|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Even in the US it seems to be a settled legal issue now, every time it pops up it's kicked down pretty easily. And it is also always Christians (all of the major denominations) supporting the position that Creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in science classes in public schools. Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... mutations being, after all, just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene ... All this time talking about genetics and you don't know any better than that? You're right, I was being sloppy. MOSTLY just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene. Mutations also destroy and rearrange larger chunks of DNA than genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And it is also always Christians (all of the major denominations) supporting the position that Creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in science classes in public schools. Poor deluded Christians. But I too don't want creationism taught in the public schools, just not for the same reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
ou're right, I was being sloppy. MOSTLY just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene. Mutations also destroy and rearrange larger chunks of DNA than genes. Can you think of anything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Poor deluded Christians. But I too don't want creationism taught in the public schools, just not for the same reasons. It is very likely that there are many deluded Christians, that has never been in doubt. But the topic is The Science in Creationism and the position of the majority of major Christian denominations is that there is no science in Creationism. That is simply more evidence that there is no science in Creationism when not even Christians can be convinced Creationism is even pseudoscience. This thread also supports the fact that there is no science in Creationism and explains why Creationism has been abandoned by all Science for over 100 years and can never be considered science or scientific. Creationism like Flood Geology and Young Earth are simply dead and totally false belief systems. The reason no one has ever presented any evidence of any science in Creationism is simple; there is no science in Creationism.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In that case EVC should shut down and we should argue our case on the creationist sites where they actually live rather than arguing repetitive nonsense with Faith and, if we're lucky, one other loonie for the benefit of a few robots.
Creationist sites typically don't permit this type of debate. If you go against the local dogma you are banned rather quickly.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
OK, so what you mean to say is The Investigation in Investigation In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause investigation to fail as investigation and fail to qualify for any serious investigative investigation It was further intimated that investigation cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered investigation in the way the term investigation is currently defined And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that investigation could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory From this it was concluded that many investigators had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology It is these issues that I purpose discussing in some detail to demonstrate that Secular Fundamental Humanists conclusion and the specifics I have mentioned, that alledgedly support thier assertions, are simply not the case It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual investigation evidence that supports investigation investigation, it will be demonstrated that investigation investigation very much passes a investigation investigation This is what you meant to say? Well I wasn't wanting to say anything. I wanted you to demonstrate why your or my process is more or less than an investigation.. whether it it is involved or complicated. How in reality, not in your head, but by reality, it's not science by simple investigation This is don't think you attempted here, or at least I seen no attempt in your attempt at humor
In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause investigation to fail as investigation and fail to qualify for any serious investigative investigation It was further intimated that investigation cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered investigation in the way the term investigation is currently defined And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that investigation could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory And I pointed out that Falsifiability is a humanly contrived principle that does not apply in all cases and I demonstrated this by showing there would never be a a way to falsify, that things actually exist. Hence Falsifiability is not an absolute standard Or I'm wrong and things might not exist because it can't be falsified Investigation is empirical testing. No difference
Astrology is as supported in reality as Creationism because Astrology is an investigation. Unless you can tell me how would something go about finding 'support in reality'? Bare in mind there are obvious truths in astrology (human affairs exist, there must be something that gives rise to human affairs...is the same type of argument you have given) Oh I think that's no problem at all. Astrology makes no attempt to explain how and why things exists. It does not use the observable properties in nature to deduce design or a design argument. And most importantly its arguments are not set against the only two possible explanation of things, ie it always existed or something that always existed created it. You know, another one of those axioms that don't really exists according to you fellas So no Astrology doesn't even get close to the argument from design or creationism Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No worries. Thank you for finally admitting you aren't doing science. Well I wasn't admitting that, quite the opposite. I was intimating we were both doing science, but hat you have no evidence for the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes. But once again, thanks for admitting that Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It is possible to deduce that one thing exists by deduction. So this is is an absolute truth correct? Secondly I think we can do more than one thing. If you can't give me the cause and affect and chain of causality, from the brain to awareness or consciousness, then would you like to admit it exists by deduction Since it actually does exist correct?
Whether or not something exists is part of the study of ontology. Well I'm sureit is, if we are going to make up words, to supplant simple deduction. I rather think reality would decide whether or not something exists Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
These are most likely those extremely rare mistakes in replication that do something beneficial or at least not deleterious, Sure. Of course observations of those rare events are evidence. Direct evidence. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
These are most likely those extremely rare mistakes in replication that do something beneficial or at least not deleterious, Sure. Of course observations of those rare events are evidence. Direct evidence. Definitely they are direct evidence of extremely rare mistakes that do something beneficial or at least not deleterious, that is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Beauty is not a "real thing", in the sense of an independent, objective feature. This is because (a) it is a subjective perception, an interpretation, of an object's features; and (b) because different people think different things are beautiful. Well no your wrong again, here's why. Notice the very Suttle slight differences in a females features in her face, that give the reality of feminine features versus masculine. Those, so very slight differences not only cause a feminine affect, the also create beauty. Not always, but they are noticable when the standard is exemplified. It's real not imagined Now thone differences I don't imagine and they are not a human construct, but they do give us a standard, to distinguish it from those features in a women that are less attractive. Sure there's a scale so to speak, but there are standards that distinguish it, that are not a perception or construct
And to steer back to topic, this is where we are with function and purpose. An eye has a function - it focuses and differentiates certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, and reacts in ways which our brain interprets to build a picture of our surroundings. It has evolved to have that function, because it's a rather useful survival trait. If we use the word "purpose", that presupposes an intelligent intent, and we have no evidence for such an intent - we just have evidence of function. When something serves a purpose, then the intricate design of that purpose, serves as a very good evidence to believe it was designed. In other words the search or investigation or science to the conclusion of design in that instance, is a valid approach. It doesn't need to be complicated or involved to be accurate, valid or science. It simply is Purpose like design doesn't need your approval to be reality. Other things that exist by observation and deduction are facts, truth, emotions, and awareness and consciousness. Since evolution can explain natural processess, then perhaps you could show the cause and affect,the chain of causality from the brain to the reality of consciousness. Or am I just imagining consciousness, is it just a human construct Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
you have no evidence for the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes Why do you keep drooling out this halfwitted nonsense? Have you hit your head on something? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Why do you keep drooling out this halfwitted nonsense? Have you hit your head on something? At least Modulous has the integrity, to admit he has no evidence for the necessary conclusion of evolution. Your comments speak for themself about you. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At least Modulous has the integrity, to admit he has no evidence for the necessary conclusion of evolution. Why do you keep drooling out this halfwitted nonsense? Have you hit your head on something?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024