Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Reasons for Creationist Persistence
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 220 (393701)
04-06-2007 1:34 PM


I really don't see the reason that the Creos keep arguing creationism as science. Every so often they come up with some different piece of "evidence" to support their position. The evidence ALWAYS has some sort of flaw, and ultimately is shown to be fake, misinterpreted, etc.
So, what really keeps those Creos ticking? How can you present point after point after point and have it rejected, and still keep trying? Do they actually think that one day we might be swayed? That sometime they will find a dino-human print combo and we'll see the Light? They must surely be dilusional to think such stuff. Perhaps they could tell us their motives here?
It's like having your credit card rejected after swiping it for the 86th time and handing it back to the clerk to have them try it again!
When will they learn!?
Jon
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Title changed from "We're Not Going to Budge: Evos UNITE!." to "Reasons for Creationist Persistence"

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2007 1:54 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 3 by nyenye, posted 04-06-2007 2:13 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2007 2:19 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 04-06-2007 3:39 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2007 4:33 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 7 by Parasomnium, posted 04-06-2007 4:42 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 04-09-2007 10:14 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 17 by DorfMan, posted 04-09-2007 2:22 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 29 by obvious Child, posted 04-09-2007 7:03 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-16-2007 3:17 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 220 (394652)
04-12-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by mjfloresta
04-12-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Adventist Church - Geoscience Research Institute
Are you saying that Christianity is only compatible with YEC? A constant mantra of many here is that Christianity does not conflict with evolution nor does it mandate creationism.
This all depends on whose version of Christianity you are talking about. There is Christianity from the degree of simply accepting Jesus Christ as the Son and Embodiment of God, all the way to believing every word of the Bible is a literal account of world history.
Which one do you mean?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mjfloresta, posted 04-12-2007 4:04 PM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by mjfloresta, posted 04-12-2007 4:59 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 220 (395190)
04-15-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by dwise1
04-13-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Creo Scientists
...and are doing serious scientific research attempting to support their beliefs.[emphasis added]
See, the problem is that those two emphasized things up there don't go together. Serious scientific research is not done to support someone's beliefs. That's what's known as crap science, junk science, or even lies.
The thing with "creation science" is that it operates by different rules than science does and measures success entirely differently.
Precisely why it isn't science! It measures success based on whether or not your results, when highly skewed, could be taken by a very biased mind to support some form of creation by some Being intelligent enough to be God.
Basically, "creation science" measures success by how convincing a claim sounds, not on whether it's the least bit true.
Err... that's even worse!
Well, I could go on, but it seems you hit the nail on the head
Thanks, d,
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2007 9:01 PM dwise1 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