Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,076 Year: 22,112/19,786 Month: 675/1,834 Week: 175/500 Day: 3/69 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationists panick...
maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 34 (1139)
12-23-2001 2:32 AM


I've been scouring the webforums about this subject. From extremely religious forums that tend to shift to fundamentalist views to forums of intellectual evolutionalists that claim to have all the answers. I've come to the conclusion that creationists make it a sport to critisize insignificant details and flaws of any development or new theory on evolution by people that mostly spend their whole life studying the subject.
I observed that Creationists in my oppinion tend to panick that evolution theory pushes a god further and further away from their existance and reduces them too close for comfort to an organism instead of a child of some superbeing. The irony of it is , I think, is that Evolutionism doesn't prove that there isn't a god, yet religious people are really defensive about Evolution. It just puts god in a different perspective and should enrich religions. Even though I'm an atheist and an evolutionist I respect religions or any seekers of truth for that matter, but I tend lose that respect when I see people bashing scientific method that made you be able to microwave your dinner yet they accept without question the contents of some book written and rewritten by mortal people. Science is by no means perfect but this childish denial of some people really needs to stop.

You creationists , prove to me that the sun is a star. Have you been to star before? Have you seen it closeby with your own eyes? You accept that as a scientific fact , yet you cannot accept evolutional theories that are formed in the same way. I'm stepping in your view of the world here.

Religion always resisted science in history , they have always been competing . Religion is the answer to the unanswerable for the ignorant being. When science actually tries to formulate an answer , religion feel threatened. It took years and several scientists to convince people the earth wasn't flat nor the center of the universe even though their calculations where accurate but people simply did not accept any infractions on their beliefs or self adorance (indeed that's what christianity and most religions really teach : we are the children of a superbeing , so that makes us kind of "super" ourselves) . The definitive proof came when we orbited earth and saw it with our own eyes that Earth was a sphere. Maybe someday we will breach another frontier called Time and denying people will see it with their own eyes that Evolution did make us what we are and then the next question will be: Who/what caused evolution to happen? And Scientists will have theories and Religion will have an interpretation of the bible I hope I live to write a simular post then

Greetings

Maxime Hillaert
Belgium

P.S. Pardon my dutch-speaking-brains for any spelling errors in the english language .

Maxime Hillaert

-In life nobody is right, the most rightious are the ones who realise that-

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-23-2001]

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-23-2001]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 11:37 AM maxm007 has responded
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 12-23-2001 2:09 PM maxm007 has not yet responded
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 12-25-2001 10:20 PM maxm007 has responded

ekimklaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 34 (1143)
12-23-2001 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by maxm007
12-23-2001 2:32 AM


Hello Max,

You have called Christians ignorant, yet you admit you are an Atheist. Have you tried to study the Bible? Probably not. If you did, you would sense a supernatural quality to the book. But you've prejudged this world-changing and life altering book without investigation on your own. You are as religious as I am, Max, you have faith in science. Nature is your god. My recommendation to you is to read the book first. With an open mind. You'll be stunned at how it falls in line with science. There're no giants holding up the sky, no flat earth riding on a giant turtle's back, etc. In fact the Bible never makes an assertion that is scientifically wrong. If it was simply written by men (like greek myths and other mythologies) there would be all manner of embarrassing mistakes. But there aren't any. See for yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by maxm007, posted 12-23-2001 2:32 AM maxm007 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-23-2001 12:04 PM ekimklaw has responded
 Message 8 by maxm007, posted 12-23-2001 7:24 PM ekimklaw has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 34 (1144)
12-23-2001 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by ekimklaw
12-23-2001 11:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ekimklaw:
Hello Max,

If you did, you would sense a supernatural quality to the book.


Pur-lease. If this "supernatural" quality can be sensed, it can be measured. In fact all texts of all religions should be measured with this "biblometer". The most "supernatural" one would be the real deal? Without going into the obvious point that supernatural things can't be sensed by definition.

quote:
Originally posted by ekimklaw:

you have faith in science. Nature is your god.


