Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.
Are you really that dense? See that first sentence there? It's a generalization. You're trying to pin a concept which is most largely consistent and used in the definition I have provided, but has other minor meanings generally not used in language and DEFINITELY not used here, and claim it is definitely not the most frequently used definition. It's absurd.
Creationism is, for the large majority of uses, including the one used here, the definition I provided, being "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." This is also the definition you provided, which you seem to be arguing against now.
Nonetheless the point still remains: the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth," that this was the exact meaning it was used here, and is therefore incompatible with evolution. What part of that do you feel is incorrect? That's the point you continue to bicker about to save face. You can't even say what part of that is wrong. You just go off on semantic garbage again and again, which only makes your failed efforts more absurd. Quit while you're behind.
I already told you I agree with it, I just understand that doctorates are about proving to a committee that you have contributed something to wealth of knowledge in some field. I asked you if that was the case, and you retorted by asking me what knowledge a English literature major could contribute.
Did I now? Where did I say that? Perhaps you should quote me saying that. Then reference the part where I say your emotional outbursts tend to misinterpret things people say, including your own sources.
My point still stands unchallenged. What proof have you even attempted to provide that shows that the standards for doctorates in English Literature are looser than those of, say, transdimensional physics?
Here's another thing which I never said but you managed to read somewhere anyway. But I'll entertain the idea anyway, if you first just tell me what standard of evaluation English literature has that is congruent to the scientific method. I'll look forward to your answer.
I am gald you are an expert on that and can insure me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to provide new information about an old field of study. Can you also tell me what the lottery numbers are for this weekend?
Instead of a dumb passive aggressive retort, perhaps you'd like to point out what non-scientific field provides truly new information about the universe. Even a rigorous historical study is still just uncovering and compiling previously established knowledge. Again, that is quite valuable, but it's still not a novel discovery in the world.
I didn't ask a question, or make a point. Hmmm
Quantum said:
I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one
Glad you were able to support the fact that you made no claim.
I am sorry I do not have an eidetic memory. I realize that puts me at a disadvantage in debating experts who know, and remember, everything, but I will make do. I kind of prefer being human and forgetful myself.
It seems you don't have any memory at all. Making claims that are completely false and supported no where while referencing some book you conveniently can't remember and can't find online. If you can't remember it, why did you first say you couldn't find it online? How would you have even been able to search for it and conclude it wasn't on the internet if you couldn't even remember the name?
Again, just drop the facade: you made crap up, and someone called you on it. Quit while you're behind.
Another strawman. I did not claim you cannot prove God does not exist. I would also like to point out that it is quite easy to prove many things are impossible. I asked if you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science. That is not a demand for proof, but for evidence. The fact that you had to resort to a strawman tells me that the answer is no.
It's actually not a straw man. You made the claim that I could not prove something doesn't exist, which is ridiculous for the reasons I pointed out. In your example, that something was God still revealing itself within creation. Doesn't matter WHAT that something is, you still fell for that "you can't prove something doesn't exist" ignorance. You try to distinguish this by saying one is proof and one is evidence. With regard to the point being made: what's the difference? Do you think proof does not consist of evidence? Doesn't matter whether it's "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!" or "You can't prove God DOESN'T reveal himself!" or "You can't show evidence that God doesn't reveal himself." All of these are the exact same ridiculous lack of logic.
No one has made any mention of proving things are impossible. I don't know why you bring that up here.
Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence. In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.
No, your challenge was to design an experiment to prove it.
Again you split hairs to save face. OK. Have you designed such an experiment? Shall I rewrite the exact idea in that above paragraph to get at the exact same point in your new hair-splitting remarks? Here you go: Have you designed such an experiment to prove it? No, of course not. Because you can't. In response you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite. Then you went on to make some useless semantic game which still shows you to be wrong.
I deliberately choose the Higgs Boson because it actually proves how little we actually know about the universe, which is why it has earned the nickname of the God Particle. Everything we know tells us that no particle has any mass, yet we can clearly demonstrate that they do. The Higgs Boson, if it exists, would explain this problem and help us to have a more fundamental understanding of the universe in more ways than one. It could possibly lead to developing the Unified Field Theory and even the Theory of Everything.
Yet you dismiss it because it has a shiny name.
No, you chose the Higgs Boson particle because you didn't know better. The article you cited didn't even have the words Higgs Boson in it, nor did the video. Nor did the page you cited have ANYTHING to do with what we know about the universe. Nor did you state the reason you selected that page had anything to do with Higgs Boson OR how little we knew about the universe. You posted it in direct response to one of my posts asking you to show an experiment that attempts to provide evidence that God is still interacting with the universe. It was wrong in response to that post, and now you're just backpedaling, which is just getting pathetic.
Going on a long rant about its implications for physics still has nothing to do with showing evidence of God interacting with the universe, not ANYTHING in this thread for that matter. It wasn't even a decent attempt at back-pedaling. Seriously, quit while you're behind.
Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?
Good and evil for one.
What Scientologists Believe- Beliefnet.com
Do you really not read your own sources ever? This is getting laughable and ridiculous. It's like you set yourself up to have me shoot you down. Perhaps before asserting that scientology doesn't address good and evil, you should have read the paragraphs of your own source under the large headers "WHY EVIL" and "SALVATION."
banned
