Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Dono wrote:

I wasn't talking about Christian scientists or the Bible or anything like that. I was talking about scientists and pure science. I'm not talking about trying to prove the Bible or God! Just science. There are plenty of pure studies that can prove nothing and the scientist's themselves have made allusion to an Intelligent Designer.
Are you famliar with Walter L. Bradley, PhD who co-authored "The Mystery of Life's Origin?
Or perhaps, the biologist Dean Kenyon of San Fransisco State University who authored, Biological Predsetination?
Chemist, William Day?
Astronomer, Harlow Shapley?
Klaus Dose and Stanley Miller, who I mentioned on another thread?
Cyril Ponnamperuma of the University of Maryland?
Carl Woese of the University of Illinois? and the list goes on.
Do you know the scientific method?

"Woese, who holds the UI Stanley O. Ikenberry Endowed Chair, said: "This award represents a recognition by peers and public alike that the incredible diversity of life on this planet, most of which is microbial, can only be understood in an evolutionary framework."

How do these scientists (especially Woese) support the theory of creationism? (And I am assuming you are talking about old testament creationsim.)

0 Replies

He doesn't Portal. No serious academic supports creationism. Its followers lie cheat and distort the facts. They threaten and abuse those who challenge them. They are driven with a passion worthy of Hitler or Pol Pot. They are not fit for debating with.

0 Replies

Portal, but if you can use a lever well, the lever does not tell the universe as a whole.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

Portal, but if you can use a lever well, the lever does not tell the universe as a whole.

Somebody had to invent it. And I'd call estimating the circumference of the earth with nothing but a small measuring tool pretty impressive.

New discoveries are being made constantly and old ones refuted. But that doesn't mean all past science is invalid. We are building on our wealth of knowledge, not starting over again every century.

So, no science is not transient.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

He doesn't Portal. No serious academic supports creationism. Its followers lie cheat and distort the facts. They threaten and abuse those who challenge them. They are driven with a passion worthy of Hitler or Pol Pot. They are not fit for debating with.

Anybody willing to discuss in a logical fashion* is fit for debating with, I don't care what their beliefs are. Thanks for the warning, though.

(*Preferably with nice manners)

0 Replies

Portal..
Your proposition is that science is not transient, but your logic implies that science is transient.

As if you were saying..
"A is not true, hence A is true."

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Anybody willing to discuss in a logical fashion* is fit for debating with, I don't care what their beliefs are. Thanks for the warning, though.

(*Preferably with nice manners)

The short answer is no.

The slightly longer answer is no because all of the religious people in this thread are fundamentally irrational. When shaved to the bone thier ideology is based on faith. Faith, in this case, is a euphemism for delusion, and it is a line of thought that cannot be reasoned with. I cannot help it that they have trained themselves to intrepret a vague set of psychological states within a religious context. Further, since thier belief is entirely impervious to rational discourse, there is nothing either one of us can say to make this a productive conversation.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

Portal..
Your proposition is that science is not transient, but your logic implies that science is transient.

As if you were saying..
"A is not true, hence A is true."

"New discoveries are being made constantly and old ones refuted. But that doesn't mean all past science is invalid. We are building on our wealth of knowledge, not starting over again every century.

So, no science is not transient."

The refuted discoveries are the ones that were wrong in the first place. Science changes, but it is not transient (in that it comes and goes) - it is a linear process as long as records are being kept. We don't have to re-invent the wheel, or start again with a "flat earth" theory.

Scientific learning is kind of an exponential process: we build off what we know, then we build off what we know, etc..

0 Replies

The principle of lever is still valid, but the view about human position in the universe is still changing.

0 Replies

umm, that's why this is called a discussion chat - Don't be offended because people have a belief in a higher power or even don't believe- either way everyone is entitled to their opinion/view. Just like you wouldn't like to be bashed or told that you are completely irrational and deluded for stating your opinions. By the way, religion is man-made, there's a big difference between a religious fanatic and a spiritual person.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

The principle of lever is still valid, but the view about human position in the universe is still changing.

popular perception is not the same as science.

0 Replies

I am talking about scientific view on human position.

And one can ask, "what does the principle of lever imply for the meaning of human existence?"

0 Replies

Investor4life wrote:

umm, that's why this is called a discussion chat - Don't be offended because people have a belief in a higher power or even don't believe- either way everyone is entitled to their opinion/view. Just like you wouldn't like to be bashed or told that you are completely irrational and deluded for stating your opinions. By the way, religion is man-made, there's a big difference between a religious fanatic and a spiritual person.

You are free to believe in a magical sexist homopobe in the sky, who made his son into a human sacrifice to save us all from his own self-decreed law. You're well withen your rights. But that doesn't make your belief a rational one, or your reasons anything more than the deluded superstitions they are.

In any case, objectively speaking, your belief is no more rational than my chosen religion, which is explained comprehensively here. I can only hope you find it withen yourself to see the Truth of my chosen faith, for the IPU is the only path to righteousness and redemption. All praises be to the IPU; the munificent, the mercifull.

By the way, you will burn tortuously in hell forever if you don't pray to MY God. Thats how much he loves you.

Toodles.

0 Replies

sure, thanx

0 Replies

Defender wrote:

But the evolutionists running all of our major universities, institutions, laboratories, and allocating research funds won't listen to living people passing their stories from generation to generation.

I remember doing an exercise back at school. We had to pass a simple message along a group of about 6 people, and see how much it changed. And change it always did. Now we're supposed to be basing our views of creation on tales passed down through generations.
Rolling Eyes

That is just laughable, as is most of what the creationists say in their desperate attempts to prop up their ailing arguments in the face of scientific progress.

0 Replies

I like your post defender Wink

0 Replies

Investor4life wrote:

I like your post defender

Why? Because he agrees with you? Because of his feeble attempts to back up your mutual delusion with his inane bravado? Please.

Helpfull hint: If creationists want to be taken seriously, they need to show more discretion in choosing which theories to support. Jumping on the bandwagon of every half-assed explanation is really hurting your cause. As it stands now, your desparation, myopia, and intellectual bankruptcy are transparent. Get a new strategy.

0 Replies

They don't have any new strategies. And the one's they're using are several thousand years old.

0 Replies

Wow, it's amazing how you judge me even though you don't know a thing about me.

0 Replies

Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know