absolutetruth wrote:Tedlusk wrote:I’m sorry? I am talking about creation science, which has a specific meaning. That is to say, creation science as used today refers to those who claim to engage in science in an effort to support a literal Genesis. Apparently, you allow ‘creation science’ to mean something else when your claims are shown to be in error.
well since these scientists i'm talking about (like Newton, and Pasteur, and Maxwell and Mendel and so many others) believed and understood the Bible (including understanding creation), it seems that it's now YOU who's setting up a false dichotomy.
Yes, you are still doing it. Maxwell, Mendel, etc. were creationists, but I am unaware of any of their work being done to ‘prove’ a literal Genesis.
Contributing to what? Sure, one can be a ‘believer’ or even a creationist and engage in legitimate, respectable science. But that is not ‘creation science’, and I suspect or at least hope that you realize this.
Like I said. You just set up a false dichotomy, so your question is now wrongheaded.
You are projecting again, that is all. You fail to grasp the distinction between a creationist scientist and a creation scientist.
The scientists I just mentioned contributed greatly under the axiom of biblical creation (which for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from creation science, except the fact that it wasn’t specifically called “Creation Science” back then). Kinda like how dinosaurs weren’t referred to as “dinosaurs” before the phrase was coined.
If I recall correctly, Maxwell, for example, did work on electricity and magnetism and such. So maybe you can tell me how his work related to or relied upon Scripture.
Oh, brother… I provided an example and pointed out that you set up a false dichotomy.
And I showed you that it was a foolish attempt at an argument and the application was wrong. It wasn’t a false dichotomy. Setting my truth erroneously against your “false dichotomy” was
itself a false dichotomy.
Whatever. The creationist does what they have to avoid admitting error.
Well, if that is how you want to set it up, then creationism is clearly false.
this coming from a man who "gleefully" admits his own position's ignorance in such things as the origin of the universe, and the origin of life.
I guess I am just a bit humbler than the tyopical KNOW EVERYTHING creationist. Less prideful. What I find odd is how the creationist will just ignore context in order to make a killer comeback. Pretty sad, really.
Panspermia. Directed panspermia. Any of the Pagan creation myths.
Those are no more than examples of Naturalistic Evolution, Theistic or “Intelligent” Evolution (which we’re not talking about right now), and Creation. Why can’t you seem to understand that there are no other options?
Ok, so you conflate abiogenesis and evolution when it suits you, and when it doesn’t you want to make a distinction between them. Got it.
Why can’t you understand that biblical creation is not even a valid option?
Evolution is not a philosophy. And I see that you do not grasp the notion of science.
Science is repeatable, testable observations and discoveries that can be seen and measured. Has the origin of the universe been “tested or observed”?
What does that have to do with evolution? More purposeful conflation for rhetorical purposes, or do you really not get it?
Has abiogenesis been “tested and observed”?
What does that have to do with evolution? More purposeful conflation for rhetorical purposes, or do you really not get it?
Has the age of the universe been “tested and observed”?
Yes, actually.
Has a dinosaur turning into a bird been “tested and observed”?
Why do you employ such naïve language? “Turning into”? How childish. Actually, however, there is abundant evidence form both the fossil record and molecular phylogenetics indicating that birds are descended from some types of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs with feathers have been discovered.
If your answers to those questions is no, then evolution falls outside of the parameters of science.
So why woul abiogenesis and the age of the universe have anything to do with evolution? Or is this just standard creationist argumentation 101?
Such as? Can you, for example, provide any evidence indicating a 6-10,000 year old earth that does not rely on claiming radiometric dating is wrong? For the distinct creation of humans that does not rely on personal incredulity?
sure. read the Bible and count the years from creation to now. then you'll see.
