Bullshit is bullshit however its piled. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. Absolutely no science has been produced by Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. The only connection Creationism/ID-iocy has to science amounts to Creationist/ID-iot denial, misrepresentation, and/or dispute of what science is, says, and does. Creationism/ID-iocy has no claim to science, and it is an embarassment to mainstream theology. As has been said, it is bad science and bad theology. No matter its proponents' conviction and preference, it is at best an invalid, illegitimate, dishonest philosophy. It is fraud. It is bullshit.
It's no surprise that you could not address the issue, but simply slipped back into a comfortable mode of petty insults.
This is ALWAYS where evolutionists eventually (usually sooner than later) seem to go: Deny, deny, deny. Toss in some insults and a 'you guys are stupid' response.
So predictable.
Next.
timberlandko wrote:Bullshit is bullshit however its piled. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. Absolutely no science has been produced by Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. The only connection Creationism/ID-iocy has to science amounts to Creationist/ID-iot denial, misrepresentation, and/or dispute of what science is, says, and does. Creationism/ID-iocy has no claim to science, and it is an embarassment to mainstream theology. As has been said, it is bad science and bad theology. No matter its proponents' conviction and preference, it is at best an invalid, illegitimate, dishonest philosophy. It is fraud. It is bullshit.
LOL - that is funny stuff timber.
Let me try this: There is absolutely no
scientific evidence whatsoever for
proof that creation was not involved in the beginning of life - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any...
Convincing? :wink:
Evasion and diversion are the Creationist/Id-iot stock in trade.
Produce your evidence, present a valid argument for your proposition - that doesn't mean god-of-the-gaps gameplaying like "science can't explain
xxx" or "science can't agree on
yyy", that doesn't mean claim or hypothesis - self-published or otherwise - not independently validated through published replication and confirmation of result, that means real evidence, real scientific evidence supporting your proposition,
NOT MERELY CONTRARIAN, UNSUBSTANTIABLE, MINORITY POV BULLSHIT.
- Demonstrate that Creationism/ID-iocy has academic and scientific integrity and merit.
- Demonstrate that Creationism/ID-iocy provides a testable, falsifiable, verifiable, reproducible, workable explanation for any natural phenomenon which is superior to any legitimate mainstream scientific explanation.
- Demonstrate that Creationism/ID-iocy meets BOTH the criteria of parsimony and predictability.
- Demonstrate that any Creationist/ID-iot "research" has been cited, employed, and has proved instrumental in any legitimate mainstream scientific work.
- Demonstrate - don't claim, DEMONSTRATE - that your proposition be not Argumentum Ignorantium, structurally dependent on Principio Principii.
Prove Creationism/ID-iocy is not fraudulent bullshit. Present your evidence and make your case.
Creationists are just that. They dream up stuff because they dont know. And cant be bothered to do the hard work to find out.
"The fossil record is incomplete. Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may the Sauce be Upon Him) exists. QED".
The reason for the propagation of all this Creationist/ID nonsense is to undermine rationalism. Religion is a useful tool for social control. Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the people". The neocons say "religion is the opiate of the people. Thank God!".
baddog1 wrote: Let me try this: There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for proof that creation was not involved in the beginning of life - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any...
Convincing? :wink:
No, not convincing at all, merely ignorant. There is absolutely no scientific evidence - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any - pertaining to "Creation" whatsoever. Period. End of discussion. Creationism/ID-iocy is naught but claim. Whether or not there be a god or gods, whether or not there be a creator or designer, whether or not Creationism/ID-iocy be valid, no valid evidence whatsoever in support of those propositions, coinjoined or in singular particular - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any - has been produced.
Quote:No, not convincing at all, merely ignorant. There is absolutely no scientific evidence - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any - pertaining to "Creation" whatsoever. Period. End of discussion.
Precisely my point - thank you! :wink:
No, baddogg1, the point is that from a rational, informed, objective scientific standpoint, there is no point to Creationism/ID-iocy; it offers nothing to suggest it might merit consideration from any other than a philosophical standpoint - and it doesn't fare very well there, either. It isn't even a theory, in fact it doesn't meet the qualifications necessary for consideration as hypothesis, and only by the most charitable stretch might it make the cut to be considered a postulate. Bad science, bad theology, bad philosophy - all it has going for itself is comfort factor for the easily frightened and entertainment value for the easily amused.
timberlandko wrote:No, baddogg1, the point is that from a rational, informed, objective scientific standpoint, there is no point to Creationism/ID-iocy; it offers nothing to suggest it might merit consideration from any other than a philosophical standpoint - and it doesn't fare very well there, either. It isn't even a theory, in fact it doesn't meet the qualifications necessary for consideration as hypothesis, and only by the most charitable stretch might it make the cut to be considered a postulate. Bad science, bad theology, bad philosophy - all it has going for itself is comfort factor for the easily frightened and entertainment value for the easily amused.
Thank you for reinforcing my point - again! :wink:
Quote:The reason for the propagation of all this Creationist/ID nonsense is to undermine rationalism. Religion is a useful tool for social control. Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the people". The neocons say "religion is the opiate of the people. Thank God!".
Now, what about our modern society. The phrase "religion is the opiate of the people" could easily be exchanged with "material wealth is the opiate of the people". Bread and circus, you know.
The aim is to distract as many as possible from "finding themselves", because as soon as a man finds himself he will not need material wealth to substitute true substance. That means that the hogs won't get their millions, and they will have none of that.
