Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
82 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr (3 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always a laugh
gene90
Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 31 of 75 (3921)
02-09-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:14 PM


[QUOTE][b]Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Can you logically justify that dichotomy? "Creation science" is a product of Creationism, so similar that the terms can be used interchangebly. What discredits creationism discredits "creation science". Also notice that the court cases do not make a distinction between "creationism" and "creation science".

The terms "Creationism", "Scientific Creationism", and "Creation Science" are interchangeable.

Legal definitions as declared by US courts

McLean v. Arkansas, United States District Court

"The terms ``creation science'' and ``scientific creationism'' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man. Perhaps the leading creationist organization is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)...."

II. Definition by the Scientific Community

Edward v. Aguillard Amicus Curiae Brief by 72 Nobel Laureates

"The District Court held that, beneath the labels, the terms "creation" and "creation-science" embody the principles of a particular religious sect or group of sects."

A Creationist is a person that believes in "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", which are synonyms.

Also, since you believe there is some kind of dichotomy, will you concede that Creationism is not scientifically valid and is therefore not a scientific alternative to evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:04 PM gene90 has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 75 (3931)
02-09-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 12:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Give me a scientific theory that relates to creationism. I keep asking and you disappear when I ask."
--Hm.. I don't think I disapear, I know I've addressed this before, I would like you to tell me what you would like to be associated with? What kind of explination would you like. There is a Theory for everything really that the creationists have, lets discuss one of a specific nature. I would find it more interesting if you would tell me what you would like me to explain, like I would rather ask you how you explain something. Probley because I don't have the Evolutionist mind-set, that is, It is harder for me to point out fallacies on the creationist side than the Evolutionists.


How about providing a scientific theory? What is the problem with that? I'm leaving this as broad as you like. I would like you to explain any natural phenomenon using 'creationist science'? Clear? Good. You can be specific and identify one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:27 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 7:52 AM lbhandli has taken no action

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 75 (3932)
02-09-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:14 PM


How are they different? Secondly, if it is science, why the modifier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 34 of 75 (3948)
02-09-2002 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by gene90
02-09-2002 5:18 PM


i can see courts claiming things like this. you believe what you believe not what someone tells you to. im sick of people making decisions for me. so let them say what they want to, i dont agree with it anyway.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 5:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 11:21 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 35 of 75 (3954)
02-09-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:04 PM


Are you retiring from the debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:04 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:31 PM gene90 has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 36 of 75 (3956)
02-09-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by gene90
02-09-2002 11:21 PM


what else can i do?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 11:21 PM gene90 has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 75 (3958)
02-10-2002 12:27 AM


"How about providing a scientific theory? What is the problem with that? I'm leaving this as broad as you like. I would like you to explain any natural phenomenon using 'creationist science'? Clear? Good. You can be specific and identify one."
--Well if you seriously just wan't a theory, ok, I was giving you the ability to tell me what you want the theory to be about. But lets see, a creationist theory. There has been much discussion, for instance, on the theory of Impact craters, I presented my own rudimentary theory on a plausable reason we may find some 'craters', I will present two views. My first theory, I would call the impact culdera theory, now I have not put this through much discussion, I have just given a basic presentation. I'll quote myself.

quote:

Also, a another plausable explination for the emense size of craters is from colapse of magma reservoirs creating hollow chambers the collapse under the weight, which was eroded by a factor of the global flood covering the collapsed magma reservoir. Just a thought form some reading I've been doing on Marine Geology.

quote:

This is an image of the Halemaumau Volcano in Hawaii, this is a Caldera formed by this action.

--As you can see in the image it is quite relativelly circular and is vastly emense. If this crater were to have the effects of erosion from a large amount of water as if a lake, at its rim, it would turn out much more circular than it currently is.


