Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:42 PM
45 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,507 Year: 3,544/19,786 Month: 539/1,087 Week: 129/212 Day: 45/14 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   what is a scientific theory of creation
Dream Master
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 58 (8088)
04-02-2002 1:33 AM


I'm going to throw up here with so much debate

creationism = 3000 year old fairytale
Evolution = Scientific method's greatest 19th century triumph

lbhandli, why go through all the trouble?
Creationists will eventually die and the greater majority of intelligent people will perfect our theory of evolution to the point that no other is possible.

It is actually curious to find that most creationist didn't have a very adecuate high school education and grab unto their idea for overwhelming stubborness to admit ignorance.

ignorance is the main reason not a single creationist model is reasonably admittable to the higher orders of our civilization.

[This message has been edited by Dream Master, 04-02-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-02-2002 11:12 PM Dream Master has not yet responded
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 9:57 PM Dream Master has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 58 (8129)
04-02-2002 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dream Master
04-02-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dream Master:
I'm going to throw up here with so much debate

creationism = 3000 year old fairytale
Evolution = Scientific method's greatest 19th century triumph

lbhandli, why go through all the trouble?
Creationists will eventually die and the greater majority of intelligent people will perfect our theory of evolution to the point that no other is possible.

It is actually curious to find that most creationist didn't have a very adecuate high school education and grab unto their idea for overwhelming stubborness to admit ignorance.

ignorance is the main reason not a single creationist model is reasonably admittable to the higher orders of our civilization.

[This message has been edited by Dream Master, 04-02-2002]


Yeah, and most of us Creationists don't have very "adecuate" spelling either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dream Master, posted 04-02-2002 1:33 AM Dream Master has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 58 (8800)
04-22-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Quetzal
02-18-2002 3:19 AM


My next reply will show in the difference of Roman and Christian Map making (mirrored technically in a workable raster/vector GIS difference) that creation science does indeed have a natural philosphy extension out of bio-philately at least and the symbolic nature of information gained by the placeing of organisms on historic maps and for reading some kinds of taxogeny.

That this possibility whent unrecorded in the paper and pen age of Vonneumannisms is unjustified as is the British Museum Map room idea of not including croizat in this kind of study. Croizat as an evoulutionist clearly practiced this skill that is also I think a part of the developing bariminology discussions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 02-18-2002 3:19 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 58 (8813)
04-22-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dream Master
04-02-2002 1:33 AM


"I'm going to throw up here with so much debate"
--Hm.. Oddly, the first page you see when entering percipients page is a paragraph starting with "The debate has raged ever since Darwin and shows no signs of letting up." Is it just me or is something not quite right here?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dream Master, posted 04-02-2002 1:33 AM Dream Master has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2002 8:05 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 58 (8836)
04-23-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
04-22-2002 9:57 PM


True , ever since you put up your graphic I have known "something" was not right but stil it could only be you!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 9:57 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 8:20 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 58 (9077)
04-28-2002 3:04 PM


I have recently started a new topic, "What if creationism did get into the science class", which can be found at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=21&t=3&p=2

A most fundimental part of the above topic, is the matter of this topic.

So I repeat the topic question:
"What is a scientific theory of creation"

If creationism / "creation science" is to be taught in the classroom, a curriculum of "creation science" must exist.

So, What is the scientific theory of creation? If there is none, then there is nothing to be taught about creationism, in the science classroom (other than perhaps a discussion of "bad science").

A coherent program of "creation science" is required. Not bits and pieces of ideas of questionable quality.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 58 (9122)
04-29-2002 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brad McFall
04-23-2002 8:05 PM


"True , ever since you put up your graphic I have known "something" was not right but stil it could only be you! "
--Hey Brad, I think I can understand your post! I think my graphic is nice, Its a minimization of a full-scale wall paper Take a look at the full version. In my opinion it gives a whole new meaning to 'eye candy'.

http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/Walls/Wall2Widescreen.jpg
-Enjoy!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2002 8:05 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 38 of 58 (9142)
04-30-2002 11:28 AM


Just presenting some information and sources ---

From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/science.htm :

WHAT IS THE "SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATION"? by Lenny Flank (c) 1996

The creationists are insistent that their religious outlook, based upon a literal reading of the Biblical account in Genesis, is really "science", and is not merely a rehash of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. However, when pressed to tell us exactly what their scientific theory is, they usually either do not respond at all, or else they respond with a long list of inaccurate criticisms of evolutionary theory (which of course do nothing at all to demonstrate the scientific validity of the creationist outlook).

However, the creationists have published what they refer to as their "scientific model" of creation, and it is worth taking a look at (for a good laugh if for nothing else). Looking at what they present as their "scientific model", it is no wonder that the creationist prefer to depend on their tried-and-untrue criticisms of evolutionary theory, since their own "scientific model" is so patently silly.

So here is the "scientific model of creation" as set out by the Institute for Creation Research, along with my own notes and comments.

The ICR begins by pointing out:

"Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, as follows:

(1) 'Scientific creationism' (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model).

