Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

[LittleNipper]

If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

It really comes down to people who feel threatened by the idea that something in their holy book might not be literally true and if some of it is to be taken as allegory, them maybe all of it is allegory and then what? So they disregard science and when forced to deal with the science, they go through the mental gymnastics and make the science fit their world view. Even the handful of scientists who latch on to these groups will dismiss their own knowledge because it doesn't fit in with the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or what have you.

I'm reminded of the geocentrists, and yes, there are still some people that believe the sun orbits the Earth and not the other way around. One of them is a guy named Gerry Bouw. He has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, but just disregards almost five centuries of astronomy and physics because it doesn't fit in with the Bible's viewpoints on astronomy. Even when forced to confront stuff like Galileo's moons and retrograde movement of Mars, they'll just make up bizarre ideas like a mishmash of Brahe and Aristotle so they can still have moons orbit Jupiter and Jupiter orbit the sun, but the sun still orbit Earth.

Geocentricity
http://galileowaswrong.com/


It wouldn't be so bad, but some of them are just really good snakeoil salesmen. They talk a good game and convince everyday folk that their viewpoints have some legitimacy. That comes down to a problem of not enough scientific literacy in this country, but those people fight tooth and nail to keep science out of classrooms, such as evolution, because of the threat it brings against their perception of the universe.

Actually, what it comes down to and what happened, is that evolutionists tried to silence those that believed in the Bible by excluding them from public educational institutions. This was accomplished by encouraging the Federal Government to assume control of once privately owned institutions with promises of standardization and improved test scores ----- neither of which has resulted!

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

This is why I no longer engage. This word salad of yours have an extremely low signal/noise ratio. You're spinning castles in the clouds. I've seen this battle play out countless times back when I was in school. I've seen the playbook of creationists. It used to be fun hitting you guys over the head. It's not fun anymore.

My point still stands unanswered - GO OUT AND PRACTICE your religious creationist scientific model. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology. DO IT. Tirades about conspiracies and how you have a better way are just verbal masturbation. SHOW US that your model is better.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

This is why I no longer engage. This word salad of yours have an extremely low signal/noise ratio. You're spinning castles in the clouds. I've seen this battle play out countless times back when I was in school. I've seen the playbook of creationists. It used to be fun hitting you guys over the head. It's not fun anymore.

My point still stands unanswered - GO OUT AND PRACTICE your religious creationist scientific model. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology. DO IT. Tirades about conspiracies and how you have a better way are just verbal masturbation. SHOW US that your model is better.

You must be getting old. Creation scientists are doing experiments and investigating. What they find is variation within species and not the emergence of new species. Evolutionists cannot create new species. Uniformitarians cannot prove that it takes millions of years to form fossils. They in fact do not practice what they preach in the public forum...

 

[Hollie]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional.

Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.

All the leading scientists think that it's passed the requirements of the scientific method based on supporting evidence. Like i said, you just refuse to accept that, because you're a cartoon kind of guy who likes his peeps poofed into existence.

Evolutionary theory has nothing like the evidentiary backing or predictive power of the theories of the hard sciences, let alone the backing of the mathematical and rational proofs of demonstration traditionally applied to the hard sciences as well. Evolutionary theory is a collection of anecdotes and inferences predicated on the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the presupposition that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. How convenient, given the fact that the evidence actually fits a biological history entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time as well.

Mathematicians and engineers are the best informed skeptics. Evolutionary theory just doesn't add up in that regard.

It’s actually comical to read the ranting of a devout thumper, utterly unschooled in the science he hopes to vilify.

The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.
Invoking your religious fundamentalism to attack science providing answers to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
But their refutations are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose, if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.

So what we have here is a series of non sequiturs regarding the limitations of scientific inquiry, which I certainly don't dispute as you falsely imply, albeit, pseudoscientifically asserted as if the objectives of science constituted the limits of reliable knowledge, which any sensible person knows to be false, as that would necessarily mean that empirical evidence interprets itself sans the conventions of mathematical logic or the classical laws/principles of rational thought universally apparent to all, of course, as it would be impossible for humans to coherently relate information or ideas to one another otherwise.

That's the first half of your post.

The second half of your post is a series of non sequiturs that contradict the implications of the first half of your post that the objectives of science constitute the limits of reliable knowledge, as you claim to know all kinds of things about a system of thought that according to you necessarily resides beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Worse, we have your poorly considered assumption that even if Darwinism were true that would necessarily mean that the historical Adam and Eve of the Imago Dei, original sin and soteriology were false.

Well, why not? You might as well finish a serious of non sequiturs off with yet another mindless non sequitur of staggering stupidity and ignorance.

