Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Really....?

http://www.fixedearth.com/

What wing-nut wrote that awful site? Did he have a fetish for changing the font and colour every second word? I don't read nutter-letters written in green ink and I won't be reading any more of that silly site. He seems to think stars don't exist and that geostationary satellites just hover above the non-rotating earth.

If you believe that pile of manure then you are crazier than he is!

:chuckle:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Heres some stuff that blows einsteins ressurrection of the dead theories back into oblivion where they belong.

The Electric Universe
http://www.fixedearth.com/electric.html

a sample here:

For example, the arbitrary speed limit that Einstein set on light immediately bites the dust in the EUM. "The speed of light is not a barrier," we are told (10). More Einstein-bashing is evident in these words of EUM physicist, Wal Thornhill: "Time travel is impossible"; "Space has no extra dimensions in which to warp or where parallel universes may exist"; " There are no neutron stars or Black Holes."(11)

As to "black holes", Thornhill gives his conclusions about Einstein and his devotees:

"It seems to me that Einstein made it fashionable for theoretical physicists to live in their heads and perform "thought experiments". It is one thing to frame hypotheses by day-dreaming but to think that experiments are carried out by sucking on a pipe in an armchair is pure "Disneyesque" fantasy. Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable.

I believe a recent cartoon in Scientific American has unwittingly shown us where black holes are to be found:

They exist inside the heads of theoretical astrophysicists!

And with their eyes wide shut and fingers in their ears, there they shall remain."(12)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What wing-nut wrote that awful site? Did he have a fetish for changing the font and colour every second word? I don't read nutter-letters written in green ink and I won't be reading any more of that silly site. He seems to think stars don't exist and that geostationary satellites just hover above the non-rotating earth.

If you believe that pile of manure then you are crazier than he is!

:chuckle:

Been there before I see.

So you were blatantly lying when you said no Yec scientists were disproving evolution.

Sorry you cant let go of what you have been taught by morons with an agenda to discredit God, for science that blows them outta the water and establishes the Word of God.

 

[gcthomas]

'1mind'? I think you have overestimated by one: you are a grade one fruit-cake.

Get back to us when you have something to offer the discussion.

:carryon:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

'1mind'? I think you have overestimated by one: you are a grade one fruit-cake.

Get back to us when you have something to offer the discussion.

:carryon:

Who is this us you speak of?

Are you fishin for a co-signer?

I'm in the U.S.A. here we individuals are free to speak.

One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson, 1832

 

[Tyrathca]

'1mind'? I think you have overestimated by one: you are a grade one fruit-cake.

Get back to us when you have something to offer the discussion.

:carryon:

What? Clearly he is not a crazy, i suspect his nobel prize is in the mail as we speak for overturning not just evolution but also relativity (that's two Nobel's! ZOMG!). We of small minds should just bask in his awesomely awesomeness of intellect!

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek )

 

[6days]

If there was not one, how did it get into all the worlds text books?

Errm, by being demonstrably successful in explaining everything in its remit, better than any alternative?

Pfffft (that means "Ermm" )

Surely young don't think the claim that human embryos had gill slits was "demonstrably successful in explaining everything"? Haha. Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists but there was no truth in it.

Surely you don't think the claim that our appendix was useless was " demonstrably successful in explaining everything?" Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists, but there was no truth in it.

Surely you don't think that the claim that Neandertals were incapable of speech was " demonstrably successful in explaining everything"? Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists but there was no truth in it…

Too bad those evolutionists had not bothered to consider the most logical explanation to the evidence... That, in the beginning God created. Who knows what those evolutionists might dream up next....perhaps that t-rex got wings and feathers and evolved into a chicken.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Pfffft (that means "Ermm" )

Surely young don't think the claim that human embryos had gill slits was "demonstrably successful in explaining everything"? Haha. Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists but there was no truth in it.

Surely you don't think the claim that our appendix was useless was " demonstrably successful in explaining everything?" Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists, but there was no truth in it.

Surely you don't think that the claim that Neandertals were incapable of speech was " demonstrably successful in explaining everything"? Perhaps it did explain things for evolutionists but there was no truth in it…

Too bad those evolutionists had not bothered to consider the most logical explanation to the evidence... That, in the beginning God created. Who knows what those evolutionists might dream up next....perhaps that t-rex got wings and feathers and evolved into a chicken.

I pretty much agree with 6days. He is wise for his years! I do know I am not a YEC, but instead an Old Earth Creationist, but I have reasons for that. Frankly, I think DFT_Dave, 6days and noguru have a lot to offer this thread. Of course, you all have interesting points at times, but I heard that they had found that the appendix was not useless. I can't remember quite what they said, but I think it was something like the appendix housed a deposit of good bacterial flora for the intestines, which keeps you from being ill. It was that or something like it. I saw it on the Science channel. Yes, I watch that too once in a while.

