entity, only not one based in an ancient scripture clearly written by people who filled in the gaps in their knowledge with supernatural suppositions.



The same applies to any religious group, if there was only the one religion then I might even be religious myself, that alone would be excellent evidence of something real, but since people have always tended to create their own individual beliefs then I can easily discount them all.

I don't agree that it is being certain about disbelief, that doesn't really make sense to be certain about something negative, for me it's more about being certain that the other guy's beliefs are untrue.

It's those like you who are proclaiming a "truth", it's the positive claim which needs to be scrutinised not a disbelief.

That's not how it seems to me, some people simply require at least some rational evidence based reasoning which is not what seems to be available.

I have no problem with people who believe perhaps by tradition, intuition or just spiritual feeling, but that isn't what science is about, and if you want to trump any inconvenient science with an ancient scripture alone then I think you must expect some flak not to mention disbelief. ;)

Evolution isn't what science is about either, at least until there are some proven facts to build upon.

"Water wets, fire burns." As much as some may argue to the contrary, the truth is the truth.

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 09:52 AM
Evolution isn't what science is about either, at least until there are some proven facts to build upon.Would you like to discuss something specific about it? :sherlock:

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 09:53 AM
"Water wets, fire burns." As much as some may argue to the contrary, the truth is the truth.

gcthomas
March 28th, 2016, 10:02 AM
"Water wets, fire burns."

Vagueness suits your arguments.

Interestingly, water needs help with wetting quote often, since it can bead into droplets a lot. Photographers need to add a wetting agent to it to make the water wet properly. And for doesn't always burn things.

There is simplified and simplistic. Do you always go for simplistic?

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 10:18 AM
Vague or specific, Darwinists will never engage rationally with the challenges to their precious religion.

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 10:19 AM
Vagueness suits your arguments.

Interestingly, water needs help with wetting quote often, since it can bead into droplets a lot. Photographers need to add a wetting agent to it to make the water wet properly. And for doesn't always burn things.

There is simplified and simplistic. Do you always go for simplistic?

Only if something more simple is needed.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 10:52 AM
I think that the idea of "creation science" is a sad commentary on faith. Instead of stating that I believe in a young Earth because I believe Genesis is literally true, people like Stripe and 6days and others feel compelled to instead use the same methods employed by their opponents in an effort to reason with their opponents. To me, it speaks of a weakness in faith because they simply do not believe God's word is enough, they must somehow prove to scientific standards that God did it in 6 days.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 11:17 AM
I think that the idea of "creation science" is a sad commentary on faith. Instead of stating that I believe in a young Earth because I believe Genesis is literally true, people like Stripe and 6days and others feel compelled to instead use the same methods employed by their opponents in an effort to reason with their opponents. To me, it speaks of a weakness in faith because they simply do not believe God's word is enough, they must somehow prove to scientific standards that God did it in 6 days.The Bible says "six days." You reject the plain teaching of scripture. So perhaps you should sod off with your accusations of faithlessness. :loser:

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 11:25 AM
Only if something more simple is needed.I think that you provide all the "simple" we need. :Plain:

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 11:30 AM
What is wrong in believing for a young Earth if our own existence is the plumbline. There is no written history beyond Genesis to refute that. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence given from the Earth itself that more than says there was an existence before the Genesis acount to which we should all say, "So what"? What is to be gained by arguing it out?

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 11:37 AM
I think that you provide all the "simple" we need. :Plain:

Apparently, by your inability to understand, that isn't so.

Jose Fly
March 28th, 2016, 11:49 AM
What is wrong in believing for a young Earth if our own existence is the plumbline. There is no written history beyond Genesis to refute that. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence given from the Earth itself that more than says there was an existence before the Genesis acount to which we should all say, "So what"? What is to be gained by arguing it out?

If creationists were just like "I believe in a young earth/universe, a global flood, creation by God according to "kinds", and special creation of humans because that's what the Bible teaches", I don't think anyone would really have a problem with it. It'd be just like with Mormons and their strange beliefs, where most of us would just say "That's nice" and move on.

But many of you can't just leave it at that. For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it. Now you've stepped into the arena of science, declared yourself an authority, and proclaimed most of it to be false.

If you'd have just left it at "I believe these things because that's what the Bible says", there'd be no problem.

Cross Reference
March 28th, 2016, 12:13 PM
[quote]

But many of you can't just leave it at that. For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it. Now you've stepped into the arena of science, declared yourself an authority, and proclaimed most of it to be false.

If you'd have just left it at "I believe these things because that's what the Bible says", there'd be no problem.

None of that is true because, for one thing, you wouldn't leave it alone irrespective of the fact you have no science to support your 'whatever'. Opinion, theory, guess work, can't ever be a science regardless how loud you scream it. Why not be honest and admit that?

BTW: OE-YE arguments are usually always between creationists. Where might you even fit in?

