|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4743 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It is very hard to have a serious discussion with people who actually disregard Creation Science based on the false belief that Creation Science is religion in disguise. I mean, I am the one who is ROTFLMAO! That notion is absolutely ignorant. Hmmmm. Interesting. If creation "science" is not derived from religious belief can you explain to me exactly how creation science is different from just plain old "science"? What exactly is it that defines "creation science" as creation science as opposed to normal, or indeed any other kind of, science? Be explict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Creation suggests that everything in the world was created at one point in time through processes that are no longer continuing today. Created by what? If the foundation of this hypothesis is not religious then may I ask from what basis this hypothesis was borne?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Created by what? If the foundation of this hypothesis is not religious then may I ask from what basis this hypothesis was borne? Unless you are going to address the how/who or what of the origins behind evolutionary theory. Of course, you can't do that without admitting that evolution is about origins--which evolutionists completely deny. Actually evolution is not about origins. Evolution is about evolution. You can come up with various sources for the first form of life, theistic or otherwise, and still remain firmly within the boundaries of evolutionary theory. However evolution is not the subject at hand. Creation "science" is the subject at hand. Are you actually able to explain your position regarding creation "science" in it's own terms or do all your arguments rely on comparison to evolution? So I ask again - If not a religious foundation then on what basis is the "hypothesis" that things were created derived? Why is this a valid hypothesis? What leads to the tentative untested conclusion (i.e. hypothesis) that creation is necessary or even viable? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
We can see design in every aspect of life. Creation Science seeks to show this design. Obviously if there is design, there must be a designer. But that is something that every individual can address on their own in their lives whether they would choose to believe that this creator is a God or an alien. This is not the issue at hand for Creation Science. Ahhh. So in fact you are an intelligent design advocate rather than a strict creationist. Is everything designed?If not how can we differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed? What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How did life just pop-up out of nothing? What was the starting cause? Where did all the elements needed come from? Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak? Evolution makes no claim to explain the origins of life. The scientific investigation of that question would be abiogenesis. Again none of this addresses the question of creation science which is what you have claimed to be able to present evidence for. If "creation" science does not include creation then I am at a loss as to what it is supposed to explain? But that is why I am hoping to hear from you exactly what creation science is. I continue to wait. I have yet to hear anything other than flawed comparisons to aspects of non-creation science. Do you think scientific papers on evolutionary biology continually refer to creation science in order to make their conclusions? Are you able to explain creation science in it's own terms without comparison to other theories or not? If not why on Earth do you think it has any validity in it's own right whatsoever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Is everything designed?If not how can we differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed? What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart? It attempts to answer these questions by studying the evidence left behind. It is an entire field of study. I would say that the more there is a purpose for something, the more evident the design would be. One of the most interesting aspect of design for me is the instinct for survival and the varying mechanisms of different species to protect themselves. Camouflage design is particularly interesting to me. That is all very well. But is design something which can only be subjectively concluded or is there an objective measure by which we can conclude that some things are designed and some things are not? How can we objectively differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed? What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you think that the ability of evolutionary theory to make specific predictions regarding new evidence which have then been later discovered as a direct result of said prediction in any way adds weight to the case for evolution?
Can creationism make verifiable predictions? Has creationism ever led to a single discovery? Or is creationism just the term used to describe religiously inspired 'after the event' interpretation of known evidence? What do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The discovery of Tiktaalik. The transitional between fish and amphibeans. Located exactly where predicted and relating to the exact geological period predicted. Without the specific prediction of this species it would not have been found. The specific prediction of this transitional in the specific geological period in which it would have lived directly led to it's discovery in the specific location predicted and searched. How do you think palaeontologists go about the business of fossil discovery? Do you think they just stick pins in a globe, fly off to random locations around the world and then dig about aimlessly? Palaeontologists have some knowledge of the earlier form of life in the sequence they are studying and some knowledge of the later forms of life. They know the time period where the predicted transitional fossils should exist between these forms of life (if evolutionary theory is indeed true) and the geological conditions that relate to this time period. They then determine the areas on the Earth where suitably fossilising rocks from the required time period might be accessible and begin the painstaking process of fossil discovery. In many cases taking years of concerted effort in often hostile conditions (deserts, Polar Regions etc.) Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted. Tiktaalik is a fine example of this process. So using knowledge of geology and the predictions of evolutionary theory we keep finding the fossilised remains of new species. Transitional species. Given IDs complete inability to discover anything at all and the success of evolutionary theory in predicting and discovering new species that have all the transitional qualities expected of evolutionary theory, how can you claim that the two theories are equally evidenced? Hiden material can be read by using the Peek button on the lower right. However do not respond to it. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Do babies developing in the womb also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024