-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Creation-based Science Graduate Programs Anyone?
- Thread starter Stingerwolf
- Start date
Lonnie
Well-Known Member
- Nov 17, 2003
- 601
- 10
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
"Isnt creation science an oxymoron"
No, but evolution science is! Lol.
Ok, well nothing sciantific contradicts creation. Evolution is a theory. Creation is a fact. Why? Because God said he created. Lol.
Well, I am not sure of any. But if you find one, I would like to hear about it too.
And lets not get off course. Lets just awnser his question.
Later
No, but evolution science is! Lol.
Ok, well nothing sciantific contradicts creation. Evolution is a theory. Creation is a fact. Why? Because God said he created. Lol.
Well, I am not sure of any. But if you find one, I would like to hear about it too.
And lets not get off course. Lets just awnser his question.
Later
Upvote
0
This is my last post for you people--no really it is. You can find me in the "members" only forum later by the same name. As for you people that had a problem with me going-off on the likes of you and your kind (and I'm not talking about your religious preferences but rather initial response to my friendly initial post)...you should note the rules yourself before mentioning them to visitors. Below is the only input you'll get from me concerning the battle of the wits and witless. I'm really a nice guy if you get to know me. But I'm not afraid to hand you your teeth in a Darwin collectors tissue and put a pop-knot on your head big enough for its own birth certificate---if I think you are being inappropriate and can benefit from such vile and drastic actions.... ;-) Enjoy. Just make sure you read it through before attempting to be closed-spirited/minded and posting your little nasty remarks.
Ultimately my stance is that both secular/regular (whatever you wish to title it) AND creation/Christian/Biblical based theories have points of origins, at various levels, that are (in my opinion) unsubstantiated to a large degree. I'm perfectly ok with that simply because I'm ok with admitting I'm not all-knowing and all-learning, never will be, and believe that all of life's mysteries can not and will not be overcome by any scientist, doctor, theologian, pastor, etc.
Some folks have chose one path or another--or neither--and don't ever look back or care to discuss it. While some attempt to modify one to work with the other. And some try to invalidate one or the other in various ways while never looking at their own problems or acknowledging that both are imperfect and don't entirely add up. And some are open that there may be truths in both but don't proclaim to believe or be able to confirm every point (this is me) and most likely sway towards one side. Face it, every human being is partially biased to something, if not everything, that involves choices or opinions.
Both theories have their points, but in my opinion the main stream evolutionary theories, which rely on the father big-bang theories, are way too speculative and they attempt to use speculative findings and ideas as proven facts, rather than calling them what they are. And when it comes down to it, if I have to believe/accept man that has chosen to evolve from a humanistic stance (which changes with the majority, sign of the times, moral degeneration, and countless other conditions) or believe/accept man that at least says he honors, and for the most part has actions that back it up, a God that I have experienced really exists--than I'd be nothing but a rebel-fool to pick man that appears to want to figure God out of their equation. And like it or not, as much as I'd like it to be different, many (not all) of the authors of these secular scientific theories were Godless men and it apparently openly shows in their writings and behavior. And unfortunately that stance has bred thru the mainstream of that particular area of science but it is not known as atheism or agnosticism anymore--it's called science. So there again we have a mixture of science and religion--regardless of the type of religion or lack thereof in claims. So in my opinion the man that operates and propagates such ideas as facts and will not at the very least be open to all the evidence--that can be proven with 100% certainty and/or witnessed to, whether it be historic or laboratory based without error, and whether intentionally or not, does so under a vail of deceit. To recount, they do so either knowing they are deceiving, or do so in ignorance, but deceive none the less.
From an educational and "scientific" theory viewpoint (whether or not you agree of my scientific term usage) I have chosen a way with the creation origin theory and believe most of its ideas and concepts not simply because the Bible history concurs with it (as understood and confirmed by me and those I respect), but because there is not a better explanation thus far, that is not less far-fetched. We all have that choice or right to choose another, or not choose at all. However, some choices if left unmade are indeed choices for one of the original choices. But that is another discussion altogether.