Jose Fly
March 28th, 2016, 12:28 PM
None of that is true because, for one thing, you wouldn't leave it alone

Sure I would. If you notice, I don't spend much time at all in the "does God exist" debates, or other debates over exclusively religious topics. I usually only jump in when the debate gets into science or public policy.

As long as it's two believers arguing which of their interpretations are correct, I really don't care.


irrespective of the fact you have no science to support your 'whatever'. Opinion, theory, guess work, can't ever be a science regardless how loud you scream it. Why not be honest and admit that?

Now this is exactly what I'm talking about. Despite the obvious fact that you (at best) have a 5th grade understanding of science, you've deemed yourself so qualified in the life sciences that your say-so should be taken as unquestioned gospel. That's what draws me in.


BTW: OE-YE arguments are usually always between creationists. Where might you even fit in?

I'm not a creationist in any way at all, so I don't care.

musterion
March 28th, 2016, 01:08 PM
I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.

Then my original question stands: why do you think they do it?

Like I said before, if the atheists are correct it cannot make any difference for anyone, in the end. Theist...atheist...it changes nothing.

So in your opinion, why do they persist?

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 01:15 PM
The Bible says "six days." You reject the plain teaching of scripture. So perhaps you should sod off with your accusations of faithlessness. :loser:

So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence? Why are you not content to simply state what you believe? Personally, not that you care, I would have a great deal more respect for you. As it is, you tend to come off looking like a goof.

Hawkins
March 28th, 2016, 01:15 PM
So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats. Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 01:21 PM
The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats. Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.
Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done.

Hawkins
March 28th, 2016, 01:26 PM
Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done.

Again you can call everything a science but it won't make it so.

Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt. This can only be made possible when something can be repeatable (repeatedly predicable, to be more precise).

Non-repeatable things cannot normally be confirmed beyond doubt, such as the BBT. That's why we can have multiple theories co-exist about the origin of the universe with each un-confirmable. You can vote for one of them to believe though.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 01:40 PM
Again you can call everything a science but it won't make it so.

Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt. This can only be made possible when something can be repeatable (repeatedly predicable, to be more precise).

Non-repeatable things cannot normally be confirmed beyond doubt, such as the BBT. That's why we can have multiple theories co-exist about the origin of the universe with each un-confirmable. You can vote for one of them to believe though.


Redefining your terms to strengthen your position is an old fallacy and only works if I accept your definition. I do not. I think this is a better explanation of the process typically called science:


Science[nb 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2) is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) in the form of testable explanations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation) and predictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions) about the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).[nb 2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-EOWilson-4):58
Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science) which study the material world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_world), the social sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) which study people and societies, and the formal sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sciences) like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) observations.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-5) Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciences).


I never said that science confirm the Big Bang beyond doubt. I said: "Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done."

Note that I said we would use the science we have already learned to see what we can learn about the Big Bang Science is about learning.

Hawkins
March 28th, 2016, 01:47 PM
Redefining your terms to strengthen your position is an old fallacy and only works if I accept your definition. I do not. I think this is a better explanation of the process typically called science:


Science[nb 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2) is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) in the form of testable explanations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation) and predictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions) about the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).[nb 2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-EOWilson-4):58
Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science) which study the material world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_world), the social sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) which study people and societies, and the formal sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sciences) like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) observations.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-5) Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciences).


I never said that science confirm the Big Bang beyond doubt. I said: "Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done."

Note that I said we would use the science we have already learned to see what we can learn about the Big Bang Science is about learning.

It's an old fallacy to only accept the elites instead of logic itself.

What I have presented you is not a definition but a logical deduction.


Your brain detects an undoubtful truth when and only when its repeatedly predictable to you.

Science on the other hand is something that "if your prediction fails, you deserve a Nobel Prize".


What bring us to the moon and Mars is a 100% infallible theory plus human errors and equipment limitations. The theory is infallible because it can be repeatedly predictable. That is, we have a 100% chance to repeatedly land the surface of moon or Mars if it's not because of a human error or equipment limitations.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 02:03 PM
It's an old fallacy to only accept the elites instead of logic itself.

What I have presented you is not a definition but a logical deduction.
No, it is not a logical deduction, it is a truism that you have adopted for your own purposes.


Your brain detects an undoubtful truth when and only when its repeatedly predictable to you.

Science on the other hand is something that "if your prediction fails, you deserve a Nobel Prize".
That's because science is about finding out how things work and why they work. Its not the search for TRUTH, its a search for understanding and knowledge.



What bring us to the moon and Mars is a 100% infallible theory plus human errors and equipment limitations. The theory is infallible because it can be repeatedly predictable. That is, we have a 100% chance to repeatedly land the surface of moon or Mars if it's not because of a human error or equipment limitations.

Actually, the theory of gravity is far from 100% infallible. There is much about gravity in the vicinity of super massive objects that is not known. What got us to the moon is the fact that simple Newtonian physics are a sufficiently accurate model of the solar system that we can calculate orbital mechanics with enough accuracy to get from the Earth to the Moon.