--My other plausable theory on this would be, that at the point of impact by the celectial object, whether comet, meteorite, or some other body that hit the earth. It would be that by the effects of a possible factor in the initial impact, would have been greatly effective in the calculation in the velocity or size of the impacting body. The factors quantifying the characteristics of the crater we observe today could be from different causes, for instance, viscosity of the compound impacted, the material that was impacted, its fluid saturation, amount of solidification and depth by which it is solidified.
--A conclusion at this point in this theory is that factors in the initial impact would have been much more 'leanient' if such a word would be used. That is, the impacted material, in theory would have been a time during the flood or shortly after in where non-solidified/lithified sediments were impacted and this Water saturated sediment was thrown into the air. Continuing to remain saturated by the effects of emense clouds of vapor covering a high portion of the earth, and simply returned to earth within a still large radius from impact.
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.

--These are my two theories on the Creation of the various impact craters, within the realms of science of a different interperetation. These are my rudimentary, non-peer reviewed as-of-yet theories.

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 1:17 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 48 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 2:01 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 38 of 75 (3962)
02-10-2002 12:44 AM


very interesting, itll also be interesting to see if your right.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:03 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 75 (3964)
02-10-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 12:44 AM


"very interesting, itll also be interesting to see if your right."
--Personally, I would expect a hit by my 'Caldera impact theory'. As possible remnants of the reservoir, which would intern trigger the cause of this collapse, caused either by Meteor impact or was itself a cause on its own without celestial devestation, would need to be evident or a feasable explination. Though I would also speculate that such a remnant would never had been considerd, thus examined the possibility.

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:44 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:13 AM TrueCreation has taken no action
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 2:06 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 40 of 75 (3966)
02-10-2002 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 1:03 AM


this could also mean that a comet never hit the earth and killed the dinosaurs. i also think its feasable that dinosaurs existed in our human time period. is there anyway to confirm this by testing the craters for recent volcanic activity from now to before the flood?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 2:19 PM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 41 of 75 (3967)
02-10-2002 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 12:27 AM


Are you trying to explain impact craters as being indeed volcanic calderas?

I think the characteristics of the two are clearly distinguishable.

And what does this have to do with the evolution/creation debate?

Moose

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 12:27 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:24 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action
 Message 43 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:26 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 75 (3969)
02-10-2002 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minnemooseus
02-10-2002 1:17 AM


"Are you trying to explain impact craters as being indeed volcanic calderas?"
--Yes, just a thought, and I thought I would suggest it.

"I think the characteristics of the two are clearly distinguishable."
--Very possibly yes, as I pointed out, there should be something you can get at.

"And what does this have to do with the evolution/creation debate?"
--They wanted Creationist theory. So I gave 2 of my thoughts on how cratering impacts could form within our time-scale without ending the world simmultaniously.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 1:17 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 43 of 75 (3970)
02-10-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minnemooseus
02-10-2002 1:17 AM


minnemooseus:
I think the characteristics of the two are clearly distinguishable.
--- thats why i asked if that if they can be, how you could, and then that they shoud be tested. i want to know too.

minnemooseus:
And what does this have to do with the evolution/creation debate?
----a lot. it can prove that dinosaurs existed during man's time and were possibly wiped out in the flood. it can prove that the flood actually occured. it can prove that "earth life destroying" comets have never hit the earth or at least not while man was in creation, which could be the first days of earth's creation, by God, or anytime before man in an evolution viewpoint.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 1:17 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 1:38 AM KingPenguin has replied
 Message 52 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 2:20 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 44 of 75 (3972)
02-10-2002 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 1:26 AM


quote:
minnemooseus:
I think the characteristics of the two are clearly distinguishable.

KP:
thats why i asked if that if they can be, how you could, and then that they shoud be tested.


To have a volcanic caldera, you must first have a volcano. If there are no volcanic rocks present, that eliminates it being a caldera.

Even if volcanic rocks are present, impact structures show characteristics such as high pressure formed minerals and related fracture patterns.

Moose

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:26 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:58 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action
 Message 47 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:19 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 45 of 75 (3973)
02-10-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
02-10-2002 1:38 AM


anyone care to travel the earth and investigate this? or see if someone has?

thanx for explanation moose

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 1:38 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022