Inan3
Veteran Saint
- Jul 22, 2007
- 3,376
- 88
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
[/COLOR]
Actually Inan, we require SOMETHING from the Creationists. They are so sorely lacking in even basic science literacy anything like a fact supported by evidence or data untainted by faulty analysis would be a great boon.
[/COLOR]
Well it only appears that way to you because you have no science background. Maybe if you understood science just a bit better you'd be able to see that scientists would gladly engage you in scientific discussions. But the Creationists on this board are so woefully behind on fundamental science literacy, let alone topics like abiogenesis and the biochemistry incumbent on that, that we end up having to spend all our time giving them the 1st grader version of it. (Why do you think evolution debates always wind up discussing abiogenesis which technically isn't even an evolution topic!)
Learning is a good thing, but because so few Creationists actually seem capable of learning or seem so very resistant to learning, it's frustrating.
[/COLOR]
But likely Creationists will do what creationists on this board always do and that is simply ignore it. Mainly because they don't understand it.
Take the issue of homochirality of biologically active compounds as has been trotted out numerous times on this board (I'll repost the link: here for the zillionth time).
Funny how that is really interesting and germane to abiogenesis, but I've never seen a Creationist on this board yet who ever commented on it once it was posted.
That's probably because a relatively straightforward bit of science simply goes over their heads.
That's not a bad thing. They know things I couldn't start to understand. But I don't expect them to distill the massive amount of information they have available down to one little sentence.
It would necessarily be oversimplified and nearly useless.
That's what MoonLancer is getting at. You want a simple 1st grader type answer and it ain't gonna be easy. You think that because you can disagree with the science that that means you somehow understand the science. But Creationists and YEC simply, usually, don't.
If they do, and if you are a gung-ho science geek, please respond in ways that reassure us that you know about what you seem to speak against.
No, in reality you would be surprised at how we don't have to struggle to defend the ToE. It simply is an accepted fact, as accepted and factual as just about any theory is. It's a good strong theory and a good strong data set.
YOU and the other Creationists who don't understand it are the only ones people have to "struggle against" and thankfully most of you don't have anything to do with professional science. You are, for lack of a more kind word, meaningless to science. What does scare us is that you want to forcefeed your religion as science to children, or demand that valid science not be taught because you don't understand it and it makes you feel "icky" or makes you afraid your God is in danger.
Neither of which is remotely valid. Most Christians are evolution-friendly anyway.
Again, Creationists are like screaming children. Just one in a crowded room sounds really loud and annoying but in fact really is just a screaming child who doesn't understand all the important stuff going on around them.
You know TMT I read the first two quotes of this post and I decided that I would not read the rest. I know that you have a wealth of knowledge which I'd prefer to read about. AND whereas, I, also, know you have a nicer side, I'm just going to forego the negative creationists bashing to maintain my high opinion of you .
Upvote
0