Pardon the digression. It's just that this creationist/ID discussion seems to have reached it's end days ago. What we have now are just a few decapitated individuals refusing to acknowledge that they're dead.
baddog1 wrote:timberlandko wrote:Bullshit is bullshit however its piled. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. Absolutely no science has been produced by Creationism/ID-iocy - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any. The only connection Creationism/ID-iocy has to science amounts to Creationist/ID-iot denial, misrepresentation, and/or dispute of what science is, says, and does. Creationism/ID-iocy has no claim to science, and it is an embarassment to mainstream theology. As has been said, it is bad science and bad theology. No matter its proponents' conviction and preference, it is at best an invalid, illegitimate, dishonest philosophy. It is fraud. It is bullshit.
LOL - that is funny stuff timber.
Let me try this: There is absolutely no
scientific evidence whatsoever for
proof that creation was not involved in the beginning of life - none, zero, zip, nada, zilch, as in ain't any...
Convincing? :wink:
Excellent point, baddog1.
The title of the thread is 'Creationism is false' and nothing of the kind has been proven.
Nor WILL it be proven, because it CANNOT be proven.
However, some evolutionists have learned their technique from modern politicians. If you shout something loud enough and long enough, many folks will believe you.
Unfortunately, many who do not understand the nature of science or the exercise of logic will look upon the title of this thread as some kind of 'confirmed scientific truth' which the 'evidence supports'.
that's clever, real life.
Of course you cannot prove that creationism is false. You cannot prove a negative.
But you cannot prove that it's true either, and there ain't a whole lot of other alternatives.
Both creation and evolution have the same hurdle.
Neither seems to be falsifiable, because neither was observed.
Neither is 'provable' scientifically.
Both tend to rely largely on circumstantial evidence from which inferences are drawn that (of course) tend to reflect the position of the one drawing the inference.
So what we banter over is two interpretations of the same evidence.
Would you agree?
Cyracuz wrote:that's clever, real life.
Of course you cannot prove that creationism is false. You cannot prove a negative.
But you cannot prove that it's true either, and there ain't a whole lot of other alternatives.
The whole point of the IDiocy is that it postulates nothing. It works from the absurd position that for example
because Einstein's general theory is incompatible with quantum mechanics, it follows the whole of creation came about by the messy copulation of invisible green salamanders.
The so called big bang theory, our knowledge of the fundamental properties of matter and cosmology, Darwinian evolution, gene theory, DNA and the anthropic principle explains a hell of a lot. But just because it does not explain ALL, is no excuse for dreaming up gods.
real life
evolution theory may not be falsifiable. But that's irrelevant. What mattes is that is it verifiable.
Can the same be said of creationism?
There is no way to prove that the world didn't begin the way J.R.R.Tolkien explains in Silmarillion. That doesn't mean it's true. But there's no way to prove that it did begin in this way, so there isn't a whole lot of scientific merit to the tale.
real life wrote:Both creation and evolution have the same hurdle.
No they don't.
real life wrote:Neither seems to be falsifiable, because neither was observed.
You keep saying that, but it's not true.
Evolution is falsifiable. If we found lots of fossils of hominids in precambrian rock that would pretty well shake the foundations of science.
And 'observation' has nothing to do with it. We've been over this many many times.
real life wrote:Neither is 'provable' scientifically.
That's also not true.
Evolution has already been proven scientifically. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, which is all any scientific theory needs in order to be accepted as a scientific fact.
Quit making up sh*t that's just plain wrong, would ya.
Steve 41oo wrote:The so called big bang theory, our knowledge of the fundamental properties of matter and cosmology, Darwinian evolution, gene theory, DNA and the anthropic principle explains a hell of a lot. But just because it does not explain ALL, is no excuse for dreaming up gods.
Besides, if there's a deity involved, then it's obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may the sauce be upon him).
rosborne979 wrote:Evolution is falsifiable. If we found lots of fossils of hominids in precambrian rock that would pretty well shake the foundations of science.
How would that falsify evolution? Not even close.
The mantra would quickly become 'well whaddaya know! I guess those dinosaurs survived a lot longer than we thought. But of course evolution STILL happened. Doesn't affect that at all.'
Evolution is not falsifiable as long as evolutionists accept:
'well we may not be sure HOW evolution happened, but it's clear that it DID happen'
as a valid statement.
That sort of unproven assumption as the foundation of 'science' turns it into no science at all.
But it's a robust faith.
More straw, rl; the point and fact of the matter is that the physical fossil record as to this point discovered, examined, tested, and understood, in conjunction with all other observation and prediction, confirms, without contradiction, the fact of evolution as presented through the scientifically valid, continually tested, refined, and confirmed Theory of Evolution. Pending development of verifiably contradictory evidence, the present explanation is the only explanation supported by the available evidence.
The Creationist/ID-iot defining practice of disputing evidence and what is shown by that evidence in lieu of providing evidence in support of the Creationist/ID-iot proposition exposes the absurdity of said ludicrous proposition.
rosborne
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may the sauce be upon him) has nothing to do with this. He teamed up with the Flying Burrito Brothers and went off to sing songs about it, but that's all the relation there is.
The entity responsible for creation is the Talking Bush. He went silent some time ago though, when he realized that he was a freak of evolution, which he also created, not to lose all credibility.
