Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prove us wrong.

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.
This space for rent.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:21:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

Yes, the universe could have been created last thursday, and we have been implanted with memories that indicate a longer universe.

Species could have been created and killed EXACTLY how they should have appeared in an evolutionary system, at specific geological times to make it look like evolution was true.

Species could have all been created 10,000 years ago and all the evidence of taxonomy, molecular genetics, fossiles, radiometric dating and the like all manufactured to make it look like it had evolved.

Unfortunatley, none of these are consistent with Biblical Creationism AND God. Sorry.

Do you even read what you write? Do you listen to how it sounds?

Because what you are saying here, is that I am a dumbass for not considering alternative "Creation" possibilities that any rational human being would reject out of hand for being plane insane.

Unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and explain a creative scenario that explains the evidence; rather than saying life was created and spending the rest of your time making excuses as to why the evidence doesn't actually match any rationally defined concept of what creation would actually look like.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Why is that you never make a detailed argument? You never say:

"Radiometric dating makes assumption X, which cannot be supported by the evidence, because there is no way for X to be measured even indirectly. Scientists try and validate this by performing test Y to see if X is compatible with the evidence, but this fails to consider Z".

You literally just spam out a bunch of "It's not true", with no argument behind it.

You keep saying the assumptions, but you never actually explain what these are. I can list a bunch of tested, and well supported assumptions that can be tested AND validated or invalidated (and have) associated with those things, and have all been done ad nauseum.

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

If you comapre are arguments. As outlined; all you do is spit out a bunch of flawed analogies, complaints that even though you can show what happened in the past, you have to show it happening now, and vague statements that you do not support with an explanation or argument showing it's write.

I go through, and give examples of evidence, and in many cases go into detail about what they mean, how they are relevant to evolution, and give explanations of why they can't occur in any other paradigm. I also go through and point out where the flaws in your argument are by providing detailed explanations of why what you are saying isn't true; explanations that you almost invariably chop out of your replies so that you have some plausible deniability as to whether they actually exist.

It's pretty clear given that alone, who has a more detailed grasp of facts, and who is operating off the emotional need to reject the others point of view.

In fact, I am pretty sure you don't even understand the details of what the evidence entails, or even fully understand the details of how evolution and common descent actually work and entails. I am pretty sure that you will respond with a "of course I do", but not actually demonstrate it by showing you can explain any part of it in a way that indicates you have any more than a high level bullet point understanding and no more; biased by a pathological urge to never look into the details for fear you maybe convinced by them.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:21:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

I think it's pretty obvious in this context that creationism = young earth creationism, so I'm not sure what your point is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:35:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

So things not scientific is wrong? No. There's philosophy, spirituality, etc. Science is a category.

For it to be scientific, it must meet the requirements of the scientific method, be observable and testable, but it also must contribute to goods. Like evolution helps in medicine and pesticides. It must contribute to other scientific fields besides proving God.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

4.) It regularly invokes processes that cannot be demonstrated to explain away data that is inconsistent and is therefore unfalsifiable.

5.) It conclusion, rather than evidence led; meaning the evidence is distorted in any way that it can to fit the conclusion, rather than using the evidence to obtain the conclusion.

6.) It has no applications.
FMAlchemist
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:21:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

You are shifting the burden of proof,you must show us how it is right.Also,i will not accept it without evidence.We also have evidence that doesn't agree with it,like how the earth is billions of years old,not 6000 to 10000.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

1. Which have failed?

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

2.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

3. http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution! Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally" you!

You say that Creationism doesn't explain "why things are the way they are." Let's take a look at evolution.

The Fossil Record - A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned. If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

Assumptions - When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed. In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Symbiosis - A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.

Engineering all around us - Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate. One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process? Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

4.) It regularly invokes processes that cannot be demonstrated to explain away data that is inconsistent and is therefore unfalsifiable.

How/why should/do you know?

5.) It conclusion, rather than evidence led; meaning the evidence is distorted in any way that it can to fit the conclusion, rather than using the evidence to obtain the conclusion.

Huh?

6.) It has no applications.

Creationism has applications of science and history.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

1. Which have failed?

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

2.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

3. http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution! Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally" you!

