creationists want fairness

[Delta4Embassy]

The problem with the entire science v religion debate is that the religious people seemt o believe that science, if true, disproves religion. It doesn't. Science doesn't concern itself with the validity of religious claims. Both could be true in point of fact. Though when it comes to religion, I think rather it's that some of the ideas are true, but choosing the wrong words. Example, instead of it being "G-d created the heavens and the earth..." it might simply be "The Big Bang created the heavens and the earth..." Same idea, just a difference in credit. When ever I read reliigous books and some specific assertion like that comes up I just htink about the assertion using scientific words instead of theological ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

All the people on here mocking God, have a great time spending eternity in hell.

I think most on here are mocking the hate-mongers that claim to be representing God, and mocking the deliberate ignorance of those who want a single, unverified religious text to be taken more seriously than centuries or verifiable, repeatable scientific experimentation.

 

[Old Rocks]

God is just a theory

In God's eyes, you (mankind in general) started out as a theory until He made it reality. Someday your "theory" of God will turn out to be visibly true.

I just had a talk with God, and is she ever pissed with you.

 

[jasonnfree]

Christianity gets free stuff all the time. About 20 seconds into clip they mention tax free. Hallelujah.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQsd2mUK3sU]Chasers - Religion Free? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Good site for anyone interested in some alternatives views:Creation is a Scientific Fact - YouTube

Did it ever occur to you that when Christians teach you "science" they are not actually teaching real science?

For example, in the video they mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to your video they say it means usable energy is always decreasing. The actual SLoT says in a closed thermodynamic system entropy never decreases, which means entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. So if entropy equals zero then usable energy is not decreasing and if usable energy is always decreasing then entropy cannot equal zero. So your video obviously misrepresented the SLoT.

But don't take my word for it, let's just analyze how they used their misrepresented SLoT and see if there is any contradiction. They claim that since all usable energy runs, down the universe will run down and die a "heat death" at some point on the future. They also claim if the universe runs down then it must have been wound up. They also claim that the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.

One form of usable energy is kinetic energy, the energy of motion. A universe that is expanding obviously has kinetic energy. In order for the universe to run down to the point of having a "heat death" ALL MOTION MUST STOP. But the video admits the universe is always expanding and they leave out the Third Law of Thermodynamics which states that there is no temperature at which all motion stops, AKA absolute zero.

So your video takes advantage of your not learning science from scientists and your trusting Creationists to teach you "science." According to your video, absolute zero exists in the real world. If Creation is a scientific fact, why would they feel compelled to lie about a Law of science?????

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is from the Museo del Desierto (The Desert Museum) in Mexico.

...mocked up a bat skeleton to the size of a person to really demonstrate the homology of all the various parts of the mammalian skeleton. It’s easy to see how all the main limb and trunk bones match, not just in terms of basic number and position, but also in terms of the articulations and subtleties of shape and so on. It’s simple enough, but nice and dramatic, and of course the details are easy to see when they are this size, and humans are always going to be a brilliant frame of reference for the average museum visitor or child.

Something tells me you find a mock up of $arah Palin or Jesus riding a dinosaur at this museum.

OTOH, who are we to say ... ?

 

[jknowgood]

All the people on here mocking God, have a great time spending eternity in hell.

I think most on here are mocking the hate-mongers that claim to be representing God, and mocking the deliberate ignorance of those who want a single, unverified religious text to be taken more seriously than centuries or verifiable, repeatable scientific experimentation.

No hate in that in fact i hope you change and accept the Lord and spend eternity in heaven. If you don't you go to hell. Even a simple mind like yours should realize that.

 

[Freewill]

All the people on here mocking God, have a great time spending eternity in hell.

Actually, God does not like spending time with Fundy Christians. He finds them to be judgemental and pretentious.....Don't we all?

Said by perhaps the most judgmental and pretentious on the board.

 

[Freewill]

well yes they have a working theory and if you watched cosmos you would know this.
This isnt about denying science, this is about trying to make one thing equal and legit to another.
One is a scam and the other is legit science.

here is an article on what science knows and it isn't much. Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience

What you are really saying is that one, science, doesn't have an answer, the other side does. You just refuse to open you mind to anything other then what you already believe. You are just as bad as those you accuse of being religious fanatics.

