Creationists

[daws101]

The walls are closing in daws. How did the dinosaurs die ? I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.

repeating yourself is a symptom.
as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
now look, who's trying to change the subject....

How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?

asked and answered ...in this thread many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .

 

[daws101]

There are graveyards of mixed fossils all over the world daws.

all of them older then your fantasy allows.
that in it's self proves the great flood was a non event.!

Maybe not, why are you not answering my question ?

see my last post!
btw it's no maybe.. its fact.

 

[daws101]

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution vs. Creation

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution vs. Creation

Aha trying to change the subject again ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"

So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?

What was this catastrophic event ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

repeating yourself is a symptom.
as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
now look, who's trying to change the subject....

How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?

asked and answered ...in this thread many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .

Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?

 

[daws101]

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution vs. Creation

Aha trying to change the subject again ?

wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution vs. Creation

Aha trying to change the subject again ?

wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.

The only one looking like a slapdick is yourself.

 

[daws101]

Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"

So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?

What was this catastrophic event ?

no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
either learn to read or stfu.

 

[daws101]

How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?

asked and answered ...in this thread many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .

Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?

asked and answered

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"

So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?

What was this catastrophic event ?

no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
either learn to read or stfu.

Then by all means give me your quick answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered ...in this thread many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .

Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?

asked and answered

It's one term did you forget what it is ?

 

[daws101]

I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.

again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
it does however contradict, refute, smash, kick ass on all you nonsense.
lower the boom? a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh

 

[daws101]

Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"

So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?

What was this catastrophic event ?

no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
either learn to read or stfu.

Then by all means give me your quick answer.

you're again misrepresenting

 

[daws101]

Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?

asked and answered

It's one term did you forget what it is ?

you must have or why would you still be asking?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.

again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
it does however contradict, refute, smash, kick ass al you nonsense.
lower the boom? a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh

Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?

What Theory ?

How did the dinosaurs die out ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered

It's one term did you forget what it is ?

you must have or why would you still be asking?

Because there is more then one theory I want to know which one you believe in.

I know the theories but I want to hear it from you.

 

[daws101]

Aha trying to change the subject again ?

wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.

The only one looking like a slapdick is yourself.

really? guess you've never seriously read anything you've written..

 

[daws101]

I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.

again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
it does however contradict, refute, smash, kick ass al you nonsense.
lower the boom? a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh

Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?

What Theory ?

How did the dinosaurs die out ?

as always you've got it backwards .
as to the other two questions asked and answered.