Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
144 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,776 Year: 2,524/23,288 Month: 715/1,809 Week: 147/225 Day: 6/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationists panick...
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 34 (1335)
12-27-2001 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
12-27-2001 2:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The unchanging belief in a particular interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible is at the core of Scientific Creationism.

"There was a Flood, now we just have to find evidence for it."

"Kinds were created specially and suddenly, now we have to find evidence for this."

"The Earth is a few thousand years old, now we have to find evidence for it".

NEVER will these assumptions about what is "supposed" to be found ever change,


Dear Schrafinator,
You are quite correct here, as in question to HM Morris in a snail mail letter I suppose I 'supposed' this "supposed" and yet Dr. Morris' response stays with me. He had said in so many words that biology and math must remain seperated in any conversation on evo/crea illusion discussions. But one thing that IS "Supposed" to be found in evolution thinking (say RA FISHER if a name is needed) is a supremecy of natural selection but while reading the detail between Fisher and Wright it is right apparent for the same dispute of pure vs applied math between Borel and Lebesque (only confined to one country rather than across the Pond) that on ordiantions of the same evidence ( thus also the same for creation or evolution) the collection can be suppposed that the set does not. But then the logic of the math would also have to be quite seperate that not even in Boole's Laws of Thought is this maintained. The internet medium may permit the nats to be so teased in or out till the "debate" progresses. It is certainly possible in this directum to adhere to HM Morris of the Defender's Study Bibile where Internal Designs In The Bible are discussed to be adhered to but unless the seperation maintained engage the acutal evolutionary content the debate will be like a mock trial and I would have quickly lost interest long ago. There is something here.

quote:

because then the paricular interpretation of the Bible would be wrong.

By contrast, Science changes constantly as new information


While it is true that Science in general does change as fast as time exists if such a thought could be really expressed but in fact evolutionary theory remains hidden behind a simple point drawn by Fisher in response to Wright that Croizat made 1000pages in many languages a big joke out of and the debate must resolve the extension of this point some time. Evolutionists simply have more narrative than good usable theory. The Journal of Theoretical Biology is full of models that have never been tried out.

quote:

is found, and science does not assume it knows what will be found.

I am not assuming but writing about something I have read that you could too if one want, to. But lead us not into ____.

I would like people to use Cantor's math but that would be assuming too much even from Wright's "back variable" yet the infinity need not remain convergent for secular purposes only.

Thanks, but I still think this the other way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 2:02 PM nator has not yet responded

DrkBeloved
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 34 (77474)
01-09-2004 10:04 PM


Try this on.....
There have been some good points and ... well, some people have missed the boat. But we're all here to discuss and expand our minds, right? So try this one on folks .... I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it. Use all the science you want. I love to study, I love science, and I also love God. But you know what, I have yet to hear or read of any proof for evolution which refutes creation. They are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact (some people are going to dislike me for this) they are complimentary. Even the ORDER in which life developed is the same in both theories! Is it so difficult to think God may have used evolution as the means of creation? When so many scientific factors had to come together against such unreasonable odds to form life, is it really that difficult to postulate some higher power was at work? You've asked us to prove we are right. It's your turn. Hit me hard folks, and prove to me that creation is wrong.

Sincerely, DrkBeloved.

"The light of the Mind is knowledge, the Light of the Soul is God. Let us hold both dear to our Hearts."


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 10:35 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded
 Message 24 by FliesOnly, posted 01-14-2004 9:03 AM DrkBeloved has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-14-2004 10:18 AM DrkBeloved has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 34 (77479)
01-09-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrkBeloved
01-09-2004 10:04 PM


Hit me hard folks, and prove to me that creation is wrong.

Well, a creation that's consistent with evolution isn't wrong, because that would be evolution. I can't use evolution to disprove the existence of God.

What I can ask you is, if God created everything and is all-powerful, why is he such an asshole?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-09-2004 10:04 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded

DrkBeloved
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 34 (77490)
01-09-2004 11:00 PM


Try this on .....
Ahhh, the truly eternal question. I would love to debate that under a different topic, since the discusion would deviate from the current string. I'll keep my reply here short.

Would you describe good parents the same way you just described God?

Maybe you'll open up a new topic for this if you want to discuss it at greater length.

Sincerely, DrkBeloved

"The only shortcoming is a closed mind."