(2) 'Biblical creationism' (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model).

(3) 'Scientific Biblical creationism' )full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model)." (All quotes are from ICR Impact No, 85, "The Tenets of Creationism", Henry Morris, July 1980) ( http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-085.htm )

The second and third of these three "forms", of course, rely explicitly on religious doctrines (as indicated by the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Christian Bible), and are, therefore, illegal to teach in public schools in the United States (under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). The first "form", presumably, is the one that creation "scientists" are investigating and defending, and is also presumably the one that the creationists would like to have taught in science classrooms as an "alternative" to the scientific model of evolution.

(See source for continuation) - Moose

-----
Also -
A Canadian(?) perspective:

Religion, Science, and Law: Defining the Science in Scientific Creationism by Dov Wisbrod
http://www.catalaw.com/dov/docs/dw-scicr.htm

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


    
nator
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 58 (9172)
05-02-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cobra_snake
02-17-2002 1:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]I read the entire article, front to back (I read it about a month ago when you last provided the link). However, I am somehow under the impression that the person who wrote this definition is not much of a supporter of Creation Science:

"Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge."[/QUOTE]

I would agree that the author is not a supporter of Creation Science.

This is because, as painstakingly explained in the essay, Creation "science" claims to be scientific, yet does not follow any of the tennets of science.

In other words, Creation "science" is attempting to use the trappings and language of science to appear scientific dishonestly. They promote their religious cause under a pseudoscientific disguise to fool people into beliving that what they do is as reliable as what real scientists do and what authentic science has produced.

I find this dishonest activity denigrating to both science and religion.

quote:
Well the question is not whether or not this author thinks Creation science is science, the question is whether or not he is correct in his claim.

Well, Creation "scientists" do claim to know emperical truth a priori, don't they? They are therefore violating a main tennet of science, so are not doing science, by definition.

It would seem that the author is correct.

quote:
First of all, I know of at least ONE evolutionist who changed his thinking to become a creationists (Gary Parker).

So what?

quote:
I do realize that there are probably quite a few examples of Creationists changing to Evolutionists,

Actually, I doubt it. Creationism is a religious belief taught to people from infancy, and people tend to not challenge such beliefs, particulary if the think that they will go to hell if they stop believing.

quote:
but this simply does not matter, because the principal is the same.

The scientific principals are the same, it's true. Creation "science" is still not science because it violates the tennets of science.

quote:
Also, I think the claim is unfair because I think many evolutionists start of with a bias towards a naturalistic point of view.

Look, either Creation "science" follows the tennets of science or it doesn't. Since it doesn't, it isn't science. Additionally, since it is steeped in Protestant Christianity and it's very basis is a certain interpretation of the Christian Bible, it bears a greater resemblance to a religion than to a science.

[QUOTE]I promise, I DID read the article and I DID find it fairly interesting.[/B]


Good, I'm glad. I'm disappointed that you seem to be waving away every point it made with the cry of "bias", though.

Perhaps you would be interested in discussing the specific tennets of and characteristics of science here. Pick one and we'll have a go.

Here's the link again for your convenience:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

Allison

------------------
"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 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 1:10 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 58 (9242)
05-05-2002 1:46 PM


Just to state (or more likely restate) a basic point.

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.

For "creation science" to gain any legitimacy as being truely in the realm of science, there must be scientific evidence of the creator.

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.

So, once again, where is the scientific theory of creation?
Where is the scientific evidence of there being a creator?

"Creation science" can not be divorced from the concept of there being a creator.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-05-2002]


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 41 of 58 (9316)
05-07-2002 12:43 PM


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:

-----

quote:
"--I didn't say that can't, only they have a hard time. "
--I must then emphasize, I have no more of a hard time than conventional scientists.

I would argue that you have a harder time. Conventional scientists have how many years of research backing up their claims of an old earth and evolution? You need to come up with theories that can be demonstrated and repeated that will refute conventional thinking, you have an uphill battle for sure.

quote:
I don't need to. Creationism is based on the bible no?"
--Not based on, included.

Where did the idea for creationism come from then if not the old testament? Was the idea plucked out of the air and then ancient texts looked for to back up said idea? Can you give me links to non christian sites that refrence other ancient texts besides the bible? Can you give me any references that show how creationism is really a search for the origins of man and the earth with no references to any holy book? Think about it, you are trying to prove the existance of a world flood, that is only referenced(if I am wrong please let me know) in the BIBLE. You are trying to prove the BIBLE right.

quote:
"If that is the case then ALL research is referenced to it."
--No, sorry.

Is based upon a better choice of words? But make no mistake, the bible is a major influence in creationism. If the bible said God made us from monkeys would there be Creationism?

quote:
"The bible says the earth is young and creationists are trying to show that to be true."
--Some yes, in this case you would be right, however, it is only their conclusions upon data which this would be a factor. Conclusions which I may differ with many creationists.

