People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Christian colleges, creation websites, etc.

I'd be willing to bet that at most Christian colleges, they still know the difference between science and nonsense. Unless of course, you're talking about places like Liberty where knowledge isn't particularly important.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well it's been fun. The thread is pretty much at a conclusion now and you seem to have given up (as you say, too many replies, not enough time, I sympathize). If you don't like it here, perhaps you would feel more comfortable at Evolution fairytale - a site run by Creationists and is heavily moderated. Unfortunately I'm banned from there (perhaps you think that is something in its favour ). There are less members and a much higher percentage are Creationists, so discussion is more favourable for you there, and it as at a much more leisurely pace.It's a shame you had to step down off the science podium and simply dismiss everybody here as being indoctrinated. It's not the most classy way to go.On the other hand, if you ever change your mind about whether it is futile come back, I for one will welcome it. I don't come here to prove Creationists wrong, I come here to learn what my own position is by being asked to present it, and in the process I learn a lot about my own justifications, the strengths and weaknesses of my position and I learn a lot of cool stuff about science and philosophy too. What's more, I get to hear people explain their contrary views to me in the most persuasive way they can so that maybe I'll change my own opinions. Because of this, and despite the futility of 'converting creationists', I still enjoy my time here.Maybe you can get the same kind of enjoyment at Fred's forum I mentioned above. Take Care,
ModEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Religious schools, religious websites, etc...I wouldn't expect much in the senss of good, objective discussions but I would hate to be presumptous so Ok, in realms where only religion is believed you, of course, will not be out numbered.Also, christian colleges do not teach evolution.

I would not enjoy a creationist site and I certainly do not like heavily moderated boards. I get bored preaching to the choir or having the choir preach to me. I like finding people who don't agree with me, but this place is just a little too one-sided. If there were more creationists chiming in it might be more enjoyable.I am sure i'll keep checking in now that I have found this place, but I really am not able to follow through with anything due to the fact that I am overwhelmed by the amount of responses. Maybe I am lazy, not sure what it is, but it seems to huge a job for little ole me : (

They do not support macroevolution. But I assure you that the students learn about the theory and the debate between the two models.

quote:

---

I am sure i'll keep checking in now that I have found this place, but I really am not able to follow through with anything due to the fact that I am overwhelmed by the amount of responses. Maybe I am lazy, not sure what it is, but it seems to huge a job for little ole me : (

---

You might consider starting a narrowly focused thread yourself and asking that it be put in the Great Debate forum. Responses would be limited to those allowed to participate in the thread, which can keep you from being overwhelmed by so many different people at once.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If they literally say that they don't support "macro" evolution then they have no idea what they're talking about. They are commiting an educational injustice to those faithful students who are now dumber for having listened to those "teachers".There is no debate in science between any two models, since there is only one approved scientific model. Again, those students are being falsely lead by ignorant people who claim to know what they're talking about. If they were properly educated in science then I assure you, they would walk out of that school and into a proper university. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

quote:

---

If by place you mean Earth then, yes, you are out numbered against the people who accept evolution.

​

If by place you mean science then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

If by place you mean colleges and universities then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

If by place you mean this forum then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

Do you know of any other places where evolution is either studied or discussed where you are NOT out numbered...?

---

Let me see... on answersingenesis?Edited by olivortex, : missing letterEdited by olivortex, : fixed.

Hi Kelly,You're not thinking this through. You say: But your logic contains a contradiction, as illustrated here:

1. Creation science accepts microevolution within "types or species". Microevolution is consistent with 2LOT.
   ​
2. Creation science rejects macroevolution between "types or species". Macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT.
   ​
3. Macroevolution is the sum of many microevolutionary events.
   ​
4. But macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT, so microevolution must also be ruled out by 2LOT, otherwise many consecutive microevolutionary events would cause macroevolution.

I was trying to get you to recognize the contradiction so we could go to the next step, which is where you assert that microevolution does not violate 2LOT (the creation science version of 2LOT) because microevolution always occurs through an increase in entropy and a decrease in information.But we know this isn't true because we've observed mutations occurring both in the laboratory and in the field that result in increased complexity and information. Let me know if you'd like some examples.Even if you were correct about microevolution always being associated with an increase in entropy, macroevolution would still be possible, it would just be the accumulation of many microevolutionary events that increase entropy. In other words, whether you're right or wrong about microevolution and entropy, your logic is still bad.This thread is picking up posts at a rapid rate because you keep issuing poorly thought through messages that just beg to be rebutted. You're going to burn yourself out. There's no hurry, take a step back and think things through a bit.--Percy

Sorry, wrong place. It's getting late here. I mean, early.

Most assuredly untrue. Even Wheaton College apparently does teach real biology. Liberty, Biola, and the like may not, but they are thankfully a pretty small subset of "christian colleges."Kelly, can you name one scientific prediction made by "creation scientists" that was found to be true? One?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

So far you have produced unsupported claims that match exactly with what biblical literalists claim. And you call it science! (Its not.)All you have to do is produce scientific evidence and your view will carry the day. Scientists are open to evidence, its what we seek and what we deal with all the time, but what you bring us is religious apologetics wrapped in unsupported claims. And you expect us to fall all over ourselves agreeing with those unsupported claims? What a joke!Now, who is it really who is "totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being?"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I can understand how difficult it is for you. Here are some suggestions:One reason you are overwhelmed is as Percy suggested; you are both asserting things which are known to be wrong and have been dealt with by people 100 times.Another reason is that you don't actually get down, understand what the objections are and deal with them.You don't have to answer each reply to you if they are all talking about the same thing. You can pick one or two and put the issue to bed for everyone.If you don't want to try that then a Great Debate will make things a bit easier.Someone else suggested a Great Debate format. There you can deal with one (or 2 or 3 - your choice) people at a time. The thing there is you need to pick someone who will do a good job of the discussion. You actually want someone who is going to be patient, tough on you and a good explainer.You don't want someone who will be easy if you want to learn. You need someone who will insist on good communication and make you think. You also want someone who will go step by step patiently.One member here who is very, very good at that is RAZD. You might see if he will discuss it all.You never responded to some of my replies which were less about the actual debate and more about your approach to it.You might not believe it to be true but even if you don't you might do better if you adopted the temporary attitude that people here really are honest and helpful and knowledgable. You might be surprised.

If I may be so bold, I thought a new, fresh voice may help things out.In science, for every hypothesis there is an equal and opposite null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the conditions under which the hypothesis can be considered false. If creation "science" is really science then every hypothesis must have a complimentary null hypothesis.For example, if your hypothesis is that all swans are white then the null hypothesis is a black swan. Find a black swan and you have supported the null hypothesis, and falsified the hypothesis.Going back a few pages, Kelly stated that creation science hypothesizes that there exists no fossil which ties together different "kinds". For this to be a hypothesis Kelly must list for us the criteria by which this hypothesis is falsified.To that end I am asking Kelly to describe for us what characteristics a fossil must have in order to link two "kinds" together. Let's make this specific. If humans and chimps are different kinds and creation science hypothesizes that no fossil can exist which links them together, what characteristics must a fossil have in order to falsify this hypothesis?If creation science is science then Kelly should have no problem finding the answer to my question.