Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(6)
Message 471 of 986 (783858)
05-09-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Faith
05-08-2016 4:07 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Faith writes:
Today's creationism is not silly at all, it does follow the Bible....
Mountains growing after the flood is not in the Bible. Rapid evolution after the flood is not in the Bible. Those are silly ideas made up by modern creationists to try to contort the Bibkle to fit reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 4:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 473 of 986 (783862)
05-09-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:11 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
faith writes:
Mountain building by tectonic pressure after the Flood contradicts nothing in the Bible and in fact supports the usual understanding that the pre-Flood mountains were not very high.
That was not the "usual understanding" until it became clear that there is not enough water on earth to cover the mountains. "Zoom tectonics" is one extra-Biblical contortion. Water appearing magically out of nowhere and disappearing back into nowhere is another possible contortion.
Faith writes:
Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution....
But you have to make up a magical braking mechanism to stop it - because you KNOW it doesn't happen in reality. You just have to make up one fantasy after another.
There is nothing in modern creationism that resembles the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:41 PM ringo has replied
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 477 of 986 (783867)
05-09-2016 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:41 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Faith writes:
Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated.
Even IF that was true, it isn't what the Bible says. The Bible says that all of the animals were on the ark. There isn't the remotest suggestion of any new species coming into existence after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 721 of 986 (784305)
05-16-2016 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Dawn Bertot
05-16-2016 12:27 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
So what would be the other purpose of the eye, other than the Purpose of seeing, based on the idea of different perceptions, that the human construct could imagine.
The purpose of the eye is for lovers to gaze into it. It's a beauty mark.
A secondary purpose is to mirror the soul, though it doesn't always do that without distortion.
A tertiary purpose is to see things, which can be useful if you don't have a lover to guide you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-16-2016 12:27 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 844 of 986 (784632)
05-20-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
05-20-2016 11:05 AM


Re: evidence schmevidence
Faith writes:
The way you characterize the creationist arguments against evolution is just not true.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand the creationist arguments. You've said that you don't get your arguments from creationist sources, haven't you? You make up your arguments ex nihilo, don't you?
Creationist sources do have arguments that are every bit as foolish as yours but you can't fault people for going by the semi-official creationist foolishness instead of yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 05-20-2016 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 864 of 986 (784676)
05-21-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by mike the wiz
05-21-2016 9:51 AM


mike the wiz writes:
The whole thing is a semantic-game, that has creationists jumping through hoops to score a goal the evolutionist knows can't be scored through.
Tell it to the creationists. Then they can stop trying to play the game that they play so badly. Then we won't have to fight their attempts to foist their failed game plan on our schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by mike the wiz, posted 05-21-2016 9:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 973 of 986 (785056)
05-27-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 971 by Dawn Bertot
05-26-2016 11:56 PM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Dawn Bertot writes:
So you can't with the Scientific Method show a chain of causality from the brain to consciousness.
You seem to be saying that, "The scientific method can not do X, therefore creationism is science." That's roughly the equivalent of, "Pigs can't fly, therefore creationism is a pig."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-26-2016 11:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-27-2016 5:35 PM ringo has replied
 Message 975 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-27-2016 5:36 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 977 of 986 (785153)
05-28-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by Dawn Bertot
05-27-2016 5:35 PM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Dawn Bertot writes:
As your analogy failingly tries to imply, the purpose of the thread was NOT to prove absolutely the existence of a designer.
That's not what I was implying at all. I was implying that the limitations of science have nothing to do with whether or not creationism is science.
Dawn Bertot writes:
But it was for the purpose of demonstrating that truth can be known above and beyond the extremist scientific method.
So, if creationism does perceive truth "above and beyond" the scientific method, it is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-27-2016 5:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(5)
Message 983 of 986 (785217)
05-30-2016 11:37 AM


Creationists can't resist claiming that their method of determining "truth" is better than science. If it's better than science, it isn't science.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024