Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 365 (2768)
01-25-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
01-22-2002 1:07 PM


"Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories."
--The ToE does not have the evidence that a Heliocentric Solar system has, as we cannot observe 'E'volution. All we see is bacteria today and bacteria tomorrow, cats today, and cats tomorrow, they seem to be gaining nothing, if my assertion is wrong, I would be most interested in seeing it as so.
"Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization."
--I sertainly don't, as many scientist out there are 'seakers of truth' and arent just evolutionists ready to make creationists look bad whenever they can. But this does not mean bias is out there, in some it is very negative, some think that creationism has already been refuted so, interen, evolution is the right-of-way. I would not use the word 'belief' as many scientists may not believe in evolution and some may even be creatinists, but they work in that area and they would like to keep their Jobs. I would not assert your friends and your husband as being bias against anything creationists have to say or provide, I would simply say that it is out there.
"You seem to have a very strange view of how science is done. Science is very, very contentious. Careers are often made when old theories held to be very important and solid are refined and changed. Like Einstein did with Newton.
Presenting your work to your peers is a harrowing experience if you don't have your act together, as there are competing ideas all the time, and those holding these other viewpoints will grill you on yours. (it's harrowing even if you know your stuff, actually) Consensus is reached over time, with repeated observations. Eventually, we get nearer and nearer to reality."
--This is not my view at all of how science is done, as I have emphesized in my posts that this is not the weakness of science, but the strenght through refining, and subjecting theories to various tests to claim feasability or factual agreement.
"Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST."
--I would agree it would not make Creationism correct in the slightest, I never proposed this to be the case. But take for instance, the age of the earth has been reduced to 50,000 years maximum, Evolution if not completely abandoned would have to be absolutely and utterly refined to even be a guess. I think most people would agree that if everything is only 50,000 years old, there would have to have been a creation, thus a creator. This does not say anything to the Creationist accept that their theory is stronger in say the dating methods and other various aspects of science.
"Positive evidence is nowhere to be found for Creationism. Creationism is not testable, as it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable."
--Where do you come by in this claim? Whats an example, as no one has been able to show me why creationism 'is not testable, and it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.' The question of the theories creation science has to explain phenomena we see today I am continueing a discussion in the 'positive evidence of creationism' forum, present your case there and present specific arguments.
"I have said this many times without ANY comment from Creationists."
--Without any comment? I have numerously commented on these, and whether you would disagree or not, let us continue in this question in the ''positive evidence of creationism' as I believe you would be most fundementally interested in participating.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 1:07 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 1:32 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 365 (2769)
01-25-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
01-22-2002 1:29 PM


"There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good."
--There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work, as it speeks for itself when adiquatelly refuted, showing bias against lowers you to a lower level. If I created an extreamly popular creation magazine and refused to higher you as an evolutionist, would you not say I am being biased?
"Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals."
--Yes I am aware of that, and I would even be honored myself to be published in say CRS or ICR's peer reviewed technical literature, though I would be weary from my experience, though it is much, it seems unadiquate as I discover new things every day.
"ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!! I am truly laughing so hard that I have tears in my eyes here!! LOLOLOLOL!!
--Um....ok dont' hurt yourself there now uh..buddy.
"Most university Biologists do not make very much money, dear. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars for most of them. You don't even get into six figures unless you are ver important in the field. Sure, there are people like Gould who make more, but they are rare, and I would say that he makes most of his money through popular press books, not from Harvard.
Every graduate student must struggle with the choice between going into industry, where they won't be able to research what they want to but will make more money, and in staying on the university track, where he will have more intellectual freedom, but will not make much money.
The reason, at the end of the day, that Biology and science is supported over Creationism is because of science's enormous predictive power. Cerationism has no predictive power, because it makes no predictions which haven't been falsified."
--My same response would be the same as my response to lbhandli in my post #136. This assertion is causeing far too much pointless trouble.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 1:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 1:58 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 365 (2770)
01-25-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
01-22-2002 1:46 PM