You say that Creationism doesn't explain "why things are the way they are." Let's take a look at evolution.

The Fossil Record - A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned. If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

Assumptions - When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed. In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Symbiosis - A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.

Engineering all around us - Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate. One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process? Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Evolution is not random or unguided. The fittest animals survive and pass on their genes. This means that plants who have sweet tasting nector to draw pollinators survive while ones lacking nector don't get pollinators. The birds which nest in trees have a better chance of reproduceing than birds that don't nest in trees.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:04:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:03:20 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

1. Which have failed?

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

2.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

3. http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution! Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally" you!

You say that Creationism doesn't explain "why things are the way they are." Let's take a look at evolution.

The Fossil Record - A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned. If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

Assumptions - When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed. In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Symbiosis - A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.

Engineering all around us - Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate. One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process? Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Evolution is not random or unguided. The fittest animals survive and pass on their genes. This means that plants who have sweet tasting nector to draw pollinators survive while ones lacking nector don't get pollinators. The birds which nest in trees have a better chance of reproduceing than birds that don't nest in trees.

I guess I won't survive then xD
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

1. Which have failed?

Dating of the earth (that it will come out as 10,000), the existance of "kinds", the existence of a global flood and the implications of it; and the implications of divine creation on DNA, including code sharing, discrete non-transferring markers, etc

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

2.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

My favorite is:

"Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured."

I would sort of google the "Tunnel Diode", it strikes me as odd that a key component in modern technology works on a principle that is not credible.

But this point was about the fact that you guys ignore all of the evidence that disagree with you; and if you want me to list some, go right ahead.

As those links were so hilarious; I was going to type a serious reply, but as you think that second one is by any means "credible", I will simply respond with informative links for everyone single one of your claims:

All are covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution! Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today.

Asside from mistaking Darwins theory with modern evolution; missing out many key facets of what makes evolution occur and how it works, this is mostly okay.

What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What many evolutionists are trying to convince is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally" you!

http://www.talkorigins.org...

You say that Creationism doesn't explain "why things are the way they are." Let's take a look at evolution.

The Fossil Record - A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned. If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

http://www.talkorigins.org... (Points 2+3)

Assumptions - When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed. In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Symbiosis - A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Engineering all around us - Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate. One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process? Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

4.) It regularly invokes processes that cannot be demonstrated to explain away data that is inconsistent and is therefore unfalsifiable.

How/why should/do you know?

Because it often relies on invoking "changes" to the laws of physics to explain things such as light from distant stars, radioactive decay and many other dating mechanisms to show that the earth may still be 10,000 years old.

5.) It conclusion, rather than evidence led; meaning the evidence is distorted in any way that it can to fit the conclusion, rather than using the evidence to obtain the conclusion.

Huh?

Read AiG statement of faith; right at the bottom. You work on the principle you know the answer, and twist the evidence you can around it. Rather than use the evidence to determine the right answer.

6.) It has no applications.

Creationism has applications of science and history.

Name one scientific application of Creationism.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:43:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:21:45 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

I think it's pretty obvious in this context that creationism = young earth creationism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It's not obvious to me, not at all. I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I am not YEC.

YEC is not necessarily orthodox christianity, you know, any more than "left behind" is the traditional reading of prophecy.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:40:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Read AiG statement of faith; right at the bottom. You work on the principle you know the answer, and twist the evidence you can around it. Rather than use the evidence to determine the right answer.


No, AIG is not working without evidence, they just consider the BIble to be authoritative evidence. Look, you believe the authority of consensus science, so you actually have a similar mindset, you just have different authorities.


Creationism has applications of science and history.

Name one scientific application of Creationism.

Sure, when the Wright brothers copied the wing, they were presuming that wings were the smart way to achieve flight, because they considered wings to be the product of a supreme intelligence.

Any time you talk about the purpose of any organ or feature of the ecosystem, you are actually using a creation model. There is no purpose in evolution, only a chain reaction that follows the path of least resistance.
This space for rent.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:00:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:40:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

1.) It makes no testable predictions (well, in reality it has, but they have all failed).