No, you have faith. We hold that scientific theories that best explain observable evidence is best. If new evidence comes along, a new theory can be made, meaning we never "believed" the first one, we just held it up as the best explanation at the time.

quote:
Originally posted by ekimklaw:

In fact the Bible never makes an assertion that is scientifically wrong.


Like any miracle you care to mention? For god to influence the universe by turning water into wine for example requires extra energy to be added to the universe. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics & causes serious problems for Einsteins E=MC2.
If the total energy increases, then the mass or speed of light must alter as well.

I'm still waiting to have all that flood water explained to me as well (with respect TC) , in "Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A" with mechanisms that don't contravene the laws of physics.

A remarkable claim!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 11:37 AM ekimklaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 1:55 PM mark24 has responded

ekimklaw
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 34 (1149)
12-23-2001 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
12-23-2001 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Like any miracle you care to mention? For god to influence the universe by turning water into wine for example requires extra energy to be added to the universe. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics & causes serious problems for Einsteins E=MC2.
If the total energy increases, then the mass or speed of light must alter as well.

I'm still waiting to have all that flood water explained to me as well (with respect TC) , in "Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A" with mechanisms that don't contravene the laws of physics.


Regarding miricles, if it didn't contravene natural law, it would not be miraculous. There is no limit to what God can do. To me, since God created the 1st law of thermodynamics, he can violate it if he chooses.
As for the flood water question, there is plenty of evidence all over the earth that shows that the world endured a sudden cataclysmic water event. The theory I subscribe to is that early on the world was shrouded in a dense water canopy which basically caused the earth to have a global "tropical" climate. When the water canopy came down the earth was left with a thin atmosphere. The flood waters subsided into oceans and underground cavities, etc. Now the earth was subject to geographic climate extremes and many creatures who existed in the dense atmosphere years, died off under the new harsher environment. This explains everything to my mind, and makes sense scientifically.

[/B][/QUOTE]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-23-2001 12:04 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 12-23-2001 2:35 PM ekimklaw has not yet responded
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 12-24-2001 3:55 PM ekimklaw has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 34 (1153)
12-23-2001 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by maxm007
12-23-2001 2:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by maxm007:
I've been scouring the webforums about this subject. From extremely religious forums that tend to shift to fundamentalist views to forums of intellectual evolutionalists that claim to have all the answers. I've come to the conclusion that creationists make it a sport to critisize insignificant details and flaws of any development or new theory on evolution by people that mostly spend their whole life studying the subject.
I observed that Creationists in my oppinion tend to panick that evolution theory pushes a god further and further away from their existance and reduces them too close for comfort to an organism instead of a child of some superbeing. The irony of it is , I think, is that Evolutionism doesn't prove that there isn't a god, yet religious people are really defensive about Evolution. It just puts god in a different perspective and should enrich religions. Even though I'm an atheist and an evolutionist I respect religions or any seekers of truth for that matter, but I tend lose that respect when I see people bashing scientific method that made you be able to microwave your dinner yet they accept without question the contents of some book written and rewritten by mortal people. Science is by no means perfect but this childish denial of some people really needs to stop.

You creationists , prove to me that the sun is a star. Have you been to star before?


As far as I understand the question deposed here is a reversal from one Bernard Shaw reposed that Huxley objected to. If that is indeed the origin of this specific question then I do not see why the creationist of any stripe is compelled to respond to this one when what is to be confused if I am correct is something that Huxley said in compation Creator God people and Lysenko. There is no comparision and Russians were justified to criticize Mendelians as ideal and seeking after a god that was an idol rather. So smooth questions do not upset A-B--c. But it is the consequence and result (in the interpreation ) that is potenially convergent and even then scientifically questionable. That is where I would leave any pressure which is only that I need to know if this is the intended etemology in the word? An interesting question nonetheless that would I respond would have to look at the black board Feynman and Bethe wrote about stars on. Thanks for the input. As far as the denial by will I have not been able to change the directum of it.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-27-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by maxm007, posted 12-23-2001 2:32 AM maxm007 has not yet responded

RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 34 (1156)
12-23-2001 2:16 PM


No, the Bible isn't a science book. It was written before the observation of science we now have today. People a few thousand years ago weren't going to go, well, just in case some guy in the 21st century can't work it out for himself we better include the exact details on how the flood water receeded. No, it wasn't written for some biology nerds, it was written for humans to understand the history of the earth, gain a relationship with God and see what's to come of the future. Why is it that you evolutionist always need stuff explained? Using the model the Bible maps out you have a lot of room for all the sciences to work with. And unlike evolution basic laws don't contradict it but rather abide by it. Perhaps you should go and study creation and see what it has to offer, not just ask questions on an internet forum, go buy some books from the real creationist who not only have a far better understanding of the ToE than you but can answer all your petty questions. I'm not saying creation is with out a doubt right, it's just that the creation argument is so damn hard to knock unlike the evolution argument. I've found creation to be rather scientific, even more so than evolution, which is what I'd call science fiction.
quote:
No, you have faith. We hold that scientific theories that best explain observable evidence is best. If new evidence comes along, a new theory can be made, meaning we never "believed" the first one, we just held it up as the best explanation at the time.

How far from the truth could you want to be. I'm a student and they just jam it in your face, not just at school but on the TV, saying this is fact you must believe it. Whenever you point out problems with it, or ask a simple question they just turn a blind eye or ridicule you. Creation isn't fully set down and can't budge. They just explore the evidence and see why the Biblical events are very plausible and most likely happened. There ideas on how it could of happen change from time to time, but the model stays. How is this any different with evolution? You are doing exactly the same thing, you have a model set down and you explore the evidence to see why this could be possible. This is hardly like drawing the scientific conclusion to gravity. It's not examine the evidence and develop a theory, it's develop a theory and examine the evidence. Please tell me how the ToE is so drastically different from creation. Or is it just people being ignorant on the unknown?

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-23-2001]


mark24
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 34 (1158)
12-23-2001 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ekimklaw
12-23-2001 1:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ekimklaw:

As for the flood water question, there is plenty of evidence all over the earth that shows that the world endured a sudden cataclysmic water event. The theory I subscribe to is that early on the world was shrouded in a dense water canopy which basically caused the earth to have a global "tropical" climate. When the water canopy came down the earth was left with a thin atmosphere. The flood waters subsided into oceans and underground cavities, etc. Now the earth was subject to geographic climate extremes and many creatures who existed in the dense atmosphere years, died off under the new harsher environment. This explains everything to my mind, and makes sense scientifically.

I challenge you & RetroCrono to go to the "Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A" thread & present your evidence.

I warn you now, I will be pinning you down on specifics, there will be no "I think it happened like this", you will be required to produce evidence for a flood theory that fits all geological phenomenon.

Please read the existing posts first.

I look forward to seeing you there.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 1:55 PM ekimklaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 12-25-2001 9:28 PM mark24 has responded

maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 34 (1174)
12-23-2001 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by ekimklaw
12-23-2001 11:37 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by ekimklaw:
[B]Hello Max,
You have called Christians ignorant, yet you admit you are an Atheist. [/QUOTE]

Hi ekimklaw,
Ignorant may have been a bad choice of words from my part.

quote:

Have you tried to study the Bible? Probably not.

Well , I've been to a catholic school. I've had religion as a subject in school for 8 years in a row 3 hours a week. So I know a little about the bible. (don't ask me to quote verses please )
I'll be the first one to admit that the people who wrote this book presented a revolutionary way of living and view on life. Jezus is to me a great person and philosopher. So unheard in his time were his ideas that people lifted him up to a demi-god.
Like Buddha, mohamed , etc. etc.