"Here is a list of 29 evidences for "mcro" evolution, complete with potential falsifications:"
--It would be great to discuss this link, but I must emphesize, that It would be exhasperating for me to comment on anything in there, select one of their 'evidences' and we can discuss it's validity.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 1:46 PM nator has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 365 (2790)
01-25-2002 11:44 PM


That is exactly my point, all you evolutionists out there. All to often you lead me to tremendously huge links and expect me to research it all and then refute everything the link has to say. It would be much more convienient if you would post your own thought's and arguments on the issue.
By the way, here are all relevant links to the 29 evidences.
Original document:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Rebuttal from trueorigins:
http://trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp
Response to the rebuttal:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 365 (2793)
01-26-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Cobra_snake
01-25-2002 7:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"
Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.
By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

ROTFLMAO!!!
I love you, cobrasnake!
First, you say in a authoritative, definitive manner:
quote:
However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree.
And THEN, just several lines later, you ask:
quote:
By the way; what does falsified mean?
You have given me a REALLy good laugh tonight, thank you!
(mopping the tears up)
P.S. Here is a very good essay on what science is and how it is done. It deals well with falsification:
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-25-2002 7:17 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-26-2002 2:58 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 365 (2797)
01-26-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 5:21 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories."
--The ToE does not have the evidence that a Heliocentric Solar system has, as we cannot observe 'E'volution. All we see is bacteria today and bacteria tomorrow, cats today, and cats tomorrow, they seem to be gaining nothing, if my assertion is wrong, I would be most interested in seeing it as so.[/QUOTE]
OK, I am starting to become annoyed.
We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence. (goatsbeard)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Now, address these SPECIFIC evidences or STOP saying that we do not observe evolution.
WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence.
quote:
"Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization."
--I sertainly don't, as many scientist out there are 'seakers of truth' and arent just evolutionists ready to make creationists look bad whenever they can.
Um, I hate to break it to you, TC, but most Biologists pay little attention to Creationists. Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes.
quote:
But this does not mean bias is out there, in some it is very negative, some think that creationism has already been refuted so,
Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago.
quote:
interen, evolution is the right-of-way. I would not use the word 'belief' as many scientists may not believe in evolution and some may even be creatinists, but they work in that area and they would like to keep their Jobs. I would not assert your friends and your husband as being bias against anything creationists have to say or provide, I would simply say that it is out there.
Now, wait a minute. You first said that scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs. Now you are saying that some scientists are forced to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs.
Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence.
It has been explained to you several times that bias in favor of the evidence is something that is developed in scientists, yet you continue to misuse the word. Please stop doing so.
quote:
"Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST."
--I would agree it would not make Creationism correct in the slightest, I never proposed this to be the case. But take for instance, the age of the earth has been reduced to 50,000 years maximum, Evolution if not completely abandoned would have to be absolutely and utterly refined to even be a guess. I think most people would agree that if everything is only 50,000 years old, there would have to have been a creation, thus a creator.
Nope, it doesn't say that at all.
What you propose is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion.
ID does not explain anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 5:21 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:23 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 365 (2799)
01-26-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 5:28 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good."
--There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work, as it speeks for itself when adiquatelly refuted, showing bias against lowers you to a lower level. If I created an extreamly popular creation magazine and refused to higher you as an evolutionist, would you not say I am being biased?[/QUOTE]
You still don't understand what peer review is all about.
Peer review is part of the refutation process.
There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once.
You know all of those references that you see in the middle of scientific papers that look something like /Futyama, 1999/? They, reference the past, peer-reviewed work of this person as support of the current work.
In this way, past work is used to support the work, or also past work is used to show how your own work could be wrong. In addition, past work pointed out to be wrong, according to your new evidence. all of this happens over many papers and much work from many people.
Even the best papers by the most gifted scholars are generally returned from the review committee at least once for revisions.
Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense.
Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?
quote:
"Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals."
--Yes I am aware of that, and I would even be honored myself to be published in say CRS or ICR's peer reviewed technical literature, though I would be weary from my experience, though it is much, it seems unadiquate as I discover new things every day.
They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 5:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:29 AM nator has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 365 (2802)
01-26-2002 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nator
01-26-2002 1:32 AM


