Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
48 online now:
dwise1, GDR, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,259 Year: 5,007/23,288 Month: 128/1,784 Week: 15/211 Day: 15/20 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
jar
Member
Posts: 32367
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 61 of 336 (619649)
06-10-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coragyps
06-10-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Who Observed What?
Coragyps writes:

The first, the foremost, the finest.

You read it here. folks! Buz endorses the Sumerian creation story!

Or maybe the Vedas.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2011 9:05 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2011 10:00 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 336 (619654)
06-10-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
06-10-2011 9:09 PM


Re: Who Observed What?
jar writes:

Coragyps writes:

The first, the foremost, the finest.

You read it here. folks! Buz endorses the Sumerian creation story!

Or maybe the Vedas.

Maybe may be or may not be..


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 06-10-2011 9:09 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 63 of 336 (619672)
06-11-2011 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
06-10-2011 8:10 PM


Re: Who Observed What?
Buzsaw writes:

Acalepha writes:


Hi All!

The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation.

Hi Acadelphia. Welcome! You mean like alleged observation of the process of emerging primordial soup into the simplest life thingy which through a gazillion intricate natural non-intelligent processes to intelligent complex humans, etc, disorder and chaos, all the way to the order and complexity observed today? Who observed all of this?

Who observed the BB singularity event, having no space to have existed, no time into which have happened and no outside of in which to have expanded? Who has observed all of those multi verses.


Really?
REALLY?!?

After all this time on this forum, you still think that the Theory of Evolution explains:
a) How life began
and
b) How the universe began.

Jesus Christ on a bike!
Do you find it that hard to learn?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2011 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:08 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:09 AM Panda has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 64 of 336 (619674)
06-11-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Panda
06-11-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Creationist definitions:

Science:Science acceptable to creationists
Evolution:Science not acceptable to creationists

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 6:43 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 7:36 AM Percy has responded
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Percy has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 65 of 336 (619675)
06-11-2011 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Panda
06-11-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Panda writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Acalepha writes:


Hi All!

The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation.

Hi Acadelphia. Welcome! You mean like alleged observation of the process of emerging primordial soup into the simplest life thingy which through a gazillion intricate natural non-intelligent processes to intelligent complex humans, etc, disorder and chaos, all the way to the order and complexity observed today? Who observed all of this?

Who observed the BB singularity event, having no space to have existed, no time into which have happened and no outside of in which to have expanded? Who has observed all of those multi verses.


Really?
REALLY?!?

After all this time on this forum, you still think that the Theory of Evolution explains:
a) How life began
and
b) How the universe began.

Jesus Christ on a bike!
Do you find it that hard to learn?

Panda, can you LEARN how to seperate paragraphs? His first paragraph is dealing with TOE. THAT is evolution he is talking about. I believe his SECOND paragraph is about the "Big bang". I know it's so easy to always say Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate when you evo's don't have an answer for something but how very convienient! Yes, your not at all concerned where life came from we know, evolution ONLY deals with existing life. Well that's dandy.

I wonder if ALL medical fields did this what would happen? Forget baby shots, the childs history, his parents history of illness or disease, how or if he was premature or where or when he was born and from WHO. I know, CRAZY right? Can you imagine a Doctor doing this? He would be locked up! But when an EVOLUTIONIST says that abiogenesis and Evolution are seperate where just supposed to say- oh yeah! that's right, sorry guys I forgot that makes things more confusing than the already obsurd theory BOTH of then are!...my apologies, I don't mean to confuse you with valid questions to your obsurd theology. Yes, theology.

Edited by Chuck77, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 6:43 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Son, posted 06-11-2011 7:44 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 8:41 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 336 (619677)
06-11-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
06-11-2011 7:08 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

Creationist definitions:

Science:Science acceptable to creationists
Evolution:Science not acceptable to creationists

--Percy

We do-se-do to do a switch-y-do for you.

ID creation science = chaotic disorder to complex order via planned work, compatible with objective real life observation and basic science law.

Singularity, BB, abiogenesis and evolution = chaotic disorder to order void of intelligent planned work and objective real life observation and basic science law.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add 2 paragraphs


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:08 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:51 AM Buzsaw has responded

Son
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 67 of 336 (619679)
06-11-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:09 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
The first paragraph is about Abiogenesis, not TOE. Abiogenesis and TOE are separate the same way your birth and your life are separate. We don't need to know everything (or anything about your birth) in order to know what you ate this morning. Science separate different subjects in order to study them more easily, not out of some conspiracy.

Contrary to your beliefs that stuck us in the dark arges, science actually works(something you should know well since you are currently using a computer) but if we did things your way, all progress would be stopped.

I don't see you guys saying that the theory of gravity is false because we don't know how the universe began.

Now, could you explain to me how having the first life magicked into existance or brought forth by natural processes would affect TOE?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 9:14 AM Son has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 68 of 336 (619680)
06-11-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:09 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Hi Chuck77,

Not being able to keep other fields of science separate from evolution is not only typical creationist thinking, but also terrifically ironic in this case because some creationists believe that God created the original life forms and then evolution produced all the species we see today. This particular flavor of creationist view requires that the origin of life and evolution be separate.

