Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 106 of 336 (501290)
03-05-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Kelly
03-05-2009 2:04 PM


Re: The debate can go on...
quote:
But obvious design is a good reason and in fact may even be the first cause of religion, and not vice-versa.
What makes a species designed? And why is it scientifically obvious?
quote:
We can each study and test this evidence according to our "models" or hypothesis to see which model better predicts what we should then find to be true.
What are the predictions of creation science?
quote:
Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.
You seem to be talking about the origins of life here. Evolution mentions nothing about that in its theory. Evolution can coexist with a creator.
quote:
We agree when it comes to microevolution...which can be observed and tested. Mutational changes, natural selection--all within its species are confirmed.
You seem again to be confused. There are species, and then there are names for a group of species. The fruit fly, again, is a good example as there are different species of fruit flies, all under the convenient name "fruit fly".
Edited by Dman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:04 PM Kelly has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 107 of 336 (501293)
03-05-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kelly
03-05-2009 1:46 PM


Re: I think that which ever model
Off topic material hidden.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 1:46 PM Kelly has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 336 (501294)
03-05-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
03-05-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Like to see a reply to Message 92
I addressed the creation science makes predictions element at the end of my Message 93:
quote:
Can you explain how you go from 'all living things were created by an entity that isn't necessarily Yahweh' to derive these predictions? Thanks.
I was rather hoping to learn how this 'law of decay' is a prediction of the secular Creation Science, and not for instance, a piece of Christian apologetics about thermodynamics and The Fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 03-05-2009 2:28 PM Percy has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 109 of 336 (501295)
03-05-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Kelly
03-05-2009 2:18 PM


Re: Real evolution (macroevolution)
Off topic material hidden.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:18 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:05 PM Rahvin has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 110 of 336 (501296)
03-05-2009 2:44 PM


Topic
This thread is about Creation Science. Not evolutionary biology.
I will now back up and hide all the off topic material until I run out of patience. Please don't add more.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:56 PM AdminNosy has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 111 of 336 (501298)
03-05-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by DrJones*
03-05-2009 2:30 PM


Just saying so, DrJones, doesn't make it so
As I pointed out to Rahvin in a post up above:
Real evolution (macroevolution)...
Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher)
You seem to think that these species' inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker.
__________________________
Evolutionists might classify cats into 28 species wheras creationists would classify them as one species. But cats are still cats no matter what their breeding turns out. When you can prove that you observed a cat evolve from something other than a cat, then I'll listen.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DrJones*, posted 03-05-2009 2:30 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2009 3:39 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 112 of 336 (501301)
03-05-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AdminNosy
03-05-2009 2:44 PM


AdminNosy: How can you do that....
How can you do that when the two topics run hand in hand?
These discussions are going to look awfully silly after you sabatosh them like that.
If the mention of evolution is pertinent to the discussion you should allow the flow of free discussion rather than censoring things like this. It kills the spirit and the ability to really debate anything.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AdminNosy, posted 03-05-2009 2:44 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 03-05-2009 3:13 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 113 of 336 (501303)
03-05-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rahvin
03-05-2009 2:42 PM


Sorry Rahvin
But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 2:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 3:13 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2009 3:36 PM Kelly has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 114 of 336 (501306)
03-05-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kelly
03-05-2009 2:56 PM


Re: AdminNosy: How can you do that....
This thread is for the discussion of creation science not evolutionary biology.
If creation science is on an equal footing with evolutionary biology then you will be able to fill 100's of posts with material about creation science without once having to mention evolutionary biology. Just as there are 10,000's of books on evolution written with no mention of CS and 1,000,000 ( I would guess) of papers published on it without discussing CS.
When you find yourself unable to talk about anything but biology it might be because there isn't anything to say about creation science as a science.
Others have given you strong hints about what you need to say.
Rahvin has taken the evolution discussion over to where it belongs. You can focus on your criticisms of it there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:56 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:16 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 126 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 4:30 PM AdminNosy has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 115 of 336 (501307)
03-05-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dman
03-05-2009 1:35 PM


Re: I love this sentence
I think you mean variations...of fruit flies. There is no added DNA information in all these fruit flies..rather, there is less information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dman, posted 03-05-2009 1:35 PM Dman has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 116 of 336 (501308)
03-05-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Kelly
03-05-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Sorry Rahvin
But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out.
No worries - I copied the contents to the other thread. You can reply there, where it will be on-topic.
The reason we're so strict about maintaining topic cohesion is twofold:
1) allowing constant tangent discussions removes the entire purpose of a thread title, and significantly reduces the chance of coming to any sort of resolution to the initial post in a given thread
2) we have limited posts for each thread before the board starts to have trouble. Because of this, we typically cut off threads at around 300 posts or so (with unusually interesting/heated debates sometimes being pushed to 400). Limited posts means each post needs to be directly tied to the actual argument going on in the thread - offtopic posts just waste limited space.
I understand that it feels more "natural" to simply carry the discussion however it leads, but the rules of this site are specifically set up to discourage that in favor of actually addressing the topics of each thread to the greatest degree possible. It's actually quite helpful once you get used to it, as you can target your arguments and refutations and evidence far more clearly when you do so in light of the topic. Both you and your opponent are less likely to become distracted by some new, barely-related argument.
In any case, let's not risk the wrath of the admins any further - as I said, I've copied my reply to the other thread, and you can see it easily if you clock the "All Topics" link at the top of the page (this is my preferred method of navigating the site, as I can see the most recently active topics on top). Feel free to reply to me there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:05 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 117 of 336 (501309)
03-05-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNosy
03-05-2009 3:13 PM


Re: AdminNosy: What you don't seem to acknowledge....
is that evolution in the microsense is a part of creation science. Discussing Creation Science without being able to mention the aspects of evolution that directly confirm creation is nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 03-05-2009 3:13 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dman, posted 03-05-2009 3:24 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 3:30 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 125 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-05-2009 4:30 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 118 of 336 (501310)
03-05-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
03-05-2009 3:13 PM


But creation
and evolution are so intimately interwoven that trying to separate them is like trying to discuss what a magnet is without being able to mention the word repell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 3:13 PM Rahvin has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 119 of 336 (501312)
03-05-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Kelly
03-05-2009 3:16 PM


Re: AdminNosy: What you don't seem to acknowledge....
quote:
evolution in the microsense is a part of creation science.
Please, please, please elaborate. I am genuinely curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:16 PM Kelly has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 120 of 336 (501313)
03-05-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Kelly
03-05-2009 3:16 PM


Let's get this thread back on-topic.
Kelly, in your own words, what is Creation Science?
Give some examples of Creation scientists.
Give some examples of Creation Science articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Describe how Creation Science differs from just plain "science," if at all.
I assume that one of the explanatory models proposed by Creation Science is an alternative to the Theory of Evolution that biologists consider to be highly accurate. What evidence does the Creation Science model that explains the diversity of life on Earth explain better than the Theory of Evolution? What predictions are made that are more accurate than those made by "normal" biologists?
Let's not talk about what the Theory of Evolution does nor does not say - that's for the other thread. Let's just talk about what Creation Science says. You've told us that we're ignorant of the subject - please, educate us, in your own words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:16 PM Kelly 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