Call for Submissions

[tas8831]

For those who drafted it, apparently it was, since they could have recognized God as the Declaration of Independence did. Those who drafted the 1787 constitutions made an obvious choice to take God out.

You mean the one part where it says 'Creator'? Wow, that is totally not ambiguous!

Those in 1787 must have had good reason to. Many of those involved were educated and enlightened folk who had very unorthodox views about religion. They saw the corrupting influence it can have (if only they could see us now...).

Article 11, Treaty with Tripoli, summed it up best:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...​

Yes, yes, I am aware of the 'controversy' about it, but the fact remains - THAT was read to the Senate, which then ratified it, which was then signed by Adams.

 

[tas8831]

Since most schools, from grade school on up, teach evolution to its students, it is no wonder that, from a very young age, the mind is shaped to believe in the theory of evolution.

Good thing no children attend church with their families... or go to vacation Bible school, or Sunday school, or...

 

[tas8831]

This is a Christian Message Board, so should there not be Bible verses? Do you expect even the Christian Message Boards to be Godless?

This is the Evolution/Creation forum open to non-Christians. YOU claimed to have "scientific facts". YOU claimed to be an experienced debater of the issue (and by implication, to have 'won').

Yet, when you can't produce what you claim to be able to, out comes the usual religionism.

Hiding behind Scripture will not rescue the fact that you are not so good re: science and evidence.

ALSO:

Please DEFINE 'genetic code'.

Please DEFINE 'genetic information.'

Please address the evidence for evolution here. And by address, I do not mean paraphrasing some creationist essay.

 

[tas8831]

From my research, that is what I see.

"Research"?

For instance, see:
Call for Submissions

Ah - paraphrasing creationist website dreck = research.

Kind of like those anti-vaccine nitwits that claim they 'did their research', yet they write stupid things like mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" and change your DNA...

 

[tas8831]

That is right, secular and Godless. So that is why they have been blinded.

Religionism is bad for society. if people need religion to not behave immorally, then THEY are the problem, and religion is not the answer.

But that is irrelevant to the point that you do not seem to understand what "evidence" is.


ALSO:

Please DEFINE 'genetic code'.

Please DEFINE 'genetic information.'

Please address the evidence for evolution here. And by address, I do not mean paraphrasing some creationist essay.

 

[tas8831]

I provided Science facts, but you refused it and ignored it. Why? Because you obviously are not interested in the evidence, but rather to promote your own agenda; otherwise, you would have responded to the evidence I provided.

Call for Submissions 1

Call for Submissions 2

But only about 15% of what you wrote was factual.

The rest was embellished non-sequiturs, Begging the Question fallacies, and empty assertions.

You offered virtually no evidence at all for your position.

What you did would be like me writing (improper word usage and all):

Here are the scientific facts. Although sedimentary rock is called that, all the stratum of rock layers today were formed from sediment. We know this because all stratum layers contain fossils. Those fossils are in a particular order, and that order conforms to the prophecy of the Great Turtle.​

and expecting you to tremble in your boots at the FACTS I just presented.




ALSO:

Please DEFINE 'genetic code'.

Please DEFINE 'genetic information.'

Please address the evidence for evolution here. And by address, I do not mean paraphrasing some creationist essay.

 

[tas8831]

But only about 15% of what you wrote was factual.

The rest was embellished non-sequiturs, Begging the Question fallacies, and empty assertions.

You offered virtually no evidence at all for your position.

What you did would be like me writing (improper word usage and all):

Here are the scientific facts. Although sedimentary rock is called that, all the stratum of rock layers today were formed from sediment. We know this because all stratum layers contain fossils. Those fossils are in a particular order, and that order conforms to the prophecy of the Great Turtle.​

and expecting you to tremble in your boots at the FACTS I just presented.




ALSO:

Please DEFINE 'genetic code'.

Please DEFINE 'genetic information.'

Please address the evidence for evolution here. And by address, I do not mean paraphrasing some creationist essay.

And he never did...

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you think you could propose a better creationist model, put it on a better scientific footing, than the ones you are familiar with? If so, please submit your idea.

FYI, I can think of several possible objections to asking that question in the first place. Further, I'm aware many will simply not be interested. That's fine. I don't need to hear those responses. If you're willing to answer in the spirit of how the question was asked - just because it would be interesting to try - I'd like to hear from you.

Maybe it would help to know 3 things:
1) I'm not a science denier. I use science in my job every day.
2) Though I believe God created the universe, I don't think what is typically passed off as creation science accomplishes anything.
3) I think it was a fair question to ask me to consider what, based on my objections to evolution, an alternative to evolution would look like. I tried, and though I'm fond of the result, it shouldn't be surprising it came to nothing.

The point is - I tried. I'm curious to see who on the other side of the issue might give it a try as well.

I read the first five pages of the thread up to the point where you bailed out, for no clear reason (at least to me). Through those five pages I was never, at any point, clear what you were asking. Indeed, my best estimate of what you were asking changed radically at least three times. Based upon implicit and explicit content by other members they also sensed a degree of ambiguity.