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-09-2004 11:10 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 11:19 PM DrkBeloved has responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 20 of 34 (77492)
01-09-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DrkBeloved
01-09-2004 11:00 PM


Re: Try this on .....
Hi Drk,

Just a quick note to remind you of the little red arrow reply to button at the bottom of each individual post. If you reply to a particular post with this little red arrow it leaves a trail thru the thread of replies to and from various posters. Also, for those who have elected to have email notification of replies, this option depends on the use of this button. The post reply button at the bottom of the entire page leaves a generic post without reply notification. Please use this button only if your post is to the thread in general and no one post in particular.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-09-2004 11:00 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 34 (77497)
01-09-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DrkBeloved
01-09-2004 11:00 PM


Maybe you'll open up a new topic for this if you want to discuss it at greater length.

See God and Good Parenting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-09-2004 11:00 PM DrkBeloved has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-10-2004 2:31 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 23 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-10-2004 2:31 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

DrkBeloved
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 34 (77585)
01-10-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
01-09-2004 11:19 PM


Try this on ...
Thank you for the tip about replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 11:19 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

DrkBeloved
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 34 (77586)
01-10-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
01-09-2004 11:19 PM


Try this on ...
Thank you for the tip about replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 11:19 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2555 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 24 of 34 (78379)
01-14-2004 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrkBeloved
01-09-2004 10:04 PM


Re: Try this on.....
Hello DrkBeloved

DrkBeloved writes:

So try this one on folks .... I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it. Use all the science you want. I love to study, I love science, and I also love God. But you know what, I have yet to hear or read of any proof for evolution which refutes creation.

When I first read this I was surprised that you would even ask such a thing. I mean, come on DrkBeloved...simpy peruse this webpage and you'll see creationism disproven over and over again. That is, it has been disproven over and over again if you abide by the scientific method. And you do claim to love science. But now I see what your game plan may be. Before we can address this issue we will need to read your version of creationism. You see, DrkBeloved, it seems that we can't get a consistant creation "theory". If you happen to be a "global flood" creationist then this will be easy, cuz it's already been done hundreds of times. Go to the Geology and Great Flood threads and do some reading. If you're a "God started it with the big bang and evolution took off from there" creationist, then (as Crashfrog as already stated) it will be impossible to "prove" your creationism idea wrong.
So,DrkBeloved, the ball is back in your court. Please, give us your idea of how you think creationism operates.

Later you said this:

DrkBeloved writes:

When so many scientific factors had to come together against such unreasonable odds to form life, is it really that difficult to postulate some higher power was at work?


Please explain what you mean by "unreasonable odds"? I hope you're not gonna claim that nonsense about how the probablility of even a protein "evolving" is so small that it could not have happened (without your higher power). Is that what you think?

Looking forward to reading your response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-09-2004 10:04 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 25 of 34 (78389)
01-14-2004 9:57 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 34 (78393)
01-14-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrkBeloved
01-09-2004 10:04 PM


Re: Try this on.....
quote:
I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it.

Right after you prove that there are no invisible, intangible gremlins living in your rectum, singing their happy songs about the life-giving feces trees.

Try it.

Heck, while you're at it, prove that the universe was not created when Roger Ebert (who is actually a six-billion year old being) had too many beans for dinner, and farted the universe into existence. Or that life didn't form when Al Roker traveled back in time and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.

Come on, man. Hit me hard.

Prove I'm wrong.


"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrkBeloved, posted 01-09-2004 10:04 PM DrkBeloved has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:34 AM Dan Carroll has responded
 Message 29 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 11:18 AM Dan Carroll has responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 34 (78397)
01-14-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dan Carroll
01-14-2004 10:18 AM


Right after you prove that there are no invisible, intangible gremlins living in your rectum, singing their happy songs about the life-giving feces trees.

Nice. Bit yucky like, couldn't you just call them colon clingers, clinging and singing to your unwitting feces barfer. Tee hee hee

----------------------------------------------------------------
'Your lack of faith is disturbing' - Darth Vader


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-14-2004 10:18 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-14-2004 10:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 34 (78404)
01-14-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:34 AM


quote:
couldn't you just call them colon clingers

Sounds like a bran cereal.


"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:34 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4885 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 29 of 34 (78414)
01-14-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dan Carroll
01-14-2004 10:18 AM


Re: Try this on.....
quote:
Right after you prove that there are no invisible, intangible gremlins living in your rectum, singing their happy songs about the life-giving feces trees.

But then where is the music coming from?

And Al Roker? Pluueeeez...it was definitely Liberace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-14-2004 10:18 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-14-2004 11:29 AM Mammuthus has responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 34 (78416)
01-14-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Mammuthus
01-14-2004 11:18 AM


Re: Try this on.....
quote:
But then where is the music coming from?

Gremlinsdidit.

quote:
And Al Roker? Pluueeeez...it was definitely Liberace.

No way, guy. If it was Liberace, reptiles and fish would have had sequins instead of scales.


"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 11:18 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 12:05 PM Dan Carroll has 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