Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:49 PM
100 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 93 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,590 Year: 3,627/19,786 Month: 622/1,087 Week: 212/212 Day: 27/27 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
232425Next
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 319 of 365 (4394)
02-13-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:22 AM



TrueCreation writes:
Who ever said Creationism was anything more than a belief, and who ever said evolution was not a scientific theory?

Christian says evolution is religion, and he is quoted saying so in the very message you replied to:


Christian writes:
Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION.

Perhaps you and Christian should talk.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:22 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1900 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 320 of 365 (4395)
02-13-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:22 AM


Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:22 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 6:08 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 365 (4431)
02-13-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by gene90
02-13-2002 11:33 AM


"Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature."
--I think a more accurate depiction would be that they both require a faith to a degree as a whole. Evolution for instance, it would be more accurate to say that it requires a faith in interperetation, or a belief, as is contrary to it being the faith or the belief. Religious I don't know if it would apply to Evolution, and I would speculate on Creationism, though my standpoint on this is that Creationism in contrast with involved faith and belif, involves but isn't the religion.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by gene90, posted 02-13-2002 11:33 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 322 of 365 (4437)
02-13-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sorry, creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific theory."
--Who ever said Creationism was anything more than a belief, and who ever said evolution was not a scientific theory? Actually 'e'volution is fact, 'e'volution even plays a part in the theory for a young earth. If someone says othewize, they are either incorrect, or should emphesize their wording.

Um, TC, christian1 did, in message #310:

"Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up."

He says that Evolution is a religion, and implies that it shouldn't even be called science at all.

Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:22 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 9:59 PM nator has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 365 (4454)
02-13-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by nator
02-13-2002 7:14 PM


"Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff."
--It seems as if my argument is with both.

--Toff said Evolution is Fact (or at least scientific) and that creationism is religion.
--Christian 1 states that Creation is a religion, and likewize evolution.
--TrueCreation states that their both wrong! I think it comes down to definition.

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by nator, posted 02-13-2002 7:14 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 324 of 365 (4583)
02-15-2002 9:52 AM


*Bump*

I don't want Cobra to forget about my and Mark's last posts. Giving him another chance to respond...


  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 365 (4594)
02-15-2002 11:08 AM


Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase. He's the stereotypical creationist. TrueCreation makes at least an effort to stay within the laws of science. Other creationists do not.
Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 4:17 PM quicksink has responded
 Message 328 by Percy, posted 02-16-2002 8:53 AM quicksink has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 365 (4628)
02-15-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by quicksink
02-15-2002 11:08 AM


"Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase."
--*Christian*1 is not a 'nutcase', there arent any nutcases in these forums, I almost feel odd including urself in that definition , theres been ignorance, bias, etc. But no nutcases, Christian1 is on the right track, he might wan't to be a bit more open-minded, but he is still on the right track. It takes experience for you to build on your understanding and your knowledge, these forums are one of the best 'buffer-uppers' you can get into to do that on this subject. A couple of months ago I would have been arguing relatively the same position he is arguing. Fortunatelly, my debating style most of the time gives me alot of slack in the way, mostly from my more 'gentle' per se approach, rather than making accusations and the like.

"He's the stereotypical creationist. TrueCreation makes at least an effort to stay within the laws of creatscience. Other ionists do not."
--I know other creationists that argue the same position as I, and they are correct, everyone, some more than others, possibly like yourself and christian1 ((oops) all have experience to catch up with).

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 11:08 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 8:28 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 365 (4691)
02-16-2002 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by TrueCreation
02-15-2002 4:17 PM


I do not believe that Creation1 is on the right track. I used to be a christian, by the way. anyway, Creation1 refuses to accept anything of science. "A little" closed minded". Creation1 said that he/she would not even debate, and that if we read the bible there WOULDN'T be debate. Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally.

Creation1 insisted that he/she was right, but then refused to support her claim. Clearly he/she is simply operating on a platform of faith and denial.

i myself am not closed-minded. As i said, I was a christian, but now I'm not. If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen. But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution. Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx. This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created. At least science isn't making up things.

Meanwhile, you have called me unintelligent and close-minded, and accused me of violating copyright laws, which most certainly did not. This really isn't impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 4:17 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 11:43 AM quicksink has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 328 of 365 (4692)
02-16-2002 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by quicksink
02-15-2002 11:08 AM


Hi Quicksink!

Congratulations on a relatively smooth transition into the spirit of this board, but there's still an occasional bit of roughness around the edges:


Quicksink writes:
Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase.

I know what you're trying to say, but this is pushing up against the limits of rule 2. I try to encourage people here to avoid bald characterizations like this, to be more deliberative, and to support their positions with discussion and evidence. In this particular case you could characterize what you feel are the irrational aspects of Christian's position. I think you've done this already, and so it would be fine just to refer to another message.

I know that saying something like, "His positions are in conflict with themselves and reality" and then describing how you reached this conclusion doesn't have the same panache as a simple "He's a nutcase," but the more circumspect approach prevents these debates from sinking into anarchy, and the ensuing discussion often helps to bring out nuances in the other's position of which you might have been unaware. Or, incredibly, you might actually persuade someone to accept your point of view. On a volatile and polarized subject like this it's rare, but it happens.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 11:08 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 10:25 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 365 (4694)
02-16-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Percy
02-16-2002 8:53 AM


sorry about that, i git a little carried away. Ill try to hold my tongue a little bit, and express my thoughts a little less bluntly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Percy, posted 02-16-2002 8:53 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 365 (4695)
02-16-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by quicksink
02-16-2002 8:28 AM


"I do not believe that Creation1 is on the right track."
--Like I said, its about experience and knowledge, even yourself has some catching up to do.