1. Which have failed?

Dating of the earth (that it will come out as 10,000), the existance of "kinds", the existence of a global flood and the implications of it; and the implications of divine creation on DNA, including code sharing, discrete non-transferring markers, etc

2.) It regularly and almost invariably ignores evidence that is inconsistent with it.

2.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

My favorite is:

"Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured."

I would sort of google the "Tunnel Diode", it strikes me as odd that a key component in modern technology works on a principle that is not credible.

But this point was about the fact that you guys ignore all of the evidence that disagree with you; and if you want me to list some, go right ahead.


As those links were so hilarious; I was going to type a serious reply, but as you think that second one is by any means "credible", I will simply respond with informative links for everyone single one of your claims:

All are covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org...


3.) It doesn't provide explanations of why things are the way they are.

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution! Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today.

Asside from mistaking Darwins theory with modern evolution; missing out many key facets of what makes evolution occur and how it works, this is mostly okay.

What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What many evolutionists are trying to convince is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally" you!

http://www.talkorigins.org...

You say that Creationism doesn't explain "why things are the way they are." Let's take a look at evolution.

The Fossil Record - A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned. If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

http://www.talkorigins.org... (Points 2+3)

Assumptions - When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed. In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Symbiosis - A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Engineering all around us - Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate. One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process? Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

http://www.talkorigins.org...


4.) It regularly invokes processes that cannot be demonstrated to explain away data that is inconsistent and is therefore unfalsifiable.

How/why should/do you know?

Because it often relies on invoking "changes" to the laws of physics to explain things such as light from distant stars, radioactive decay and many other dating mechanisms to show that the earth may still be 10,000 years old.

5.) It conclusion, rather than evidence led; meaning the evidence is distorted in any way that it can to fit the conclusion, rather than using the evidence to obtain the conclusion.

Huh?

Read AiG statement of faith; right at the bottom. You work on the principle you know the answer, and twist the evidence you can around it. Rather than use the evidence to determine the right answer.

6.) It has no applications.

Creationism has applications of science and history.

Name one scientific application of Creationism.

Flood geology. htt
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:03:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:43:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:21:45 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

I think it's pretty obvious in this context that creationism = young earth creationism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It's not obvious to me, not at all. I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I am not YEC.

YEC is not necessarily orthodox christianity, you know, any more than "left behind" is the traditional reading of prophecy.

Neither am I, but it's kind of obvious he was talking about YEC if the fact that earth is billions of years old is supposed to refute it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:03:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 12:43:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:21:45 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

I think it's pretty obvious in this context that creationism = young earth creationism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It's not obvious to me, not at all. I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I am not YEC.

YEC is not necessarily orthodox christianity, you know, any more than "left behind" is the traditional reading of prophecy.

Neither am I, but it's kind of obvious he was talking about YEC if the fact that earth is billions of years old is supposed to refute it.

Oh, you mean Ramshutu's context. I thought you meant the context of the OP.
This space for rent.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:03:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 12:43:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:21:45 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:50:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:18:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because the earth is billions of years old, and the chronological geological evidence shows that specific forms of life we see today appeared at varying times throughout those billions of years in a pattern and order consistent with common descent, and a pattern fundamentally and competely inconsistent with any form of divine creation where all species are created at once.

So, (duh!), maybe they weren't created all at once. Sorry, man, but that's a pretty dumbass reason to reject the general concept of creation.

And I really think you have close to zero sense of what the actual data is. I wonder if you have any sense of the sort of physical data that leads to the claim that a form of life "appeared" at time X. Do you think somebody is watching security tapes or something? Somebody found a fossil, man, in a slice of rock, and there's a chain of assumption a mile long to get to "this species appeared in 530M BC"

Look, it's probably legitimate to think life did in fact evolve - an intelligent and rational person can think that, but you have this fawning attitude towards evolution and I think you're just taking it on faith. National Geographic said so, so it must be true.

I think it's pretty obvious in this context that creationism = young earth creationism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It's not obvious to me, not at all. I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I am not YEC.

YEC is not necessarily orthodox christianity, you know, any more than "left behind" is the traditional reading of prophecy.