I hate to have invested that time with no useful end-product. Would you like to ask again, as directly as possibe, what is it that you are asking for? If you can present your question with clarity I will certainly try to take a stab at answering it.

 

[J_B_]

I read the first five pages of the thread up to the point where you bailed out, for no clear reason (at least to me). Through those five pages I was never, at any point, clear what you were asking. Indeed, my best estimate of what you were asking changed radically at least three times. Based upon implicit and explicit content by other members they also sensed a degree of ambiguity.

I hate to have invested that time with no useful end-product. Would you like to ask again, as directly as possibe, what is it that you are asking for? If you can present your question with clarity I will certainly try to take a stab at answering it.

The conversation yielded all it had to offer. I don't expect anything more from it.

I'd like to help make it useful for you, but I don't want to rehash a question I would no longer ask. As such, I'm not sure what I can say.

 

[Ophiolite]

The conversation yielded all it had to offer. I don't expect anything more from it.

I'd like to help make it useful for you, but I don't want to rehash a question I would no longer ask. As such, I'm not sure what I can say.

Fair enough. Thank you for the prompt reply. I note, en passant, that conversation has not yielded all it had to offer to me and to have had the question rehashed into a cogent form would have been useful to me, but I comfortably accept that I shall remain for ever bemused.

 

[J_B_]

Fair enough. Thank you for the prompt reply. I note, en passant, that conversation has not yielded all it had to offer to me and to have had the question rehashed into a cogent form would have been useful to me, but I comfortably accept that I shall remain for ever bemused.

If there's something you want to ask me, I'll do my best to answer. But I doubt any attempt on my part to reformulate would be useful to you.

 

[Ophiolite]

If there's something you want to ask me, I'll do my best to answer. But I doubt any attempt on my part to reformulate would be useful to you.

Well, I've asked you twice and you have declined twice and I don't believe in the saying "third time's the charm", so I think we'd best just shelve it. Thanks again.

 

[tas8831]

Looks like someone scampered back to the Christian-only forums where it is 'safe.'

 

[Estrid]

Looks like someone scampered back to the Christian-only forums where it is 'safe.'

I wonder if someone could send a emissary there
to invite the theo- only posters to come engage
with people who have the education to pose a
challenge to the usual ideas tossed back and forth.

 

[Shemjaza]

I wonder if someone could send a emissary there
to invite the theo- only posters to come engage
with people who have the education to pose a
challenge to the usual ideas tossed back and forth.

They have a few very educated TEs already. It goes about as well as it does here.

Creationist A: "Atheist evolution is sooo dumb for X reason. They really are desperate to believe their lie from Satan, their father!"
TE B: "Actually, I'm a Christian and I accept evolution. X reason isn't true."
Creationist: "How can you defend atheism!? Anyway even Charles Darwin denied it on his deathbed. See this proof of X reason! [link]"
TE B: "Here's some Christian scientists who explain X reason [link]. Also here's Creationists saying you shouldn't talk about Charles Darwin's death bed [link]."
Creationist C: "Matthew 7:21-23... hint, hint, if someone believes in evolution they aren't real Christians, hint, hint."
Christian D: "(at)Creationist C: hey be careful about that accusation in the rules."
Flat Earther E: "(at)Christian D: can't we even defend the Bible without being cancelled! Is NASA more important than Jesus!"
Creationist A: "... anyway, Atheist evolution is sooo dumb for X reason. They really are desperate to believe their lie from Satan, their father!"

 

[Estrid]

They have a few very educated TEs already. It goes about as well as it does here.

Creationist A: "Atheist evolution is sooo dumb for X reason. They really are desperate to believe their lie from Satan, their father!"
TE B: "Actually, I'm a Christian and I accept evolution. X reason isn't true."
Creationist: "How can you defend atheism!? Anyway even Charles Darwin denied it on his deathbed. See this proof of X reason! [link]"
TE B: "Here's some Christian scientists who explain X reason [link]. Also here's Creationists saying you shouldn't talk about Charles Darwin's death bed [link]."
Creationist C: "Matthew 7:21-23... hint, hint, if someone believes in evolution they aren't real Christians, hint, hint."
Christian D: "(at)Creationist C: hey be careful about that accusation in the rules."
Flat Earther E: "(at)Christian D: can't we even defend the Bible without being cancelled! Is NASA more important than Jesus!"
Creationist A: "... anyway, Atheist evolution is sooo dumb for X reason. They really are desperate to believe their lie from Satan, their father!"

Uh ok never mind

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think you could propose a better creationist model, put it on a better scientific footing, than the ones you are familiar with? If so, please submit your idea.

I believe God created the universe in six literal days by a series of one miracle after another that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level today.

And since it was a series of miracles, science and nature had nothing to do with it.

God did it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe God created the universe in six literal days by a series of one miracle after another that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level today.

And since it was a series of miracles, science and nature had nothing to do with it.

God did it all.

The request was for a scientific creation model. Not one of mere belief.