RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 10:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML @ Wantsoftheflesh quote: It has but nut always. not tryin' ta defend the practices of some societies. Your statement in reply to my observation that disbelief has been persecuted leaves the suggestion that persecution was only an occasional misstep when in fact the history of Islam and Christianity is written in the blood of infidels. Sorry, couldn't let that pass without comment. yup yr right dat it waz widespread but don't understand da reason for bringin' it up. never pretended otherwise but not all faiths an' societies persecuted disbelievers. quote: quote: yup fair point. there is silly stuff an' da fantastical claims get a lot of publicity but for most people their faith is nut something they expect ta be verified by any evidence, visions pancakes an' whatnot. this is understood by da notion of a leap of faith - da step inta belief wit out proof an' wit out benefit. dat is compatible wit da belief in a personal God cuze no calling card is expected ta be left on da counter. dat is why i say dawkins made an assumption based wat some claim ta see, nut da understandin' of da many. This thread is about Creationism. That is what the "many" believe, and what many would like to see taught in public school science classes. Science is evidence based. Creationism relies on the God of the Gaps while Christians give witness to personal revelation or biblical revelation. Creationists and/or IDers have no evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is the Creationists who brought their premise to the arena of science and so it falls upon the Creationists to play by the rules of science, and to put up or stfu. far from many believers in God accept creationism as waz said. i recollect da poll last year dat said 45% of americans believe in creationism but 92% believe in God. an' in da rest of the world much fewer folks dat are religious believe in creationism. besides dat most scientists still believe in God an' would agree wit evolutionism. its not jus religion vs science.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 12:24:07 PM)
Science proves creatinists wrong is the topic. Please note that the spelling in the key word of the topic is c-r-e-a-t-i-n-i-s-t-s NOT c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-t-s It appears we have been duped into a debate that does not concern the actual topic. It is therefore my suggestion that we apprehend the op, put him in a 1 foot deep, 50x50 foot pool of baby oil and turn loose 20 hot sexy man hating oil wrestlers on his ass.

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 12:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around? Or, was the issue one of bones that completely break down to nothing? Why are there no "missing links" still roaming around? We have apes, then we have humans. Where are the go-betweens? Where are the subtle changes between the two? The odds of evolution happening to such an extent within a couple generations have to be staggeringly against it happening, but this is something we are simply to believe? IMO, there takes a certain amount of faith to plant oneself securely in the Evolution camp. Since science can't really include faith, we are left with questions that can't be answered with the evidence we have to date. This doesn't disprove Evolutionary Theory, but just adds to the possible falseness of it, or part of it. And, it neither proves or refutes Intelligent Design. Any elementary biology textbook would answer all these questions, so one can only conclude that you don't really want to know the answers, you just imagine that these are knockout objections. When they are the equivalent of saying "If the world is round, how come we don't fall off the bottom, eh, can't answer that can you?"

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 12:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir FR The "big bang theory" was brought about by a Catholic priest and was called that to mock him and the Church. Now people try to use it to disprove God. And the atomic theory was first thought up by an Athenian philosopher, but that doesn't prove the existence of Zeus. quote: I look at it a little differently than many. Science tells us HOW something happened but religion gives us the WHY. No, it gives us A "why," the one believed in by the tribe that wrote that particular holy book. Read another holy book and you'll find it was because the gods chopped their father into pieces and made the world from the bits. Another says that we shouldn't ask such questions, because all we need to know is how to live rightly in this world. The one thing they all have in common is that they have the TRUTH and all the others are ignorant heathens. quote: Genesis in the Old Testament was never meant to be a scientific text book. But as this and other threads show, not all Christians agree with you there. quote: The point of the creation story was that God spoke and it happened, and in an orderly fashion and that chaos is not from the Creator. As a Christian, I believe that the figure of Eve is also a precursor for Mary, the mother of Jesus. And as a Pagan, I believe that both of them are distorted versions of the ancient Semitic Mother Goddess, who was written out of the Hebrew scriptures when Moses reinvented Judaism as a monotheism in imitation of the cult of Aten-Ra, but we're both of us entitled to our beliefs.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 1:14:14 PM)
quote: yup yr right dat it waz widespread but don't understand da reason for bringin' Was in reply to your remark that Belief was universal, as if that proved something. quote: besides dat most scientists still believe in God an' would agree wit evolutionism. its not jus religion vs science. You making this shit up? Can you cite your source?

