|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation Evidence Museums... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
if they really are concerned about truth and accountability, etc... Boy, you must really not know anything about creationism. Every time that creationists have challenged evolution in court, they've gotten their butts kicked, publicly and humiliatingly. It's been all the way to the Supreme Court, in one case, and the verdict is always the same - evolution has the weight of scientific evidence behind it, and creationism is no more than religion. Churches get plenty of my tax dollars - indirectly, through exemption from property and other taxes. You don't hear me complaining. In fact the way you write I have a sense that you're not old enough to pay any taxes. So quit yer bitchin', huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As for the footprints, there's been erosion, which distorts some, but I consider them to be valid. Based on your degree and training in paleontology, I presume?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I hope your not talking about the ScopesTrial You hope correctly; I was referring to such cases as Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Daniel v. Waters. In each of these cases creationism was ruled to be a religious position, and not a scientific theory on the same standing as evolution.
Evolution is a religion because all religion is is a belief system and since Evolution is still a theory and not fact,Then its a religion... Gravity is a theory; is gravity a religion? Germs are a theory; are germs a religion? The kinetic theory of gases is a theory; are gases a religion? If everything that is not a fact is a religion, then you've expanded the definition of "religion" so far as to be meaningless. Evolution is not a religion, just like science isn't a religion. The proof is trivial - technologies based on science work whether you believe they will or not. But Christians seem to agree that faith is required for their beliefs - God won't have anything to do with you unless you believe he will. I'll take the stuff that works without belief anyday. That's evolution, if you weren't paying attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Kinetic theory are facts because they can be observed in the present using your 5 senses. You've observed the kinetic theory of gases? You've seen atoms in motion exerting pressure on the walls of their containers? You must have some exceptional eyesight. Those things are theories, just like evolution. They don't stop being theories just on your say-so.
Not to get off topic here or anything but science began to flourish in God believing nations. Oh? Did it? Maybe you can tell me what culture it was that invented gunpowder, the printing press, paper money, and noodles. Maybe you can tell me what culture it was that developed medicine light-years ahead of it's peers and basically invented astronomy. On the other hand, maybe you could tell me what culture it was that floundered under a millenium we now refer to as "The Dark Ages."
Every branch of science has either been founded,co-founded, or dramatically advanced by men who belived in Creation & the flood... The Flood was disproved in the 1800's - by people who were creationists. If your own founders were convinced that the flood never happened, what hope have you of convincing anybody else it did?
Practical science gives so much to life..computers,man on moon,modern medicince etc etc You're quite right. Those advancements come from the basic scientific methodology: that natural events have natural causes. That assumption has been the basis of all the marvels you just described. There was, however, a time when another assumption held sway: that things are the way they are because God does it. What do we call that time? The Dark Ages. Maybe you want to look up what that was like - it's not pretty.
I dont want to get into a whole Refuting Evolution thread here but i might do that one day because alot of ppl here arent open to such evidence since most of the world now is very much evolutionized I'm open to whatever evidence you think you have, and I'll make you a bet - I'll stake my belief of evolution on the evidence and your inability to falsify the theory. I'll even tell you what evidence you have to show to prove evolution wrong, ok? But you have to be willing to do the same. What evidence could I show you that would prove creationism wrong? Here's another question: if the book of Genesis didn't exist, would we be having this conversation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To tell you the truth i dont know what kinetic gases is You don't think, maybe, that a position of ignorance is not a great position to be arguing from?
Are you talking about America with all those things? Again, the argument from ignorance. The culture that gave us the printed word and paper money was China. The culture that gave us medicine and astronomy - including the names of the stars we use to this day - was the Muslim world. The culture that wallowed in ignorance and superstition for a thousand years was the Christian Church.
I dont really understand what i should be refuting with your dark ages claim cuz im a bit confused.. The claim is, when you try to push the Bible as a science textbook, what you get is the Dark Ages - a thousand years of superstition, witch-burnings, and death.
