Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 176 of 365 (2984)
01-27-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by TrueCreation
01-27-2002 8:09 PM


We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago. And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says. Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 8:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 10:24 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 365 (3092)
01-29-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by John Paul
01-29-2002 4:30 PM


TC...on my new thread,you implied that i did not understand the world wide flood...what exactly did you mean by this...what did i not understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:30 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 5:38 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 365 (3162)
01-30-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 5:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC...on my new thread,you implied that i did not understand the world wide flood...what exactly did you mean by this...what did i not understand?"
--You didn't understand, I would not accuse you of purposfully missunderstanding, or ignoring, but you seem to be well attached to what you believe in now, and thus rejecting the mechenisms for the flood whether I prove it feasable or not, I have found a few but not many contredictions in your posts towards me also, as It seems I am changing your views on different aspects but then seem to want to ignore it. The mechenisms for the flood are what you don't seem to want to swallow, I would be very happy to further discuss the various implications of the flood.

Well that was a nice tap dance number on your part to avoid answering a simple question...very creationist-like. There have been absolutely no contradiction in my posts reguarding your arguments,most of which i have allready pointed out to be irrevocably flawed. Allow me to point out one exemple among many. The other day,i told you that your Bible was quite clear on the fact that every land dwelling things and every foil(flying creatures) not in the Ark perished. You went on about a one day experiment with leaves,insects and swimming pool and tried to equate that to an aproximation of the biblical flood to show that insects could have riden out the flood and answered every one of my very logical counterpoints with your usual groundless "but things were different back then"...well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis...
007:022 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died.
007:023 And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and THE CREEPING
THINGS, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed
from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the ark.
Cant get any clearer than that...not only were those whose nostril were the breath of life but EVERYTHING that dwelled on land...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 5:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:15 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 365 (3172)
01-30-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 11:15 PM


you're just concentrating on the first paragraphe while completely ignoring the second...those are two different description of what occured...not one and the same. meaning everything with the breath of life AND everything that creeps on the earth AND every foil in the air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:52 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 365 (3349)
02-03-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Cobra_snake
02-03-2002 11:23 AM


I really wonder why it is that creationists only see two sides of this equation...an evolutionist re-examine the FACTS and then becomes a creationist? What facts could these possibly be? Where is there a fact that proves the existance of a creator? Can you show me this creator? Can you provide evidence of its existance? Could you kindly tell him/her/it that i'd very much like to speak with him/her/it? Evolution science has the merit of not clogging itself with abstract and completely baseless concepts,which is why i prefer it to creationism...thats not to say that i buy into the ToE...the fact is i dont know...but i certainly dont base my initial position on ancient books of superstition. i start with i can see/touch/smell/taste/hear and go from there....as do evolutionists...And BTW Cobra,there is nothing that evolutionists "dont want you to know"...i'm growing tired of hearing about this "evolution" conspiracy nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-03-2002 11:23 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 365 (4055)
02-10-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
arguable. you still need it to make any assumptions.

Indeed but scientists make assumptions based on PLAUSIBLE probabilities. They dont assume things in a void and most importantly,they dont use small amounts of data that seem to agree with their vision of things and then immediatly jump to conclusions without having first put their assumptions through grueling tests to see if it can stand on available data. And while "creation scientists" may not be quite as bad as evengelical creationists like that coot Hovind,they still are often guilty of getting ahead of themselves more often than not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:32 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 365 (4064)
02-10-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think its time to turn on the leaders and make sure theyre doing what they should be.

Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:55 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:13 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 299 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 11:30 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 365 (4079)
02-11-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools."
--Take a good reading of the questions God asks Job in the Book of Job. I'm sure you will find in every one how it illistrates its scientific accuracy. I don't think anyone beamed up Job to the 21st century to teach him any science. But really, I don't think that they are using the bible to prove science, they are using science to prove the bible (or atleast give evidence thereof).