Ok now it's your turn, go to the library and start reading up on famous philosophers modern and ancient. And while you are there , lend a Desmond Morris book or any other evolutionist.

quote:

If you did, you would sense a supernatural quality to the book. But you've prejudged this world-changing and life altering book without investigation on your own.

I read plenty of books that changed my life and that totaly changed my view on the world.
Supernatural feelings about a book I still have to experience. But it sounds like a very subjective emotion you have experienced. Did you know that there's a part in your brain when stimulized with electrodes , induces religious visions and experiences? That part in your brain may be especially sensitive for you.
I 'm still searching for truth. Every new piece of evidence that may totally contradict what I feel I know , I will accept as an enrichment or even a replacement of my view of life. I don't see a creationist change his view. He's stuck in his dogmatic little prison.

quote:

You are as religious as I am, Max, you have faith in science. Nature is your god.

Well religious is not the word because that would mean that I would stick to any scientific theory nomatter what contradicting evidence may come up.
Let's say I'm as enthusiastic about science or Nature as you are about God.

Thx for replying Ekimklaw

Max Hillaert
Belgium

- In life nobody's right, the ones who are the most right are the ones who realize that-

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-23-2001]

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-23-2001]

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-23-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 11:37 AM ekimklaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 12-23-2001 10:14 PM maxm007 has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 34 (1176)
12-23-2001 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by maxm007
12-23-2001 7:24 PM


Seems to me that Creationism History is more one of a constant change of views while evolution thinking is one of less and less change (in the view) called "constriction" by Historian Will Provine (on? the view of landscape presented in the 30's at Cornell not in Chicago) while the opposite would be expected niavely but not necessarily prima facie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by maxm007, posted 12-23-2001 7:24 PM maxm007 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 2:02 PM Brad McFall has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 34 (1185)
12-24-2001 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ekimklaw
12-23-2001 1:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ekimklaw:
Regarding miricles, if it didn't contravene natural law, it would not be miraculous. There is no limit to what God can do. To me, since God created the 1st law of thermodynamics, he can violate it if he chooses.

But how is this falling in line with science?

Anyway, Merry Christmas

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ekimklaw, posted 12-23-2001 1:55 PM ekimklaw has not yet responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 34 (1189)
12-25-2001 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
12-23-2001 2:35 PM


"I warn you now, I will be pinning you down on specifics, there will be no "I think it happened like this", you will be required to produce evidence for a flood theory that fits all geological phenomenon."

--Why do some people just feel like attacking the subject and not considering the evidence to point to different interperetations and that it is entirely possible? Discussion is great and I am working on replying to 3 of the posts in the "Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q & A" thread its a little tough because I have to explain and try not to mess up so much when I do so. So theres a little research needed to be made.
"I think it happened like this"? You practically contredicted yourself. What does the evidence tell us? It tells us what could have happend as long as it cooperates with what your basing your theory on, the evidence. So what really would your point be when you say we can't say 'well I think it happend like this", when the entire idea of Evolution is based on that assertion? Everything is based on that assertion if you cannot obtain historical evidence for it.
As for being 'required to produce evidence for a flood theory that fits all geological phenomenon.' that can be discussed well.

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 12-23-2001 2:35 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 12-26-2001 3:46 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (1190)
12-25-2001 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by maxm007
12-23-2001 2:32 AM


"I've come to the conclusion that creationists make it a sport to critisize insignificant details and flaws of any development or new theory on evolution by people that mostly spend their whole life studying the subject."
--You've come to such a conclusion have you? Well I would have to say that I have come to the conclusion that you don't look at the creationist view while putting creationist glasses on (analogy). Creationists don't make it a sport to critisize theories just because they are Theories on Evolution. But what I have seemed to find is that almost everyone has some sort of flaw in it. I don't say 'Oh my gosh a new theory on evolution! We better panick, they are going to blow us away with this one because we can't explain it otherwize! We better discredit it right before we even hear about it." Nor is that what I or any other Creationist that I know of does the same. Though I can feel rest assured that practically everyone pointing to 'millions of years' or something of that nature always has something in it that can be explained to point to something almost the total opposite. And that is with considering their interperetation of the evidence.

