The consequences of "Evolution is false"

Damn, that post made me so sad.Sad for everyone here, including myself.Like this whole thing is dead, and this whole board is dead. Like the evolution versus creation thing is over.I'm prolly just tired though. Edited by prophex, : No reason given.Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Hi DA. Your long list of prestigious folks does not impress me all that much so far as arguing for TOE. All your long list does so far as I can see is to substantiate the prophetic Biblical record of origins which also prophetically states that in the latter days men will be ungodly (secularist/athiest) denying the power of God and apostate from truth, i.e. denying ID and creationism. It also says of latter day mankind that they will be "ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of truth." (quote may not exact but very close without looking it up.)

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

And the point of your "self pity" parade is what, exactly?There's no conspiracy by science to remove creationist work from the definition of science. Why? We have a defintion that works, and guides us to what we should be attempting to find out.Look, this definition of science, which "so rudely and conspiratorily" rules out your brand of "creation science" also rules out astrology and phrenology, among others. Now tell me, do you consider astrology to be science? In order to make "creation science" real science, astrology is admitted.Science is rooted in methodological naturalism, which means it searches for physical, observable, natural causes for things. It also, I should add, does not rule out that God or some other supernatural thing could be behind all this--those things just can't be tested. So anytime the supernatural is relied on as the cause of something, there will be suspicion as to whether it actually is science.Just be glad science isn't based in ontological naturalism, which does explicity remove God from the picture. Then you would defintely have no hope of "creation science" ever actually becoming real science.Now let me ask you this--do you not get to define just what christianity is? Does science attempt this? No. we leave that to you theologists. So why should theologists get to define what science is?And can you just quit your whine parade now? it's not building any sympathy for you except in the choir, and it's going to make life for you much harder on this board--"oh look, there goes Buzsaw, the whiner. he thinks the whole science world is out to get him. lol" (for example)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Well, educate yourself. Stop being ignorant.That doesn't mean "accept evolution without question", but a deep understanding of biology would serve you well, and be interesting to learn to boot.Don't get me wrong; the debate is stacked against you. That's because creationists have the added burden of arguing from a position that is contradicted by the evidence. But a large number of concessions are made to creationists around here to make up for that. In fact creationists around here are treated so well, the only thing it seems like we don't concede to you is the debate entire.But still you want more. Sigh. I hope you do apply yourself to the study of science, if only that you might understand what it really means to have to defend a position against skeptics, like scientists have to do amongst themselves every time they publish. You creationists get off easy. Count your lucky stars that's so.

Hang in there and do the best you can, good bud. Many avid athiests and evolutionista including folks like the late Dr Morris, founder of Institute For Creation Research and Mr Miller who did our creation seminar have been enlightened to renounce the TOE. We must work and pray for our counterpart EvC friends to this end. Deception is powerful but in the end will be overcome with truth.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not self pity, bud. {abe: The point is that) Schraf wants to debate us on TOE. Some of you people want us to come on and made fools of. IYO our arguments are not scientific enough to count as anything but ignorant foolishness so why should any of us have reason to get involved? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

It's quite simple.. The hypotheses put forward by ”creation’ scientists need to conform to established (and accepted) scientific method. To date they have not.If they did manage to table a strong hypothesis which then, through rigorous and sound procedure, delivered strong repeatable empirical experimental evidence that supported the hypothesis then serious scientific papers would consider peer-review. If up-held then the scientific community would sit up ad take note. Is that too much to ask ? I think not.What we see on the other hand is attempts to find events or instances that support a desired conclusion, rhather than doing experiments to try and dis-prove the conclusion. Once even the slightest glimmer of hope is found it’s trumpeted as proof despite the fact that even a cursory investigation usually brings this hope crashing down leaving the assumption standing naked and unsupported.”Creation’ science attempts to re-define the rules because they perceive they can’t ”win’ with the rules as they currently stand.If ”creation’ science wants to be able to include supernatural causes as valid for consideration within the realm of science then they need, within established scientific method, to construct working hypotheses and then run several series of creditable experimentation to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural as a real phenomenon. Once this is done, peer reviewed by major scientific papers then and only then will you find science taking this seriously.As the JREF has some serious money on offer to ANYONE who can demonstratively prove supernatural phenomenon, in a controlled environment, I would have expected that the prize would have already been claimed, had anyone actually been able to do so.

Buzsaw writes: Which truth would that be? Is it Hindu creationism that holds unchanging life and Earth for 691 billion years? Is it Islamic creationism? Is it ID that agrees to an old Earth like I understand Behe states?Or is it the gospel according to Buzsaw?Where does it say in the Bible the enemy of my enemy is my friend?What would you creationists and your strange bedfellows do without evolution to bedevil? Engage in those old fashioned religious wars and witch burnings? How about a nice plague evolution science would not be allowed to marginalize?Sometimes I think some people around here hate science more than they love God.

Well then.Why do the piles of evidence mean nothing to you?

So, these "prestigious folks"?Is it that:(1) You know more about science than they do?(2) They know that you are right, but they are lying about it?

Faith, as an admin, suspended herself, because if you people want to be martyred round here, damn, you've got to do it yourselves.

Yes.I'm sorry that it makes you sad.

Faith suspended herself because she could see where the arguement was going. After her series of postulates the line of arguement was heading were she would have to defend the T. rex as a vegetarian - before the fall that is.

Careful, mate. You came periously close to actually addressing the topic of the thread.So, please tell us, are those scientists in that prestigeous list that you so blithely tossed aside liars or fools? A one word answer will suffice. Unless you happen to think they are both.If you think there's another alternative between liars and fools, I'd love to hear it. Bonus points if you can answer without proselityzing.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

But don't say 'projection.' Oops. Still owe this year's dues to the Pharisee Religionists Society. Check's on the way, gang!.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.