Im not going to write a whole essay on it even though one day i might and have in the past. Instead of an essay, why don't you participate in the debate? It's not that I fear any of your arguments - in fact I salivate at the very prospect of addressing them - but the forum we're on has rules about what we can talk about and where, and I'd like to follow those rules. Your points are worth addressing - sort of - but you should separate them into individual threads for each one.
well you just gotta attack my only foundation..The Bible Well, I'm not much of a Bible scholar, but I'll try. We should do it in the Bible threads, though, not here. Just so we're clear, what you're saying is, if I can prove to you that the Bible isn't any less fallible than any other book, you don't have any other support for creationism?
So no genesis no life no earth in my view... Again, just so we're clear, what you're saying is, you're a creationist not because you're convinced by the scientific evidence, but because you believe that the Bible is literally true? I'm not really sure how to respond to that. To me it's obvious that science - of any stripe - is the best way to find out about the world. Especially compared to a 2000-year-old book that turns out to be not much more accurate than anything else. I'm surprised to find someone who would readily admit to placing the words of the Bible over the reality percieved by their own senses. I'm not sure we'll have a lot to talk about, but I'll try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And as for the Chinese and Muslim thing well today there are millions of Chinese and Arab Christians. Irrelevant. There were none at the time these cultures made the advances I mentioned - refuting your point that Christianity has a monopoly on science. Moreover, now that there's all these Chinese and Arab Christians, how many advances in science come from China? Or from the Middle East?
The reason people were confused about the Bible is because Darwinian type men were promoting something else as scientific fact. ? In the dark ages? I think you have your timeline a little mixed up. The dark ages were over 400 years before Darwin's time.
But of course after you give me your evidence i must give why i think the Bible is Gods word..Agreed? Actually, it's the other way around. You have to support the assertion that the Bible is the literal word of God. Then I get to present evidence to the contrary and attempt to contradict your argument. This is because "The Bible is the word of God" is an extraordinay claim, and it takes extraordinay evidence to support.
(Remember the science of one vs the science of the other) Creationism isn't science. When you start with a conclusion and filter the evidence to fit, that's not science. Remember too that evolution was developed by creationists. Remember that flood geology was disproved in the 1800's by creationists. These people came to the conclusions they did because they're better scientists than you and Ken Ham - they accepted the conclusions of the evidence no matter what they were. Ken Ham and his ilk won't accept any evidence that doesn't agree with the Bible - they won't even look at it. That's not doing science. That's closing your eyes to the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well doubts arose and thats why the dark ages were like that.. Oh? Burning jews and witches at the stake as heretics don't sound like the actions of a culture with doubts about its beliefs. It sounds like the actions of a culture so certain they're right, they become fanatics.
What you need to understand is that facts do not speak for themselves..Facts are interpreted.. Indeed. And that's my point: there's two competeing interpretations. One stems from assumptions that have lead to medical science, techological breakthroughs, longer lifespans, less hunger, less crime, and al the benefits of science. The other interpretation - creationism - stems from assumptions that had their time to be dominant: a time of suffering, plague, genocide, and ignorance. Almeyda, why would you want to go back to that? Moreover, if you hate science and it's blessings so much, why are you sitting there using a computer?
When scientist find dinasaur bone still fresh with blood cells still there (Yes its happened) No, it didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You still dont get it.. No, I get it. You're desperate to undercut the scientific footing of evolution - so desperate you'll redefine "science" to your own purposes. Well, over 300 scientists say that you're wrong - that evolution is good science. And that's just the guys named Steve. And that's not counting the hundreds of accredited universities that affirm that evolution is the basis of modern biological science. And that's not counting the philsophers of science who repeatedly affirm that evolution is science. And that's not counting court case after court case where evolution has been upheld as science. In other words, I have an army of scientists, educators, and learned folks - including my wife - telling me that evolution is good science. I'll take their words over some anonymous internet crank any day - especially because they're the folks that do science. What science have you ever done?