Neither am I, but it's kind of obvious he was talking about YEC if the fact that earth is billions of years old is supposed to refute it.

Oh, you mean Ramshutu's context. I thought you meant the context of the OP.

Yeah. Sorry for the confusion.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:00:31 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
Flood geology. htt

While I'm not quite sure what htt means, you seem to not understand what an application of science actually means.

Flood geology is merely a study of the world; it is not an application.

Rocketry, and landing men on the moon by being able to calculate forces, distances, courses, and fuel and speed requirements is an application of newtonian physics.

Accurate GPS is an application of relativity.

The tunnel diode, transistors, and others staples of modern technology are applications of quantumn theory.

Understanding genetic influences of medical conditions by studying unrelates species and performing genome analysis to determine function of genes is an application of evolution.

An applications is where you use knowledge and understand gained from theories to do something unrelated to the theory itself.

So I say again, what Applications are there of Creationism?
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:00:31 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 12:40:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:23:04 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:02:15 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:

Flood geology. htt

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I had to remove the majority of the post since it couldn't be more than 8000 words.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:26:32 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:00:31 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
Flood geology. htt

While I'm not quite sure what htt means, you seem to not understand what an application of science actually means.

Flood geology is merely a study of the world; it is not an application.

Rocketry, and landing men on the moon by being able to calculate forces, distances, courses, and fuel and speed requirements is an application of newtonian physics.

Accurate GPS is an application of relativity.

The tunnel diode, transistors, and others staples of modern technology are applications of quantumn theory.

Understanding genetic influences of medical conditions by studying unrelates species and performing genome analysis to determine function of genes is an application of evolution.

An applications is where you use knowledge and understand gained from theories to do something unrelated to the theory itself.

So I say again, what Applications are there of Creationism?

All you have to do is Google 'flood geology' and you'll get your answer. Sorry, the htt was the beginning to a link I was going to show you. Here's a new one (LOL): https://www.google.com...

The interior regions of the continents were very cold for some time after the Flood, due to blockage of sunlight by volcanic aerosols released during the Flood, and animals did not freely spread in all directions upon their release from the Ark, but were shunted across narrow bands of land warm enough to support life. This ultimately caused very different animals to end up on different continents. Flightless birds on islands possibly resulted through microevolution (or, better, variation) from birds which had flown there. I present evidence that this can happen in a short time. Also because of this, we need not suppose that God created birds with useless wings. I address the fact that there are few, if any, human remains in lower fossiliferous rock. According to evolution, it is because humans did not appear until very recently. I provide a diluvian explanation for this, showing through actual calculations that the antediluvian humans were so dispersed in the great volumes of sedimentary rock that it is extremely improbable that any of them ever would have been discovered. Alternatively, such discoveries are so infrequent that any such find could be easily ignored or discounted by evolutionists. The application is clearly taking an idea from an ancient book, finding evidence for it and helping this conclude not only that the Bible is reliable but that the God, events, and other people from the book exists.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:53:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Because preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise, and the best evidence available for creationism today is nothing more than attempted criticism of the currently accepted scientific model.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:09:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:49:34 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:26:32 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:00:31 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
Flood geology. htt

While I'm not quite sure what htt means, you seem to not understand what an application of science actually means.

Flood geology is merely a study of the world; it is not an application.

Rocketry, and landing men on the moon by being able to calculate forces, distances, courses, and fuel and speed requirements is an application of newtonian physics.

Accurate GPS is an application of relativity.

The tunnel diode, transistors, and others staples of modern technology are applications of quantumn theory.

Understanding genetic influences of medical conditions by studying unrelates species and performing genome analysis to determine function of genes is an application of evolution.

An applications is where you use knowledge and understand gained from theories to do something unrelated to the theory itself.

So I say again, what Applications are there of Creationism?

All you have to do is Google 'flood geology' and you'll get your answer. Sorry, the htt was the beginning to a link I was going to show you. Here's a new one (LOL): https://www.google.com...