Ultimately my stance is that both secular/regular (whatever you wish to title it) AND creation/Christian/Biblical based theories have points of origins, at various levels, that are (in my opinion) unsubstantiated to a large degree. I'm perfectly ok with that simply because I'm ok with admitting I'm not all-knowing and all-learning, never will be, and believe that all of life's mysteries can not and will not be overcome by any scientist, doctor, theologian, pastor, etc.
Some folks have chose one path or another--or neither--and don't ever look back or care to discuss it. While some attempt to modify one to work with the other. And some try to invalidate one or the other in various ways while never looking at their own problems or acknowledging that both are imperfect and don't entirely add up. And some are open that there may be truths in both but don't proclaim to believe or be able to confirm every point (this is me) and most likely sway towards one side. Face it, every human being is partially biased to something, if not everything, that involves choices or opinions.
Both theories have their points, but in my opinion the main stream evolutionary theories, which rely on the father big-bang theories, are way too speculative and they attempt to use speculative findings and ideas as proven facts, rather than calling them what they are. And when it comes down to it, if I have to believe/accept man that has chosen to evolve from a humanistic stance (which changes with the majority, sign of the times, moral degeneration, and countless other conditions) or believe/accept man that at least says he honors, and for the most part has actions that back it up, a God that I have experienced really exists--than I'd be nothing but a rebel-fool to pick man that appears to want to figure God out of their equation. And like it or not, as much as I'd like it to be different, many (not all) of the authors of these secular scientific theories were Godless men and it apparently openly shows in their writings and behavior. And unfortunately that stance has bred thru the mainstream of that particular area of science but it is not known as atheism or agnosticism anymore--it's called science. So there again we have a mixture of science and religion--regardless of the type of religion or lack thereof in claims. So in my opinion the man that operates and propagates such ideas as facts and will not at the very least be open to all the evidence--that can be proven with 100% certainty and/or witnessed to, whether it be historic or laboratory based without error, and whether intentionally or not, does so under a vail of deceit. To recount, they do so either knowing they are deceiving, or do so in ignorance, but deceive none the less.
From an educational and "scientific" theory viewpoint (whether or not you agree of my scientific term usage) I have chosen a way with the creation origin theory and believe most of its ideas and concepts not simply because the Bible history concurs with it (as understood and confirmed by me and those I respect), but because there is not a better explanation thus far, that is not less far-fetched. We all have that choice or right to choose another, or not choose at all. However, some choices if left unmade are indeed choices for one of the original choices. But that is another discussion altogether.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Lonnie said:
Creation science is an oxymoron because those who call themselves creation "scientists" do not follow the scientific method. They are still working within the framework of a theory that has been proved false and they refuse to consider altering their conclusions no matter what evidence is presented. That is why creationist groups like ICR and AiG have been shown to misrepresent claims by mainstream science and throw data out that they don't like.
Plenty of scientific observations contradict creationism. The thread "Geological Sciences vs. YECism/Flood Geology" demonstrates this. As do numerous other threads in this forum.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creation is a religious opinion. Creationism is a false scientific theory.
More appropriately because humans claim a deity did. That is not a scientific fact, however. This forum is not for the discussion for apologetics, so this excuse carries no weight here.
Upvote
0
Have fun in the other forum, sorry to tell you but since many christians accept evolution, you wont find anymore help there then you did here.
Since it appears you dont even understand evolution (linking the big bang with evolution), I would recomend actually learning about it first. As far as a place teaching both viewpoints, thats the equivilent of a science class teaching both sphere earth and flat earth theory, because they are "both valid viewpoints" sounds a bit odd dont you think?
Again, it appears all you want is people to agree with you, if thats the case, you should have fun with creationism as many places like to feed people exactly what they hear, even if it is a lie.