Jose Fly
March 28th, 2016, 02:21 PM
The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats.

No, it's not. If it were, archaeology, paleontology, forensics, cosmology, glaciology, and a ton of other endeavors that involve either past events, or large-scale events wouldn't be science.


Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

Sorry, but your say-so is entirely unpersuasive, especially in light of the fact that virtually everyone who studies the subject disagrees.


It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.

As we've seen, you're simply wrong.

musterion
March 28th, 2016, 02:57 PM
So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence?

Probably to counter the false or misrepresented evidence that constantly floods TOL.

Jonahdog
March 28th, 2016, 03:09 PM
Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt.

Actually, that is not quite accurate. While we have gotten to the point where much of science is accurate (better term than truth), what we understand from science changes all the time. Some changes are big--plate tectonics for example, some are small, but the whole idea of scientific work is refinement of existing theories.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 03:41 PM
Probably to counter the false or misrepresented evidence that constantly floods TOL.
But what he points to doesn't counter what scientific research has learned to date.

musterion
March 28th, 2016, 03:48 PM
But what he points to doesn't counter what scientific research has learned to date.

He thinks it does. Who is correct, you or he?

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 03:53 PM
He thinks it does. Who is correct, you or he?

From what point of view are you asking this question. A person of faith? A scientist? Some other perspective?

musterion
March 28th, 2016, 03:56 PM
From what point of view are you asking this question. A person of faith? A scientist? Some other perspective?

You think he's wrong, he thinks he's right. Prove he's wrong.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 04:07 PM
You think he's wrong, he thinks he's right. Prove he's wrong.

The perspective is important because it determines how one looks at what Stipe writes.

If you are a person of faith in YEC, then what Stipe says is absolutely correct and everybody who disagrees with him is wrong.

If you are person with a scientific background then a rational conversation with Stipe is impossible. Almost immediately he will start ridiculing Darwinist and evolutionists and he will never actually address any of the actual issues raised by somebody with a scientific background. At that point, Stipe is neither right nor wrong, he is just a goof.

All that i can honestly say about Stipes opinions is that they are not supported by anybody in the peer reviewed scientific journals. They add nothing useful to the scientific body of knowledge and cannot be used to help us develop new methods of treatment.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 04:51 PM
So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence? Why are you not content to simply state what you believe? Personally, not that you care, I would have a great deal more respect for you. As it is, you tend to come off looking like a goof.

You're a retard.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 04:54 PM
If creationists were just like "I believe in a young earth/universe, a global flood, creation by God according to "kinds", and special creation of humans because that's what the Bible teaches", I don't think anyone would really have a problem with it.Of course you wouldn't.

Your problem is you cannot deal with evidence. You cannot abide your illusory monopoly on science being challenged through people exposing the frailties of your religion.

Jonahdog
March 28th, 2016, 05:28 PM
You're a retard.

Stripey, you're so sweet.

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 05:41 PM
Then my original question stands: why do you think they do it?

Like I said before, if the atheists are correct it cannot make any difference for anyone, in the end. Theist...atheist...it changes nothing.

So in your opinion, why do they persist?I think it's mainly those who choose to resist rational scientific conclusions for the sake of an adherence to a literal Genesis whom I and other disbelievers consider to be fair game, iow fundamentalists.
I don't think that I at least can be accused of being anything but polite and respectful to those ordinary Christians who are not fundies, who do not mindlessly oppose nor remain wilfully ignorant of science, who may in fact be much better at science than I am, whom I can learn from.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 05:50 PM
I think it's mainly those who choose to resist rational scientific conclusions for the sake of an adherence to a literal Genesis whom I and other disbelievers consider to be fair game, iow fundamentalists.
I don't think that I at least can be accused of being anything but polite and respectful to those ordinary Christians who are not fundies, who do not mindlessly oppose nor remain wilfully ignorant of science, who may in fact be much better at science than I am, whom I can learn from.

Given the fact that you know next to nothing about science, that would be almost all of them.

However, we know you're lying; you would die before conceding anything of Christ.

alwight
March 28th, 2016, 05:53 PM
Get ye behind me Satan. :devil:

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 06:37 PM
You're a retard.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very best that Stipe can. No attempt to engage the point I raised (his need to point towards evidence), just an insult that I haven't heard since 7th grade.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 07:58 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very best that Stipe can. No attempt to engage the point I raised (his need to point towards evidence), just an insult that I haven't heard since 7th grade.

I love it when Darwinists undermine their own arguments speak.

I don't feel the need to bring evidence that you are too stupid to talk to.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 08:04 PM
I love it when Darwinists undermine their own arguments speak.

I don't feel the need to bring evidence that you are too stupid to talk to.
Really? I made several prediction about your thread participation and you made a mocking Darwinist comment as predicted, That's pretty strong evidence that I am correct about your thread participation.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 08:16 PM
Really? I made several prediction about your thread participation and you made a mocking Darwinist comment as predicted, That's pretty strong evidence that I am correct about your thread participation.