Let me know when you're ready to actually demonstrate any real knowledge about evolutionary theory and abiogenetic research, or any actual understanding of the mathematical, evidentiary or philosophical challenges to evolutionary theory.

So what we have here is you rattling on in desperate attempts to sidestep addressing your lack of inability to offer a coherent comment.

You’ve managed to use every shibboleth and cliché known to fundamentalist creation ministries.

The issues being addressed here are not philosophical. The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. Peer review is a process whereby asserted claims are subjected to falsifiable tests, “double blinds”, etc.

Those conditions do not exist in the Theistic environment. The notion of intellect suggests that I would question the dogma which requires unquestioning belief and challenge the assumptions and strictures. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it.

Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that theists do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time-- for instance; ypu extremist Christians will say "Ultimately all you have to have is faith. See? These books, the various bibles, is evidence (knowledge) that you have to have faith"-- and they won't see the collapsible nature of such an argument.

claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods have ever existed (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


Now, let’s examine what religion proposes. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity n both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

This is why I no longer engage. This word salad of yours have an extremely low signal/noise ratio. You're spinning castles in the clouds. I've seen this battle play out countless times back when I was in school. I've seen the playbook of creationists. It used to be fun hitting you guys over the head. It's not fun anymore.

My point still stands unanswered - GO OUT AND PRACTICE your religious creationist scientific model. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology. DO IT. Tirades about conspiracies and how you have a better way are just verbal masturbation. SHOW US that your model is better.

You must be getting old. Creation scientists are doing experiments and investigating. What they find is variation within species and not the emergence of new species. Evolutionists cannot create new species. Uniformitarians cannot prove that it takes millions of years to form fossils. They in fact do not practice what they preach in the public forum...

You should submit an application to the Disco'tute. They can put you in front of a "green screen" lab.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/20/behold-the-legendary-intelligent-design-creationism-research-laboratory/

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in “population genetics” (I put it in quotes because it wasn’t a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors.

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a “lab”. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

How really derelict is the creationist argument? “Completely”, would be the answer.

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.
Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism, that goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

This is why I no longer engage. This word salad of yours have an extremely low signal/noise ratio. You're spinning castles in the clouds. I've seen this battle play out countless times back when I was in school. I've seen the playbook of creationists. It used to be fun hitting you guys over the head. It's not fun anymore.

My point still stands unanswered - GO OUT AND PRACTICE your religious creationist scientific model. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology. DO IT. Tirades about conspiracies and how you have a better way are just verbal masturbation. SHOW US that your model is better.

You must be getting old. Creation scientists are doing experiments and investigating. What they find is variation within species and not the emergence of new species. Evolutionists cannot create new species. Uniformitarians cannot prove that it takes millions of years to form fossils. They in fact do not practice what they preach in the public forum...

You should submit an application to the Disco'tute. They can put you in front of a "green screen" lab.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/20/behold-the-legendary-intelligent-design-creationism-research-laboratory/

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in “population genetics” (I put it in quotes because it wasn’t a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors.

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a “lab”. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

How really derelict is the creationist argument? “Completely”, would be the answer.

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.
Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism, that goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.

So go argue with them, you retard. Let me know when you're ready to refute my arguments. Good luck with that.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

This is why I no longer engage. This word salad of yours have an extremely low signal/noise ratio. You're spinning castles in the clouds. I've seen this battle play out countless times back when I was in school. I've seen the playbook of creationists. It used to be fun hitting you guys over the head. It's not fun anymore.

My point still stands unanswered - GO OUT AND PRACTICE your religious creationist scientific model. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology. DO IT. Tirades about conspiracies and how you have a better way are just verbal masturbation. SHOW US that your model is better.

You must be getting old. Creation scientists are doing experiments and investigating. What they find is variation within species and not the emergence of new species. Evolutionists cannot create new species. Uniformitarians cannot prove that it takes millions of years to form fossils. They in fact do not practice what they preach in the public forum...

You should submit an application to the Disco'tute. They can put you in front of a "green screen" lab.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/20/behold-the-legendary-intelligent-design-creationism-research-laboratory/

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in “population genetics” (I put it in quotes because it wasn’t a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors.

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a “lab”. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

How really derelict is the creationist argument? “Completely”, would be the answer.

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.
Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism, that goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.

So go argue with them, you retard. Let me know when you're ready to refute my arguments. Good luck with that.

Oh my, but you are the angry thumper.

All seriousness aside, thumpy, you really haven't offered any argument to refute. You're really just a mere pedestrian ID'iot who offers the same anti-science agenda that you steal from any of the extremist Christian creation ministries.

