|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9023 total) |
| |
Moe's URL Addresss | |
Total: 882,792 Year: 438/14,102 Month: 438/294 Week: 194/136 Day: 2/77 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16112 Joined: |
You have assertion on your side. Physicists have the laws of nature on theirs.
No, that is not what is said.
Which is what is happening. Score one for physics.
This is the funniest lie in your whole ream of nonsense. The champion of the steady-state hypothesis was Hoyle, a fanatical atheist who hated the Big Bang (originally proposed by a Catholic priest) because it gave credence to the idea that the universe had an origin in time and so possibly a creator. Obviously Hoyle's idea that "everything has always been pretty much as it sits now" does away with a moment of creation and so with even the possibility that the universe had a creator. It was rejected because it turned out to be wrong. The "ID crowd" did not at that point exist, and no creationist embraced Hoyle's atheistic doctrine, nor, I wager, would they have done so even if it had turned out to be true.
OK, that was even funnier. Can you really not tell the difference between 50 scientists and 50% of scientists?
If the ID crowd have been muzzled, as you claim, why do they never shut up?
No, you guys are allowed to talk trash all you like. And the rest of us are free to laugh at what idiots you are. This is not censorship.
Here are some of the Nobel Prize winners who have, according to you, "squandered their scientific lives", though obviously not to the point of not winning Nobel Prizes: The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom. If only you'd "squandered" your life in such a manner, perhaps you wouldn't be a nobody posting scientifically illiterate rubbish on the Internet. Your ignorance of everything is depressing. Go and learn something. Anything, it's all good. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Director Posts: 3933 Joined: |
Too much "cranky" getting into you message.
NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creation Guy Junior Member (Idle past 4080 days) Posts: 16 From: NJ Joined: |
Off topic material hidden
Again you have groups of scientists that spend entire careers convincing others that they are not promulgating a religion of secularity. Evolutionism is a secular religion. There have been a good amount of scientists in the past that have subscribed to biblical creation as fact: Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However I have seen the pictures of the warm gas clouds of the crab nebula - what I do not see is a new star. Fusion is not an accident. If you can show me some fusion accident occurring somewhere - now that is science. If you say it occurs unseen - then it is religion. New stars do not form - we have never seen one form. We only see them die. Just because someone gives you a prize does not mean you did something productive. The Smithsonian has been handing out grants and props to scientists who push the ball forward in the field of evolutionism. Nobel is no better. What I am saying, and what you all will tear apart, is that no new discoveries are attributed to evolutionism. They are always just trying to prove it correct. In science you cannot prove anything - IT IS NOT MATH. Only math has proofs. Evolutionism can never be proved. For these reasons both are religions. One just has science at its back trying to push it into science fully. Just because you call it not a religion does not make it so. Religion, as defined by webster: > a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices The big bang requires faith - neither you nor I were there. Since no one was there. It must be accepted on faith and faith alone. When you insert that faith into 'science' or call it science or pass it off as science you are misleading people. You are also causing evolutionism to be a religion because you must have faith that big bang happened. In creation we to must also have faith. We will tell you up front that it is a religion. We have science and we have scientists (at least 50 of them that published - lols ) There is entire field of creation science. The two peoples are not alike at all. One can look at the Grand Canyon and see what happened in a couple months when Grand and Hopi lake drained through here. The other will study it for a hundred years trying to figure out were all the sediment went - 1800 cubic miles of it. (it shot out into the Gulf of california pushed by a massive flood) (if it would have happened slowly the deposition would have occured at the delta) Google the hydroplate theory while you fume too. It does well how to explain why plate tectonics makes no sense at all. I mean really if you push a continent at 1cm a year - but it erodes at the far beach at about a yard a year - then how far did you push it? A: -90.44cm headway (you push to slow tectonics) Sure the Haiwan islands build themselves, but what about Florida? No feature exists to pull sand back ashore. It has been eroding away for how long - millions of years ? thats millions of yards of erosion. In fact I could call erosion the number one enemy of a millions of year old earth proponents. there simply is not enough of it anywhere. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Creation Guy,
one of the things we try to do around here is to keep each thread reasonable well focused on a topic. Your post is all over the map. Please do not post like this again. You can take each of your many issues to appropriate threads or start one if you can't find a good place. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Off topic material hidden
What about us Christians who have realized through independent study that the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for how species evolve and that it can explain the diversity of life on Earth? My religion is Christianity, not Evolutionism. Or do you think that I have 2 religions? Or are you just going to claim that I'm not a True ChristianTM?
Yeah, but how many Steves so they have? Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creation Guy Junior Member (Idle past 4080 days) Posts: 16 From: NJ Joined: |
Off topic material hidden
Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians. That being said. Mark 10:6 Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct. As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours. What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ? I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker. I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian. It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist. Matthew 24:37 This would lend credence to Genesis as well. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creation Guy Junior Member (Idle past 4080 days) Posts: 16 From: NJ Joined: |
Off topic material hidden
The abundance of species was provided at creation. We have been losing them ever since. Natural selection is definite - it selects the stronger and defeats the weaker. However this is not a method for creating new species - it is a method of sending species the way of the dodo - extinct. Men have bred diversity into dogs. But they are all of the same kind. They are all still dogs - we cannot make them cats. Nor on a planet of solely of dogs would a cat ever be born on accident. If you would like to counter with random mutation providing new species I would point to the fruit fly - which had been bred 3000 generations by Darwin or one of his prodigy. None developed anything new - some had no wings. They all remained flies, and showed no marked improvements. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sorry, I didn't see this before I hit the reply button.
I'll start a new thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021