Creation vs. Evolution

[coachpill]

because creationism is NOT science. It is an opinion, nothing more.

Got it!

Let me ask you a question, then.

Aren't you really saying that it is the CONCLUSIONS that are drawn by the creation scientists that you disagree with? And not the science itself?

Thanks!

 

[AXL72]

A bit out of context isn't it? But maybe they need an education in self defense more than they need family planning advice?

Maybe your freaking a-hole of a God needs to get off his lard @$$ and protect human life and well being?

Apologies...in advance....Mike...sorry.....the response was merited by the instigated wording of the post....not you, who I respect highly.

 

[AXL72]

Why would you think that THE SCIENCE someone published in a peer reviewed creationist journal would not hold up to scrutiny?

I got this one......


Anyone can publish a paper. Look at the bible

 

[redacted]

Maybe your freaking a-hole of a God needs to get off his lard a@$$ and protect human life and well being?

To which the standard answer is, "The lord works (or in this case fails to work) in mysterious ways."

 

[sheck33]

Got it!

Let me ask you a question, then.

Aren't you really saying that it is the CONCLUSIONS that are drawn by the creation scientists that you disagree with? And not the science itself?

Thanks!

What I am saying is that the process by which these pseudo scientists arrive at their conclusions has nothing to do with science, therefore their conclusions, while probably philosophically pleasing to some, are scientifically worthless. So I disagree with their conclusions as well as their 'science' because in all cases the evidence simply contradicts the conclusion and/or the method by which these conclusions were reached is flawed.

Selectively picking scientific facts to support creationist claims while ignoring facts that are in contradiction to the same creationist , or 'intelligent design' as it is called now to give more of a scientific tone, claim is dishonest and does nothing to further our knowledge of the universe.

We can go on for another 500 pages without ever getting anywhere with this.

 

[AXL72]

We can go on for another 500 pages without ever getting anywhere with this.

Wake me up at post# 9649. Not that I want to see where we are at and the progress we have made. I just want to claim post #9650

 

[sheck33]

Wake me up at post# 9649. Not that I want to see where we are at and the progress we have made. I just want to claim post #9650

indeed indeed

 

[Theunis]

Just to deal with the biological end of Theunis' claptrap:

Clearly, you're not a scientist, if you were you'd know enough to not confuse idiots with experts. I'd venture to say that your scientific studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject, my 12 year old knows better.

Clearly you are upset about my post. As I have mentioned in my post I am not an expert in this field. That is why I have to rely on opinions of experts. If you are saying that my scientific studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject, you must have refered to the scientific studies of the scientists I have qouted.

Let me provide you with the details of 2 scientists who are supporting young earth/creation rather than theory of evolution.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked for 13 years in the eighties and early nineties at the Oak Ridge National laboratory near Knoxville, TN. Please take note that when he began his research, he was a staunch evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced “young earth” creation scientist. His research and findings are based on studies on over 10,000 granite samples.

Dr. Walter J. Veith is professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa. He holds a B.S. (hons) cum laude and an M.S. in zoology from the University of Stellenbosch, and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town.


Are you really saying Dr Gentry and Dr Veith studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject? :11:


Some scientists are saying that scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.

Don't you think atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a Creator (God)?

Isn't it possible that the major reason for keeping up this evolution theory is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised?

 

[Theunis]

First lets get one thing straight, 'creationary science' is an oxymoron, creation is not science, period.


Now for the rest of your post, you are either trolling here or you have absolutely no clue. The bible is not a trustworthy source at all when it comes to scientifically verifyable fact. But of course creationists simply distort or ignore facts that contradict their point of view, nothing new here.



You are mis quoting and distorting what scientists say. You obviously don't know what 'half life' means. There is no question that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old. The Earth will be destroyed in a few billion years but not for the reason mentioned in your post.

This is almost too comical to comment on but I will anyway. He4 is the way U238 decays into Th234, the decay chain doesn't end there, there are many more decay products, some of which decay by emitting alpha radiation. Alpha particles produce He4?? Alpha particles ARE He4. Linking the amount of He4 in the atmosphere with the half life of U238 to conclude the Earth is 6000 years old is beyond nonsensical.

having said that, I am pretty sure you are trolling here

Creation may not be science. But I have news for you it IS fact!!!

As I have said I am not a scientist or expert in this field, that is why I am quoting the experts in this field. I have a great clue and that is that God created everything. The Bible is the only source about the fact of creation. Did you know that evolutionists ignore and even hide facts that contradicts their views? Let me explain. Dr Robert V. Gentry, renowned Nuclear Physicist filed a lawsuit over censorship of scientific evidence against the Big Bang theory, and I am quoting the following for you:

"His book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, recounts how ACLU evolutionist witnesses failed to refute his discovery of evidence of Earth’s instant creation, being forced to say it was only "a tiny mystery," which they hoped someday to solve. Silence concerning this continuing failure to overthrow this proof of creation has thus far been secured by the evolutionists censoring discussion of this topic from scientific journals for over two decades".

"Even more blatant censorship of his most recent discoveries began in early 2001 when Los Alamos National Laboratory personnel deleted his ten scientific papers on cosmology and astrophysics from their U. S. government sponsored e-print archive, prior to their scheduled release on the Internet on the evenings of 2/28/01 and 3/5/01. Continued suppression of these papers, now by Cornell University, stems both from the resistance of evolutionists to the implications of his discovery that the universe possesses a nearby universal Center -- which overthrows big-bang cosmology with its crucial assumption of a no-center universe -- and from his discovery of GENESIS, a new astrophysical model of the cosmos which affirms that the literal six-day Genesis record includes the creation of the visible universe".


You are welcome to read about it yourself, here is the link:

Dr. Robert Gentry, World renowned Nuclear Physicist files lawsuit over alleged censorship of scientific evidence against the Big Bang theory BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Please show me where I am mis quoting. There are many questions regarding the allegation that the world is about 4.5 billion years old. What is the debate between creation and evolution then all about?

Maybe for the evolutionists this is nonsensical. Hey, what else can they say?
I am not trolling, I am convinced that God created everything.

 

[Warthaug]

Aren't you really saying that it is the CONCLUSIONS that are drawn by the creation scientists that you disagree with? And not the science itself?

So I go away to a conference for a few days and things get interesting. Damn, why can't you guys do this stuff when I actually have time and a reliable internet connection?

Firstly, I am unaware of a single creationist scientific study that even achieves the most rudimentary standard we expect of scientific studies. Heck, creationism (or IDism, which is essentially the same thing) don't even make the grade of being a scientific theory; hence they are virtually impossible to probe using the scientific method. This has been repeated many times in this thread already, so here's the short version.

A scientific theory is:
1) Based on all known previous data,
2) Allows one to design experiments to test the theory itself,
3) Accurately predicts the results of the experiments designed in #2, and finally
4) Is falsifiable; meaning that if it is incorrect, it is possible to directly demonstrate that it is incorrect.

Creationism/IDism fails on all four points:
1) Creationism/IDism "theory" can only exist when one ignores the literature about evolution, radioisotopes, most of geology, and you need to ignore a good portion of astophysics as well.
2) Creationism/IDism do not generate any testable hypothesis which can be analyzed in the lab, or through observation of nature.
3) Because creationism/IDism don't do #2, #3 is clearly impossible.
4) By their fundamental nature, Creationism/IDism are not falsifiable. No matter what result is found, all the creationists/IDists have to do is say "god did it", and bam - fits their theory.

So we don't reject creationism "science" because of the conclusions they draw. We reject it for the very simply reason that it is not science - they ignore the scientific method, the ignore conflicting data, and they've failed (despite a >2000 year history) do develop a testable theory.

Creationism/IDism is not science. That is not an opinion, it is fact.

Hopefully I'll be able to return in the near future, but these conferences run a murderous schedule...

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go to a presentation on the maintenance of cell volume during cell division



Bryan