Ok, if you fail to find sufficient evidence that points to a world wide flood, or you are shown flaws in your conclusions at what point do you say "I am barking up the wrong tree, the Earth is Old" or "We can't find evidence of 400 year old men, maybe we did evolve." At what point do you, personally, decide to do that? You say your conclusions are different than many creationists, which conclusions are they? Do they concern young earth theory or conclusions about human origins?

quote:
"If there was no bible, there would be no creation science."
--There would have been no idea of it in the first place. However as I have explained, the term 'creation science' is misleading in its name.

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.

-----

Everything between the "-----" dividers is from TrueCreation or RedVento.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 42 of 58 (9337)
05-07-2002 9:05 PM


More from Suttkus, at the Yahooland site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/message/13285

The lead in statement:
A course in critical thinking would be the best, if all sides
were presented objectively. I heard somewhere that was done, in
Florida. The Creationists later screamed for its removal, as they
were so badly trounced.

The Suttkus response:
There was one incident in Florida you may be referring to...

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. The creationists, a bit confused, responded by
sending the class in to watch the films again (since obviously the
class hadn't been paying attention the first time). The clas came
out with the same opinion they had the first time, the films were
badly done and illogical. The creationists wanted to send the kids
in to see the strips again, but since it was a voluntary
participation thing, the kids went home.

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.

-----

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Philip, posted 05-07-2002 11:44 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Philip
Member (Idle past 2798 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 43 of 58 (9340)
05-07-2002 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2002 9:05 PM


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) ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2002 9:05 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2002 5:03 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 44 of 58 (9525)
05-11-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Philip
05-07-2002 11:44 PM


First of all, I wish to make clear, that Philip's quotations attributed to me are from three different postings by me. The first cited quotes are original statements on my part.

The second quote (of which Philip reproduced the link) is something from another topic, that I thought belonged in this topic. RedVento is the author, although I do strongly agree with what he said.

The final quotes are material that I brought in from the Yahoo site. Those would perhaps have been better placed in the "What if creationism got into the science class" topic, but that topic and this topic are most closely related.

Philip, I must emphasise that I am not out on an attempt to use science to either prove or disprove God's existance. I believe that science and God are in two seperate realms, that can co-exist. The conflict is when the creationist side of the debate tries to inject considerations of God into the realm of science.

From: http://www.catalaw.com/dov/docs/dw-scicr.htm
From the section McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed.:

quote:
The plaintiffs in McLean argued that "Act 590's two-model approach was a deceptive attempt to introduce religious beliefs into public schools.... Mandatory inclusion of creation-science... would force what they believed to be a false choice between science and religion, and ultimately between science and God." The plaintiffs included leaders of non-fundamentalist churches, parents of Arkansas school children, and a teacher of high school biology. Several Jewish groups, and organizations involved in education and religion, also joined the challenge. The defence, relying heavily on the support provided by the declaration of purpose in Section 6 of the Act, argued that academic freedom and scientific inquiry were furthered by the provision of alternatives to students, and that both would be hindered by the censorship of "creation-science."

(my "bolds")

Also to Phillip: I am uncertain of your precise position in this debate. Apparently you are NOT a fundimentalist "Young Earth/Age Creationist" (YEC / YAC). You are of an Intelligent Design (ID) persuasion.

The YEC/YAC position is seriously in conflict with the worldly scientific observations. One is within ones rights to believe that the worldly observations are some sort of an illusion (and maybe it is), but the science involved is extremely strong.

Now for the ID position. As I understand it, ID is compatible with the concept of an old Earth. The fossil record is accepted as a real and valid history of what happened. The question is, what was the process that led to that history?

As I see ID, there is two basic positions (plus hybrids):

1) A sequence of many special creations down through time, which superficially mimics the more conventional evolutionary thought. This variation is something I picked up from the book "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller (which I am currently reading). Miller discusses the scientific problems with that, and I will perhaps get into Miller's thought further, later.

2) The conventional evolutionary thought, with God's guidance involved. This could be deemed to be fully compatible with mainstream scientific thought. God's possible input is outside of scientific study (or is it?, that is the essence of this topic).

From the message to which this is a response:

quote:
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.

Philip - Heard of ‘primary cause - effect’ relationships in science?


You have evidence of the effects. The cause being God's input, is still outside of the realm of science.

quote:
minnemooseus - So, once again, where is the scientific theory of creation?

Philip - 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.


I'm one who was not able to follow your thought process in that new topic. I will try to get back to it, to look at the clarifications. In this topic, what the evolution side is looking for, is a coherrent outline of the "creation science" model. If it has happened, here or elsewhere, it has eluded me.

Lastly, I must state: I am not a biologist; in fact, my biology background is quite weak. I leave the biological aspects (other than paleontology) of this debate to others.

I'm not sure this message does anything to forward the debate, but I tried.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Philip, posted 05-07-2002 11:44 PM Philip has not yet responded

    
Strawman
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 58 (9900)
05-18-2002 5:03 AM


I'm sure most evolutionists just hate this site, but here goes:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 05-18-2002 9:37 AM Strawman has not yet responded
 Message 47 by nator, posted 05-18-2002 9:47 PM Strawman has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019