Even Younger Earth Creationism

PD writes: Please refrain from using inflammatory language. Argue the position, not the person.

I try not to, but I guess I'll have to try harder not to do such things.

PD writes: If you continue this type of language, you will suffer a short suspension.

I apologize and I thank you for being so kind as to give me a warning PD. :)

Quetzal writes: I can't figure out how you knew he had a pet dog, and since I'm a "science jock", and my avatar has a picture of my pet dog

Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?". :laugh:
What kind of breed is that?

Quetzal writes: is there a different kind of scientist other than "natural"? Are there scientists of your knowledge or acquaintance that study something other than nature?

sure there are different kinds of scientist. other than natural? sure. take a look at this link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Quetzal writes: What is the difference between "evolutionist" and "scientist" (natural or otherwise)?

I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.

sincerely yours, Amen.

Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?". What kind of breed is that?

Heh. Probably not necesary - it was just an odd coincedence. I figured (based on the posts) that you weren't referring to me particularly.

According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend. :D

sure there are different kinds of scientist. other than natural? sure. take a look at this link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html AND I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.

I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).

Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled" :D .

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Quetzal writes: According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend.

I have a few champions myself[about 4 out of 7]. :laugh:

Quetzal writes: Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast. I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god). Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled".

so, do you want me to reply to this or what? :confused:

sincerely yours, Amen.

What is that, a screen grab?

Yep. You can use <control><PrtScrn> to capture the whole screen and <alt><PrtScrn> to capture the active window.

Then paste into a slide program where you can modify it if necessary and then export the slide as an image or into paint and use save-as.

<PrtScrn> (Print Screen) is left over from the dos world (pre eukaryotes) and it would cause the text (of course, you think computers need pictures?) on the screen to print.

(end OT discussion)

Edited by RAZD, : ...

(Print Screen) is left over from the dos world (pre eukaryotes) and it would cause the text (of course, you think computers need pictures?) on the screen to print.

print screen (in windows) copies the screen to clipboard as an image.

so, do you want me to reply to this or what?

Nah, we better not. We'll get purpled for sure. We can pick it up on some other thread.

Best.

alright, I gotta goto bed. night Quetzal.

sincerely yours, Amen.

Creationists believe that the universe was created thousands and thousands of years ago by a dog....SNIP

Lets just accept this at face value.

The idea of the universe made by a dog is so ridiculous that it is incredible that anyone would believe it. How could a dog make a universe with its little bitty paws?

Not to mention a lack of intelligence also....but, according to evolutionary theory, a mindless uintelligent process (natural selection) made all life on Earth.

At least the dog has a mind and therefore some "intelligence" so given enough time and a long enough life span it is infinetly more plausible than the evolutionary proposal.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Lets just accept this at face value.

So you support the dog hypothesis?

You're barking.

At least the dog has a mind and therefore some "intelligence" so given enough time and a long enough life span it is infinetly more plausible than the evolutionary proposal.

Perhaps you should try explaining that to a biologist, they enjoy a good laugh.

However that may be, the dog hypothesis is markedly less plausible than the view that I'm advocating in this thread, i.e. the matchless truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who made the world with his Noodly Appendage last Thursday.

However, the purpose of this thread is not to preach the truth of the FSM, nor to address your belief that the world was made by a dog, but to refute your delusion that the world existed for these fictitious "thousands and thousands of years" before last Thursday.

Please stay on topic. If you have any evidence for these "thousands and thousands of years", please share it with us.

Were you there?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you have any evidence for these "thousands and thousands of years", please share it with us.

Adequate: I am an OEC.

Ray

* Nylonase

There are bacteria that can digest nylon-6. Now, creationists admit that there are no beneficial mutations, and according to creationist chronology, nylon was invented in 1935. By their own admission, therefore, creation cannot have taken place earlier than 1935. And yet they cling blindly to their dogma of "thousands and thousands of years".

It's curious that evos would cite bacteria evolution as evidence for their theories since the form is remarkably stable. As of today, we've never seen bacteria evolve into anything else.

Are you sure about this? The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequency. With the widespread of introduction of anti-biotics and how bacterial populations everywhere have reacted to them, I'd say that bacteria is a perfect demonstration of evolution.

Are you sure about this? The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequency. With the widespread of introduction of anti-biotics and how bacterial populations everywhere have reacted to them, I'd say that bacteria is a perfect demonstration of evolution.

Randman is sure that his definition of evolution has never been observed. Note how he lumps all of "bacteria" into a single "form."

Rand(straw?)man is yet another of the misguided Creationists who, despite everyone's best efforts to educate him, has never been able to understand that the Theory of Evolution does not and never has suggested that a microbe should give birth to a chihuahua, or that a snake should lay an egg that hatches a chicken.

Randman will say that "we have never seen a bacteria produce anything as offspring other than more bacteria," completely missing the point when it comes to actual changes in allele frequency in populations. Until e coli morphs into a hamster or we actually observe a change on a level higher than the species level ("kind" seems to be something similar to "family," I think), he'll dismiss any speciation or other observed confirmation of the predictions of evolution as "adaptation within kinds."

By that definition, creationists are evolutionists.