|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Christian says evolution is religion, and he is quoted saying so in the very message you replied to:
Perhaps you and Christian should talk. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature."
--I think a more accurate depiction would be that they both require a faith to a degree as a whole. Evolution for instance, it would be more accurate to say that it requires a faith in interperetation, or a belief, as is contrary to it being the faith or the belief. Religious I don't know if it would apply to Evolution, and I would speculate on Creationism, though my standpoint on this is that Creationism in contrast with involved faith and belif, involves but isn't the religion. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, TC, christian1 did, in message #310: "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." He says that Evolution is a religion, and implies that it shouldn't even be called science at all. Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff."
--It seems as if my argument is with both. --Toff said Evolution is Fact (or at least scientific) and that creationism is religion.--Christian 1 states that Creation is a religion, and likewize evolution. --TrueCreation states that their both wrong! I think it comes down to definition. -------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
*Bump*
I don't want Cobra to forget about my and Mark's last posts. Giving him another chance to respond...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase. He's the stereotypical creationist. TrueCreation makes at least an effort to stay within the laws of science. Other creationists do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase."
--*Christian*1 is not a 'nutcase', there arent any nutcases in these forums, I almost feel odd including urself in that definition "He's the stereotypical creationist. TrueCreation makes at least an effort to stay within the laws of creatscience. Other ionists do not."--I know other creationists that argue the same position as I, and they are correct, everyone, some more than others, possibly like yourself and christian1 ((oops) all have experience to catch up with). ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
I do not believe that Creation1 is on the right track. I used to be a christian, by the way. anyway, Creation1 refuses to accept anything of science. "A little" closed minded". Creation1 said that he/she would not even debate, and that if we read the bible there WOULDN'T be debate. Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally.
Creation1 insisted that he/she was right, but then refused to support her claim. Clearly he/she is simply operating on a platform of faith and denial. i myself am not closed-minded. As i said, I was a christian, but now I'm not. If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen. But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution. Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx. This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created. At least science isn't making up things. Meanwhile, you have called me unintelligent and close-minded, and accused me of violating copyright laws, which most certainly did not. This really isn't impressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Quicksink!
Congratulations on a relatively smooth transition into the spirit of this board, but there's still an occasional bit of roughness around the edges:
I know what you're trying to say, but this is pushing up against the limits of rule 2. I try to encourage people here to avoid bald characterizations like this, to be more deliberative, and to support their positions with discussion and evidence. In this particular case you could characterize what you feel are the irrational aspects of Christian's position. I think you've done this already, and so it would be fine just to refer to another message. I know that saying something like, "His positions are in conflict with themselves and reality" and then describing how you reached this conclusion doesn't have the same panache as a simple "He's a nutcase," but the more circumspect approach prevents these debates from sinking into anarchy, and the ensuing discussion often helps to bring out nuances in the other's position of which you might have been unaware. Or, incredibly, you might actually persuade someone to accept your point of view. On a volatile and polarized subject like this it's rare, but it happens. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
sorry about that, i git a little carried away. Ill try to hold my tongue a little bit, and express my thoughts a little less bluntly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I do not believe that Creation1 is on the right track."
--Like I said, its about experience and knowledge, even yourself has some catching up to do. "I used to be a christian, by the way."--Thats unfortunate, what made you turn, and what would make you turn back? "anyway, Creation1 refuses to accept anything of science. "A little" closed minded". Creation1 said that he/she would not even debate, and that if we read the bible there WOULDN'T be debate."--I don't think he refuses, I would have to say that if this were the case it would be from a lack of knowledge in the area to the degree of the argument, through experience anyone can find conclusions. "Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally."--Yes, and you have a Creationist in here that has read it and doesn't take it 'literally' either , myself! "Creation1 insisted that he/she was right, but then refused to support her claim. Clearly he/she is simply operating on a platform of faith and denial."--Who really knows what it is, I would urge him to stay in the debate, but to be more open-minded, but at the same time avoid discouragement from a missunderstandment, this used to allways get to me, untill I realized I simply don't know it enough! "i myself am not closed-minded. As i said, I was a christian, but now I'm not."--See above "If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen."--I've never encountered a fallacy, care to show me one, as I have been waiting for one for years. "But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution."--Ehem...Your new so I'll let you get in-touch with the model: quote: quote: --So what is it we twist to support creation that is suppost to support evolution? "Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx."--Hey that wasn't mine, Im not a PhD, that was from one of the dating methods they use to date structures like that, haven't you ever heard of Uniformitariansism? "This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created."--I have yet to find any, care to list some? "At least science isn't making up things."--Yeah, if it was, we would be in the hole. "Meanwhile, you have called me unintelligent and close-minded, and accused me of violating copyright laws, which most certainly did not. This really isn't impressive."--I didn't call you unintelligent, I didn't say you were close-minded either (though by remenince of your posts it sure is pronounced), I believe Percipient was the one that violated copyright laws in the forum, which you did. I said that you were in an intelligent debate, as this is, to tell you the truth, where the most intelligence you will find in an online debate forum. By your technique of debate you superimposed when you entered the forums you were not off to the cleanest start. I'm glad things seem to be settling down. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: I would love to list some. For example, I heard one creationist say there were seeds on the Ark, and they were replanted to bring back vegetation. I have to go, so i cannot list more. I will soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I would love to list some. For example, I heard one creationist say there were seeds on the Ark, and they were replanted to bring back vegetation."
--I quote myself from the other forum you posted this: quote: "I have to go, so i cannot list more."--Please do later, and take your time. "I will soon."--Thanx, please limit it to an argument of about 5-7, if it is much more than that it is a bit discouraging. Also when you use other resources as a copy/paste, use the quote UBB tag for them and then make your comment, it is easier organized in this way. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: From your posts I would guess you are a Young Earther ... where doesthat belief come from if NOT a literal interpretation of the bible ? Why would you reject the concept of evolution unless you takethe Bible to contain the literal truth. It is possible to interpret Genesis I as an abridged versionof the same tale Evolution tells. The order of the creation of the universe and of the emergence of animals is broadly speaking right. The only reason for arguing against evolution is to adhere toa literal interpretation of the bible. Or is there some other reason ? quote: Define fallacy. There are few historical events which can be corroborated (seeHistorical corroboration thread for the few that sort of fit ... discuss it there please). One fallacy, from my world view, would be that the Earth is onlyaround 6000 years old. (Another thread too). quote: Huge and bizarre creation of a white hole thingy to satisfy youngearth-old universe radiometric dating is clearly wrong because it contradicts a literalinterpratation of the bible. The fossil record MUST have been laid down by the flood!! You can trace fossil horses through an obvious progression, butit MUST be illusory becaused there are no forms in between any two of the sequence!! Likewise ear oscicles. Rocks couldn't possibly bend like that!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024