WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

@farmerman,

Quote:

I hate to admit it but I think we are talking way over big TexNs head. Lets try to use words with no more than two syllables (oops)

A syllable is a "hunk" of a word Tex.

PS Im glad that native Texns are taking offense at Bign's crassness

Wow, I will allow your post to speak for itself...it is obvious that I have hit very close to home by pointing out the theory-faith correlation.

Instead of responding logically in true scientific fashion, you have chosen defensive and derogatory retaliation....like any faith filled person would when they feel threaten.

I apologize if you feel that I have stepped upon your religion.

I thought this was an intellectual discussion. Wink

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

Quote:

I think you meant to say "If an explanation can't be based on facts, then modify it until the facts don't contradict it....use different numbers!"

That's just a cheeky way of saying that if a proposed explanation fails to explain the facts, then something is wrong with the explanation. No scientist would deny that unremarkable claim. Evidently (and unsurprisingly), the faithful do. What alternative are you proposing? That instead of modifying the explanation to fit the facts, you modify the facts to fit the explanation? Yup, that sounds like faith. Thanks for confirming that.

1 Reply

@Shapeless,

The difference is still over Texns head. but it brought a needed smile. Icannot believe that the "faith" based hombres are attempting to projct their own metrics on science and its just not "taking"

A theory is a unifying explanation of a phenomenon .In a theory ALL the facts to date support the theory and NONE of the facts contradict it.
Thats not faith in the same level that a Biblical flood is a myth in which No evidence supports and ALL the evidence contradicts.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

Quote:

I thought this was an intellectual discussion.

. I can only try to direct it, when folks like you show up, it does become "REmedial SCience"

Since you have no idea what a theory in science purports to represent, perhaps a little outside reading in "The Nature of the Chemical Bond" or "Atomic Theory" may help you understand from a science that is unified by a theory that is NOT evolution. If you can "get it" maybe we can proceed and get back on track.

0 Replies

Creationism can't work because it's hard to prove bullshit. But that doesn't stop people from trying!

1 Reply

@NickFun,

The Creationists try to convince themselves that science is a "faith". They are either too dumb to understand or else they are part of the Creationist conspiracy.

Im always move back to a point of personal incredulity about Creationists. They loudly proclaim a deep belief in a God who sets everything going but they cant accept that theyve got a brain that allows them to understand what happened. Is that forced ignorance? Why are they so afraid of science? Ill have to ask BigTexn if he shows his face again.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman, your responses offer the prime example of why evolutionists will never win.

Your condescension and false arrogance turn people off...along with your frank denial of your own "faith".

If a hypothesis can't be proven beyond conjecture, you attach the scientifically safe word "theory" to it. In religion, we don't muddle the waters with deflection...we merely refer to our Theory of Creationism as having "faith" in Creationism.

My question to you is similar to the one you asked me...why are you so afraid of your own faith?

2 Replies

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

farmerman, your responses offer the prime example of why evolutionists will never win.

Your condescension and false arrogance turn people off...along with your frank denial of your own "faith".

If a hypothesis can't be proven beyond conjecture, you attach the scientifically safe word "theory" to it. In religion, we don't muddle the waters with deflection...we merely refer to our Theory of Creationism as having "faith" in Creationism.

My question to you is similar to the one you asked me...why are you so afraid of your own faith?

I am having trouble understanding this post.

If farmerman possesses "false" arrogance, then maybe there was no condescension either.

Since when is theory a "scientifically safe word"?

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

we merely refer to our Theory of Creationism as having "faith" in Creationism.

So you deny the definition of Theory and apply its use your belief system. How comforting for you.
Knowledge is often disqueting, it can shake the foundation of our comfort zones and bring our statues crashing down.

Im ready for my "theory" to be proven incorrect (if thats possible), are you?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

So you deny the definition of Theory and apply its use your belief system.

I don't deny that "theory" has as its very core "faith" in something in order to make all the dots connect.

Therefore, theory and faith would be interchangeable terms for me.

It is my contention that you are in denial that "theory" has "faith" as it's core?

Theories can't be definitely proven...only believed in....thats faith.

If a theory could be definitely proven, then it wouldn't be called a "theory".

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

I am having trouble understanding this post.

If farmerman possesses "false" arrogance, then maybe there was no condescension either.

