Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
"So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

The above statement is based upon an honest fear as to whether string theory will ultimately be proven incorrect. Thats quite a bit different than a Creationists "faith" in an inerrant Biblical record of mythological crap like floods and young earths. The Creationist POV is easily dismissed right now based upon available evidence and RL is merely trying to avert our eyes from this fact. His attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution are the defenses of a slick preacher who doesnt want you to dissect his own beliefs.

I want to continue the drumbeat and request that RL either show his irrefutable evidence or a reasonable portion thereof. That probably aint ever going to happen.

Heres what I said in entirety RL. Dont try to make a bogus point by quote mining as if all I spoke about was evolution. WHat I present as a shortcoming of your debate style has been proven once again that your limited worldview is unable to even accept for analyses, the various concepts that run counter to your inerrant Biblical source crap.

I was pointing out that what you said was false.

I've not conflated string theory with evolution.

Posting your entire quote doesn't change that.

Your statement is still false.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your statement is still false.

Bullshit, You deny that this has been your entire MO? Laughing

. Need a clue? I think everyone is wise to your crap, cept you, obviously.

0 Replies

I'd like to point out to RL that people are searching for evidence of string theory, because unlike Creationism and your twaddle, String theory makes predictions that can be falsified.

http://www.physorg.com/news10295.html

Let's see you try the same.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Your statement is still false.

Bullshit, You deny that this has been your entire MO?

. Need a clue? I think everyone is wise to your crap, cept you, obviously.

As I said earlier, creation is about the origin of ALL things, not just origin of species.

You like to talk about evolution, but you generally avoid much discussion of BB . That's fine.

But creation can be discussed in either context.

You'll find NOWHERE that I've tried to tie string 'theory' to evolution.

String theory was being discussed in relation to BB.

Get a clue and read the thread thru, fm. Quit embarrassing yourself by posting nonsensical accusations.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I'd like to point out to RL that people are searching for evidence of string theory, because unlike Creationism and your twaddle, String theory makes predictions that can be falsified.

http://www.physorg.com/news10295.html

Let's see you try the same.

Since there's no evidence for string theory, is it scientific?

0 Replies

So, how's that proof for creationism coming along? Nothing yet?

Well, alrighty then . . . somebody just send me a PM if any turns up, 'K?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Since there's no evidence for string theory, is it scientific?

Yes, because as I stated before, it makes testable predictions. Therefore, it is scientific.

Note, Mr. Broken Record, that we have consistently said that your position makes neither testable predictions nor has it any evidence going for it. Whether String Theory has evidence for it (which it does in the form of mathematical equations) or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Since there's no evidence for string theory, is it scientific?

Yes, because as I stated before, it makes testable predictions. Therefore, it is scientific..

Many forms of speculation have testable predictions. That doesn't make them scientific, does it?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Whether String Theory has evidence for it (which it does in the form of mathematical equations) or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

The issue of evidence is only relevant if you want to consider string 'theory' to be science.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Note, Mr. Broken Record, that we have consistently said that your position makes neither testable predictions nor has it any evidence going for it. Whether String Theory has evidence for it (which it does in the form of mathematical equations) or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

This bore repeating--as, obviously, the member "real life" is going to attempt to avoid the burden of the remark.

You didn't really expect him to respond appropriately, did you, Wolf?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This bore repeating--as, obviously, the member "real life" is going to attempt to avoid the burden of the remark.

You didn't really expect him to respond appropriately, did you, Wolf?

No, not really, but I was curious to see how he would avoid answering the question that was set out to him.

Apparently, now RL is trying to say that string theory isn't scientific, despite the fact that scientists are currently attempting to falsify it using proper scientific method.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity didn't have any evidence for it when it was first proposed, but its testable predictions could be falsified using the scientific method. And scientists have done so.

And why the quotations marks around the word, theory, RL? You saying Sting Theory isn't a theory or is it another one of those Creationist canards of "It's just a theory"?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
If string theory is physics .....