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.” We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between good theories and bad ones are twofold; evidence and reason. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. A theory with less evidence or no evidence at all, is at the least “less robust,” and therefore deserves less allegiance than the stronger.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. You preference is based (as you explicitly define) purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

 

[PostmodernProph]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

 

[PostmodernProph]

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.”

anthropological global warming has proven that's not true.....

 

[Hollie]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

 

[Hollie]

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.”

anthropological global warming has proven that's not true.....

A failed claim. Global warming/cooling has historical evidence. What's being debated is the evidence for mankind's contribution to climate change via primarily carbon fuels.

 

[PostmodernProph]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

then its surprising that even though I have been talking with you about this since January, you still haven't been able to produce evidence that its ever happened......

 

[PostmodernProph]

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.”

anthropological global warming has proven that's not true.....

A failed claim. Global warming/cooling has historical evidence. What's being debated is the evidence for mankind's contribution to climate change via primarily carbon fuels.

uh, hollie?.....look up the meaning of the word anthropological.....you just said I made a failed argument and then agreed with me......

 

[The Irish Ram]

Of course. Quote me. And while you are at it, pass on these 3 million, 6 hundred and 30 thousand links:

evolution and vaccines

And don't forget to tell people who you are. So we can all laugh.

Man, and I was really in the mood to deliver a good bitch slap. Thanks for helping me out on that.

So you're sticking to your story that "evolution," rather than mankind, created vaccines? Got it. A genius you're not.

Like I said:

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

And what exactly drove them? Their Christianity, or science?

Science and Christianity are not opposing ideologies. Some scientists oppose a belief in Christ and some Christians oppose certain factions of the scientific community but the two beliefs are not diametrically opposed. Thus, we have the scientists of ICR who are also Christians.

A belief in God opens the mind to the vastness and grandeur of the universe as well as the perplexity and intricacy of the living cell or the eye ball. A Christian who is awe-inspired by the vast power and scope of an infinite Creator will want to know and understand His creation; therefore, to answer your question, both their faith and their love for knowledge motivated or "drove" them to seek the truth.

They aren't even on the same page.

One is a belief in mysticism and the occult.

The other is a study of reality.

There are no new "discoveries" in mystical and occult beliefs. But science knowledge doubles every year.

Yes it does. 2 dimensions, no 3, no 4! NO, 10 or more! It corrects itself constantly. The Bible IS constant. It's right the first time.
Whoever you think wrote the Bible, they still knew about dimensions long before Einstein or Hawking. The "discoveries" aren't new to the author, He's still waiting for science to catch up.
Want a new scientific bon mot? Tell Hawking that dimensions can be stretched, torn, and burned. Science hasn't discovered that yet........


Perhaps we should dig Job up so he can explain the attributes of dimensions to Hawking........

 

[Hollie]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

then its surprising that even though I have been talking with you about this since January, you still haven't been able to produce evidence that its ever happened......

And as is typical for those with an anti-science agenda, you cling to any gap in scientific knowledge as a reason to buttress your religious faith.

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that various gods are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.


URL: What is the nature of the divine? - Page 2

 

[PostmodernProph]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

then its surprising that even though I have been talking with you about this since January, you still haven't been able to produce evidence that its ever happened......

And as is typical for those with an anti-science agenda, you cling to any gap in scientific knowledge as a reason to buttress your religious faith.

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that various gods are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.


URL: What is the nature of the divine? - Page 2

I'm curious....if there is a gap in scientific knowledge, why do you claim it's filled with scientific knowledge?.....

 

[Hollie]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

then its surprising that even though I have been talking with you about this since January, you still haven't been able to produce evidence that its ever happened......

And as is typical for those with an anti-science agenda, you cling to any gap in scientific knowledge as a reason to buttress your religious faith.

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that various gods are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

I'm curious....if there is a gap in scientific knowledge, why do you claim it's filled with scientific knowledge?.....

As with so many extremists, you fault science for not having every answer.


I don’t think that “faith” is necessary to understand the natural world. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; surely not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those who have need to follow.

 

[Hollie]

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.”

anthropological global warming has proven that's not true.....

A failed claim. Global warming/cooling has historical evidence. What's being debated is the evidence for mankind's contribution to climate change via primarily carbon fuels.

uh, hollie?.....look up the meaning of the word anthropological.....you just said I made a failed argument and then agreed with me......

If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

It really comes down to people who feel threatened by the idea that something in their holy book might not be literally true and if some of it is to be taken as allegory, them maybe all of it is allegory and then what? So they disregard science and when forced to deal with the science, they go through the mental gymnastics and make the science fit their world view. Even the handful of scientists who latch on to these groups will dismiss their own knowledge because it doesn't fit in with the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or what have you.

