Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

"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.)

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.

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.

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)

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."

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.

"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..

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

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.

popular perception is not the same as science.

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?"

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.

sure, thanx

Evolutionists say a flood never happened, and originally (majority consensus in Darwin's time) that there was never any major catastrophe attributed to the condition of the world today. Even though we have flood stories from every major culture in the world, on all six inhabited continents. 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. They would rather formulate their own stories out of dead bones and artifacts through research tailor-made to achieve their desired result. Does anyone really think it is just a coincidence there are so many ancient stories about a global flood? Details are different, yet the key points are all the same. (Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins, Hawaiians, etc.)

Post Darwinian evolutionists finally settle on their ?'theory' about a catastrophe responsible for several world wide anomalous phenomenons: not a flood 4500 years ago, but an ?'ice age' 10000 years ago plagued the earth. Uh…Ok…so water didn't cover the earth thousands of years ago - ice did! !!!!!!!!!!! Ok, so giant sheets of ice reaching as far south as Missouri cover the earth. How massive and thick would these sheets be further north? Obviously there has to be major melting and drain off as well, not to mention:

Where would all this water come from? (more on this later)

And why would it isolate itself to the polls? Wouldn't this water cover the rest of the earth? Did someone leave a faucet running at the polls?

And now to Mars where we have rovers out searching for signs of water: Now, don't take my word for it; go here http://www.space.com (Evolutionist site) to verify the following: Scientists say that catastrophic floods have plagued Mars. So our planet was never plagued by a worldwide catastrophic flood, even though we have more than 100 ancient cultures referencing a world wide flood, two thirds of the (visible) surface is covered with water, and in addition, the Chinese language (2nd oldest continuous-use language still in existence) has a flood story encoded in the language itself; no, but Mars has!! Quoting from www.space.com, Mars has been plagued by "epic floods", even though we've never set foot on this desolate planet before - and it currently contains NO water! ???????? (I'm not making this up) Ok, so where did all this water come from? Here's another quote from www.space.com: "The team analyzed what would happen if water ice, liquid water and carbon dioxide were trapped between surface rock…", and then go on to conclude, "Even water, pressurized and heated to steam, could fuel an explosion more massive than upwelling magma alone." So this is where all of the water would come from, a massive underground explosion of water and magma bursting through the surface.

Back on earth - compare that with this ancient text written thousands of years ago explaining how the earth was flooded, "…were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Now what would it mean if this really happened? Magma and water spraying miles in the air from a burst seam of the earth would initially rain down hot, but as the ground (a natural insulator) became covered the water would cool. Also, much of this magma and water, as well as ash, would remain in the atmosphere blocking the sun. So now let's review some more texts written thousands of years ago from someone in the Middle East region. (I don't know of it snowing much in that area)

"Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen."
The DEEP was frozen…wow!

About God-
"He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes. 17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? 18 He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow."

Evolutionists lost my respect long ago, but still I ask:

Are they scientists, or con-artists?
Do they practice integrity, or plagiarism?

No, God didn't create the universe 'voila, there it is.'
No it was, 'BANG, voila, there it is.'

Thanks for clearing that up, evolutionists.

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.


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.

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.

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

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