Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 241 of 336 (501500)
03-06-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by olivortex
03-06-2009 12:57 PM


I think you are right about this
"..he fought his inner self because of what he has observed and concluded"
I just don't think it was in the way you think.
Darwin knew that his exptrapolation--his assumptions and "hopeful monsters" would be dead in the water if the evidence couldn't be found to support his ideas. He was convinced that eventually the fossil record would come to prove macroevolution and therefore support his theory. But this means that his theory came first--not based on the evidence, but in spite of no evidence yet, and just on an idea. This is really no different if you want to accuse creationists of starting with an idea first. For biblical creationists, the Bible is their source and foundation and guide. But for Creation Scientists, their study is done apart from the Bible or God--it isn't looking to prove religion, just creation, isn't isn't looking to confirm biblcal stories, just created order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 12:57 PM olivortex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 1:42 PM Kelly has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 242 of 336 (501502)
03-06-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Kelly
03-06-2009 1:26 PM


Re: I think you are right about this
quote:
But for Creation Scientists, their study is done apart from the Bible or God--it isn't looking to prove religion, just creation, isn't isn't looking to confirm biblcal stories, just created order.
Are you kidding? Did you read that AiG statement of faith that Modulous linked to?
AiG writes:
Section 1: Priorities
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also have a video on their site entitled "Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True, Part 1".
Since you provided your little list of creationists from AiG, I don't see how you can claim that they are not creation science enthusiasts, yet they are explicitely religious. The damn site is called Answers in Genesis for FSM's sake!
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:26 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:39 PM Granny Magda has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 243 of 336 (501503)
03-06-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Modulous
03-06-2009 1:10 PM


I already have defended my point
with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can disagree with me, but please don't claim that I didn't state and support my claims.
I am really not up to the monumental task of responding to all these posts and people. I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science. I think I have given you a pretty good idea of how it works and if you are truly interested, I recommended a very good book called "What is Creation Science?" by Morris/Parker.
Thanks for playing, but I really do have to shake this computer monkey off my back and join the real world. Kids getting home from school soon and a hubby who doesn't like it when I spend too much time on the computer like this.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 1:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 1:58 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 245 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:08 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 2:39 PM Kelly has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 336 (501504)
03-06-2009 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Kelly
03-06-2009 1:44 PM


Re: I already have defended my point
with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
How does the creation model not violate the second law of thermodynamics?
I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science.
You've failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:44 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 245 of 336 (501505)
03-06-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Kelly
03-06-2009 1:44 PM


Re: I already have defended my point
quote:
with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can disagree with me, but please don't claim that I didn't state and support my claims.
It was not just a disagreement, you were shown to be wrong, and you just kept claiming the same BS.
quote:
I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science.
Well, you failed. And here is why. When confronted with hard questions you ducked and dodged or just stuck with your argument no matter how bad it was logically broken down.
I think you chose the wrong boards to try and convince anyone with these tired old arguments. Like I said earlier, you brought a knife to a gun fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:44 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:35 PM Dman has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 246 of 336 (501506)
03-06-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 1:58 PM


You only hope I failed
because the consequences of ignoring the truth of God's Word are unthinkable for you, since calling yourself Catholic, I assume you are a believer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:19 PM Kelly has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 336 (501507)
03-06-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Kelly
03-06-2009 2:09 PM


Re: You only hope I failed
I thought creation science didn't have anything to do with god. I guess the truth come out finally.
How does creation science not violate the second laws of thermodynamics?
And why do you keep avoiding this question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:09 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 248 of 336 (501508)
03-06-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 2:19 PM


Re: You only hope I failed
Creation Science itself is a study of the evidence, not of God or the Bible. It has nothing to do with religion or God directly. However, for those who have faith in God, it has consequences. If the Bible is truth, then how we respond to it matters alot.
I also answered this question: "How does creation science not violate the second laws of thermodynamics?" when it was asked by someone else. I am not going to keep answering the same thing everytime someone else wants to ask it. You are either following along or you aren't. Somehow I think you are since you seem to *think* I am avoiding answering as if you know it was asked before. Go back and reread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:38 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 249 of 336 (501509)
03-06-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dman
03-06-2009 2:08 PM


Keep patting yourselves on the back.
I find it comical, actually. This claim that I have failed to make my point or that I am ducking questions is too funny for words considering the amount of posting I have done and continue to do to explain my position. The truth is that you disagree. But that is a far cry from proving me wrong.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:08 PM Dman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:42 PM Kelly has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 336 (501510)
03-06-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Kelly
03-06-2009 2:31 PM