Why can't you just have faith? Pointing to evidence shows that you are not certain about what you believe. However, I do not provide evidence that you are a complete fool.

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 08:58 PM
Why can't you just have faith? Pointing to evidence shows that you are not certain about what you believe. However, I do not provide evidence that you are a complete fool.
Interesting. What does it mean then that you continue to insist that you have provided evidence of creation?

As to my own faith, I have faith that God created everything. Including evolution.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 10:08 PM
Interesting. What does it mean then that you continue to insist that you have provided evidence of creation.Nothing to a fool like you.

As to my own faith, I have faith that God created everything. Including evolution.

Of course, you've made up a god to worship.

Hedshaker
March 28th, 2016, 10:08 PM
I realise that calling me a bigot may well be all you can muster as a somewhat unconvincing response, but being the dyed in the wool creationist you are may take its toll on the grey cells over the years or so it seems.:kookoo:


He clearly doth protest too much....... :angrymob:

Hedshaker
March 28th, 2016, 10:14 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
You're a retard.

Stripey, you're so sweet.


And even more to the point is that he accuses others of bigotry..... The irony is just too much :)

CabinetMaker
March 28th, 2016, 10:30 PM
Nothing to a fool like you. your lack of both compassion and unwillingness to witness for Christ are noted.



Of course, you've made up a god to worship.
No, there is only God that I serve and worship. I trust completely in Him.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 10:53 PM
There is only God that I serve and worship. I trust completely in Him.

Nope. You invented a god of evolution.

Stripe
March 28th, 2016, 10:57 PM
And even more to the point is that he accuses others of bigotry.

What would you call someone who denigrates people's ability to act sensibly based on what they believe?

And feel free to point to a situation where I would claim people cannot do science because of an idea they have.

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 04:35 AM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very best that Stipe can. No attempt to engage the point I raised (his need to point towards evidence), just an insult that I haven't heard since 7th grade.

Yeah but, you called him a "goof". What's that all about if of a 7th grade mentality?

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 04:41 AM
Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done.


Big bang?? Why not learn the why of why the universe continues to get larger because of an explosion that never happened ___ if you can believe order can't happen of itself out of disorder which is what an explosion would be all about, correct?

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 06:36 AM
Nope. You invented a god of evolution.
No, God invented evolution.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 06:37 AM
What would you call someone who denigrates people's ability to act sensibly based on what they believe?

And feel free to point to a situation where I would claim people cannot do science because of an idea they have.

By that definition, you're a bigot.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 06:39 AM
Yeah but, you called him a "goof". What's that all about if of a 7th grade mentality?

Simple statement of fact.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 06:44 AM
Big bang?? Why not learn the why of why the universe continues to get larger because of an explosion that never happened ___ if you can believe order can't happen of itself out of disorder which is what an explosion would be all about, correct?

Okay. Explain it to us. That will be the hypotheses that begins the scientific process.

Ktoyou
March 29th, 2016, 07:07 AM
If creationists were just like For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it.

This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!

Hedshaker
March 29th, 2016, 07:18 AM
What would you call someone who denigrates people's ability to act sensibly based on what they believe?

And feel free to point to a situation where I would claim people cannot do science because of an idea they have.

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

Ktoyou
March 29th, 2016, 07:26 AM
So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

Being called a goofball is part of the language of most forums. It is not assigning you a particular status.

Ktoyou
March 29th, 2016, 07:29 AM
By that definition, you're a bigot.

Not so offensive; it is not near as bad as calling a good chicken eater a vegan. Now that is downright insulting!

alwight
March 29th, 2016, 07:30 AM
So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.Stripe's become bitter and twisted in recent years, the cognitive dissonance must be taking its toll.

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 08:15 AM
Okay. Explain it to us. That will be the hypotheses that begins the scientific process.

How/why do you ask for what you will out-of-hand reject? What is there to explain except the miracle of a given fact that has no other explanation for its existence?

Perhaps if you begin there in your thinking the 'dots' will start to connect themselves and you will get the answers you seek.

Stripe
March 29th, 2016, 08:16 AM
No, God invented evolution.
Nope. You worship Darwin as god.

By that definition, you're a bigot.
Nope. Anybody is capable of science, as I've said consistently.

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry?Cabinethead is a retard sans any evidence.

This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.Fortunately, I don't do that. :up:

However, Darwinists refuse to engage respectfully with ideas that challenge their religion. By their own admission, they are solely here to mock, believing that their ideas will always trump all others.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 08:23 AM
How/why do you ask for what you will out-of-hand reject?
Where did I say I would reject it out of hand? I said present your hypothesis and let the scientific process begin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg/2000px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.pn g

What is there to explain except the miracle of a given fact that has no other explanation?