Yes, I’ll see a contradictory listing of begats with no corroborating evidence which will fly in the face of not just common sense, but factual evidence.
aside from that, there are many others like the earth's magnetic field decaying too quickly to be as old as evolutionists say, comets in our solar system still present, not enough salt in the oceans, diamonds containing carbon that shouldn't be there, helium still in the rocks that should have diffused already if millions of years were true, and a lot more. look here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
All of which is utter gibberish, and none of which jives with a 6-10,000 year old earth! Amazing… Most of the ‘evidence’ there was subjective speculation, but look at one piece fo ‘evidence’ that at least has the ability to be verified:
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]
Hmmmm…. 62 million years seems a bit longer than 10,000….
You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. I will gleefully admit that I have no idea how life, as such, began, and I will also gleefully admit that it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
funny. if life can't begin, how can it evolve?
Funny, you seem to be unable to tell the difference between life beginning and life changing afterward.
Oh, brother…..
ahhh yes. the insurmountable wit and intelligence of an evolutionist's response. that's exactly the kind of response i was expecting. that very fact that i pointed out right there destroys your whole belief system, probably why you responded that way.
And the typical arrogance of the biblical literalist. I responded that way because it was an utterly asinine supposition and highly insulting to everyone that has the intelligence and common sense not to be a biblical literalist.
Oh, gee, then the earth really is just 6000 years old and created form nothing by the Hebrew tribal deity! How silly of me!
You got a better explanation? “It all came from nothing”, and “Intelligence and rationality came from an irrational, or ‘a-rational’ first cause”? sounds like you’re dedicated to this evolution myth, no matter how absurd its constructs.
Yes, better to put my faith in talking donkeys and snakes and a god that kills its creations on a whim then sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself. Yes, much more logical.
I have no explanation for as I have mentioned, I am a bit more humble than the typical creationist and I will freely admit it, quite unlike the creationist, when I do not understand something or have no answer for a question. You should try it sometime – humility is good for the soul, they say, and after just this thread, it looks like your soul needs some release.
No they don’t. They have a much removed second-hand, at best, account written by fallible humans in a pre-technological age.
is that one of your "scientific" theories too? how do you know that God didn't guide these people in revealing His perfect Word and plan?
How do you know he did?
sounds like you're attempting to make a philosophical statement into an undisputed fact (pretty much the same thing you're accusing me of).
Because this is what you have been doing all along.
you're far too inconsistent to be taken seriously.
So don’t. I do not care one whit about these silly diversions and assertions about biblical lore being inerrant and the like. That is all just a big diversion from the fact that you cannot support your claims rationally or scientifically so, like most creationists, you want/need to conflate and distort and engage in these silly philosophical games.
And yet eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
not the account of the all-seeing, all-knowing Creator. i would expect that He would know how and when He created since He did it and does not lie (Numbers 23:19).
LOL!
What a joke this argument is…. God said it, I believe it, that’s that! How rational! How intelligent! How sensible!
And so you contradict the very nature of the scientific enterprise and add validity to my depiction of ‘creation science’ and antiscience. You do not start with your conclusion in science.
your idea of science is very naive. what you say is not reality, sorry to tell you. you've been decieved by the clever machinations of the very people who are professing to make things clear for you. like i've said before, "Science doesn't say anything,
Scientists do."
OK, gee, I guess those 5 years I spent in graduate school testing hypotheses and generating data and performing experiments and analyses was just a big waste – why, I should have contacted some anonymous internet creationist for the TRUTH!
Not once did I start with a conclusion then cherry-pick data to prop up my conclusion (which is what creation scientists do), I’m sorry, “absolutetruth”, it is your understanding of science that is quite naïve.
And since science naturally comes from the very nature of God, then when you accuse me of starting with my conclusions (God and the Bible), you're really just saying that i'm starting with science (or at least the logical foundation for science in the first place).
What an utterly absurd statement. What ‘science’ is in the bible? Curing leprosy by killing 2 pidgeons?
Punctuated equilibrium. What you just mentioned as causing problems for evolution. Did you just crib that, too?
goodness. my apologies. i just didn't make that connection.
Indeed. One of many such instances.
I would say the same to you, for you seem to be conflating evolution and abiogenesis.
like i said, if life can't begin, it can't evolve. therefore abiogenesis must be considered in evolution. to say otherwise is foolish.
