Creationism VS Public schools

Aceofspades77 said:

The wolves have come out to the slaughter.

Click to expand...

Wolves do tend to go after the weak and helpless, don't they?

Seriously, if you can't stand to have the flaws in your ideas exposed and discussed, then a debate forum is clearly not the place for you.

If, OTOH, you sincerely want to learn something about evolutionary theory, you had best be prepared to face, with brutal honesty, how much you need to learn.

Aceofspades77 said:

A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

Click to expand...

Hooray, another digression. How was creationism of use in any of these persons' scientific accomplishments?

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy

Click to expand...

Another unfounded claim. How is evolution any more a religious philosophy than the Atomic Theory or Newtonian Mechanics? Unlike religion, the theory of evolution has changed to incorporate new evidence as it is discovered. Unlike religion, evolution provides evidence for its assertions and does not demand that it be accepted on faith. Unlike religion, evolution makes testable predictions that lead to applications in the real world.

I understand you feel picked-on here. Tell me, did you form your opinions on evolution by researching the science and the evidence, by critically examining arguments from all sides, or have you mostly discussed it with people who share a common social background with you? I ask because I've seen this movie before. It's easy to grossly overestimate the strength of your arguments when you've kept them isolated from critical examination most of your life. Social reinforcement can make the most ridiculous claims feel like common sense. If you don't believe me, go ask the guys in Africa who claim their genitals were stolen by sorcerers.

Aceofspades77 said:

A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption

3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module

7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)

1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.

Click to expand...

That's nice. What's your point?

Aceofspades77 said:

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy

Click to expand...

Oh, really? First question; what does this have to do with that big useless list of scientists above?

Second question; Evolution is a religious subject...? Really? I didn't know that I held to this religious philosophy...please tell me, who am I supposed to be worshipping again?

I must have forgotten, because last time I checked I didn't believe in something due to evolution.

Aceofspades77 said:

Why are you so T.O'd you have not even been apart of this thread lately.

Click to expand...

I'm not TO'd that I haven't been a part of this thread lately.

Or was that two separate statements? In which case (a) I think it was clear why I was TO'd; and (b) writing =/= reading, so from my perspective I have been a part of this thread, just not posting (since others have generally said what I wanted to say before I could say it); and (c) what does my participation have to do with anything anyway? I hope you're not turning into another AVian quantity=quality type.

Or if that was two separate related statements (ie why am I annoyed when I'm not the one having to give all the answers), it's because I've previously been the person giving the answers and I have empathy with those who humored you in the first part of this thread, only to discover that your "I'm willing to learn, really!" schtick was, apparently, a facade via which you could peddle creationist dogma that we've all heard before. Even though it wasn't my time being wasted in this instance, it's still aggravating to observe.

And I'm answering a least one of my 15 or so critics here being that I'm the only creationist supporter here.

Click to expand...

OK. And the relevance of this?

I actually think it's telling that the creationism vs evolution subforum on a Christian forum is basically ran by the evolution proponents. Sure, quite a few atheists post here, but so do a lot of Christians. I'm not sure the atheists outnumber the Christians but I am sure that the creationists are outnumbered.

Vene said:

I actually think it's telling that the creationism vs evolution subforum on a Christian forum is basically ran by the evolution proponents.

Click to expand...

Our name is Legion...

Sure, quite a few atheists post here, but so do a lot of Christians. I'm not sure the atheists outnumber the Christians but I am sure that the creationists are outnumbered.

Click to expand...

My unscientific head-count puts atheists in the lead, then TEs (covering a multitude of heresies ), then YECs/AVs.

But, remember, that could be due to the restrictions on where atheists can (or, more importantly, can't) post.

Aceofspades77 said:

Why are you so T.O'd you have not even been apart of this thread lately. And I'm answering a least one of my 15 or so critics here being that I'm the only creationist supporter here.

Click to expand...

He's right, though. You've switched the topic yet again. Who cares that he didn't post, his point is correct and should not be ignored. Especially not by you. Now, get back to where we left off with the SLOT. You know? The discussion you started but changed the topic away from when you couldn't answer the arguments?

Aceofspades77 said:

1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

Click to expand...