The interior regions of the continents were very cold for some time after the Flood, due to blockage of sunlight by volcanic aerosols released during the Flood, and animals did not freely spread in all directions upon their release from the Ark, but were shunted across narrow bands of land warm enough to support life. This ultimately caused very different animals to end up on different continents. Flightless birds on islands possibly resulted through microevolution (or, better, variation) from birds which had flown there. I present evidence that this can happen in a short time. Also because of this, we need not suppose that God created birds with useless wings. I address the fact that there are few, if any, human remains in lower fossiliferous rock. According to evolution, it is because humans did not appear until very recently. I provide a diluvian explanation for this, showing through actual calculations that the antediluvian humans were so dispersed in the great volumes of sedimentary rock that it is extremely improbable that any of them ever would have been discovered. Alternatively, such discoveries are so infrequent that any such find could be easily ignored or discounted by evolutionists. The application is clearly taking an idea from an ancient book, finding evidence for it and helping this conclude not only that the Bible is reliable but that the God, events, and other people from the book exists.

Ignoring the idiocy of flood geology for a moment... this is still not an application.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 6:27:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

It's unscientific for a number of reasons. First of all, creationism is not presented as a scientific theory. This is, it has no body of hypothesis trying to explain observed data. On the contrary, it has a body of speculations (those presented in the creation myth), and is trying to find observations to support them. That's not a scientific process.

Second, there's no official "creation myth". There's innumerable creation myths so creationism is not realy a theory/hypothesis/whatever, it is just a group of myths that often contradict each other. What "creationism" do you want us to prove wrong? Biblical creationism? That one is unscientific for a variety of reasons.

The first one, Biblical Creationism is legally considered a Christian myth and not a scientific theory by European and American laws.

Second. Since God is a central piece on the creation myth, and God is supernatural and therefore unfalsifiable, creationism can not be considered science, as science has no way of determining if all the elements of the alleged hypotheses are true or false (science can not demonstrate the non-existence of the supernatural: God, unicorns, fairies, magic, etc.).

Third: natural phenomena are already explainable by natural causes. This rules out the supernatural explanations that, again, science can not verify.

Four: every scientific model, if true, is able to make predictions. While evolution has made a great number of predictions (shared DNA sequences between every species on Earth, antigen-antibody reactions are more similar the closer related species are, fossil record shows a growing complexity and diversity through time, Earth must be billion years old, etc), creationsim has predicted nothing to date.

Five: chances of creationism being real are truncated by the extremely low and almost impossible odds that God exists, so the myth has such as low probability of being true, that science does not consider it statistically possible (in summary, it blatantly violates Occam's razor).
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:52:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 6:27:47 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

It's unscientific for a number of reasons. First of all, creationism is not presented as a scientific theory. This is, it has no body of hypothesis trying to explain observed data. On the contrary, it has a body of speculations (those presented in the creation myth), and is trying to find observations to support them. That's not a scientific process.

It isn't a so-called theory, but is Evolution a fact? Not even close. It's hypothesizes get debunked every day. What's the difference? Evolutionist mainstreamers feel better when calling their ideas a step further. I would be surprised if you could tell me anything about Creationism, besides what the media says (that Creationism is all fairytale bogus).

Observations of given data come from the hypothesizes of Creationism which is, mainly, the Bible (God's Word). In this, we find many evidences for Creationism yet the evidences don't follow "normal" evolutionary standardized evaluating of data.

Second, there's no official "creation myth". There's innumerable creation myths so creationism is not realy a theory/hypothesis/whatever, it is just a group of myths that often contradict each other. What "creationism" do you want us to prove wrong? Biblical creationism? That one is unscientific for a variety of reasons.

There's a reason I gave Flood geology as an example earlier...

The first one, Biblical Creationism is legally considered a Christian myth and not a scientific theory by European and American laws.

That's because you're an atheist and you believe all religions are myths.

Second. Since God is a central piece on the creation myth, and God is supernatural and therefore unfalsifiable, creationism can not be considered science, as science has no way of determining if all the elements of the alleged hypotheses are true or false (science can not demonstrate the non-existence of the supernatural: God, unicorns, fairies, magic, etc.).

This is the main reason that media doesn't consider Creationism scientific. Because it's a different kind of science which involves philosophy, (the meaning of life, etc.), and ties in history information.