I say conflating different ideas is foolish. Life could have begun in any fashion, evolution is only concerned with what happens after. A cursory understanding of the topic would have made this clear.
and of course i'm not saying that abiogenesis is evolution, but it must be a necessary component in order to be able to explain anything. i highly doubt you would exclude it so summarily were you to have an irrefutable explanation for it.
I would recognize that the two are separate ideas and not conflate them. Just as I recognize that genetics and population genetics, while connected, are not one and the same.
And creationists are masters at projection. Evolution as it pertains to the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin and modified to accommodate genetics and additional data is the change of populations over time via genotype/phenotype/environment interactions.
change? in what way? we can see things change all the time, from mutations and genetics and environmental adaptation and other influences, but that doesn't equate to evolution.
Actually, it does. You seem to be operating under the naïve definition of evolution.
the hurdle you need to get over is a change that involves adding ENORMOUS amounts of genetic information in order to change microbes into men.
Kimura demonstrated in 1961 that adaptive evolution does, in fact, add information to the genome.
M. Kimura (1961), Natural selection as the process of accumulating
genetic information in adaptive evolution, Genetical Research 2,
127--140.
if you or anyone has observed the necessary processes that enable the increase of information in the genome of an organism to increase by the equivalent of thousands of volumes of information, do tell. the fact of the matter is that all we see is usually a sorting or loss of already existing genetic information.
Apparently, you are stuck in the past when it comes to this stuff. You can start with the human genome project:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5507/1304
until you learn the basics, all this ranting about ‘no new information’ just comes off as silly.
Oh, well since you say so, who am I to argue? In reality, we start with hypotheses based on previous conclusions.
like i said, NAIVE.
Yes, you are.
Oh, I see. That makes so much more sense on the silly notion of following the evidence.
mock all you want, but that single fact right there has led many to deny the Creator strictly on moral terms:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ -- Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means
Ah, well, if it was true for that guy, then clearly it is true for everyone! Such brilliant logic!
Brainwashing? Arrogance? I don’t know.
or maybe what i just mentioned???
No, it is brainwashing and arrogance.
What an insulting and, frankly, stupid notion . If this silly ‘true christian’ notion had any merit, then we would not see anti-abortionists shooting people in the back and starting wars in the middle east over ideology and oil.
that may be the poorest argument you've used thus far (and you've used some pretty bad ones):
We must never judge a philosphy by it's abuse. -- Saint Augustine
a person who does such things could never be considered a follower of Christ. in fact, that act that you mentioned is completely ok under an evolutionary system of thought.
think before you respond.
You are a piece of work. Ow does that head fit through doors made for mere mortals?
And you are a perfect example of the old adage: Ignorance is bliss.
ignorance can be bliss. i'm glad i'm ignorant of the brainwashing power that secular humanism has over the people of the world, leading them to lawlessness and ultimately judgment for their rejection of their God and Savior Christ Jesus.
Yeah, because no Christians commit crimes or are bad people… And you said that I made poor arguments and need to think before I write? Man…
Is that right? Can you name one example of the accuracy of bible science? This will be most interesting.
yeah. Job 40 speaks about what can only be a gaint dinosaur (sauropod) well before such animals were even known about (according to the evolutionists).
Actually, according to most intelligent people, he is referring to an elephant. Of course, if there really were sauropod dinosaurs running around in historical times, don’t you think they would have gotten a little more press?
Isaiah 40:22 speaks about the sphericity of the earth, disproving the old canard of the "flat earth" theory. there you go. there's two right there.
Pity that information had already been figured out by the Greeks…
I’m not sure whether to be sad or scared…
you ought to be scared. rejection of the Son means judgment at the hands of the Almighty God. the only way back to salvation is to start with repentance. you sound like a far cry from that, so i'm sad for you.
I’m not really concerned about made up stuff like that.
Well, considering you really didn’t address any of the ones I presented already….
oh, surely i did. you don't have to be silly here.
No, you addressed nothing in any real way.
Par for the course.