Well no science knows a lot of things. I dont go pretending im an expert unlike people like you.
Ah the I know you better than yourself argument.the true sign im debating someone with a massive ego.
The fact is you dont know what I believe.so you have two choices. Stop assuming my opinions on things and we can continue, or continue assuming and the conversation stops here.

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

 

[Freewill]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

 

[edthecynic]

here is an article on what science knows and it isn't much. Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience

What you are really saying is that one, science, doesn't have an answer, the other side does. You just refuse to open you mind to anything other then what you already believe. You are just as bad as those you accuse of being religious fanatics.

Well no science knows a lot of things. I dont go pretending im an expert unlike people like you.
Ah the I know you better than yourself argument.the true sign im debating someone with a massive ego.
The fact is you dont know what I believe.so you have two choices. Stop assuming my opinions on things and we can continue, or continue assuming and the conversation stops here.

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident or are formed by an outside creator. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

 

[Freewill]

I saw some comments that said " how about they offer science on sundays at church to balance out those lectures"..

Funny how you never see priests offering that.

The fallacy of your mocking post is that you think that the two are mutally exculsive. There are few Christians, if any, that deny science. Yes those who believe that the world started 6000 years ago may be off on that one aspect but most of the scientific discoveries throughout time were by Christian men. For example the Big Bang theory was a RCC priest.

And the real truth about creationism is that science has no ready explanation for creation of life.

Actually, that is not true. Christians do not live in a vacuum (though I am certain a lot of people wished that they did), particularly their scientists. During the dark ages, it was the Arabs, not the Christians, who made significant scientific advances. Before that it was the Romans and the Greeks. And before that it was the Egyptians. And those Christians who made contributions stood on the shoulders of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Arab scholars who came before. And the Chinese were doing astronomy long before any European knew how to make a calendar. Even in the 20th Century up to today, many non-Christians made significant contributions to the sciences. In fact, today, many scientists in this country are not Christians. And I suspect that non-Christians make up the majority of scientists worldwide. Your Christ-centered universe doesn't actually exist, bubba.

Actually your opinion is wrong. Christians didn't invent everything nor did I say they did. But they also didn't slow down scientific progress either.

Here is a list for you to review:

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[orogenicman]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

No one is saying that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet. As for missing links, the notion that there has to be transitional fossils or else evolution is untrue is a false one. Why? Because ALL species are transitional.

 

[DriftingSand]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

There are millions of "missing links." THIS JUST IN: There always will be millions of missing links.

 

[Freewill]

Well no science knows a lot of things. I dont go pretending im an expert unlike people like you.
Ah the I know you better than yourself argument.the true sign im debating someone with a massive ego.
The fact is you dont know what I believe.so you have two choices. Stop assuming my opinions on things and we can continue, or continue assuming and the conversation stops here.

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

 

[Freewill]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

There are millions of "missing links." THIS JUST IN: There always will be millions of missing links.

What is interesting is that no one on the evolution side has mentioned dog breeding as proof of evolution. Or that the Galapagos finches and their adaptation has not been brought up. When the finch evolves into some other form of animal other then a bird then they will be on to something, meanwhile, you are right the links are missing.

Where are the fossil records of 1/2 an eye?

 

[orogenicman]

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

That's not exactly what he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)

Robert Shapiro (28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011[1]) was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. He is best known for his work on the origin of life, having written two books on the topic: Origins, a Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986) and Planetary Dreams (2001). He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

 

[Freewill]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

No one is saying that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet. As for missing links, the notion that there has to be transitional fossils or else evolution is untrue is a false one. Why? Because ALL species are transitional.

What are humans today transitioning into? A bird? A dog? An Alien? Are we going to have X-ray vision? Super powers?

 

[edthecynic]

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

Science does not say RNA formed by random chance, Creationists say it was formed by a random chance accident or by a creator implying that if science rejects a creator they support random chance. You fool no one but yourself.

The scientific position is that the valence electrons in the outer shell determine the composition and structure of complex molecules.

Again, if Creationism is a scientific fact, why do Creationists misrepresent science????

 

[Freewill]

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

That's not exactly what he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)

Robert Shapiro (28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011[1]) was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. He is best known for his work on the origin of life, having written two books on the topic: Origins, a Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986) and Planetary Dreams (2001). He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

So in the case he says RNA creation is improbable then goes on to say that it is not. Which is it? And do we see these processes today? Certainly if they happened in the past they certainly should be happening today.