By the way, Nobel nominations are not made public until fifty years later. If Schaefer was nominated, he wouldn't know it yet, unless he was nominated for one in 1958. Now, if that was the case, he would indeed be brilliant, given that he was 14 by that time.

In other words, this guy is more than suspicious, even though his scientific record is very, very good.

Aceofspades77 said:

A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption

3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module

7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)

1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.


Evolution is basically a religious philosophy

Click to expand...

None of these people as far as I can see have published papers on creationism, if they have please corrected me. Therefore they are not creationist scientists; they are scientists in their own fields, but not the field of creationism.

In may be true that they believe in some sort of mystical creationism, but they all shy away for research into creationism, because they now there is no such thing as creation science.

I am not an atheist scientist, even though I am labelled one. I am an analytical chemist/geologists and not an atheist scientist.

The same is true of the above named scientists, they are NOT creation scientists, if they are where is their research ?

ChordatesLegacy said:

None of these people as far as I can see have published papers on creationism, if they have please corrected me. Therefore they are not creationist scientists; they are scientists in their own fields, but not the field of creationism.

In may be true that they believe in some sort of mystical creationism, but they all shy away for research into creationism, because they now there is no such thing as creation science.

I am not an atheist scientist, even though I am labelled one. I am an analytical chemist/geologists and not an atheist scientist.

The same is true of the above named scientists, they are NOT creation scientists, if they are where is their research ?

Click to expand...

What sort of backward thinking do you have.That's like saying the religious thought of Islam has contributed nothing to science. Of course it has not! Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science. It's a thought process, a religion and seen by some(myself) as more of a cult way of thinking of distorting the facts to fit the "evolution" agenda. Science is science even outside of the "label's" we give science including, creation science, evolutionary science, ect. I could even emphasis my point by saying something crazy like cartoon network science. One of my points is that both scientists, those that believe in evolution and those that believe in a literal creation are still reputable scientists. Science is science and often times the facts are scewed and false statements are given to fit ones own personal bias and hidden agenda. I dare one person give me any animal that exists today and we can debate how it has evolved or not from it's distant past to now with clear examples of it's entire evolutionary process. If someone can give me no shadow of a doubt clear evidence of this animals evolution through out the ages of time I will give them all major props. I contend that with common reasoning this animals evolution can easily be disputed.

Aceofspades77 said:

Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science. .

Click to expand...

No it is not; creationism only works when science is ignored.

Evolution only works when science is observed.


Evolution dictates that there should be a progression to higher life forms through time.

Creationism dictates that all life forms were created at the same time.

What does the physical evidence show, well this.






A slow but steady evolution to higher life forms, proving evolution correct and creationism wrong.

There is no creation science, if you have any evidence for creationism please share it with us.

I'm going to kick myself for following in another switch of topic, but anyway.

Aceofspades77 said:

What sort of backward thinking do you have.That's like saying the religious thought of Islam has contributed nothing to science. Of course it has not!

Click to expand...

Good, a creationist way of thinking has not contributed to science. Thanks for admitting that.

Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. We can observe it happening and it leads to testable hypotheses. Creationism doesn't do that. It cannot be tested, or if it can it has been falsified. It is not science.

It's a thought process, a religion and seen by some(myself) as more of a cult way of thinking of distorting the facts to fit the "evolution" agenda.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. It is a testable theory. How is it a religion? What characteristics of cult thinking or religion does it have?

Science is science even outside of the "label's" we give science including, creation science, evolutionary science, ect.

Click to expand...

And the hallmark of science is that it is testable. Evolution is, creationism is not, or where it is has been falsified. That is why evolution is science and creationism is not.

I could even emphasis my point by saying something crazy like cartoon network science. One of my points is that both scientists, those that believe in evolution and those that believe in a literal creation are still reputable scientists. Science is science and often times the facts are scewed and false statements are given to fit ones own personal bias and hidden agenda.

Click to expand...

The point we make is that those scientists holding to creationism, never use creationism in doing science. Meanwhile, scientists holding to the theory of evolution do use that to do good science. See the difference?