Re: You only hope I failed
Creation Science itself is a study of the evidence, not of God or the Bible. It has nothing to do with religion or God directly.
Then why bring her up?
However, for those who have faith in God, it has consequences. If the Bible is truth, then how we respond to it matters alot.
That doesn't make any sense.
CS has nothing to do with god but if you believe in god then it does!?
If CS has nothing to do with god, then what does it have to do with the Bible? How does how we repond to it matter at all?
I also answered this question: "How does creation science not violate the second laws of thermodynamics?" when it was asked by someone else.
Where? Any idea on the message number? I guess I missed it.
I am not going to keep answering the same thing everytime someone else wants to ask it.
Funny that you don't have a problem repeating the same arguments over and over. And how many times have you mentioned that book? I guess its just pick and choose for you. Seems dishonest to me.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:31 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 251 of 336 (501511)
03-06-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
03-06-2009 1:42 PM


This is silly
AIG can do and say and believe what it wants to. So can I and so can you. This still has nothing to do with what the actual study in creation science is about. It is a study of the evidence, not of God. The fact that creation points to a creator is actually besides the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 1:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 4:52 PM Kelly has replied

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


Message 252 of 336 (501512)
03-06-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Kelly
03-06-2009 1:44 PM


Re: I already have defended my point
I already have defended my point
with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can disagree with me, but please don't claim that I didn't state and support my claims.
You certainly stated them. I provided you with several problems with your position. You have not overcome those problems, indeed you often haven't even established that the Creation Model's predictions logically follow from "All life was Created...". Until such time as you decide to continue arguing about them, you are just gainsaying me rather than defending your position.
I am really not up to the monumental task of responding to all these posts and people.
Seriously: don't. You are under no obligation. If you want to debate, then you're in the right place, if you don't have time then don't mess around here. There are more important things.
I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science.
Yes, it looks like you've given it your best shot and you failed to tell us anything we didn't already know, and you haven't changed anybody's minds on the scientific credentials of Creation Science. When you can derive the 'principle of disintegration' from "All life was created in a non-naturalistic process', then I will be more impressed with the possibility that Creation Science has something to it.
Otherwise it is like the Moon Landing hoax, holocaust denial, homeopathy and anti-vaccination stuff. It kind of looks like science, until you ask questions about it, then the sham is revealed and it is revealed as poor science look-a-like: pseudoscience. Not your fault of course, you didn't create it. It's a shame you fell for it, and we tried to show you the smoke and the mirrors.
By all means stick around and maybe you'll see how the trick is performed in more detail.
I think I have given you a pretty good idea of how it works and if you are truly interested, I recommended a very good book called "What is Creation Science?" by Morris/Parker.
If you can convince me there is any quality in the book I will, but right now I have a library of books waiting to be read including An Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (holy crap its a big book!) by S Gould, Warped Passages by Lisa Randall, The Mid-Victorian Generation 1846-1886 by K. Theodore Hoppen, SQL Server Administration (Microsoft), SQL Server Database Design (Microsoft), The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindel, everything from the book of Numbers through to the book of Revelation, the Gospel of Thomas, The book of Enoch, The Book of Mormon, The Qur'an and so on and so forth (that's just a random selection from looking over at one of my bookshelves (Admittedly I don't have the Apocrypha or Book of Mormon in book form, yet), and I didn't bother listing all the novels...)
As you can see, adding books to my pile isn't high on my priority list.
Still, I've been in on this debate for four years now, I'm sure I can wait around for at least another four years for just one Creationist to convince me there is something worth investing time and money on in any of those books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:44 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:47 PM Modulous has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 253 of 336 (501513)
03-06-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 2:38 PM


I brought God up because you are supposedly
a man of faith?
I wondered why you, personally, are so opposed to discovering that life might be created rather than evolved?
It was a sidenote to you, personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:44 PM Kelly has replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 254 of 336 (501514)
03-06-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Kelly
03-06-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Keep patting yourselves on the back.
quote:
I find it comical, actually. This claim that I have failed to make my point or that I am ducking questions is too funny for words considering the amount of posting I have done and continue to do to explain my position. The truth is that you disagree. But that is a far cry from proving me wrong.
I find it comical that you actually think you giving answers, and not just blind assertions, or strawman versions of evolution to push down.
My quote:
quote:
Also, I know you are being bombarded here, but could you please take a stab at answering how CS "categorizes" Ambulocetus and how CS explains the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. This might help clear some things up.
Your answer:
...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:35 PM Kelly has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 336 (501515)
03-06-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


Re: I believe I indicated the answer somewhere in these threads
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation;
But that doesn't make sense. How does the 2nd point to creation?
Creation would be a direct violation of the 2nd because it would decrease entropy!
The Second Law is a little more detailed and can be expressed in several ways, all of which can be shown equivilent. There's Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics and Informational Thermodynamics.
In each case, entropy is a measure of the lost usefulness of the system. In classical it measures the useful energy which must be converted to nonusable heat energy. In statistical it measures the probability of the structured arrangement of the system--with the state of disorganization being most probable and in informational it measures the amount of garbled information, or noise, that accompanies the transmission of information by the system.
These Laws apply to the whole universe. These Laws predict a gloomy future for the cosmos and indeed if evolution were true, this would be a gloom and doom situation for sure.
Is this the explanation?
That doesn't explain how creation doesn't violate the law.

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