Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 6 of 207 (501726)
03-07-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.
It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree.
The statement highlighted in orange, what are these studies you speak of? Presenting these studies is one of the tasks you have steadfastly refused to do. Advance them and you'll advance the debate.
The blue is off topic, so ya' know.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:02 PM lyx2no has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 19 of 207 (501768)
03-07-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kelly
03-07-2009 3:55 PM


No, Your Not , Are You
But regardless of what a person's religion is, creation science is a study of the evidence or data left behind from the origins moment--whatever that is, whether creation or slow evolution in the vertical sense.
Before Darwin, most scientists were creationists studying their particular field of interest. Today, just because evolutionary theory has grippied us by the throat doesn't mean that scientists can't still look for the created order and design of our world as opposed to looking for evidence of long slow evolutionary processes.
What Study?
AbE: Sorry, knee jerk.
It is ridiculous to try and limit this discussion
to just one half of the equation. As long as the overall topic is creation, we ought to be allowed to say the buzz word, evolution.

I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is not in the actual studies of the evidence itself, but it comes in the interpretations. The methods of science are the same. The difference is in the models and the interpretation of the results of these studies.
You've given no list of studies. A study would look something like this:
Biskit and Gravy (1982). "On why my poop doesn't stink". Science 2024: 15825—14530.
Did you do that? Where are the studies?
The blue is off topic, so ya' know.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 3:55 PM Kelly has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 90 of 207 (502116)
03-09-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


Simplton Representation
If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today--especially considering the second law.
Your understanding of 2LoT is idiotic. Is rain a violation of 2LoT? If not, then neither is the leaping, if 3.5 billion years can be properly called a leap, from the most simplest of forms to some (Which ones missed the cut?) of the most complexest forms. Not that any of it is on topic.
You: Creationists do real science.
Me: Really, how?
You: Doing the same thing other scientists do.
Me: Such as ?
You: Research.
Me: Do you have an example?
You: Scientific research isn't only done by scientist.
Me: Actually it is; that's why they are called scientists. Can you show me any scientific research that was done by creationists.
Ox: Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas High School football rules!
Bill: Bogus. Heinous. Most non-triumphant.
Edited by lyx2no, : Lost some of the quote.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 142 of 207 (502339)
03-11-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
03-11-2009 4:09 AM


AMA Approved
She's also claiming that she has his medical license, the patients' signed consent forms and an AMA approved manual describing the procedure in her pocket but demands that we take her word for that.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 4:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 204 of 207 (502494)
03-11-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
San Dimas High School Football Rules!

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024