Since there's no evidence for it, is it physics?

Where did you get the silly idea that there is no evidence for string theory?

Because there is no evidence that quarks are made up of strings doesn't mean there is no evidence of string theory. But then you just like to make leaps of illogic that throw you over the cliff.

Like a cartoon character you hit bottom and forget about the last leap as go jump over that cliff again.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Since there's no evidence for string theory, is it scientific?

Yes, because as I stated before, it makes testable predictions. Therefore, it is scientific..

Many forms of speculation have testable predictions. That doesn't make them scientific, does it?

Testing the prediction is what science is all about. So.. what predictions that are testable have you presented for creationism?

Oh.. NONE.. OK..

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Whether String Theory has evidence for it (which it does in the form of mathematical equations) or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

The issue of evidence is only relevant if you want to consider string 'theory' to be science.

Math IS evidence. It is quantifiable. It is testable. Others can repeat it. That would mean that there IS evidence supporting string theory.

Which leads us back to - what evidence do you have supporting creationism? Oh, that's right. NONE. You have shown us no predictions. You have shown us nothing that can be tested.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

Actually the subject is proof of creationism and you changed it to "anything else". But since it's clear that you have no proof (or even evidence) of creationism I didn't see any need to pursue it, so I was just curious about your viewpoint on multiple creations within your personal creation mythology.

0 Replies

I can create a really dynomite waffle. I am a GOD of wafflemaking.

0 Replies

LONDON - Albert Einstein: arch rationalist or scientist with a spiritual core?

A letter being auctioned in London this week adds more fuel to the long-simmering debate about the Nobel Prize-winning physicist's religious views. In the note, written the year before his death, Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish."

The letter, handwritten in German, is being sold by Bloomsbury Auctions on Thursday and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

Actually the subject is proof of creationism and you changed it....

I think that showing the universe cannot have originated thru natural processes is a pretty good start, don't you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

Actually the subject is proof of creationism and you changed it....

I think that showing the universe cannot have originated thru natural processes is a pretty good start, don't you?

I'd love to hear you try to do that.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Its been RL's MO to try to deny evolutions evidence . In order to try to accomplish this, hes tried to take the argument to different , unrelated levels.
His "belief" in Creation ws pointed out by Wilso as an attempt to try to get several of the Creationists(not only RL) to verbalize the core of their beliefs and to itemize what they consider as valid evidence of their worldview. The interesting fact is that, through all these pages, RL and baddog (and others) have failed miserably to even call out one piece of evidence of the entire topic (since Creation occured, in their minds, evolution is impossible). All their beliefs scroll back to one major event, a Creation myth. Then several ensuing events such a s a "Flood", are nice tales that come from several books of legend. Rl's only offense has been to try to conflate BB dynamics with an "impossibility " of a naturally derived world and origin of life and ultimately evolution. His argument has been carefully cobbled to be a test of science without ever revealing that he has nothing with which to base his "beliefs"

Beliefs in science come from an understanding and acceptance of the interlocking reams of evidence and plain unassailable facts. The resultant stones that underpin the theories are always being tested against new facts and evidence. Sometimes the original evidence holds up , and sometimes it doesnt. Unlike Creationism , where ALL the facts are at the mercy of a Biblical filter wherein only facts which agree with a pre adopted conclusion are accepted. Thats really not what science tries to do. However RL doesnt want to expose himself too much as an inflexible dogmatist. Instead he wants to present the appearance that hes engaging in "critical analysis".

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

Actually the subject is proof of creationism and you changed it....

I think that showing the universe cannot have originated thru natural processes is a pretty good start, don't you?

No.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

Actually the subject is proof of creationism and you changed it....

I think that showing the universe cannot have originated thru natural processes is a pretty good start, don't you?

I'd love to hear you try to do that.

T
K
O

He's been trying to do that by equating the unknown with the supernatural. Unfortunately for RL, no amount of linguistic contortion and flawed logic will ever conflate the two.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know