Upvote
0
"As far as a place teaching both viewpoints, thats the equivilent of a science class teaching both sphere earth and flat earth theory, because they are "both valid viewpoints" sounds a bit odd dont you think?"....
can you get on a spaceship and see evolution at work..you can take a picture of earth and prove that its round...you can't prove that evolution or creation or ID is fact as 1 would prove the earth is round...Again your attempt to link the questions regarding evolutionary and seeing that the world is flat are not valid at all...one can be proven as fact (flat earth)..the others (evolution, creationism) can have its theoretical points challenged.
can you get on a spaceship and see evolution at work..you can take a picture of earth and prove that its round...you can't prove that evolution or creation or ID is fact as 1 would prove the earth is round...Again your attempt to link the questions regarding evolutionary and seeing that the world is flat are not valid at all...one can be proven as fact (flat earth)..the others (evolution, creationism) can have its theoretical points challenged.
Upvote
0
"Creation science is an oxymoron because those who call themselves creation "scientists" do not follow the scientific method"...
so how do they go about it MB?check out icr and some of the impact articles..they seem scientific to me..they don't use amulets and frogs boiling in the cauldron...they take the fossil records and interpret it in their model as do evolutionists..they see that half -lifes are half-lifes..they just don't believe that any scientist can say for sure the initial radiological makeup of a rock for example...they see that DNA, RNA and all the other process exist in creating life they just don't see that all
this happened as described by evolution..again MB why do you say that?
so how do they go about it MB?check out icr and some of the impact articles..they seem scientific to me..they don't use amulets and frogs boiling in the cauldron...they take the fossil records and interpret it in their model as do evolutionists..they see that half -lifes are half-lifes..they just don't believe that any scientist can say for sure the initial radiological makeup of a rock for example...they see that DNA, RNA and all the other process exist in creating life they just don't see that all
this happened as described by evolution..again MB why do you say that?
Upvote
0
Because they assume the bible is correct. Instead of looking at what the evidence says, they simply try to rationalise genesis. That is not science.napajohn said:
I suggest you read up on the scientific method.
Upvote
0
No, you cant go on a spaceship and see evolution, but then again, I dont think you could ever get on a spaceship. How do you know its not all a conspiracy? Evolution seems to be a giant conspiracy, yet you completly trust these evolutionists that the world is a sphere, how funny.
Of course, you can do research, and learn about evolution, and see discoveries, etc. But who needs research, afterall, evolution must be wrong, even when many creationists dont even know what it is.
Of course, you can do research, and learn about evolution, and see discoveries, etc. But who needs research, afterall, evolution must be wrong, even when many creationists dont even know what it is.
Upvote
0
"No, you cant go on a spaceship and see evolution, but then again, I dont think you could ever get on a spaceship. How do you know its not all a conspiracy? Evolution seems to be a giant conspiracy, yet you completly trust these evolutionists that the world is a sphere"...huh ..who said evolutionists came up with the sphere concept? Surprise friend, people like Columbus and the phoenicians were sailing the oceans way before
evolutionists came on the scene..they knew the world was round
"But who needs research, afterall, evolution must be wrong, even when many creationists dont even know what it is"...many creationists and ID would support evolution 100 % ,myself included, if someone could take For example dna and proteins and have it become proteins that became cells for example..that would be 1 way to prove us doubters wrong
evolutionists came on the scene..they knew the world was round
"But who needs research, afterall, evolution must be wrong, even when many creationists dont even know what it is"...many creationists and ID would support evolution 100 % ,myself included, if someone could take For example dna and proteins and have it become proteins that became cells for example..that would be 1 way to prove us doubters wrong
Upvote
0
Um, dude, this is not evolution.napajohn said:
It's called abiogenesis, not evolution.
God could have created the first cell, and evolution couldn't care less!
Upvote
0
One cannot accept evolution if we evaluate Sara's situation in Hebrews and consider the Plight of the Jews in Exodus, it is metaphorical to us being God's children
Heb 11:11 -
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:11 -
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Upvote
0
"Um, dude, this is not evolution"...
um dude tell that to David Deamer
"David W. Deamer, The First Living Systems: a Bioenergetic Perspective, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 61 (1997): 239-261.
