Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 139 of 297 (624806)
07-20-2011 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 4:22 AM


Re: Pedantry.
Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!
None of genesis is scientific. As you're making the claim that it is it is up to you to provide evidence that it is.
That's the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 173 of 297 (626100)
07-27-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
07-27-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Genesis is right on about species (kinds)
I'd say for a 2000 year old book thats good Science.
I'd say that was obvious to the most dullardish bronze age writer.
On the other hand, what we DON'T see are things, kinds, changing into other things, kinds, do we? What am I missing?
We do see this. We look at the fossil record. How did you miss that?
because people don't want to believe in a God.
I want to beleive in a god. But the evidence stops me. It is not a question of wanting.
What do you disagree with about it?
I does not align with the evidence: the evidence suggest the world is 4.5 billion year old. Genesis does not align with that.
I think at this point you need to disprove that they do not.
Not the case. The evidence supports the notion that a dog will give birth to a dog: but give it enough time and it will evolve into something that you cannot call a dog.
Is a hyena a civet? Not anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:59 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 186 of 297 (626661)
07-30-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 8:58 PM


Any chance you can support your ideas about the Genesis implications about gender in organisms in the topic I made addressing that very same point?
Or will you you wuss out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 8:58 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 245 of 297 (627626)
08-03-2011 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Chuck77
08-03-2011 3:12 AM


Re: Thread should be moved
I have to say I agree. There was never going to be a scientific answer for a question directed at creation science.
But IamJoseph was suspended for not moving the debate forwards, more than anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 3:12 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 265 of 297 (627837)
08-04-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 11:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
None of what you said makes any sense.
Please clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 11:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 1:30 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 268 of 297 (627850)
08-04-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by fearandloathing
08-04-2011 1:30 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
What is it about nut jobs?
Zi ko, IamJoseph and Alfred rarely, if ever make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 1:30 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 287 of 297 (628512)
08-10-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Chuck77
08-10-2011 12:37 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
The difficulty seems to be that IAJ does think that Genesis 'aligns' with science.
The further difficulty is that IAJ is unable to demonstrate that this is the case.
He reiterates his claims but no more.
Then he froths at the mouth.
Edited by Larni, : spellink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 08-10-2011 12:37 AM Chuck77 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