Would you care to tell me what exactly i'm supposed to find impressive about the incessant questions God put to Job. There is absolutely nothing in those question that requires a scientific mind. They merely describe things that can be observed by just about anyone. They are cosmetic description of animals and events,not scientific explanations. And as a side note,i spoke with a friend earlier and she pointed out something about the behemot and the leviatan described in the book of Job. It appeared to her that God was describing an elephant(behemot) and a whale(leviathan) and NOT dinosaures as is often implied by creationists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 11:30 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 6:25 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 365 (4235)
02-12-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 6:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Would you care to tell me what exactly i'm supposed to find impressive about the incessant questions God put to Job. There is absolutely nothing in those question that requires a scientific mind. They merely describe things that can be observed by just about anyone. They are cosmetic description of animals and events,not scientific explanations."
--Lets take a look at some of them shall we?
LUD:indeed...lets...
"Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb"
--Topographical plate tectonic shifting.
LUD: Wrong...obvious reference to the flood myth about the "fountains of the deep" bursting forth and then being closed down by God.
"when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness"
--Effects of the Flood, Emense clouds of vapor.
LUD:wrong...visual describtion of the clouds,observable by any science illiterate.
"when I said, `This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?"
--Topographical shifting.
LUD:Wrong...obvious reference to the myth of creation where God supposadly "separate the water with land".
"Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?"
--Springs of the sea, self explanitory (I should surely hope). Recesses of the deep could be the less volcanic activity after the Flood.
LUD:Wrong...again,obvious reference to the so called "fountains of the deep" and recesses means the farthest depth,not anything about volcanic activity.
"What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?"
--The place where lightning is dispersed surelly would not be known back then by Job, as we know where it resides today. East winds take some meteorology.
LUD:Wrong...meteorology is the science of carefull observation of weather paterns...not technology required and fully within the bounds of earlier cultures...the sumerians and the mayans had impressive weather predicting capabilities...there's even a mayan barometer in the metropolitan museum in NYC.
"From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?"
--Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
LUD:well you YEC's are the ones saying that there wasen't any ice or snow before the flood. Scientists of archeological and anthropological fields have always maintained that humanity had to contend with snow and ice for a LONG time....much longuer than 4500 years.
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?"
--All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.
LUD:As i explained to you,Sumerians had very advanced stellar observation techniques,since much of their mythology revolved around them. If the hebrew mythos did indeed come from them,then it would readily explain this quote without the need for divine intervention.
I found some good other ones here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html
"And as a side note,i spoke with a friend earlier and she pointed out something about the behemot and the leviatan described in the book of Job. It appeared to her that God was describing an elephant(behemot) and a whale(leviathan) and NOT dinosaures as is often implied by creationists"
--Goodness, hehe, I always get a kick out of this argument, it always reminds me of this classic picture:
LUD:The only description given of the tail is that it moves about. Furthermore,Mamoth and mastodonts had much larger tails than contemporary elephants and scientists believe that they became extinct about 4000 yars ago at most so...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 6:25 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 365 (4248)
02-12-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Christian1
02-12-2002 1:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Christian1:
Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.
If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect.
Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius.

LOL...Crazy Kent Hovind is actually reknown for being a major pain in the butt of most creationists worldwide because of his intolerant view of well just about anyone who doesn't agree with him. He's convinced that evolution scientists and paeontologists are actually servants of lucifer and that communism and nazism are all extensions of evolutionary thinking. I have debated many creationists over the last few months and met some who are actually approaching the question of evolution Vs creation from a purely scientific perspective...their science is often very flawed but at least they are making the effort. Hovind proceed by FIRST admiting that he was convinced of the inerant nature of the Bible BEFORE giving any reflection on the question and THEN accumulates evidence which MAY be interpreted as supporting HIS view of things while completely ignoring evidence which would cast some doubts on it. I watched his online seminar,all 14 hours of it TWICE...once to be informed on what evangelical creationists like him propose and the second time purely for its comedy value...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Christian1, posted 02-12-2002 1:22 PM Christian1 has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 365 (6541)
03-11-2002 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
evolution cannot be an explanation for life as we know it if it does not have any where to start, it can however still occur. so you cant as of now hold up evolution as proof against God. Which probably means that evolution and creationism cannot be effectively debated until your willing to give it a beginning and maybe even an end.

KP,i have never seen ANYONE who in their right mind has used evolution as a proof against God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:58 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:52 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 351 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:53 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 365 (6864)
03-14-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by KingPenguin
03-11-2002 10:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
lets discuss the beginning then.

How could anyone discuss "the begining" as anything other than vague theories...we dont possess any evidence to illustrate what "the begining" was actually like (and no,scriptural quotation from your chosen book of myths is not evidence)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:50 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 362 of 365 (6865)
03-14-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by KingPenguin
03-11-2002 10:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
lets discuss the beginning then.

How could anyone discuss "the begining" as anything other than vague theories...we dont possess any evidence to illustrate what "the begining" was actually like (and no,scriptural quotation from your chosen book of myths is not evidence)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:50 PM KingPenguin 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