How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

Technically he wasn't. Creationism is a pseudoscientific belief that was a reaction to Darwin's theory of evolution. That is one insult that he did not earn. And knowledge of how the Moon formed has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. This is a red herring at best. A logical fallacy.

modern creationists started around the 1960s . This is when the creation science movement first started. They actually thought for a while that they could show evidence for their pseudoscience beliefs which would have allowed it to be taught in American public schools. Of course that failed miserably but they still teach a lot of that

 

[AV1611VET]

modern creationists started around the 1960s . This is when the creation science movement first started. They actually thought for a while that they could show evidence for their pseudoscience beliefs which would have allowed it to be taught in American public schools. Of course that failed miserably but they still teach a lot of that

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[VirOptimus]

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Indeed; as science describes reality.

 

[inquiring mind]

modern creationists started around the 1960s . This is when the creation science movement first started. They actually thought for a while that they could show evidence for their pseudoscience beliefs which would have allowed it to be taught in American public schools. Of course that failed miserably but they still teach a lot of that

Isn’t macroevolution, speculation with lack of evidence (beyond what is observable in microevolution), technically a “pseudoscience belief” that piggy-backed science right into our public schools? Maybe to be fair, the law should be changed to separation of church and pseudoscience, and state.

 

[pitabread]

I haven't read all the thread, but I'd assume he's doing something i often do and speaks as if there is no evidence in order to make certain points to those who think differently than creationists. Or he's getting beyond the fact the he may see evidence but that's not going to matter to you so why complicate the conversation with that fact.

Allow me to quote him directly then:

The universe is the product of creationism -- it's output.

It is not evidence of the act itself: creatio ex nihilo.

You guys can talk among yourselves and sort out what you're trying to argue in this thread.

 

[pitabread]

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Best tell that to the The Institute for Creation Research then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Best tell that to the The Institute for Creation Research then.

You do realize that if we Christians agreed 100% on everything, that would just make it worse, don't you?

After all, every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD, and yet atheists still exist.

So if consensus of opinion ... yea, 100% of opinion ... doesn't mean anything with you guys, what's your beef?

 

[pitabread]

So if consensus of opinion ... yea, 100% of opinion ... doesn't mean anything with you guys, what's your beef?

The issue is that creationists can't seem to agree on even fundamentals even when it comes to something like the nature of our universe.

Taking science in contrast, even if there are disagreements with respect to ideas within the domain of science, there is still an agreement of fundamentals. For example, in science the universe is treated as inherently objective. The scientific methodology is built on that base line and the agreed upon method with which to test ideas within science. (And if the universe isn't objective then it's all a moot point anyway.)

Creationists don't have that same basis. What you are claiming about our universe in contrast to what Kenny is claiming is a fundamentally different philosophy on the very nature of our universe. And without an agreement on fundamentals, there is no way to objectively test different ideas.

I suppose this explains why we see such stark difference of views among different creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Whatever.

 

[HitchSlap]

After all, every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD,

lol.... Given direct revelation from an all powerful god. Only agree on one thing.

 

[Brightmoon]

Isn’t macroevolution, speculation with lack of evidence (beyond what is observable in microevolution), technically a “pseudoscience belief” that piggy-backed science right into our public schools? Maybe to be fair, the law should be changed to separation of church and pseudoscience, and state.

. Speciation is macroevolution, scientists don’t use creationist terminology.

 

[AV1611VET]

lol.... Given direct revelation from an all powerful god. Only agree on one thing.

That's all it takes to convince me consensus-of-opinion is really pick-and-choose.

Why do you think they had to rig a vote to get Pluto demoted?

They knew consensus-of-opinion would rule.

Isn't it consensus-of-opinion that launched the Challenger, gave us Thalidomide, and got Vioxx on the market?

 

[Brightmoon]

Indeed; as science describes reality.

I absolutely agree it’s not about the Creation and it certainly isn’t science! Ooops that was supposed to be AVs post

 

[HitchSlap]

That's all it takes to convince me consensus-of-opinion is really pick-and-choose.

Why do you think they had to rig a vote to get Pluto demoted?

They knew consensus-of-opinion would rule.

Isn't it consensus-of-opinion that launched the Challenger, gave us Thalidomide, and got Vioxx on the market?

Yep, and over 30,000 denominations from 'not the author of confusion.'

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, and over 30,000 denominations from 'not the author of confusion.'

30,000 or 100,000 ... it wouldn't matter, would it?

If just one wouldn't matter, thirty thousand sure won't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Allow me to quote him directly then:

You guys can talk among yourselves and sort out what you're trying to argue in this thread.

So, this is what? Supposed to embarrass us that we may have different views? You seem to think you have stumbled onto something extra special here, else you would not be so bent on what actually seems like you trying to rub it in our face.

What, pray tell, is it exactly you think you have other than two people who think differently about something?

 

[Kenny'sID]

To whom it may concern, when evolutionists agree on what is proof of evolution, please let us know, but until then it's tough to take any of your bizarre complaints on simple disagreement or whatever silly thing you can come up with anything but a grain of salt.

 

[Speedwell]

So, this is what? Supposed to embarrass us that we may have different views? You seem to think you have stumbled onto something extra special here, else you would not be so bent on what actually seems like you trying to rub it in our face.

What, pray tell, is it exactly you think you have other than two people who think differently about something?

You're just being teased. It seems to many of us that if the Bible really was the literal, inerrant and perspicuous product of omniscient plenary verbal inspiration as you all claim then you all ought to agree on what it says. That you don't is something to make fun of.

 

[pitabread]

So, this is what? Supposed to embarrass us that we may have different views? You seem to think you have stumbled onto something extra special here, else you would not be so bent on what actually seems like you trying to rub it in our face.

What, pray tell, is it exactly you think you have other than two people who think differently about something?

The fact that creationists can't agree on something as fundamental as the nature of the universe speaks volumes about creationism.

 

[pitabread]

To whom it may concern, when evolutionists agree on what is proof of evolution, please let us know, but until then it's tough to take any of your bizarre complaints on simple disagreement or whatever silly thing you can come up with anything but a grain of salt.

You won't find the same level of disagreement over science that creationists have over creationism.