I dare one person give me any animal that exists today and we can debate how it has evolved or not from it's distant past to now with clear examples of it's entire evolutionary process. If someone can give me no shadow of a doubt clear evidence of this animals evolution through out the ages of time I will give them all major props. I contend that with common reasoning this animals evolution can easily be disputed.

Click to expand...

Great, how about horses? We'll trace horses back all the way. Allright? Will you stop changing topics if we do that? If you say yes, I'll be happy to start a thread on it. But you'll have to stay on topic in that for a change.

Tomk80 said:

I'm going to kick myself for following in another switch of topic, but anyway.


Good, a creationist way of thinking has not contributed to science. Thanks for admitting that.

No, it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. We can observe it happening and it leads to testable hypotheses. Creationism doesn't do that. It cannot be tested, or if it can it has been falsified. It is not science.

No, it is not. It is a testable theory. How is it a religion? What characteristics of cult thinking or religion does it have?

And the hallmark of science is that it is testable. Evolution is, creationism is not, or where it is has been falsified. That is why evolution is science and creationism is not.

The point we make is that those scientists holding to creationism, never use creationism in doing science. Meanwhile, scientists holding to the theory of evolution do use that to do good science. See the difference?


Great, how about horses? We'll trace horses back all the way. Allright? Will you stop changing topics if we do that? If you say yes, I'll be happy to start a thread on it. But you'll have to stay on topic in that for a change.

Click to expand...

Yes and once again you back down my challenge. Show me any given animal even a horse if you may and how it hased changed in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. In your own words and best way of showing me how this is done and I will be open to discuss it(not tear you or your ideas down). I call myself a freethinking creationist. I'm not afraid like you to discuss ideas or facts if that is what they are. Do you back down from this challenge again? I do this for fun and to kill time any real scientist would be glad to share their knowlegde with me. And I doubt to many of them even reside on "christian forums".

ChordatesLegacy said:

No it is not; creationism only works when science is ignored.

Evolution only works when science is observed.


Evolution dictates that there should be a progression to higher life forms through time.

Creationism dictates that all life forms were created at the same time.

What does the physical evidence show, well this.


A slow but steady evolution to higher life forms, proving evolution correct and creationism wrong.

There is no creation science, if you have any evidence for creationism please share it with us.

Click to expand...

Apreciate the response legacy. At the very top there we start with the prokaryote. It's funny to mention that I wanted to talk about the prokarote many posts back. So the starting point of evolutionary theory is that all life we have to day starts with the prokarote? Is this a good starting point?

Aceofspades77 said:

Yes and once again you back down my challenge.

Click to expand...

Which challenge have I backed down from now, which before? We'll continue after you've clarified this, because as far as I'm concerned you're lying here. But I may just have misunderstood.

Horse evolution

Actually, I want to know what you make of it when a new species is observed to evolve. No old rocks, an entirely new environment, and an entirely new species. The new environment changes the selection pressure, mutations are always happening, and genetic drift is also always happening.
Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations.
There's a species of mosquito (Culex pippens) that is only found in the London Underground. It is extremely close (genetically) to molestus aboveground, but can't interbreed. That's the definition of a new species. It's evolution has been recorded. By the way, that paper is from a peer-reviewed journal and is available online for free. There is no reason why you can't read it.

Aceofspades77 said:

Apreciate the response legacy. At the very top there we start with the prokaryote. It's funny to mention that I wanted to talk about the prokarote many posts back. So the starting point of evolutionary theory is that all life we have to day starts with the prokarote? Is this a good starting point?

Click to expand...

You're reading the chart as if it is a ladder, with a progression from top to bottom. This is incorrect.

Tomk80 said:

You're reading the chart as if it is a ladder, with a progression from top to bottom. This is incorrect.

Click to expand...

So what were the first organisms then Tom. Give me insight instead of ussless drivel as you usually do, always digressing.

Aceofspades77 said:

So what were the first organisms then Tom. Give me insight instead of ussless drivel as you usually do, always digressing.

Click to expand...

[self delete]

Aceofspades77 said:

So what were the first organisms then Tom. Give me insight instead of ussless drivel as you usually do, always digressing.

Click to expand...

Define "organism." A cell? A self-replicating protein? Something in between?