God Bless You All!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

Do you really think there is a global scientific conspiracy to deceive?

I just wouldn't call it global or scientific. I would call the conspiracy atheistic and philosophic.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Errm, by being demonstrably successful in explaining everything in its remit, better than any alternative?

(Was that answer too obvious?)

Why is the Bible still after all these years believed?

Is the answer too obvious?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Why is the Bible still after all these years believed?

Is the answer too obvious?

--Dave

Because it is a living breathing document. Not a stagnant dead document as you try to make it.

 

[gcthomas]

Why is the Bible still after all these years believed?

Is the answer too obvious?

--Dave

A lot of hope and a willingness not to apply a rational critique to the book that is perhaps due, in your case.

(And most Christians don't believe in a young earth cosmology either - that is your interpretation, not necessarily what the bible means)

 

[DFT_Dave]

By being convincing enough at the time presumably but science expects to be wrong sometimes and it's science that corrects itself by peer review. Clearly if it were not corrected and covered up that might indicate some kind of small scale conspiracy perhaps, but come on, to suppose that all natural sciences are all involved in a long term global conspiracy is utterly absurd, which even YECs know well enough.

If evolution theory has to continually correct itself then how is it a true science???

Every time it's found to be wrong it merely makes a correction? That means its not a science. Thanks for the honest admission.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

A lot of hope and a willingness not to apply a rational critique to the book that is perhaps due, in your case.

(And most Christians don't believe in a young earth cosmology either - that is your interpretation, not necessarily what the bible means)

And you can speak on behave of all Christians as to what they all believe on the issue?

--Dave

 

[Tyrathca]

If evolution theory has to continually correct itself then how is it a true science???

Every time it's found to be wrong it merely makes a correction? That means its not a science. Thanks for the honest admission.

--Dave

Only someone who had zero understanding of science and it's implementation could ask such an ignorant question. Pointer, science is all about gradual corrections! If scientists new everything IT WOULD STOP.

 

[6days]

If evolution theory has to continually correct itself then how is it a true science???
Every time it's found to be wrong it merely makes a correction? That means its not a science.

Only someone who had zero understanding of science and it's implementation could ask such an ignorant question. Pointer, science is all about gradual corrections! If scientists new everything IT WOULD STOP.

Evolution is not falsifiable and not a true science. For example, virtually everything used for evidence at the famous Scopes trial has now been proven wrong, yet people still have the belief. Evolutionism is like a fog that can cover any landscape.

For ex.......
*Evolutionists claimed a useless appendix was proof of evolution.

*Science finds out, the creationists were correct...Our appendix has design and function

*Evolutionists 'correct' their beliefs and claim a useful appendix is proof of evolution.


Evolutionism is not science.

 

[noguru]

If evolution theory has to continually correct itself then how is it a true science???

Every time it's found to be wrong it merely makes a correction? That means its not a science. Thanks for the honest admission.

--Dave

Science does not have to explain everything to begin with the first natural explanation. I am not surprised that your expectations of science are this unreasonable. You are, more often than not, an unreasonable person. And you don't even care that you are.

I know you try to hide that with your fake smile and sugary words. But I can see beneath your thin veneer of a facade to the seething contempt that lies right under it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you really think there is a global scientific conspiracy to deceive?

The vast majority of people presuppose atheism, and use it as a part of their scientific arguments.

 

[noguru]

The vast majority of people presuppose atheism, and use it as a part of their scientific arguments.

Science presupposes naturalistic explanations. Without that foundational assumption it would not get off square one. If science is wrong about this assumption in any area it cannot comment. We can only know that when it is revealed to us somehow. The question becomes should we accept some person's opinion on revelation, over human kinds use of logic and reason?

 

[alwight]

If evolution theory has to continually correct itself then how is it a true science???

Every time it's found to be wrong it merely makes a correction? That means its not a science. Thanks for the honest admission.

--Dave

Thanks for the somewhat disingenuous summary Dave.

I've noticed that what makes fundamentalists believe how they do is because for them a conclusion must be regarded as an absolute "Truth" that never varies. However science offers answers that best match the facts, in lieu of new facts, and also that such conclusions are by their very nature meant to be falsifiable at any time. It doesn't attempt to present an absolute "Truth" just a close as possible match that sometimes needs adjustment to get closer to the actual truth.

Driving a car to a particular destination requires that you continuously have to correct the steering until, bit by bit, you get closer and closer to the conclusion of your trip. There's an analogy to science in there I believe.

Religion otoh is not falsifiable.
Unlike science, religion will just plough on regardless in whatever direction that it has pre-set for itself, content with its pre-conclusion that the course it has locked-in never needs any further adjustment... until it falls off a cliff perhaps.