Since when is theory a "scientifically safe word"?

It is possible to be arrogant and be able to back it up. He does not fit this definition.

I contend that he has false arrogance...in Texas we refer to this as "All hat and no cattle"

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

I guess its more convenient to ignore my question about whether your worldview would allow you to abandon your "belief of a Biblical Creation" Even though your beliefs have no evidence other than some poetry in an ancient book of fairy tales, you are comfortable.
It really doesnt matter cause you arent the audience that Mr McElroy is tryin g to impress. Your head is firmly up your ass and your basis of superstition is firmly in control. Mr McElroy, wants the young minds to be stunted by Cretionist garbage.
However, by requiring that the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection be developed in class is gonna hurt your side much more than mine. We have all the fossils and the rest of the evidence like DNA, Isotopes, geology, geophysical data etc.
Your side has nothing except a 3200 year old comic book and some self proclaimed "experts" in Bible Science.

To be tagged with "false arrogance" by you is actually a badge of honour , especially since you have no idea of what the topic is even about. I must have gotten under your skin to draw ire.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I must have gotten under your skin to draw ire.

To this point, the only person calling anyone names and spewing anything but legitimate arguments would be you.

Again, I apologize for stepping on and raising questions about your "faith".

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

No problem, are you going to continue avoiding the question I asked you.

By the way, here is the name calling Ive engaged in and if you are offended at being called a "Clear thinking Christian" then you know i was engaging in a little joke on your skills in understanding English

Quote:

Big Texn does us a service. By showing himself as the "clear thinking" Christian, who eschews any understanding of science, we see what science students will be up against in the state over the next few years , (until this dumass law is revoked ). Thanks Texn.

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

Quote:

If a hypothesis can't be proven beyond conjecture, you attach the scientifically safe word "theory" to it. In religion, we don't muddle the waters with deflection...

Deflection? You seem to think that once scientists have called something a "theory," they leave it at that and no longer continue to test it against new data. It's hard to take your claims about science seriously when you don't even know how it works. (Or rather, you have the preconceived notion that science is like faith and are using that to determine how you define science--which is itself a textbook example of how faith is the exact reverse process of science: the explanation remains constant, the data are modified as necessary.)

1 Reply

bookmark

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

By the way, here is the name calling Ive engaged in and if you are offended at being called a "Clear thinking Christian" then you know i was engaging in a little joke on your skills in understanding English

Quote:
Big Texn does us a service. By showing himself as the "clear thinking" Christian, who eschews any understanding of science, we see what science students will be up against in the state over the next few years , (until this dumass law is revoked ). Thanks Texn.

No, I take offense to (and offer as better examples) the following:

From Post: # 3,618,653

Quote:

If you wish to remain an ingnoramus...

and from Post: # 3,619,055

Quote:

A syllable is a "hunk" of a word Tex.

and

Quote:

...Bign's crassness

These examples provide much more laughter in the face of your "little joke on your skills in understanding English"

They illustrate the selectiveness of your arguments, add zero to the credibility of your discussions and merely show more denial of the facts on your part.

1 Reply

@Shapeless,

Quote:

You seem to think that once scientists have called something a "theory," they leave it at that and no longer continue to test it against new data.

And those who study the Bible also continue to explore it and try to better understand the depth of the meanings of the Bible as they gather new data from historical documents, archeology etc...just as you described scientists do with a "theory".

You see Shapeless, theory really is based in faith.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

SAo we can expect you to join in with a corrected understanding of the subject when?

I missed asking whether you would remain an ignoramus, Im sorry , but now that you brought it up...?

You still remain ignorant of the actual definition of the word theory in science. By your ignorance,You seem to infer that I am attempting some slight of hand and that the scientific definition is "incorrect" Is that what youre saying?? . If it is then the apellation"ignoramus" is quite apt no?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Gould said that if a a "truly intelligent designer" had had a hand in it, the "thumb" would have been a far more efficient tool.

Not much creative imagination has he? Let's face it, if a "truly intelligent designer" had had a hand in it the "prick" would have been a far more efficient tool too. What use is a prick when all it can ever do is to cause a ton of bricks to fall on your head.

But thumbs are not bad I've been told. And they avoid the bricks.

Do you think Mr Gould is a bit shy? Or did he have his tongue in his cheek?

1 Reply

WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know