Third: natural phenomena are already explainable by natural causes. This rules out the supernatural explanations that, again, science can not verify.

Prove it then. We can debate that.

Four: every scientific model, if true, is able to make predictions. While evolution has made a great number of predictions (shared DNA sequences between every species on Earth, antigen-antibody reactions are more similar the closer related species are, fossil record shows a growing complexity and diversity through time, Earth must be billion years old, etc), creationsim has predicted nothing to date.

...predictions and assumptions such as...when dinosaurs lived, the evolutionary process of humans, how old the earth is, what animals evolved into what, where the first atom of life came from, etc. etc.

Initial Condition + Universal Law V58; Observed phenomenon

There is a version that uses statistical assumptions and permits inductive argument rather than restricting explanation to deductive argument, called the statistical inductive model (SI), but we can safely ignore it here.

The prediction is a deductive consequence of a true theory and proper measurements. Since evolution cannot make predictions of this kind, and in fact any outcome is compatible with the theory, its critics say that evolution is not a complete science (see the section on the tautology of fitness).

However, there are problems with this highly idealised view of scientific explanation, and anyway, I will argue it doesn't affect evolution.

Any set of laws are ideal simplifications. In order to predict where a planet is going to be in 10,000 years, you have to ignore may things, such as the very small bodies, the influence of distant stars and galaxies, friction due to solar wind, and so forth. And it works, to a degree. But that degree is still real. You may only be off a few meters, but you will be off, due to these ignored complications. Physical systems of this kind are stable, in that the initial conditions do not greatly affect the outcome.

Evolution is not like these systems. It is highly sensitive to the initial conditions and the boundary conditions that arise during the course of evolution. You cannot predict with any reasonable degree of accuracy what mutations will arise, which genotypes will recombine, and what other events will perturb the way species develop over time. Moreover, the so-called 'laws' of genetics and other biological rules are not laws. They are exceptional. Literally. For every law, right down to the so-called 'central dogma' of molecular genetics, there is at least one exception.

And yet, we know the properties of many biological processes and systems well enough to predict what they will do in the absence of any other influences. This is proven in the lab daily. So, in this way, we have in biology the extreme end of the continuum of what we have in physics at the other end. The difference is one of degree, not kind. And more and more, physicists are uncovering systems that are similarly unstable and sensitive. You cannot predict in physics what any small number of molecules will do in a flame, or in a large gas volume, for example. And while the weather cannot be predicted at all in fine detail for very long, you can explain last week's weather through the initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics, etc, after it has happened.

If you take the standard form of biological explanation, it has the same structure as a physical explanation. It just differs in two ways. First, you cannot isolate 'extraneous' influences ahead of time for wild populations. Second, you cannot make a prediction much beyond the immediate short term (hence, nobody can predict the future of evolution of a species). Although a number of experiments have been conducted to test selectionist hypotheses through prediction, such as the studies on finches in the Gal"pagos Islands by the Grants, mostly, explanations in evolution take the following format:

Initial Conditions at t-n + Properties if biological systems V58; Observed phenomenon at t

Five: chances of creationism being real are truncated by the extremely low and almost impossible odds that God exists, so the myth has such as low probability of being true, that science does not consider it statistically possible (in summary, it blatantly violates Occam's razor).

Why?
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:52:05 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:27:47 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:20:33 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:52:38 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:50:05 AM, Bunraku wrote:
Why is creationism wrong.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. Just unscientific.

You see how it's under the science section?? And isn't you telling me that Creationism is unscientific the same as you telling me it's wrong? Anyways, since no one has bothered to actually prove it wrong, tell us why Creationism is unscientific.

It's unscientific for a number of reasons. First of all, creationism is not presented as a scientific theory. This is, it has no body of hypothesis trying to explain observed data. On the contrary, it has a body of speculations (those presented in the creation myth), and is trying to find observations to support them. That's not a scientific process.

It isn't a so-called theory, but is Evolution a fact? Not even close. It's hypothesizes get debunked every day. What's the difference? Evolutionist mainstreamers feel better when calling their ideas a step further. I would be surprised if you could tell me anything about Creationism, besides what the media says (that Creationism is all fairytale bogus).