Could living systems have arisen without a means of transferring energy from the environment to the primitive cell, in order to do the work characteristic of all organisms? Biochemist and origin-of-life researcher David W. Deamer, of the University of California-Santa Cruz, argues that current models for the evolution of life itself neglect this critical question. To bring the point home with clarity and force, Deamer suggests a thought experiment in which a prebiotic soup of non-living chemicals is gradually made more complex, using what we know about the composition of a living cell (p. 241). In no case, he argues, would a living system arise, without a means for capturing and transferring energy"
"Imagine that on the early Earth, a complete system of catalytic and information-bearing molecules happened by chance to come together in a tide pool that was sufficiently concentrated to produce the equivalent of the contents of our flask. We could model this event in the laboratory by gently disrupting a live bacterial culture, subjecting it to a sterilizing filtration step, and adding the mixture to the flask of nutrient broth. No living cells are present, but entire bacterial genomes are available, together with ribosomes, membranous vesicles, ATP and other energy-containing substrates, and thousands of functional enzymes. Once again, would a living system arise under these conditions? Although Kauffman might be optimistic about the possibilities, most experimentalists would guess that little would happen other than slow, degradative reactions of hydrolysis, even though virtually the entire complement of molecules associated with the living state is present. The dispersion has lost the extreme level of order characteristic of cytoplasm in contemporary living cells. Equally important is that the ATP would be hydrolyzed in seconds, so that the system still lacks a continuous source of free energy to drive the metabolism and polymerization reactions associated with life. "
um dude tell that to David Deamer
"David W. Deamer, The First Living Systems: a Bioenergetic Perspective, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 61 (1997): 239-261.
Could living systems have arisen without a means of transferring energy from the environment to the primitive cell, in order to do the work characteristic of all organisms? Biochemist and origin-of-life researcher David W. Deamer, of the University of California-Santa Cruz, argues that current models for the evolution of life itself neglect this critical question. To bring the point home with clarity and force, Deamer suggests a thought experiment in which a prebiotic soup of non-living chemicals is gradually made more complex, using what we know about the composition of a living cell (p. 241). In no case, he argues, would a living system arise, without a means for capturing and transferring energy"
"Imagine that on the early Earth, a complete system of catalytic and information-bearing molecules happened by chance to come together in a tide pool that was sufficiently concentrated to produce the equivalent of the contents of our flask. We could model this event in the laboratory by gently disrupting a live bacterial culture, subjecting it to a sterilizing filtration step, and adding the mixture to the flask of nutrient broth. No living cells are present, but entire bacterial genomes are available, together with ribosomes, membranous vesicles, ATP and other energy-containing substrates, and thousands of functional enzymes. Once again, would a living system arise under these conditions? Although Kauffman might be optimistic about the possibilities, most experimentalists would guess that little would happen other than slow, degradative reactions of hydrolysis, even though virtually the entire complement of molecules associated with the living state is present. The dispersion has lost the extreme level of order characteristic of cytoplasm in contemporary living cells. Equally important is that the ATP would be hydrolyzed in seconds, so that the system still lacks a continuous source of free energy to drive the metabolism and polymerization reactions associated with life. "
Upvote
0
--It appears you can't see clearly unless someone lies to you and tells you they know everything or soon will. It must be lonely in your world. There's a cure for that ya know.Arikay said:
Have fun in the other forum, sorry to tell you but since many christians accept evolution, you wont find anymore help there then you did here. ---I wasn't looking for help in proving my beliefs, just factual information on schools from the general public. Oh forgive me, I forgot how your beliefs prevent you from relying on facts and history and instead make it up as you go along.
Since it appears you dont even understand evolution (linking the big bang with evolution), I would recomend actually learning about it first. As far as a place teaching both viewpoints, thats the equivilent of a science class teaching both sphere earth and flat earth theory, because they are "both valid viewpoints" sounds a bit odd dont you think?