"OK, I am starting to become annoyed."
-- G-Whiz, likewize.
"We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence. (goatsbeard)"
--I have already explained that this is exactly what we see, speciation! My word for speciation being variation. This is what we do see, and THIS is the Fact of evolution, this is the only implication that we can 'directly' observe and thus claim it as Fact. We do not see bacteria becomeing, anything but bacteria, we do not see dogs becomeing non-dogs, or cats producing non-cats, this is what we cannot observe, and is why a Heliocentric solar system is more suportive by 'observation'.
"Now, address these SPECIFIC evidences or STOP saying that we do not observe evolution."
--I have tried and tried again, seemingly unable to emphesize further, we do observe 'e'volution, but it is 'e'volution, ie speciation/variation. We need to observe 'E'volution for it to be more accurate than say the Heliocentric solar system.
"WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence."
--Now what is that evidence Schrafinator?
"Um, I hate to break it to you, TC, but most Biologists pay little attention to Creationists."
--Isn't that what I told you? That it is not abundant, but that it is out there and it makes relevance.
"Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes."
--By what means? This would be an often portrayed assertion that is in great need of back-up, what is it creationist do 'a fine job of making themselves look bad'?
"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
--You mean back in the day when they would claim as evidence for evolution that there were hundreds of vastiges in your body? I highly speculate doubt on this assertion, and is once again in need of backing up evidence. I hold out well in these discussions of the aspects of science even as a slightly in-experienced debating/discussing creationist, especially in this forum.
"Now, wait a minute. You first said that scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs. Now you are saying that some scientists are forced to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs."
--I first did not say that 'scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs', scientists teach/educate/research evolutionary topics so they can keep their jobs. And I did not say that some scientists are 'forced' to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs, they want to do that so they can keep their jobs.
"Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence."
--Then they don't know the chain that Creationism and positive evidence have. And you have been unable to show me that this is true.
"It has been explained to you several times that bias in favor of the evidence is something that is developed in scientists, yet you continue to misuse the word. Please stop doing so."
--How am I misusing the word? Bias should not be involved in the way scientists portray their ideas, evidence, and conclusions.
"Nope, it doesn't say that at all.
What you propose is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion."
--Would you propose a feasable theory that evolution would be able to cooperate with 50,000 years from nothing to explain today's phenomena? Just the basic main Idea is what I would need.
"ID does not explain anything."
--For one, I think you missunderstand the argument of ID, and also, I don't think I made reference to the ID argument.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 1:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 01-28-2002 11:34 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 365 (2803)
01-26-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
01-26-2002 1:58 AM


"You still don't understand what peer review is all about.
Peer review is part of the refutation process. "
--I didn't make relevance toward peer reviewed literature?
"There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once."
--Science magazine refuses to higher Creationists, this is simmilar to the question I am asking you.
"You know all of those references that you see in the middle of scientific papers that look something like /Futyama, 1999/? They, reference the past, peer-reviewed work of this person as support of the current work.
In this way, past work is used to support the work, or also past work is used to show how your own work could be wrong. In addition, past work pointed out to be wrong, according to your new evidence. all of this happens over many papers and much work from many people.
Even the best papers by the most gifted scholars are generally returned from the review committee at least once for revisions.
Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense."
--Ok, what makes this relevant to this discussion?
"Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?"
--Ofcourse not.
"They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review."
--So your one of the peer reviewers? You would have to be or know one of them to have this claim be true.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 1:58 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 01-28-2002 11:56 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 365 (2815)
01-26-2002 11:54 AM