Perhaps if you begin there in your thinking the 'dots' will start to connect themselves.
I think there is a better explanation than God is a Genii that simply blinks His eyes and presto. Based on what we have learned through observing God's creation, God is a very sophisticated designer capable of designing systems that produce the results He wants. That is what connects the dots for me.

Stripe
March 29th, 2016, 08:28 AM
I think...

No, you don't. You just invent a god to worship.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 08:37 AM
Nope. You worship Darwin as god.

Nope. Anybody is capable of science, as I've said consistently.
Cabinethead is a retard sans any evidence.
Fortunately, I don't do that. :up:

However, Darwinists refuse to engage respectfully with ideas that challenge their religion. By their own admission, they are solely here to mock, believing that their ideas will always trump all others.


Okay Stripe, I present you with a challenge. Present one idea that challenges evolution. Present any of your supporting evidence and documentation and we will have a respectful conversation. The respectful conversation will be over when of us is no longer respectful. This will be indicated by one of us calling the other a name, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, retard, goof, fool, Cabinethead, Stipe or any other name other than our screen name. It will also be over when one of use fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point may be a question about fossil beds, erosion, speed of light or anything that goes unaddressed. Note: we do not have to agree with each other when addressing a point but the point must be answered. Finally, if you claim that you are being mocked then you must provide documentation that you are being ridiculed. If I say your definition of something is not supported by scientific observation, you are not being mocked and cannot claim that you are being mocked. For this discussion, mocking shall be defined as: making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive..

So, are you up to it?

Stripe
March 29th, 2016, 09:35 AM
Okay Stripe, I present you with a challenge. Present one idea that challenges evolution. Present any of your supporting evidence and documentation and we will have a respectful conversation.

:darwinsm:

How about we make it challenging? You name one area of scientific inquiry, and I will present a knock-out case against the possibility that evolution is a factor from that field. :thumb:

But start a new thread. :up:


The respectful conversation will be over when of us is no longer respectful.Given our history, we know that will be you.


This will be indicated by one of us calling the other a name, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, retard, goof, fool, Cabinethead, Stipe or any other name other than our screen name.Darwinist isn't a name, it's what you guys are. :AMR:


It will also be over when one of use fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point may be a question about fossil beds, erosion, speed of light or anything that goes unaddressed. Note: we do not have to agree with each other when addressing a point but the point must be answered. Finally, if you claim that you are being mocked then you must provide documentation that you are being ridiculed. If I say your definition of something is not supported by scientific observation, you are not being mocked and cannot claim that you are being mocked. For this discussion, mocking shall be defined as: making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive..So, are you up to it?It sounds like you're not up for a conversation, whining about being mocked before you even begin.

How about you just respond rationally to the posts I make and quit pretending you've been wronged in the past, do not mock and have a history of reasoned debate. :up:

Because you don't. You're the most irrational, pointless debater on this site.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 09:54 AM
:darwinsm:

How about we make it challenging? You name one area of scientific inquiry, and I will present a knock-out case against the possibility that evolution is a factor from that field. :thumb:

But start a new thread. :up:

Given our history, we know that will be you.

Darwinist isn't a name, it's what you guys are. :AMR:

It sounds like you're not up for a conversation, whining about being mocked before you even begin.

How about you just respond rationally to the posts I make and quit pretending you've been wronged in the past, do not mock and have a history of reasoned debate. :up:

Because you don't. You're the most irrational, pointless debater on this site.

So that would be a no, then. Interesting that you could not even respond to my request with resorting ad hominem statements. I also can't help but notice your unwillingness to discuss the topic in a respectful discussion.

Interesting side bar: You say that I am a Darwinist. I looked for a definition (https://www.google.com/search?q=darwinist+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)and there is no definition for the word. That means your use of the word is actually name calling.

I think I will start a thread...

Stripe
March 29th, 2016, 10:34 AM
So that would be a no, then.:darwinsm: This is why discussions with you are a waste of time; you cannot read.


Interesting that you could not even respond to my request with resorting ad hominem statements.:darwinsm:


I also can't help but notice your unwillingness to discuss the topic in a respectful discussion.Liar.


Interesting side bar: You say that I am a Darwinist. I looked for a definition and there is no definition for the word. That means your use of the word is actually name calling.

:rotfl:

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 10:56 AM
Where did I say I would reject it out of hand? I said present your hypothesis and let the scientific process begin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg/2000px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.pn g

I think there is a better explanation than God is a Genii that simply blinks His eyes and presto. Based on what we have learned through observing God's creation, God is a very sophisticated designer capable of designing systems that produce the results He wants. That is what connects the dots for me.

Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 11:04 AM
Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

If you do not agree that that is an accurate representation of the scientific process, please post what you understand the correct process to be.

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 11:29 AM
If you do not agree that that is an accurate representation of the scientific process, please post what you understand the correct process to be.

re my next to last reply. Naah. It ain't worth it.