"I used to be a christian, by the way."
--Thats unfortunate, what made you turn, and what would make you turn back?

"anyway, Creation1 refuses to accept anything of science. "A little" closed minded". Creation1 said that he/she would not even debate, and that if we read the bible there WOULDN'T be debate."
--I don't think he refuses, I would have to say that if this were the case it would be from a lack of knowledge in the area to the degree of the argument, through experience anyone can find conclusions.

"Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally."
--Yes, and you have a Creationist in here that has read it and doesn't take it 'literally' either , myself!

"Creation1 insisted that he/she was right, but then refused to support her claim. Clearly he/she is simply operating on a platform of faith and denial."
--Who really knows what it is, I would urge him to stay in the debate, but to be more open-minded, but at the same time avoid discouragement from a missunderstandment, this used to allways get to me, untill I realized I simply don't know it enough!

"i myself am not closed-minded. As i said, I was a christian, but now I'm not."
--See above

"If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen."
--I've never encountered a fallacy, care to show me one, as I have been waiting for one for years.

"But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution."
--Ehem...Your new so I'll let you get in-touch with the model:

quote:

Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

quote:

I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

--So what is it we twist to support creation that is suppost to support evolution?

"Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx."
--Hey that wasn't mine, Im not a PhD, that was from one of the dating methods they use to date structures like that, haven't you ever heard of Uniformitariansism?

"This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created."
--I have yet to find any, care to list some?

"At least science isn't making up things."
--Yeah, if it was, we would be in the hole.

"Meanwhile, you have called me unintelligent and close-minded, and accused me of violating copyright laws, which most certainly did not. This really isn't impressive."
--I didn't call you unintelligent, I didn't say you were close-minded either (though by remenince of your posts it sure is pronounced), I believe Percipient was the one that violated copyright laws in the forum, which you did. I said that you were in an intelligent debate, as this is, to tell you the truth, where the most intelligence you will find in an online debate forum. By your technique of debate you superimposed when you entered the forums you were not off to the cleanest start. I'm glad things seem to be settling down.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 8:28 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 11:59 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 333 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 10:57 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 334 by toff, posted 02-19-2002 3:05 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 365 (4697)
02-16-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 11:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution."
--Ehem...Your new so I'll let you get in-touch with the model:

--So what is it we twist to support creation that is suppost to support evolution?

"Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx."
--Hey that wasn't mine, Im not a PhD, that was from one of the dating methods they use to date structures like that, haven't you ever heard of Uniformitariansism?

"This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created."
--I have yet to find any, care to list some?


I would love to list some. For example, I heard one creationist say there were seeds on the Ark, and they were replanted to bring back vegetation.

I have to go, so i cannot list more.

I will soon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 11:43 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:32 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 332 of 365 (4703)
02-16-2002 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by quicksink
02-16-2002 11:59 AM


"I would love to list some. For example, I heard one creationist say there were seeds on the Ark, and they were replanted to bring back vegetation."
--I quote myself from the other forum you posted this:

quote:

--Seeds were not brought on the ark, if you really wan't an answer find some seeds and throw them in your pool, they don't just sink, also if your going to have the masses of vegetation floating on the oceans your going to have seeds on them also.

"I have to go, so i cannot list more."
--Please do later, and take your time.

"I will soon."
--Thanx, please limit it to an argument of about 5-7, if it is much more than that it is a bit discouraging. Also when you use other resources as a copy/paste, use the quote UBB tag for them and then make your comment, it is easier organized in this way.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 11:59 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2001 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 333 of 365 (4930)
02-18-2002 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 11:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally."
--Yes, and you have a Creationist in here that has read it and doesn't take it 'literally' either , myself!

From your posts I would guess you are a Young Earther ... where does
that belief come from if NOT a literal interpretation of the
bible ?

Why would you reject the concept of evolution unless you take
the Bible to contain the literal truth.

It is possible to interpret Genesis I as an abridged version
of the same tale Evolution tells. The order of the creation
of the universe and of the emergence of
animals is broadly speaking right.

The only reason for arguing against evolution is to adhere to
a literal interpretation of the bible. Or is there some
other reason ?

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen."
--I've never encountered a fallacy, care to show me one, as I have been waiting for one for years.

Define fallacy.

There are few historical events which can be corroborated (see
Historical corroboration thread for the few that sort of fit ...
discuss it there please).

One fallacy, from my world view, would be that the Earth is only
around 6000 years old. (Another thread too).

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution."
--Ehem...Your new so I'll let you get in-touch with the model:

--So what is it we twist to support creation that is suppost to support evolution?


Huge and bizarre creation of a white hole thingy to satisfy young
earth-old universe

radiometric dating is clearly wrong because it contradicts a literal
interpratation of the bible.

The fossil record MUST have been laid down by the flood!!

You can trace fossil horses through an obvious progression, but
it MUST be illusory becaused there are no forms in between any
two of the sequence!! Likewise ear oscicles.

Rocks couldn't possibly bend like that!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 11:43 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
232425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019