--Any halfwit with jello for a brain knows that one depends upon the other. You can't evolve over millions of years if the Earth was create 6 to 10 thousand years ago now can you. The big bang theory or anything theory similar in timeline is prereq to believe evolution's mainstream cult theory. You need to evolve a brain with math skills.
Again, it appears all you want is people to agree with you, if thats the case, you should have fun with creationism as many places like to feed people exactly what they hear, even if it is a lie.
Upvote
0
So, personal attacks is the only response you can muster?
Ok, lying right,
Here is a look at some of AIGs "evidence"
http://www.christianforums.com/t60635
As you can see (if you follow the link) AIG is still using false information as valid evidence, some might start to call this lying after awhile.
However, I question if you actually want to learn, as it does not appear you even understand evolution, yet you claim we think we know everything, might I suggest you be carefull judging others, as it often can come around and bite you.
Ok, lying right,
Here is a look at some of AIGs "evidence"
http://www.christianforums.com/t60635
As you can see (if you follow the link) AIG is still using false information as valid evidence, some might start to call this lying after awhile.
However, I question if you actually want to learn, as it does not appear you even understand evolution, yet you claim we think we know everything, might I suggest you be carefull judging others, as it often can come around and bite you.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Simple:napajohn said:
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
They claim that the Bible must be interpreted literally any any evidence that contradicts that must be either somehow shoehorned into their conclusion or they must simply throw the data out and ignore it.
They have a fixed conclusion (that has already been disproved) and they claim that it cannot change with new data.
The scientific method does not work by ignoring data or simply now allowing for conclusions to change in light of new data.
That's the problem. To some, they seem scientific, but the people who write them do not follow the scientific method. In fact, they don't even appear to be like papers that appear in actual peer-reviewed scientific journals.
This is the difference. Evolution is a conclusion derived from observing the fossil record. Creationism, which works the opposite way around, is a fixed conclusion from which they must fit fossil record data. If it doesn't work, they overlook it because their conclusion is fixed and any contradictory data must be ignored. Their "scientists" must sign a statement of faith that states exactly that.
No, they don't. They pretend that our observation of half-lives of radioactive nuclides are meaningless. They claim that radiometric decay was somehow accelerated but they have neither any evidence nor any mechanism to account for this conclusion. Their conclusion is in fact a hypothesis that remains unverified.
But of course we can, and we do repeatable experiments in the laboratory to this effect. When it comes to papers like Snelling's, that proves he isn't working scientifically. He knows the limitations of radiometric dating methods, but he chooses to use the methods improperly and claims that the anomalous data proves that the method is wrong when someone actually uses it properly. He has a fixed conclusion and he is desperate to somehow discredit radiometric dating, but he doesn't do it with any degree of intellectual honesty. He even withholds that information from the reader as I pointed out in another thread.
P.S. Your posts would be a lot easier to read if you actually used the quotation tags, not to mention separating ideas into paragraphs rather than by ellipses.
Upvote
0
I'm feeling stubborn and bloody-minded today, so I thought I would respond to this.Stingerwolf said:
The responses prior to your second post consisted of:
Someone saying that creationist science was not science.
Someone saying that is was science, just wrong science.
Someone saying that you were asking in the wrong place because of the prevailing opinions around here.
Someone making a joke about how a creation 'science' course would be innacurately titled.
Someone who thought the original post was a joke.
Someone saying that Creationism is falsified and backed up only by false evidence, and also endangers faith.
Someone comparing creation science to phlogiston chemistry. (both falsified theories)
Someone responding to an earlier post.
Someone making a jocular anti-evolution post.
Someone comparing creation science to Heliocentrism and Protein heritability.
Someone responding to an earlier post.
Now we get to post #13, which consists of:
A plea to stay on topic (fair enough)
Accusing the forum population of being bitter and alone
Accusing the forum population of being close-minded
Accusing the forum population of involvement with the occult
Accusing the forum population of having rocks for brains
Saying the forum population's views are of no use to animate objects
Ordering the forum population to 'get a life'
Accusing the forum population of being incapable of thought
Now, which one of these posts is not like the others?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