I don't think this thread was made to test my knowledge of the creation myths. But if you read that I make a mistake while writing about them, please correct me.

About what you have stated above, evolution being right or wrong doesn't make creationism any more or any less scientific. So attacking evolution will not help you prove your point. Only offering data that supports creationism will.

Observations of given data come from the hypothesizes of Creationism which is, mainly, the Bible (God's Word).

Observations can not come from hypotheses. Observations come from your perception of nature, and then hypotheses are made to explain those observations. IE an observation would be an apple falling from a tree, and the hypothesis you make after that, would be the existence of gravity. Creationism pretendes this system to be backwards: they make an speculation (ie the flood speculation) and then try to observe signs of it in nature. Science doesn't work that way.

In this, we find many evidences for Creationism yet the evidences don't follow "normal" evolutionary standardized evaluating of data.

In summary, you don"t find scientific evidences. Why then do you question the label of "unscientific" that carries creationism?

That's because you're an atheist and you believe all religions are myths.

So if the judges have decided that the creation myth is, well, a myth and not science, it is because they are atheists and are biased, but if they had chosen otherwise, certainly you wouldn"t accuse them of being christian and biased too, would you? Sure.


Second. Since God is a central piece on the creation myth, and God is supernatural and therefore unfalsifiable, creationism can not be considered science, as science has no way of determining if all the elements of the alleged hypotheses are true or false (science can not demonstrate the non-existence of the supernatural: God, unicorns, fairies, magic, etc.).

This is the main reason that media doesn't consider Creationism scientific. Because it's a different kind of science which involves philosophy, (the meaning of life, etc.), and ties in history information.

"Different kind of science" sounds like an euphemism of unscientific. The point is you are already accepting it is not science as normally understood.


Third: natural phenomena are already explainable by natural causes. This rules out the supernatural explanations that, again, science can not verify.

Prove it then. We can debate that.

Which natural phenomenom do you want me to explain?


Four: every scientific model, if true, is able to make predictions. While evolution has made a great number of predictions (shared DNA sequences between every species on Earth, antigen-antibody reactions are more similar the closer related species are, fossil record shows a growing complexity and diversity through time, Earth must be billion years old, etc), creationsim has predicted nothing to date.

...predictions and assumptions such as...[...]

I don"t really see the point of the text you have quoted. I have mentioned just a few predictions evolution has made succesfuly. You simply need to mention a few predictions made by creationism.

Moreover, there"s two interesting predictions that come to mind that were made by both evolution and creationism, and creationism failed.

Creationism stated 2000 years ago that bats were birds, not mammals. Evolution stated many centuries after, that bats were in fact mammals, not birds. Today, any genetic study can confirm bats are not related to birds in any way, and are in fact mammals.

Another prediction made by creationsim is that the insect world is mainly (if not completely) composed by 4-limbed insects with the ability to fly, while today we know 4-limbed flying insects do not exist, in fact every insect has 6 limbs, which is consistent with the evolutionary view of arthropods.

Another one is the prediction made by creationism that fruit trees (Angiospermae) were created before the animals. While we haven"t found not even one fruit tree in the fossil record existing before the appearance of the animals. On the contrary,

Evolution succesfuly states angiospermae must appear after animals, because without pollinating animals, fruit trees would never have been able to diversify.

Another prediction of creationism that clashes with the fossil record, is the appearance of plants before aquatic life. While the fossil record shows aquatic life precedes plants. On the contrary, evolution have always stated that life started on the sea, and moved to the earth.


Five: chances of creationism being real are truncated by the extremely low and almost impossible odds that God exists, so the myth has such as low probability of being true, that science does not consider it statistically possible (in summary, it blatantly violates Occam's razor).

Why?

Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Your hypothesis assumes Gods exist, magic exist (therefore laws of nature can be broken) and this simply involves an infinite number of assumptions. Therefore the so-called hypothesis is too unlikely to be considered.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:12:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Flood geology is a perfect example of the "creationist methodology".
1) Come to a conclusion.
2) Look for anything you can make support said conclusion.
3) Ignore any and all evidence that disproves the conclusion
4) Claim that what you've done is science.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin