Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

And this is why creationism long lost any semblance of credibility a long time ago.

Nope. As is evident, creationists hold their ideas up to scrutiny, while Darwinists oppose having their religion tested.

The challenge Fly faces is to justify his claims to expertise in science, or even to engaging with a common-sense approach to a discussion of the issues. So far, you have all failed miserably, lending every justification for us to reject everything you say.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Nope. As is evident, creationists hold their ideas up to scrutiny,...

Since when? Creationists are quite clear that whenever science and the bible differ science is wrong.

... while Darwinists oppose having their religion tested.

You can't "prove" this but you keep saying it anyway as if repetition somehow makes your assertions true.

The challenge Fly faces is to justify his claims to expertise in science, or even to engaging with a common-sense approach to a discussion of the issues. So far, you have all failed miserably, lending every justification for us to reject everything you say.

The challenge Stripe, 6days, Rosenritter (or ANY creationist) faces is to justify his claims to expertise in science, or even to engaging with a common-sense approach to a discussion of the issues. So far, you have all failed miserably, lending every justification for us to reject everything you say.
:think:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

So magically, thousands of folks became human all at once? No way

No - not individual folks, as you say. How can one person suddenly change status? Of course not.

The gene pool of the SPECIES changes every generation, and in any shades of grey situation there comes a time when it seems OK to apply a new label to the products of that gene pool. Hence, the arrival of a new species from an older one.

 

[Mark M]

No - not individual folks, as you say. How can one person suddenly change status? Of course not.

The gene pool of the SPECIES changes every generation, and in any shades of grey situation there comes a time when it seems OK to apply a new label to the products of that gene pool. Hence, the arrival of a new species from an older one.

So we came from apes. Got it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

For our purposes here, it should be enough to say that something that breaks off of a spinning mass continues its spin in the same direction. It doesn't stop and do a reverse on its own. SOMEONE has to act on it to do that. In this example, it helps if you have a planetary-sized wrench.

Someone? Please explain why you think "someone" must interfere.

You also seem to not understand physics, or at the least have never swung a ball on a string then let go. It doesn't continue to spin, it goes off in a straight line as physics predicts.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Since when?

Since Galileo and Copernicus and most likely right back to the time of Moses' writings.

Creationists are quite clear that whenever science and the bible differ, science is wrong.

Nope. You've got the legitimate employment conditions of a private business mixed up with proper scientific practice and you've implied a conflation of science with your religion.

You can't "prove" this.

Sure, I can. Every time a challenge is issued — no matter how inconsequential — Darwinists will exhibit their policy of zero concessions. In this very thread we have Fly refusing to edit a single word that would have made his challenge reasonable and very likely fatal to a creationist's ideas and we have you unwilling to admit your misreading of 6's "could."

I keep saying it because my assertion is true.

The challenge Stripe, 6days, Rosenritter (or ANY creationist) faces is to justify his claims to expertise in science, or even to engaging with a common-sense approach to a discussion of the issues.

Gladly! :up:

Pick a topic, start a thread and issue a sensible challenge. Watch as the reasonable, testable responses stack up while the Darwinists fudge, dodge and equivocate.

So far, you have all failed miserably, lending every justification for us to reject everything you say.

And yet all you have is your say-so, while the accusation against you and your comrades is backed up with examples.
:think:

 

[Stripe]

...individual folks...

You also seem to not understand physics, or at the least have never swung a ball on a string then let go. It doesn't continue to spin.

More examples of the zero-concession policy of the Darwinist.

"Individual folks" is a self-contradiction designed to avoid the point, while Munter has once again made a fundamental error in his wording, while using a useless example. A ball on a string is a completely inadequate example to use when talking about solar system formation — to insist it is worthwhile would be to utterly mislead a student — and the ball doesn't spin before or after release.

You people need to stop frothing at the mouth because others haven't bought into your religion and just have a discussion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Since Galileo and Copernicus and most likely right back to the time of Moses' writings.

:chuckle: So, the same guys who disproved the creation claim that there are no other bodies in the solar system and that the Earth isn't the center of the universe support creationist claims? Odd logic you use there, Stripe. Oh, and what did Moses write?

Nope. You've got the legitimate employment conditions of a private business mixed up with proper scientific practice and you've implied a conflation of science with your religion.

Nope.

Sure, I can. Every time a challenge is issued — no matter how inconsequential — Darwinists will exhibit their policy of zero concessions. In this very thread we have Fly refusing to edit a single word that would have made his challenge reasonable and very likely fatal to a creationist's ideas and we have you unwilling to admit your misreading of 6's "could."

Your "challenges" consist of, "Prove I can't add", and other nonsense. Anytime 6days says, "could", he ALWAYS concludes, "did", always.

I keep saying it because my assertion is true.

Your assertions are fluff and bluster. If what you assert were true it would have a different descriptor.

Pick a topic, start a thread and issue a sensible challenge. Watch as the reasonable, testable responses stack up while the Darwinists fudge, dodge and equivocate.

"Because the bible says so" and "godidit" aren't reasonable, testable responses.

And yet all you have is your say-so, while the accusation against you and your comrades is backed up with examples.

:liberals:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

More examples of the zero-concession policy of the Darwinist.

"Individual folks" is a self-contradiction designed to avoid the point, while Munter has once again made a fundamental error in his wording, while using a useless example. A ball on a string is a completely inadequate example to use when talking about solar system formation — to insist it is worthwhile would be to utterly mislead a student — and the ball doesn't spin before or after release.

You people need to stop frothing at the mouth because others haven't bought into your religion and just have a discussion.

Creationists can't read.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

So, the same guys who disproved the creation claim that there are no other bodies in the solar system and that the Earth isn't the center of the universe support creationist claims?

Given that they are creationists and that scripture teaches none of those things, I think my example are a completely valid response to your demand to know when creationists hold their ideas up for scrutiny.

And we note that when your challenge — and by "challenge" I mean "diversionary tactic" — is answered, you ignore the challenge and introduce more nonsense to cover yourself.

Odd logic you use there, Stripe.

It's called answering the question. Even if my answer had been wrong, logic has nothing to do with it.

What did Moses write?

My goodness, but you're desperate. Moses collated most of the first five books of the Bible and wrote a lot of that.

Your "challenges" consist of, "Prove I can't add", and other nonsense.

:AMR:

Anytime 6days says, "could", he ALWAYS concludes, "did."

Nope. He didn't in the example you quoted. You're just desperately committed to the notion that if someone is wrong on a minor detail, every idea he holds must be wrong. It's this sort of thinking that causes you to always search for something you can be seen disagreeing with instead of conducting a sensible conversation.

 

[Jose Fly]

You made the fundamental error of thinking science requires the validation of men, while 6 spoke about confirming ideas.

Once again you miss the point entirely.

Oftentimes in these debates, creationists chastise others for putting "the works of man over the word of God", science of course being "the works of man". And I don't think there's too much dispute here over the notion that science is indeed a human endeavor.

As 6days has illustrated quite well, believing that his religious beliefs and the word of God are scientifically valid is quite important to him....so much so that he repeats it to himself like some sort of soothing mantra.

And that leads to the obvious question....why is it so important for some creationists that their beliefs, which are rooted in the word of God, to have the label "scientifically valid"? Does it really matter? Is science that important to them that they need its validation?

Isn't merely saying "it's in the word of God" good enough any more?

 

[Stripe]

Creationists can't read.

Sure we can. You used a ball on a string as if it were applicable to the theory of the solar system's evolution. The law of angular momentum applied to the spinning mass of the solar system is in no way represtented by a ball being swung on a string.

And while the ball does spin once for every orbit it makes while being swung, this is in no way relevant to the conversation, so your use of the word "spin" in this context is incorrect.

What you need to do is slow down, take a deep breath and revise your comments. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Once again you miss the point entirely.

Oftentimes in these debates, creationists chastise others for putting "the works of man over the word of God", science of course being "the works of man". And I don't think there's too much dispute here over the notion that science is indeed a human endeavor.

As 6days has illustrated quite well, believing that his religious beliefs and the word of God are scientifically valid is quite important to him....so much so that he repeats it to himself like some sort of soothing mantra.

And that leads to the obvious question....why is it so important for some creationists that their beliefs, which are rooted in the word of God, to have the label "scientifically valid"? Does it really matter? Is science that important to them that they need its validation?

Isn't merely saying "it's in the word of God" good enough any more?

We're in a science thread talking about science, which precludes talk of the miraculous.

We believe in the miraculous, but we do not call that science.

What we hold up as science, we regard to be purely explicable according to the laws of physics.

 

[Jose Fly]

We're in a science thread talking about science, which precludes talk of the miraculous.

You may want to let Rosenritter in on that.

What we hold up as science, we regard to be purely explicable according to the laws of physics.

You're still missing the point, but that's hardly surprising.

 

[Stripe]

You may want to let Rosenritter in on that.

He looks like a smart cookie; I'm sure he'll figure it out. The problem is the Darwinists: They cannot distinguish between belief and theory, or theory and fact.

You're still missing the point, but that's hardly surprising.

Nope. You're missing the point. A description of what happened in the Bible is not necessarily an admission that the miraculous was involved.

 

[Jose Fly]

He looks like a smart cookie; I'm sure he'll figure it out.

Or you could just tell him.

Nope. You're missing the point. A description of what happened in the Bible is not necessarily an admission that the miraculous was involved.

?????????? I never said it was. Thanks for your time.

 

[Stripe]

Or you could just tell him.

:chuckle:

Projecting, much?

Just because you morons can't read, doesn't mean he can't.

I never said it was.

Great! Then you'll be able to deal with a creationist's ideas on a scientific basis without demanding that he admit to undocumented miracles. :up:

Thanks for your time.

 

[6days]

And that leads to the obvious question....why is it so important for some creationists that their beliefs, which are rooted in the word of God, to have the label "scientifically valid"? Does it really matter? Is science thatimportant to them that they need its validation?

And that leads to the obvious question....why does it bother you that that science, and historical accounts help confirm the truth of God's Word?

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." Rom. 1:20

 

[6days]

Nope. You've got the legitimate employment conditions of a private business mixed up with proper scientific practice and you've implied a conflation of science with your religion.

Yes...Hunter does not seem to understand what science is. Like God's Word....science is never wrong.
As you say, Hunter has confused science, with his religion of evolutionism. Science has often...OFTEN proven evolutionist beliefs to be false.

 

[Jose Fly]

And that leads to the obvious question....why does it bother you that that science, and historical accounts help confirm the truth of God's Word?

By what measure are you making such a bold claim? As we've been over many times before, universities don't teach young-earth creationism nor do they require incoming students to be versed in it, no scientific organization endorses it (and every scientific organization that's gone on record has expressly rejected young-earth creationism and endorsed evolutionary biology), private scientific firms don't utilize young-earth creationism, every court case on this has ruled against creationism and declared it to be a religious belief and not science, some of the organizations you like to cite (AiG, ICR) declare up front that they operate under a framework that you agreed is anti-scientific....

So on what basis are you claiming "science confirms God's word"?