"I observed that Creationists in my oppinion tend to panick that evolution theory pushes a god further and further away from their existance and reduces them too close for comfort to an organism instead of a child of some superbeing."
--I don't have to worry about that, nor should any other Creationist.

"The irony of it is , I think, is that Evolutionism doesn't prove that there isn't a god, yet religious people are really defensive about Evolution."
--I don't know too much about the other religions, unfortunately much of the catholic church has come to accept it. And unfortunately some christians also. Its not that it denies the possibility of a God its that it practically destroys who God really is.

"It just puts god in a different perspective and should enrich religions."
--It puts a different perspecitve on it but defenantly should not enrich religions, especially the Biblical God. It denies some of the most important aspects of the bible. Even Jesus our Creator, himself denied Evolution, 'For in the beginning God created them male and female', 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made' (Jesus did not speak that quote).

"Even though I'm an atheist and an evolutionist I respect religions or any seekers of truth for that matter, but I tend lose that respect when I see people bashing scientific method that made you be able to microwave your dinner yet they accept without question the contents of some book written and rewritten by mortal people."
--Im glad you respect the 'seekers of truth and religions' but I find that you don't know what Creationist scientists say when they open their mouths, and look at them with 'Uniformitarian Glasses'. Creationists speak from science, not from blind faith, not directly from the bible and says 'well God did it' or 'God made it that way'. Science is Science, Theory is a Belief, founded on scientific interperetation. To deny evolution is not going to make the microwave any less microwavable. Evolution is not a basis for higher thinking or the foundation for the reason we were able to invent the microwave or any other invention. The only thing Evolution has done I will admit is force Creationists to come up and defend their belief threw known science, logic, reason, and explination. Thus possibly paving the way for few inventions to come about or sertain areas of knowledge to increase. Though this is not a cause of Evolution, its a cause of a mind willing to think and find a reason, or explination, whether right, wrong, or misunderstood.

"Science is by no means perfect but this childish denial of some people really needs to stop."
--No creationist fights against science, we 'fight' against the people that try to propose their theories, and evolutionary thinking into the public school systems and feel they should only teach one side and critisize the other from their own ignorance. And the people that constantly put the pressure in saying it is a 'fact'.

"You creationists , prove to me that the sun is a star. Have you been to star before? Have you seen it closeby with your own eyes? You accept that as a scientific fact , yet you cannot accept evolutional theories that are formed in the same way. I'm stepping in your view of the world here."

Your asking a quesiton and explian a differnt answer because we are Creationists and you are Evoluitonists. Someone who denies that the sun is a star is simply missunderstood and according to defintion is science. 'A self-luminous celestial body consisting of a mass of gas held together by its own gravity in which the energy generated by nuclear reactions in the interior is balanced by the outflow of energy to the surface, and the inward-directed gravitational forces are balanced by the outward-directed gas and radiation pressures.' Surely, though our limited understanding of even our own sun, if the sun is not a star we should consider every other luminous ball of gas out there not stars also. That the sun is a star is not a theory it is a known fact, we can see the sun where it is now, but we cannot see evolution going threw the processes needed by evolution. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain the universe.

"Religion always resisted science in history , they have always been competing . Religion is the answer to the unanswerable for the ignorant being."
--I don't know too much about what the early churches thought of science but I know that today we don't have to be afraid of it and we should reach out and learn as much as we can because it is used to defend our faith and it is defended very well.

"When science actually tries to formulate an answer , religion feel threatened. It took years and several scientists to convince people the earth wasn't flat nor the center of the universe even though their calculations where accurate but people simply did not accept any infractions on their beliefs or self adorance (indeed that's what christianity and most religions really teach : we are the children of a superbeing , so that makes us kind of "super" ourselves). The definitive proof came when we orbited earth and saw it with our own eyes that Earth was a sphere."
--No where in the bible does it make the assertion that the world is flat, infact if you actually read it you can see it asserts the opposite, the earth is a 3D sphere. And it is layed out in scripture.

"Maybe someday we will breach another frontier called Time and denying people will see it with their own eyes that Evolution did make us what we are and then the next question will be: Who/what caused evolution to happen? And Scientists will have theories and Religion will have an interpretation of the bible I hope I live to write a simular post then."
And just mabye when we realize that God is who he says he is and that he created the world in 6 litteral days and that he truelly did fearfully and wonderfully create us and every knee will bow and every tounge confess that he is lord of all.

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by maxm007, posted 12-23-2001 2:32 AM maxm007 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by maxm007, posted 12-26-2001 11:39 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 34 (1300)
12-26-2001 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
12-25-2001 10:20 PM


Hi TrueCreation
Happy Hollidays , BTW!

quote:

Its not that it denies the possibility of a God its that it practically destroys who God really is

Yes I understand what you are saying. It would make from god just some force that created the universe and we just sprouted out of it because of some freak favorable conditions.
All his teachings in the bible would be then man-made and it would make a lot of people wrongly feel really stupid about themselves and more importantly it would make themselves feel really alone. I say wrongly because even if it's manmade it doesn't mean that isn't good way of living your life and it doesn't mean we are alone in the universe (but that's another discussion ).

Nobody seemed to understand my sun-question; I might have translated it a bit wrong from dutch. Ok second try: What I meant was that nobody makes a big deal about for example the theory of a blackhole . Nobody has definite proof that it exists because no one has seen one (or at least not closely enough to be sure it is one). Yet the calculations indicate that when a star with the right mass collapses some weird things happen to space and time. So in creationist line of thinking I'd call this theory worthless. We'd still be in the stone age we'd always think like that

quote:

And just mabye when we realize that God is who he says he is and that he created the world in 6 litteral days and that he truelly did fearfully and wonderfully create us and every knee will bow and every tounge confess that he is lord of all.

Hehe , you know, I knew that one was coming

Bye!

Maxime Hillaert

-Religions are like laundry detergents, the more you diversify the bigger the turnover-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 12-25-2001 10:20 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 34 (1306)
12-26-2001 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
12-25-2001 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]

See my signature? Occams razor. For our purposes it means the best theory to fit all the evidence. Very simple, no contention there. But I've seen you say that the evidence points to a flood. So, I'm trying to pin you down to exactly what evidence you have, & what the theory you have doesn't explain, that other theories do ,& vice versa. At the end of the day, the theory that best fits the evidence is exactly that, the best theory. I could theorise that salt water comes from a Galactic Goat that pisses brine, we could discuss it if you want. If you have evidence that points to different interpretations that CAN'T be explained by mainstream geology, lets have them. At the same time you need to consider what any flood theories don't explain. So, given you & others maintain there is evidence that makes a flood theory the best theory, lets have it! I'm not asking anything unreasonable. Just that you back up your claims.

What I'm asking is for all flood evidences to be presented, & be compared to all other geologic evidence, & a best theory to result. So, if were not talking "best" theories here, I want my goat piss theory considered. Or would that be ridiculous?

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 12-25-2001 9:28 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 510 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 34 (1330)
12-27-2001 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
12-23-2001 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Seems to me that Creationism History is more one of a constant change of views while evolution thinking is one of less and less change (in the view) called "constriction" by Historian Will Provine (on? the view of landscape presented in the 30's at Cornell not in Chicago) while the opposite would be expected niavely but not necessarily prima facie.

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

By contrast, Science changes constantly as new information is found, and science does not assume it knows what will be found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 12-23-2001 10:14 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-27-2001 8:42 PM nator 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 © 2019