quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The phrase "creation science" implies that there must be a creator. Now this creator may be God, or may be some other influence outside of any current knowledge of science.
--Creation science hypothesizes a Creator, not UFOs (except for Frances Crick (pardon the spelling))
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
For "creation science" to gain any legitimacy as being truely in the realm of science, there must be scientific evidence of the creator.
--Evidence appears in degrees for any scientific hypothesis, creational or mutational. Are you stating evidence for significant selected beneficial mutational (evolutional) changes in eukaryotes actually exists? Are your data presumptions a priori/hypothetical only? If not, show me significant chains of DNA-mutation -- > higher speciation, scientifically.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
So, for any variety of creation to be taught as science (re: the science in the classroom topic), scientific evidence of the creator must be present.
--Heard of ‘primary cause — effect’ relationships in science?
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
So, once again, where is the scientific theory of creation?
--I’ve explicitly presented one such model for you in this post, under Only ‘Christian’ ID Makes Logical Sense ? The other debaters here have presented at least portions of scientific logic.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Where is the scientific evidence of there being a creator?
Evidence from things that are seen (imperfect as they are) clearly indicate an awesome creator so that the evidence is without excuse: I.e.,
1) The sheer magnitude of the universal expanse with all its harmony, symmetry, and proportions supports the hypothesis ‘extreme’ ID. But see my in-depth model in this post for scientific observations.
2) The sheer magnitude of your ability to focus on this conversation is no trivial task to deny a god-head either.
Actually, the only ‘scientific’ excuse you or I seem to have denying a creator would be that: I don’t see or detect the Creator, therefore the creator is nothing.
[/B]Such questioning violates and cripples scientific inquiry[/B]. and are amoral, foolish, unethical, demeaning, and deluded, on ‘humanistic’ grounds.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
"Creation science" can not be divorced from the concept of there being a creator.
--True.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I bring this over from message 9 of the topic "Just A Thought".
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=18&t=4&m=9#9
It is a RedVento response to a TrueCreation message:
--Sorry, Moose. ‘Face to face’ debate without ‘references’ ‘clouding’ the issue is more effective persuasion (just my opinion, however). Please summarize the points you deem important in your references. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
As a non-creationist, please tell me what creation science is really about then. I would honestly like to understand. As far as I know creation science refers to the science of showing that Darwin was wrong, the earth is young and the bible is literal.
--In sum creation science gives hypotheses for a creator, designates materials and testings to support/reject the hypotheses, provides data (i.e., observable), tests the data, forms conclusions and discussions about the hypothesis: its validity, viability as a model, etc.
--Darwin, though right in some things and wrong on others, is not the creationists concern.
--Not all creationists (i.e., John Paul in this forum) believe in the bible as literal. But, unfortunately, many do became excessive ‘literalists’. I.e., Many scientific-Christians believe in 24-hour creation days (Morris, and others) based on solar time and atomic time, simultaneously. This clearly is not scientific as many scientists recognize ‘relativistic’ forces affect atomic time but not solar time.
--Alas, we all need science to help explain our scientific hypotheses.
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Some creationists took a gifted ed class and showed them a series of
pro-creationism film strips and then asked them a series of questions
about the "problems" in evolution. The class, by and large, ripped
the test apart
--Interesting, I taught science to several gifted classes and showed them a series of
pro-evolutionary strips and then asked them a series of questions
about the "problems" in creationism. The class, by and large, ripped
the test apart
(True, the school was a ‘fundamental’ Christian School; I won’t lie. But my point is that these ‘gifted’ children were brainwashed and egotistical the way they appear here (just my opinion))
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
If I was a creationist, I'd be fighting like crazy to keep
creationism out of science classes. Fear of violating the
establishment clause is all that keeps educated science teachers from
specifically trashing creationism for all it's worth as a perfect
example of bad science.
-- If I was a mutationalist (evolutionist in disguise), I'd be fighting like crazy to keep
mutationalism out of science classes. Fear of violating the
establishment clause is all that keeps educated science teachers from
specifically trashing mutationalism for all it's worth as a perfect
example of bad science.
--Think about it Moose, the raw mechanism of evolutionism: Mutant DNA alone! How could anyone possibly teach this as science, then turn around and call it evolution (which it is not) ?
™ Version 4.2