Both evolution and abiogenesis are fields within biology. Evolution is how species change over time. Abiogenesis is how the first life came to be. We understand the mechanisms and processes of evolution pretty well, those of abiogenesis barely at all.

But abiogenesis and evolution are related to one another. There must have been a considerable period of overlap and ambiguity where early life was more than complex chemistry but less than what we would consider life. There was no clear line of demarcation where one instant there was no life and the next instant there was.

A true creationist thinker will reject this information and continue to insist that classifying abiogenesis and evolution as separate fields within biology is a dishonest evolutionist shell game.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 336 (619681)
06-11-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
06-11-2011 7:08 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

Creationist definitions:

Science:Science acceptable to creationists
Evolution:Science not acceptable to creationists

--Percy

Evolutionist definitions:

Science: Science acceptable to Evolutionists
Creationism: Science not acceptable to Evolutionists

Real Definition of Science:

Definition of SCIENCE
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Merriam-Webster.

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:08 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 8:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2011 10:22 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 79 by Nuggin, posted 06-11-2011 12:56 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 80 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2011 1:37 PM Chuck77 has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 70 of 336 (619682)
06-11-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
06-11-2011 7:36 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Buzsaw writes:

Maybe may be or may not be..
...
We do-se-do to do a switch-y-do for you.

You must have missed the memo - auditions for town fool are next week.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 7:36 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 9:01 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 71 of 336 (619686)
06-11-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

Evolutionist definitions:

Science: Science acceptable to Evolutionists
Creationism: Science not acceptable to Evolutionists

Well, now you're just highlighting another problem with creationist thinking: illogic. The creationist confusion about fields of science is very real, we see it all the time. There is no equivalent evolutionist confusion, particularly since "creation science" has made no contributions for science to ignore.

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

This is a hodgepodge of familiar examples of creationist confusion about evolution and science and is typical creationist thinking. Most of these fall into the category of fallacy of, "If I can disrespect it I've refuted it."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2011 12:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 06-12-2011 10:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 72 of 336 (619688)
06-11-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:09 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

Panda writes:

After all this time on this forum, you still think that the Theory of Evolution explains:
a) How life began
and
b) How the universe began.

Jesus Christ on a bike!
Do you find it that hard to learn?

Panda, can you LEARN how to seperate paragraphs? His first paragraph is dealing with TOE. THAT is evolution he is talking about. I believe his SECOND paragraph is about the "Big bang". I know it's so easy to always say Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate when you evo's don't have an answer for something but how very convienient! Yes, your not at all concerned where life came from we know, evolution ONLY deals with existing life. Well that's dandy.


I will quote Son Message 67 (as he answered this, but you chose to ignore it).
Son writes:

The first paragraph is about Abiogenesis, not TOE. Abiogenesis and TOE are separate the same way your birth and your life are separate. We don't need to know everything (or anything about your birth) in order to know what you ate this morning.


(The emphasis is mine.)

Buz has been on this forum for years and has been told this more times than I care to remember.

Here's a task for you:
Go and find a scientific web-site that has a definition of the ToE that includes an explanation of 'first life' (or abiogenesis, as scientists call it).
Go on.
I dare you.

p.s.
If his 2nd paragraph is not related to the ToE then it is simply a pointless 'rabbit hole'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 336 (619689)
06-11-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
06-11-2011 7:51 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Maybe may be or may not be..
...
We do-se-do to do a switch-y-do for you.

You must have missed the memo - auditions for town fool are next week.

--Percy


Perhaps the town majistrate will be prepared to falsify the town fool's do-se-do at the audition.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 7:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 336 (619693)
06-11-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Son
06-11-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Son writes:

The first paragraph is about Abiogenesis, not TOE. Abiogenesis and TOE are separate the same way your birth and your life are separate. We don't need to know everything (or anything about your birth) in order to know what you ate this morning. Science separate different subjects in order to study them more easily, not out of some conspiracy.

Contrary to your beliefs that stuck us in the dark arges, science actually works(something you should know well since you are currently using a computer) but if we did things your way, all progress would be stopped.

I don't see you guys saying that the theory of gravity is false because we don't know how the universe began.

Now, could you explain to me how having the first life magicked into existance or brought forth by natural processes would affect TOE?

Son, click on my Buzsaw profile to see that Buzsaw has understood the alleged scientific claims of abiogenesis and ToE. I am fully aware of them. Chuck was right. One of the functions of paragraphs is to separate points posted. BB and ToE pertain to points posted.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Son, posted 06-11-2011 7:44 AM Son has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 12:20 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 336 (619695)
06-11-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Acalepha
06-10-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Acalepha writes:

I am black.

I completely disagree with helping others according to racial profiling. We should help others based on their needs.

I thought you said earlier that you only looked black?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:02 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020