I'm reminded of the geocentrists, and yes, there are still some people that believe the sun orbits the Earth and not the other way around. One of them is a guy named Gerry Bouw. He has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, but just disregards almost five centuries of astronomy and physics because it doesn't fit in with the Bible's viewpoints on astronomy. Even when forced to confront stuff like Galileo's moons and retrograde movement of Mars, they'll just make up bizarre ideas like a mishmash of Brahe and Aristotle so they can still have moons orbit Jupiter and Jupiter orbit the sun, but the sun still orbit Earth.

Geocentricity
http://galileowaswrong.com/


It wouldn't be so bad, but some of them are just really good snakeoil salesmen. They talk a good game and convince everyday folk that their viewpoints have some legitimacy. That comes down to a problem of not enough scientific literacy in this country, but those people fight tooth and nail to keep science out of classrooms, such as evolution, because of the threat it brings against their perception of the universe.

Actually, what it comes down to and what happened, is that evolutionists tried to silence those that believed in the Bible by excluding them from public educational institutions. This was accomplished by encouraging the Federal Government to assume control of once privately owned institutions with promises of standardization and improved test scores ----- neither of which has resulted!

Floating these wacky conspiracies will not help you. Actually, what it comes down to is the bankruptcy that defines Christian creationist arguments.

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

 

[Hollie]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

You do realize, I hope, that by abandoning any attempt at addressing the challenge to what is truly laughable about creationism is the lack of any affirmative action on the part of creation ministries to support their claims. You tacitly admitted that creation ministries do not and will not perform any actual testing and experimentation that will be submitted for peer review by the relevant science community.

 

[PostmodernProph]

. Go do experiments, make predictions, discover new knowledge, apply that knowledge to technology.

you do realize, I hope, that seculars have never done this with the claim single celled organisms evolved into humans......

That's a weak argument for someone desperately clinging to their supermagical creation myths.

then its surprising that even though I have been talking with you about this since January, you still haven't been able to produce evidence that its ever happened......

And as is typical for those with an anti-science agenda, you cling to any gap in scientific knowledge as a reason to buttress your religious faith.

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that various gods are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

I'm curious....if there is a gap in scientific knowledge, why do you claim it's filled with scientific knowledge?.....

As with so many extremists, you fault science for not having every answer.


I don’t think that “faith” is necessary to understand the natural world. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; surely not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those who have need to follow.

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.”

anthropological global warming has proven that's not true.....

A failed claim. Global warming/cooling has historical evidence. What's being debated is the evidence for mankind's contribution to climate change via primarily carbon fuels.

uh, hollie?.....look up the meaning of the word anthropological.....you just said I made a failed argument and then agreed with me......

If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

It really comes down to people who feel threatened by the idea that something in their holy book might not be literally true and if some of it is to be taken as allegory, them maybe all of it is allegory and then what? So they disregard science and when forced to deal with the science, they go through the mental gymnastics and make the science fit their world view. Even the handful of scientists who latch on to these groups will dismiss their own knowledge because it doesn't fit in with the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or what have you.

I'm reminded of the geocentrists, and yes, there are still some people that believe the sun orbits the Earth and not the other way around. One of them is a guy named Gerry Bouw. He has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, but just disregards almost five centuries of astronomy and physics because it doesn't fit in with the Bible's viewpoints on astronomy. Even when forced to confront stuff like Galileo's moons and retrograde movement of Mars, they'll just make up bizarre ideas like a mishmash of Brahe and Aristotle so they can still have moons orbit Jupiter and Jupiter orbit the sun, but the sun still orbit Earth.

Geocentricity
http://galileowaswrong.com/


It wouldn't be so bad, but some of them are just really good snakeoil salesmen. They talk a good game and convince everyday folk that their viewpoints have some legitimacy. That comes down to a problem of not enough scientific literacy in this country, but those people fight tooth and nail to keep science out of classrooms, such as evolution, because of the threat it brings against their perception of the universe.

Actually, what it comes down to and what happened, is that evolutionists tried to silence those that believed in the Bible by excluding them from public educational institutions. This was accomplished by encouraging the Federal Government to assume control of once privately owned institutions with promises of standardization and improved test scores ----- neither of which has resulted!

Floating these wacky conspiracies will not help you. Actually, what it comes down to is the bankruptcy that defines Christian creationist arguments.

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

why do you believe that the global warming that occured 150,000 years ago was the result of human produced green house gases?.......