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 11:32 AM
re my next to last reply. Naah. It ain't worth it.

I hope realize that your comment means your conceding the argument and agreeing with my post as you decline to address it. Are you okay with that outcome?.

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 11:46 AM
I hope realize that your comment means your conceding the argument and agreeing with my post as you decline to address it. Are you okay with that outcome?.

LOL!!! :loser:

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 01:01 PM
LOL!!! :loser:

Did you ever take a debate class? Do you know the rules of debate?

Cross Reference
March 29th, 2016, 01:41 PM
Did you ever take a debate class? Do you know the rules of debate?

Neither God or Jesus Christ is ever not up for debate in any form or forum I care to be in..

CabinetMaker
March 29th, 2016, 01:45 PM
Neither God or Jesus Christ is ever not up for debate in any form or forum I care to be in..

There is no debate about God or Jesus. We were talking about the scientific process. You did not agree to what I posted but did not appear to have anything that you could actually use to refute it.

KingdomRose
March 30th, 2016, 05:32 AM
I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science". The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.

But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days. I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, so the Bible is not as stupid as they (the creationists) would have us think.

That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones. What do the scientific facts show?

"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)


So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

:sherlock:

Jamie Gigliotti
March 30th, 2016, 05:59 AM
The science, knowledge and understanding of the natural world point towards an understanding that something beyond nature, a Creator, used means beyond the natural, beyond what what can be measured scientifically to make all of creation.

KingdomRose
March 30th, 2016, 06:03 AM
What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days. I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, so the Bible is not as stupid as they (the creationists) would have us think.

That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones. What do the scientific facts show?

"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)


So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

:sherlock:

Bump.

6days
March 30th, 2016, 09:25 AM
I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days
The JW Bible says "You are to labor and do all your work for six days" Ex. 20:9
(Does that mean billions of years? No.)

"For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"Ex.20:11
(Does that mean billions of years? No.)

What do the scientific facts show?God'sWord is always consistent with science.

KR...Your interpretation method of scripture puts secular reasoning over Gods Word. "Scientific facts" shows dead men don't have power over the grave. Do you just pick and choose what to believe? Do you just follow Watchtower teachings no matter what God's Word says?

Jose Fly
March 31st, 2016, 09:02 AM
This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!

Um......anyone have any idea what the above post, which is apparently a rant against animal rights activists, has to do with this thread? :idunno:

Jose Fly
March 31st, 2016, 09:14 AM
What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

"Creationism" includes all of those, and other beliefs that involve creation by a supernatural entity.


That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones.

ID is a form of creationism. It was specifically crafted as a legal ploy to get creationist talking points into science classrooms. After federal courts had ruled against teaching creationism, creationists stripped their arguments of all the overt references to the Bible, the Christian God, and anything else religious and re-branded the whole thing "intelligent design". Fortunately a federal court and the scientific community saw right through that charade. It helped that ID creationists didn't cover their tracks very well. See: "cdesignproponentists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_propone ntsists.22)"


"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)

Well yeah...that's part of the charade. If you'd like, I can start posting some of the material that was used in the Dover trial to prove beyond doubt that ID is a form of creationism.


So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

Actually, scientifically it's dead.

Greg Jennings
March 31st, 2016, 06:56 PM
"Water wets, fire burns." As much as some may argue to the contrary, the truth is the truth.

Well boiling water both burns and wets.......what does that make it?



Fire-water, according to your rule

Greg Jennings
March 31st, 2016, 06:59 PM
This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!
:doh:
Fundamentalists live in a bubble sometimes

Greg Jennings
March 31st, 2016, 07:03 PM
Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

:rotfl:

That's hilarious

Greg Jennings
March 31st, 2016, 07:06 PM
LOL!!! :loser:

Do you realize how immature and uneducated you come off as when you do this? For all I know you could have graduated summa *** laude from an Ivy League institution, but based on your "debating skills" I'd more reasonably conclude that you are a fourth grader in their break period

Cross Reference
April 1st, 2016, 03:55 AM
Do you realize how immature and uneducated you come off as when you do this? For all I know you could have graduated summa *** laude from an Ivy League institution, but based on your "debating skills" I'd more reasonably conclude that you are a fourth grader in their break period

Debate?? Debate what? Your baseless opinion? Don't be so stupid as to believe your baseless godless opinion is worth any kind of consideration. So with that fact established as true knowledge, why suppose even a "fourth grader" would be interested? I am quite sure he would rather pound sand.

OMT; Evolution demands a beginning. What do you believe the source of it could only have been that it could bring into existence life in a complete and orderly way and do it from nothing in its hand to work with, as true science demands it must have to conclude anything, or even do it within a chaotic order should that have been the case? So out of nothing or chaos, how could anything as we see before us have come about by your theory[s]?

Caino
April 1st, 2016, 04:53 AM
I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science". The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.

But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

It's like alcohol and alcohol-ism. God can be seen as the creator of life and the inhabited worlds of time and space, but hardened speculation about how and when becomes a tradition in various religions. When that speculative theory becomes scripture then adherents of the religion betray their common sense in the light of scientific inquiry. In an attempt to preserve the tradition these stubborn religionist turn off people of today who could find salvation.

Lon
April 1st, 2016, 05:05 AM
It's like alcohol and alcohol-ism. God can be seen as the creator of life and the inhabited worlds of time and space, but hardened speculation about how and when becomes a tradition in various religions. When that speculative theory becomes scripture then adherents of the religion betray their common sense in the light of scientific inquiry. In an attempt to preserve the tradition these stubborn religionist turn off people of today who could find salvation.:think: 1) Sounds a bit like Darwinism indoctrination...
2) You are NOBODY to talk about common sense believing that weirdo Urantia/Alien-seeded religion :dizzy:

Stuu
April 1st, 2016, 06:09 AM
OMT; Evolution demands a beginning. What do you believe the source of it could only have been that it could bring into existence life in a complete and orderly way and do it from nothing in its hand to work with, as true science demands it must have to conclude anything, or even do it within a chaotic order should that have been the case? So out of nothing or chaos, how could anything as we see before us have come about by your theory[s]?
I bet you hate it when others are this closed-minded when discussing your religious views with you.

Stuart

Caino
April 1st, 2016, 06:39 AM
:think: 1) Sounds a bit like Darwinism indoctrination...
2) You are NOBODY to talk about common sense believing that weirdo Urantia/Alien-seeded religion :dizzy:

Lon, when you grow up you should see if your parents will send you off to collage to get an education. There's a whole other world outside of the false prophets grossly exaggerated, self important history.

Cross Reference
April 1st, 2016, 07:10 AM
I bet you hate it when others are this closed-minded when discussing your religious views with you.

Stuart


I hate willful ignorance regardless of what's being discussed.

Silent Hunter
April 1st, 2016, 07:54 AM
I hate willful ignorance regardless of what's being discussed.

Then you must be filled with self loathing.

Cross Reference
April 1st, 2016, 08:08 AM
Then you must be filled with self loathing.

I am afraid I would be if I gave you my just reply..

alwight
April 1st, 2016, 03:05 PM
I am afraid I would be if I gave you my just reply..
Just thinking it doesn't count?

Greg Jennings
April 1st, 2016, 04:40 PM
Debate?? Debate what? Your baseless opinion? Don't be so stupid as to believe your baseless godless opinion is worth any kind of consideration. So with that fact established as true knowledge, why suppose even a "fourth grader" would be interested? I am quite sure he would rather pound sand.
So I'm guessing you've never attended a college level science course, have you? Or been to scientific conventions? Or conversed with ANY of the people who make it their living to do science?

These aren't my opinions. These are established scientific certainties (as certain as anything in science can be, anyway) and the fact that you don't know the significance of that says a lot about your understanding of the subject.


OMT; Evolution demands a beginning. What do you believe the source of it could only have been that it could bring into existence life in a complete and orderly way and do it from nothing in its hand to work with, as true science demands it must have to conclude anything, or even do it within a chaotic order should that have been the case? So out of nothing or chaos, how could anything as we see before us have come about by your theory[s]?
Yeah....I never said that everything came from nothing. That's a belief that creationists like to blankety apply to anyone who accepts evolution in order to convince their kids that "evolutionism" is atheistic and heretical (which, ironically, is the reason that many people are leaving the faith now: they think they must choose between evolution and YECism). Get your info from real sites, not those jokes ICR and AiG. I'm not being condescending about that: those sites are essentially spoofs of reality.

My personal belief is "I don't know how life began", because we have no way of knowing if life began on its own, if it came from space, or if it was sparked by God. It could be any of those. It could be ALL of those.
Regardless of how life began, we do know for certain that it started very simple and over hundreds of millions of years (as evidenced by lateral basinal continuity in sedimentary rock layers, and also supplemented by over 12 different radiometric dating techniques, and index fossils) it changed. Life went from sea to land, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on, and it's all in the rocks.

I'm perfectly fine with God possibly creating the universe. What I'm not fine with is your twisted version of how He did it

Cross Reference
April 1st, 2016, 04:58 PM
Yeah....I never said that everything came from nothing.

Yeah, I but I said you did. That is what evolution is all about, i.e., dismissing out of hand by inane argument, "it couldn't have been anything else but evolution". Now why don't you admit that is because you refuse to believe for a God Who did it all.. in face of overwhelming scientific labratory evidence to the contrary. This you learned in your pseudo 'science' class that also will not have idea of God the mix..

Cross Reference
April 1st, 2016, 05:08 PM
Just thinking it doesn't count?

Haven't you heard, Actions speak louder than words and . . . . thoughts, before self loathing can kick in.

Hedshaker
April 1st, 2016, 08:02 PM
Just thinking it doesn't count?