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 6:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir The "big bang theory" was brought about by a Catholic priest and was called that to mock him and the Church. Now people try to use it to disprove God. I suppose it is worth bringing up that creationism isn't a universal christian idea, just a horrendously too common one. quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir I look at it a little differently than many. Science tells us HOW something happened but religion gives us the WHY. The Bible also tells you HOW, a lot of us just pretend those portions don't exist because they're really dumb. I've never stopped being flabbergasted that people manage to have faith that the WHY is any more credible than the HOW. quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir Genesis in the Old Testament was never meant to be a scientific text book. The point of the creation story was that God spoke and it happened, and in an orderly fashion and that chaos is not from the Creator. Your predecessors in Christianity found quite a few more points in the story, but we now know that the rest of the stuff is demonstrably false. So to claim that story has any worth you're pretty much stuck making your rationalization or drinking the koolaid. But I'm left wondering, why claim the story has any worth? I mean it's obviously not reliable.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 6:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: yup yr right dat it waz widespread but don't understand da reason for bringin' Was in reply to your remark that Belief was universal, as if that proved something. i think my point waz dat belief in some divinity iz found universally, no matter da society an' era. quote: quote: besides dat most scientists still believe in God an' would agree wit evolutionism. its not jus religion vs science. You making this shit up? Can you cite your source? hey man lets keep it civil. thought it waz well known dat most scientists still believe in God http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24 quote: According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 6:46:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: besides dat most scientists still believe in God an' would agree wit evolutionism. its not jus religion vs science. You making this shit up? Can you cite your source? By most he means 33% quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 7:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: besides dat most scientists still believe in God an' would agree wit evolutionism. its not jus religion vs science. You making this shit up? Can you cite your source? By most he means 33% quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Nope i waz talkin' about god in a very loose way an' a great spirit or "higher power" is pretty close ta a divinity. other surveys also echo da same sentiments http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html quote: About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion. [snippy] In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 7:57:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Nope i waz talkin' about god in a very loose way an' a great spirit or "higher power" is pretty close ta a divinity. Seems like the scientists who answered that they did not believe in God but did believe in a higher power might disagree with you on that. Also you were apparently talking about scientists "in a very loose way" looking at your link.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Nope i waz talkin' about god in a very loose way an' a great spirit or "higher power" is pretty close ta a divinity. Seems like the scientists who answered that they did not believe in God but did believe in a higher power might disagree with you on that. reckon its splitting hairs. both divinity an' a "higher power" r powerful metaphysical phenomena. jus' seems like a less dogmatic idea of God an' there are many. quote: Also you were apparently talking about scientists "in a very loose way" looking at your link. Da survey included both social scientists an' natural scientists but da statistics were not totally mixed together. quote: Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:10:25 PM)
Please refer to my post 162 Ladies and gentlemen, we have been duped, the op did not say creationists at all. It took one other poster making a statement directly to the op title, and the op acknowledging it.

Louve00 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:18:44 PM)
And please tell this ignorant one what creatinists means? I tried to google it and it kept changing the word to creationist. And every link was about creationists.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Ladies and gentlemen, we have been duped, the op did not say creationists at all. It took one other poster making a statement directly to the op title, and the op acknowledging it. if da OP waz talkin' bout cretinists bein' proved wrong in their cretinous ways then there would be no argument cept maybe from realone.

Kirata -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:28:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Seems like the scientists who answered that they did not believe in God but did believe in a higher power might disagree with you on that. To be precise, they said they believed in "a universal spirit or higher power." So it would appear what they were rejecting was only the particular conception of God propagated by Western monotheism. But why that detail would give an Atheist cause for quibble is beyond me. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 And please tell this ignorant one what creatinists means? I tried to google it and it kept changing the word to creationist. And every link was about creationists. Actually, creatinists is not a word at all. The op coined it evidently to add to some confusion. quote: Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətən/ or /ˈkriːətaɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates and helps to supply energy to all cells in the body, primarily muscle. This is achieved by increasing the formation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Creatine was identified in 1832 when Michel Eugène Chevreul discovered it as a component of skeletal muscle, which he later named after the Greek word for meat, κρέας (kreas). In solution, creatine is in equilibrium[disambiguation needed] with creatinine It is used in various dietary supplements and according to WebMD the supplements are used to boost energy and recover quicker from work outs.

ScaryKids -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 8:57:00 PM)
So here is what gets me about this entire argument and the fact that it even occurs: We can assist natural selection to engineer certain qualities and traits within a species, and in some cases create two genetically divergent and incompatible subspecies. I'm not talking in a lab, I'm talking about by taking multiple generations of a species and breeding them for a desired attribute. If an omnipotent power exists, then what would prevent this power from using this capability to whatever extent it pleases. Assuming that said omnipotent power is also omniscient, why would it occupy a 'week' of its time when it could entertain itself indefinitely, especially when this power's existence spans the course of all time. (For example, who wants to buy a video game for 7 hours of play-time, when you can pay the same price for a game of equal quality in every way which provides 48-200 hours of play-time based or even more based on your chosen content.) If this omnipotent/omniscient power recognizes faith as a greater indication of a believer in its existence than evidence or knowledge, why wouldn't this power use this capability to reduce proof of itself? Creationists, your argument is now null, because increasing 'proof' of your deity decreases the potential for faith, and therefor lessens your opportunity for worth to it. By your logic, faith is self-sustaining, you do not need evidence. The lack of evidence in the development of life inspires faith and furthers your logic. It no longer matters how the earth was made, how life was created, how the world developed or how long it took. Evolutionists, your argument is no longer relevant because the creationists no longer care how life was created and are most likely evolutionists too. If there are any creationists out there who don't believe in a higher power, then sorry for your exclusion, I don't get how your theory works at all... Suzy

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 9:03:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists. Evolution is a fact which has been documented multiple times under laboratory conditions. You could throw away 100% of the fossil evidence and evolution would still be a well documented fact. Yet again the arguments against evolution are displays of crocoduck level ignorance. Nope, it is not a fact. It is a theory based on no proof. It's nothing but a religion for atheist. As long you cannot proof that the bone you found in the dirt had offspring you cannot proof evolution. That is a fact.

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 9:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists. Bullshit. You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation. Yes, you can do all that with a lot of imagination, but did you actually proof one thing? Nope. You cannot even proof that the bone in the dirt belonged to a creature that had offspring.

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/6/2013 9:10:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested. I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not. And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago. As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today. In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on. Show me the evidence first. Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to: http://www.godandscience.org/ You should never believe a creationist source, they are always telling knowing lies. This is specially true of Kent, tax cheat, Hovind who is the source of the this lie. In short as the Earth's magnetic field varies over time and that variation affects the amount of C-14 produced in the atmosphere. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1 Yes, I am aware of this effort to debunk the C14 equilibrium case. However there is no way you can expand the 30,000 years C14 equilibrium time over billions of years.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625