Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
134 online now:
anglagard, Coragyps, Hyroglyphx (3 members, 131 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 28/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 336 (619642)
06-10-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Acalepha
06-08-2011 12:49 PM


Who Observed What?
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.

Obviously above boastings became observed by dreamy delusional mindsets on desks in popular prestigious peer paper pages.

And you reject intelligently designed creationist planned disorder & chaos into things complex and orderly. ID creationism is what is observed in reality; clay to bricks to houses, etc. No?

Acadelpha writes:

In this way, evolution, is an objective explanation of why life is the way that it is.

Yes, Acadelpha, Obviously un-objectively abstract.

Acadelpha writes:

There are, however, many different theories of creation.

Mmm, not quite. They're called hypotheses. Theories totally un tolerated to creationists.

Acadelpha writes:

The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.

The first Biblical historical accounts attributed to creationist context.

Acadelpha writes:

If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught? You certainly cannot teach ALL the thousands of different versions as truth. The very nature of teaching creation implies that there is only one version of creation.

The first, the foremost, the finest.

Acadelpha writes:

If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist? Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?

That seems to depend on whether the teacher is black or white. Both often teach various deviations from the oldest accounts.

Edited by Buzsaw, : added "un" to objectively.


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 1 by Acalepha, posted 06-08-2011 12:49 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2011 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 6:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

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

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

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

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 336 (619877)
06-12-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
06-11-2011 8:10 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

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

Percy, it appears to me that your response to Chuck is somewhat of a hodgepodge of statements telling him of your opinion that he's wrong, rather than addressing reasons why you think he is wrong.

He highlighted some valid reasons why creationists reject the ToE.


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 71 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 8:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 10:05 PM Buzsaw 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