That's a couple of times now you've made me laugh out loud. But honestly, stuff he writes doesn't provide much evidence that there's any thinking going on :)

6days
April 1st, 2016, 08:52 PM
Lon, when you grow up you should see if your parents will send you off to collage to get an education. No no ..... not collage! You must must mean decoupage?
Where did your parents send you off to Caino?

Stuu
April 1st, 2016, 09:24 PM
No no ..... not collage! You must must mean decoupage?
Where did your parents send you off to Caino?
You do have wit, after all!

How depressing it must be to have your religious commitments squash the very humanity out of you.

Stuart

Greg Jennings
April 1st, 2016, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I but I said you did. That is what evolution is all about, i.e., dismissing out of hand by inane argument, "it couldn't have been anything else but evolution". Now why don't you admit that is because you refuse to believe for a God Who did it all.. in face of overwhelming scientific labratory evidence to the contrary. This you learned in your pseudo 'science' class that also will not have idea of God the mix..

I'm going to repost part of my original post here. I want you to read it so you that you can see how different what I wrote is from what you thought I wrote. [Did you read past the first sentence? That's not a rhetorical question. I literally don't think you read past the first sentence]

"My personal belief is "I don't know how life began", because we have no way of knowing if life began on its own, if it came from space, or if it was sparked by God. It could be any of those. It could be ALL of those.
Regardless of how life began, we do know for certain that it started very simple and over hundreds of millions of years (as evidenced by lateral basinal continuity in sedimentary rock layers, and also supplemented by over 12 different radiometric dating techniques, and index fossils) it changed. Life went from sea to land, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on, and it's all in the rocks.

I'm perfectly fine with God possibly creating the universe. What I'm not fine with is your twisted version of how He did it"


Did you read that? Or are you going to blindly rant about something that isn't happening again?

Caino
April 2nd, 2016, 04:21 AM
No no ..... not collage! You must must mean decoupage?
Where did your parents send you off to Caino?

Dental Laboratory school.

Cross Reference
April 2nd, 2016, 04:32 AM
I'm going to repost part of my original post here. I want you to read it so you that you can see how different what I wrote is from what you thought I wrote. [Did you read past the first sentence? That's not a rhetorical question. I literally don't think you read past the first sentence]

"My personal belief is "I don't know how life began", because we have no way of knowing if life began on its own, if it came from space, or if it was sparked by God. It could be any of those. It could be ALL of those.
Regardless of how life began, we do know for certain that it started very simple and over hundreds of millions of years (as evidenced by lateral basinal continuity in sedimentary rock layers, and also supplemented by over 12 different radiometric dating techniques, and index fossils) it changed. Life went from sea to land, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on, and it's all in the rocks.

I'm perfectly fine with God possibly creating the universe. What I'm not fine with is your twisted version of how He did it"


Did you read that? Or are you going to blindly rant about something that isn't happening again?

You give with hand one and take with the other.


My personal belief is "I don't know how life began", because we have no way of knowing if life began on its own, if it came from space, or if it was sparked by God. It could be any of those. It could be ALL of those.


Regardless of how life began, we do know for certain that it started very simple and over hundreds of millions of years (as evidenced by lateral basinal continuity in sedimentary rock layers, and also supplemented by over 12 different radiometric dating techniques, and index fossils) it changed. Life went from sea to land, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on, and it's all in the rocks.

After all is said by you, the last statement is your "real personal belief" :confused: leaving your basis for discussion to be no basis at all. How the rocks got here to begin with, should be what you want to know. Having no answer places everything else you "choose' to place your faith in in science' "nonsense department". It is not even conjectured reasoning.

alwight
April 2nd, 2016, 03:11 PM
After all is said by you, the last statement is your "real personal belief" :confused: leaving your basis for discussion to be no basis at all. How the rocks got here to begin with, should be what you want to know. Having no answer places everything else you "choose' to place your faith in in science' "nonsense department". It is not even conjectured reasoning.What makes you think that how rocks were created hasn't already been reasonably and rationally explained?

6days
April 2nd, 2016, 05:53 PM
You do have wit, after all!

Well...thanks Stuu!! But I think it could be described as half wit.

Greg Jennings
April 3rd, 2016, 01:26 PM
You give with hand one and take with the other.
Do explain



After all is said by you, the last statement is your "real personal belief" :confused: leaving your basis for discussion to be no basis at all. How the rocks got here to begin with, should be what you want to know. Having no answer places everything else you "choose' to place your faith in in science' "nonsense department". It is not even conjectured reasoning.
No, genius, the last statement isn't my own personal "belief." As I told you above (you seem to have poor reading comprehension skills) everything I say in my last statement is supported by many different forms of evidence and they aren't conjectures.

If I thought you had any interest in doing something other than irrationally "defending" a 3500 year old creation myth that is contradicted by all science, then I'd tell you to do some research or go take a biology course at the local community college.