Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as Science
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 83 (575264)
08-19-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 4:35 AM


"Observations"
1. Observation: It is often claimed that the creative act is not observable but I present that it is, though it may not be through actual viewing of the act, it is still observable in many ways.
OK, let's have a look.
First, we have the Biblical record., we can ‘observe’ God acting through each step of the creative acts by the testimony of this ancient document.
Petitio principii.
One that has been proven accurate and truthful via other fields of research
The Genesis account of creation has actually been proven inaccurate and untruthful via other fields of research. In fact, all fields of research that could possibly have a bearing on them.
If you can think of a counterexample, let us know.
Second, we have the myriad of ancient civilizations creation stories. If creation did not happen, then there would be no need for these stories to exist in one country let alone all of them. It does not matter that some of the details are different than the Biblical record because the main ones matchthere was a creation act and for mist there were gods or some supreme being in some form starting the process.
Mythologies world-wide also agree on attributing lightning and earthquakes to their gods. This represents a universal tendency to anthropomorphize hidden causes, not that they're all right.
Third, we see the results of that creative act everyday and do not have to wait millions of years to see some change.
Petitio principii.
And those are all the "observations" you've got?
Real scientists have rather more.
The rest of your screed appears to be a windy mish-mash of words strung together in what seems like an (unsuccessful) attempt to disguise the fact that you have no evidence for your favorite myth, and that your belief in mythological stories is essentially based only on the mere existence of myths.
---
One question occurs to me --- you must be dimly aware that there are creationists who are more literate and more cunning than you, and who have been, and will always be, much more successful into duping their flocks into thinking that creationism has something to do with science. So why did you suppose the world needed your markedly inferior version of creationist apologetics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 4:35 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 83 (575384)
08-19-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 5:18 PM


Re: "Observations"
blind blanket statements offering no proof or evidence to support your point of view. anyone can make these. pony up.
Is there anything specific that you would like to know? Only I can hardly describe every observation made in support of evolution --- I should die before the task was completed.
However, I asked you to name one relevant field of study which you felt did not contradict the Genesis account. This would take you all of five seconds --- if you could think of one.
Good luck with that.
so? what is your point?
That since there are widespread myths that presumably you will admit to be false, we have no reason to suppose that creation myths are true just because they are widespread.
scientists thought that piltdown man was a real species until it was revealed decades later that it was a hoax.
This is a non sequitur. However, let me briefly point out what you omitted --- that the fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was, of course, discovered by scientists. You depend for this knowledge on scientists, and when you assert that Piltdown Man was a hoax you are implicitly putting your trust in them.
insults will get you no where and is the usual refuge for those unbelievers who cannot refute what was said.
While this fantasy may please you and help you to sleep well at night, I have in fact refuted you so conclusively that you haven't even tried to answer most of my points.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:18 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 83 (575389)
08-19-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 5:29 PM


one point to keep in mind. that article is just a simple analysis of the facts given.
The words "analysis" and "facts" are an exaggeration. But I will give you "simple".
Again, I wonder why you thought the world needed this nonsense from you. Other creationists are much more skillful in disguising its nonsensical qualities.
the only 'observation' done by evolutionists is via their 'prediciton' method which is then extrapolated backwards. no prediction is exclusive and cannot be considered evidence for the existence of the process of evolution.
And this is how all other scientific knowledge is acquired. To be consistent you would have to not only reject evolution but also go and live in a cave and eat what you can catch.
the predictions made are constructed in a manner to bring the desired conclusion, and cannot be considered honest.
This is, of course, not true.
there has been no conclusive observation of the original conditions, the origin of the process, its intercepting life or its continued work, there has also been NO real observation of intermediary species.
That's science for you.
Imagine you were council for the defense, arguing that your client shouldn't be convicted for shooting his victim because the forenisc scientists didn't witness the shooting ...
... well, in that case you'd make a lousy lawyer and do no good service to your client. Just as you are presently a lousy apologist doing no good service to creationism.
such claims are all speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc.,
Like the "speculation, conjecture, assumption", that a man with a bullet-hole in his chest and a bullet in his heart and a smoking gun lying next to him has been shot.
based upon subjective determination of long dead incomplete (for the most part and for a majority a single bone) skeleton.
This is, of course, not true.
it is inferred that evolution was responsible while all other logical and reasonable explanations are ignored.
The "other logical and reasonable explanations" have not been produced.
since the evolutionist did not observe the fossils being fossilized there is no observation that the process actually 'created' those differences in the fossilized specimens.
"Since the forensic scientist did not observe the gun being fired ..."
Your client is still going to be found guilty.
this then is ultimate evidence that the theory of evolutionis false ...
If your garbage was remotely true, then it would be an argument that evolution has not been adequately verified. But it would not even begin to suggest that it was false --- because in your entire post, you didn't refer to one single fossil, or genome, or plant, or animal, or anatomical feature of an animal, or anything at all that might conceivably be evidence against evolution.
This is not "evidence that the theory of evolution is false" any more than it is "evidence that the theory of gravity is false". It contains no statements that could conceivably be relevant to such a question.
I presume that if you had any actual evidence against evolution you'd have mentioned it.
And I presume that if you had any evidence for creationism except the observation that people believe creation myths, you'd have mentioned that at some point instead of whining about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 83 (575490)
08-20-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:50 AM


Re: "Observations"
I note that your post contains neither any further supposed "observations" in support of creationism, nor a rebuttal to my critique of your original meager handful of "observations".
It does however provide us with an insight into your character which the squeamish and fastidious might have wished to avoid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:50 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 83 (575508)
08-20-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


It seems that to the list of your less appealing qualities we must add the fact that you're a sore loser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 83 (575978)
08-22-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by archaeologist
08-22-2010 5:31 AM


Poe's Law?
This seems so far below the standard of what we would expect even from the dumbest creationist (I name no names) that one has to suspect that it's a legpull.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:31 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 83 (576243)
08-23-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 8:14 AM


sorry but i have done all that and you all have failed to respond properly and with supporting evidence. i have proven my point and not one person has refuted anything i raised but have kept sidetracking.
so i am now done with this thread. i am not here to have my points judged, nor do 'homework' just becaus eyou donot like what you read. if you cannot discuss in a proper manner and support your points there is no point in going any further.
So you're declaring victory and running away?
Boy, how often have I seen creationists do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 8:14 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 83 (578460)
09-01-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by archaeologist
09-01-2010 5:29 PM


didn't do that as i believe i made the point that we can test creation by going to thenurseries fo the world and seeing it in action.
Er ... have you ever been to a nursery?
Only if not you'd be surprised how few acts of ex nihilo creation one sees.
we do not need to 'falsify' creation for that is a secular requirement but if you want to falsify it, we could say that God had the choice to create or not. and it is falsified.
Perhaps you ought to find out what "falsified" means.
but i am here simply to repeat what I said in another thread. evolutionists are not replicating the claimed evolutionary changes and that disqualifies it from being science.
No it doesn't, because that is not a requirement of science.
The rest of your post just seems to be an elaboration on this daft mistake, so I think I can leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by archaeologist, posted 09-01-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist 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