Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2879 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 29 of 336 (500982)
03-03-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
03-03-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Morris and Creation Science
Interesting.
#3-3: What are the respective weights and chemical symbols of lead and of gold, and is it chemically possible for lead to change into gold all by itself — after all both are really heavy?
Do they ignore the radioactive chart of the nuclides? Do they ignore nuclear processes? That lead can be turned into gold, it just costs more than the end product is worth?
I guess creating everything 'as is' precludes any meaning to be derived from the study of particle physics and higher energy states of matter. That the present condition can be derived from the hotter primordial condition based on the application of laws in a predictive manner.
The contribution of creationism is 'no explanations necessary' therefore no thought is necessary. Go back to your gardening..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2009 4:59 PM cavediver has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2879 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 240 of 336 (501499)
03-06-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:11 PM


Re: You are confused
Hi Kelly,
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution
Yes, they only reject that which is in conflict with their preconceived notions about what is 'true'.
My first exposure to this 'science' was some ideas as to why radiometric dating was apparently flawed.
At first the arguments presented seemed plausible so I began to look into radiometric dating further.
I came across the isochron method and read up on that. That seemed to put the nail in the coffin on the creationist argument but I went back to the creationist side and asked about their rebuttal to this technique of dating to which their previous objections did not apply or hold any weight. Since this group existed I figured they must have some valid reasons behind their viewpoint, so I expected that they'd open my mind to the reasons why the isochron method was flawed. Well they had no counter argument against it. They simply shrugged and said all rocks display isochrons as though it was some inherent property of rocks in general and insignificant.
It was at this point that I saw that their 'science' was nothing more than a willful dismissal of facts that were/are in disagreement with what they think is fact and trumps reality.
In another thread I mentioned ERV patterns that are identical in humans and chimps. Have you even looked at that evidence? How do you rationalize that away? How do you suppose that patterns that arise randomly in nature match one another exactly in two different species?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:11 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