We are against Evolution since its not based on facts we can argue and reinterpret the evidence for the Bible the SAME! Ok, let's test your creationist interpretation. As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top. What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern? Remember that your hypothesis must be consistent with all other creationist explanations. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-06-2004 05:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And the evidence we find cannot be so bad because the Bible which has not changed and Evolutionary theories change constantly well the Bible still stands tall. All scientific models change, because science is a constant quest for more accurate models. Contrast this with the Bible, which is demonstratably wrong, and because it never is allowed to change, will always be so. I'd rather be almost right and getting righter, than eternally and unchangingly wrong. But I guess you have a different view - you don't care if what you believe is right or wrong, just that it doesn't change.
Creationists however acknowledge both are science just interpreting the facts to different theories. Creationists reject facts to fit their "theories." They start with a conclusion and filter the evidence. That's just not science. You did some filtering yourself, in regards to the fossil plant question, I see:
(In relation to your last challenge im completely lost ive never studied that but AiG have extensively covered it If you could show me wheare the AiG website covers the evidence from paleobotany (fossil plants) in regards to my question, I'd appreciate it. I've been looking there for a while and haven't been able to find anything. As far as I'm aware it's a situation they refuse to address. Maybe that's why you don't know anything about it - creationists are sweeping it under the carpet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why are so many Evolutionists refusing to give live debates with Creationists?. Why would a research biologist have the skills of showmanship and rhetoric needed for a debate? It's the same reason NASA engineers don't debate the guys that say we never landed on the moon. Creationism is such junk science that it should never, ever be even suggested that it be worthy of being placed on the same level as evolution. Agreeing to a debate would legitimize an entirely illegitimate movement.
Creationists a giving overwhelming evidence (Jus subscribe to Creation magazine). I get it every month. The claims are regularly unsupported nonsense, not to mention glaring errors every month that could have been prevented by an intern using Google. It's a laughable magazine, and it's clear who they write it for - barely literate folks with no training in the sciences.
The only person who was actually there when it happened. God's a person? The problem with your explanation is, God doesn't exist. That's a pretty glaring problem with creationism right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So if you disagree theres no point arguing with me cause i dont have nothing to add. Well, not to start a discussion that you don't want to have, but the article doesn't answer the question. It simply says "there's no plant evolution" without actually explaining the sorting of the fossil plant record. You don't find that maybe a little... dishonest? That AiG just leaves that out? I guess I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You guys act like Evolution is so flawless. Uh, no. We've never said that it was flawless, or acted that way. Once again your projecting your own shortcomings on us. Not everybody's like you, Almeyda.
There theories change constantly. Right, just like gravity, just like physics, just like medicine. All theories in change - because the change is for the better. Evolution changes because each change represents an increase in accuracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the earth could be proved how old it really was then Evolutionists would not change the age of the earth never. It was creationists, though, who first came up with such long esitmates of the Earth's age. Bible-believing creationists. But you know what the difference between them and Ken Ham is? They based their conclusions on the evidence. Ken Ham and his ilk do the opposite. The fact that it was creationists that first rejected literal Biblical timelines rather disproves your argument about "assumptions", doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The reason i stand up for the Bible is because if i cant trust it in whatever it says then why should i trust it at all?. It's called "faith", Almeyda. It's the faith that inaccuracies in the Bible will be no obstacle to God relaying his message to you. There's some kinds of faith that I don't have respect for, and personally, I choose to live without faith. But a faith that's more concerned about taking to heart God's personal message to you rather than splitting hairs about what's literally true in a book never intended to be a science textbook? That's the sort of faith that I envy - that I would seek, if I only believed God existed. Forget what the Bible says about the world. Don't you think you should worry more about what God is trying to say about you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If Evolution was fact i would not believe in God. Why not? Why does evolution preclude God? See, here's your problem. You've set up a false dichotomy - you erroneously believe that evolution and God can't both be true. Since you want to believe in God, you close your mind to evolution. Plenty of people believe in both evolution and God, because they're not contradictory. Why can't you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024