Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 5 of 336 (500835)
03-02-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
I have requested evidence from Kelly, to back up his assertions and comments, a few times already today.
Here
Here
And here
Still waiting for a shred of evidence. I don't think any will be forthcoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 4:59 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 20 of 336 (500965)
03-03-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Kelly
03-03-2009 2:58 PM


Re: That sounds great Lithodid-man..it is at least a start.
with people who actually disregard Creation Science based on the false belief that Creation Science is religion in disguise. I mean, I am the one who is ROTFLMAO! That notion is absolutely ignorant.
Ok then. If creations science isn't religious, what is the creator. A creator implies a supernatural being. This creator must have created nature, therefore said creator must be supernatural.
Belief in the supernatural means a some sort of religious belief.
Are you implying that someone could believe in creation science but not a creator. What is the logic in that?
Don't tell me to read a book. Make this make sense.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 2:58 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 4:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 336 (500983)
03-03-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Kelly
03-03-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Again, creation science is not a study of origins per sey
Nice try to baffle with BS, but your own comments prove my point
and points to a creator.
Belief in a creator = religion
They can not be separated.
Again, creation science is not a study of origins per sey
Is english your first language? Because I don't think words mean what you think they mean.
Inconceivable
Creation is origin
1.the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
Source
Be prepared to give an answer for the hope you have. The evidence for creation covers the subjects of science, truth, nature, the Bible, and God as Creator. This evidence serves to strengthen our faith in the Bible, answers the questions of the skeptic and removes lingering doubts in the Christian.
Creationists themselves say it is religious.
Source
From Conservapedia Not known as a hot bed of evolutionists
Creation science is science which sets out to show that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old
Oh, by the way it is "per se"
Edited by Theodoric, : Last little bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 4:35 PM Kelly has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 70 of 336 (501097)
03-04-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Lithodid-Man
03-03-2009 7:28 PM


Re: Morris and Creation Science
Well, this will break me of sucking eggs (as my grandmother used to say). I skimmed through the entire Scientific Creationism book, and did not find where he said explicitly that elements evolved. It is either from another work or (quite likely) me interpreting Morris' predictions of evolution vs. creationism.
I have been searching for anything on this too. But as of yet nothing. It doesn't seem like the creationist have much of their writing online in a searchable format. I guess they want to make sure everyone "buys the book".
Edited by Theodoric, : added quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2009 7:28 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 136 of 336 (501338)
03-05-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Kelly
03-05-2009 6:17 PM


Re: From what I can tell
I know I said I would not respond to any of Kelly's posts anymore but I got to ask.
the first and second laws of thermodynamics
What do you think these laws say?
What are the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:17 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 157 of 336 (501367)
03-05-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


All I can say is WOW!!!!!!!
What a bunch of creationist BS.
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order.
First of all think about what you are saying and then think of these; snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites.
Next read what I am going to post. I will even give you the source. After you read this if you still believe the crap you have been fed, then there is no more to say. You suffer from willful ignorance and refuse to listen to logic.
1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
Source
Even more

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:53 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 180 of 336 (501422)
03-06-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Kelly
03-05-2009 9:53 PM


Re: this response doesn't work
You never even read what I posted and never thought of the things I asked you to think of did you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:53 PM Kelly has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 182 of 336 (501426)
03-06-2009 8:35 AM


180 posts and nothing
Kelly has provided nothing to explain what creation science is. All we have are the old recycled attempts to discredit evolution. Most of her arguments wouldn't even be used by creationists. Have you noticed how no other creationist will support her?
I suggest that the Admins shut this thread down, since she cannot stay on or even address the topic.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024