IMHO,creationism cannot exist in a religious vacuum...meaning that no one would come to the conclusion that the many geological and biological aspects of the world are the result of an all powerfull God if they had not been taught to believe this before hand. the main difference between Science and religion,which can be recognized in the creation vs evolution debate is that Science does not bother with the why...merely with the how,whereas creationist RELIGION starts off with the why(i.e. God created the earth for us because he loves us or want us to glorify him or whatever) and then go from there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 12:46 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 365 (2820)
01-26-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by LudvanB
01-26-2002 11:54 AM


"IMHO,creationism cannot exist in a religious vacuum...meaning that no one would come to the conclusion that the many geological and biological aspects of the world are the result of an all powerfull God if they had not been taught to believe this before hand. the main difference between Science and religion,which can be recognized in the creation vs evolution debate is that Science does not bother with the why...merely with the how,whereas creationist RELIGION starts off with the why(i.e. God created the earth for us because he loves us or want us to glorify him or whatever) and then go from there."
--You are associating a question irrelevant to the conversation on 'creation science' not creationism, as creationism is a higher hierarchy of creationist material, as being a creationist this includes your faith and the science and makes contrast. As creation science is purely science, thus in creation science it does nto start off with a why, but a what/when/how.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by LudvanB, posted 01-26-2002 11:54 AM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by LudvanB, posted 01-26-2002 1:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 365 (2821)
01-26-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--You are associating a question irrelevant to the conversation on 'creation science' not creationism, as creationism is a higher hierarchy of creationist material, as being a creationist this includes your faith and the science and makes contrast. As creation science is purely science, thus in creation science it does nto start off with a why, but a what/when/how.

But the point is that creation "science" cannot exist by itself. Someone who was not taught about christian beliefs or other religious beliefs would not be a creationist. That someone would would not look at the strata say and conclude "oh this is the result of divine intervention". And while it is true that they would not necessarely conclude it was the result of evolution either,they would likely come to that conclusion after studying other geological phenomenon. No amount of observing the world by someone ignorant of all religious beliefs would lead that someone to conclude to divine influence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 12:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 3:09 PM LudvanB has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 365 (2862)
01-26-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
01-26-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
You have given me a REALLy good laugh tonight, thank you!

You're right, I did contradict myself. But I have a pretty good idea of what a falsification is, I was only wondering whether or not falsification meant that it was falsified WITHOUT A DOUBT. However, I do feel stupid for saying that.
"We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence."
We have observed evolutionary IDEAS that are consistent with Creation framework (speciation). I don't understand how observing things that are consistent with both theories is a problem for Creation.
"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion.
"If you want to champion ID go to the stonehenge thread and answer the question that John Paul wouldn`t/couldn`t.... How do you differentiate between a natural system and a designed one...."
Are you going to argue that Mount Rushmore was created by natural processes? I hope not. For similar reasons, I think it is unlikely that life (infinitely more complex than Mount Rushmore) can form without intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 12:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 12:14 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 365 (2865)
01-26-2002 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by LudvanB
01-26-2002 1:05 PM


"But the point is that creation "science" cannot exist by itself."
--But it does, and this baseless assertion gives no releveance untill someone can prove it right, which no one has done.
"Someone who was not taught about christian beliefs or other religious beliefs would not be a creationist. That someone would would not look at the strata say and conclude "oh this is the result of divine intervention"."
--The Flood of Noah does not at all have to be a result of divine intervention, or a spiritual being, ie God.
"And while it is true that they would not necessarely conclude it was the result of evolution either,they would likely come to that conclusion after studying other geological phenomenon. No amount of observing the world by someone ignorant of all religious beliefs would lead that someone to conclude to divine influence."
--Again, it does not have to be the result of divine influences, as I argue differntialy, and as long as you are directing this toward myself, it is baseless.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by LudvanB, posted 01-26-2002 1:05 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by LudvanB, posted 01-26-2002 3:17 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 183 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 12:19 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 365 (2866)
01-26-2002 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 3:09 PM


So then you believe that if indeed there was a flood 4450 years ago,it could have been a completely natural phenomenon that happened say like an earth quake happens? You believe that it is possible that the alledged Flood was not a punishement send by God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 3:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 3:20 PM LudvanB has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024