Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 141 of 207 (502330)
03-11-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by olivortex
03-11-2009 4:32 AM


Re: This is all arguable, debatable
hi, it's my first message on this board. I just wanted to say that capt was being sarcastic too, i think. He was just refering to last thursdayism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by olivortex, posted 03-11-2009 4:32 AM olivortex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-11-2009 9:48 AM Son has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 149 of 207 (502359)
03-11-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Kelly
03-11-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Is it Science?
First,Kelly, we are supposed to be talking about creation science only here, not evolution. Do you know any scentific theories that needs to reference rival theories to be explained? If creation science is science, it should not be needed to use evolution to describe what it does.
Then, how do you expext to convince people that creation science is science without debating? It seems to be a very strange position and does the opposite of what you are seeking.
I also need to add that to compare the two models, you need to show us what is the creationist model first (btw it's also the subject of this thread). After all, it's you who said that we didn't know what the creationist model was. The comparison should be done after that and in an other thread.
Edited by Son, : correcting typo.
Edited by Son, : answering kelly's edit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:36 AM Son has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 151 of 207 (502363)
03-11-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
What do you mean by truly new types? Do you mean species? Something else? You should use already existing terms or define the new terms you use.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 176 of 207 (502423)
03-11-2009 1:33 PM


back to the topic
Guys, let's go back to the topic,K? I think the original topic said he didnt want another creation vs evo thread so let's go back to creation's definition i think.
Kelly, this thread was for you to tell us how creation science is science. In order to do that you need to tell us what are the observation that leads to it, describe the hypothesis that creation scientist formed from it and what experiences they did to FALSIFY it. I think it would be a good (re)start , wouldn't it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 1:55 PM Son has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 178 of 207 (502427)
03-11-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Nice arrangement
Btw what do flying squirrels have? Wings or legs?
Flying squirrel - Wikipedia
Edited by Son, : link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 1:47 PM Son has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024