• 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.

Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have most definitely not acknowledged that artificial wombs are on the horizon. They are quite far from it. There is no artificial womb on the horizon at all. There are crazy ideas out there that maybe someday far in the future we might do it. But there are no serious proposals for doing it any time soon. We don't even yet know all of the details of the environment that are required!

--The fact remains that a developing fetus requires a very specific environment to develop properly.
--This means that much of the information that makes up a fully-grown adult comes from the environment.

There is not even a loose connection between those two ideas.


Um, not even close. For one, clones are typically much larger than naturally-conceived young, and usually have to be delivered by c-section as a result. Most of them also tend to die prematurely. A healthy clone is quite a rare thing.
Not relevant.

There are also a large number of birth defects that are largely determined by environment. Though genetics do play a role here, they don't determine whether or not the person has the defect. Examples include a cleft palate, spina bifida, conjoined twins, and many others.
Damage caused by the environment is not new information and is not transferred or available to the next generation. Irrelevant to your defense of environmental input to DNA coding. There is none.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A strawman is when I take a twisted version of your position that you do not actually hold and claim this is your actual position.
Proceed to refute that twisted position with whichever arguement. Then act as though my arguements against the twisted position refuted you.

I do not think Chal tried to act like you really believe water isnt wet. Which is a rather important part of strawmanning.
Nor that by proving water is wet he refuted you.

Instead it was an analogy where he tried to convey how silly the course of the discussion was from his point of view. Not a strawman.
You are free to feel that it was insulting that he considers you to be blind to the obvious and thickheaded though.(Disclaimer, I do not know if that is actually how he feels or if he meant it that way.)

Yeah. You are probably right.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Chalnoth,

I have spent a great deal of my time with several posts that counter your claims and you are ignoring them. I find that this is really annoying. I know that sometimes we lose track of posts when we are discussing things with a group of people rather than just one. But this has happened more than once and I would like you to rectify the situation. I really want to know how you answer the questions I've asked you.
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟22,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!
Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth.
See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Chalnoth,

I have spent a great deal of my time with several posts that counter your claims and you are ignoring them. I find that this is really annoying. I know that sometimes we lose track of posts when we are discussing things with a group of people rather than just one. But this has happened more than once and I would like you to rectify the situation. I really want to know how you answer the questions I've asked you.

Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.

Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.

Many of these skulls in his post are not in the human line. Homo erectus in Africa and Asia disappeared 500,000 years ago. Modern man appeared 200,000ya in Africa, according to current dating methods. Note the complications in dating relating to Homo erectus in Indonesia.
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

Modern man has also been placed in Isreal up to 400,000 years ago.
Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?
Ancient teeth raise new questions about origins of modern humans

Chalnoth..please also address my 3 questions. Otherwise there is no point trying to maintain that evolution is a science, rather than a philosophy. Quite clearly many creationists here are alleging creation is based on more robust science than evolution.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth. See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com

Survival of the ego is paramount. Even temporary fame is better than a life of humility. That is why scientists act like everyday normal people. I work with them. They are normal. They lie, cheat, and steal the same as anybody else. I've seen the handcuffs on them, and they stay on just like other perps from the hood.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.Many of these skulls in his post are not in the human line. Homo erectus in Africa and Asia disappeared 500,000 years ago. Modern man appeared 200,000ya in Africa, according to current dating methods. Note the complications in dating relating to Homo erectus in Indonesia.Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolutionModern man has also been placed in Isreal up to 400,000 years ago.Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?Ancient teeth raise new questions about origins of modern humansChalnoth..please also address my 3 questions. Otherwise there is no point trying to maintain that evolution is a science, rather than a philosophy. Quite clearly many creationists here are alleging creation is based on more robust science than evolution.

Creation is a logical solution to the gap that science has...how and why everything is here. Science does not have any procedure to deal with past events unless the conditions are in a lab book for others to repeat.

Anything older than written documentation is conjecture and Science fails. Evolution is a fine theory for experimentation. It does not bring forth any new process for solving ancient problems.
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟22,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"...we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious."

Let's test that.

In the formative stages of the Science of Geology, the scientists wanted to exclude Christians (sounds bigoted). So they made two ASSUMPTIONS: 1. All prime movers in geology must be 'terrestrial' or originate on Earth (thus outlawing God), and 2. All events affecting geology must proceed at the same speed as today.... slow and steady (definition of Uniformitarianism). In other words, no catastrophes.

When the Alvarez father-son team found proof that the dinosaurs had been extinguished by a huge meteorite/asteroid (sometimes referred to as the Yucatan meteorite), the geologists put on a hissy fit for 10 years, delaying scientific progress because their cherished, ancient, unfounded assumptions were not being respected... they didn't like extraterrestrial events and catastrophes.

About 150 years ago they wanted to forbid God and miracles... they inadvertently forbade meteorites and catastrophes. That sounds strangely religious and unscientific. Since when is it the provence of Science to assume away debate? It certainly delayed the adoption of new Science by 10 years in at least one case. And if you scientists had the nerve to search diligently, I bet you'd find many cases where such Century-old assumptions impeded scientific progress.

The errors of Science seldom occur in the logic used... they mostly occur in the unfounded assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wow.

Just wow....


'Wow' is not a refute. Perhaps you could address my questions. Given that many believe the evidence for evolution is so solid, evolutionists should have no problems explaining what appears to be huge discrepencies and inconsistencies within the homo and homonid fossil record.



Juvenille Orangutan



Adult Bornean orangutan

These orangs look more human than many of your homo erectus fossils.

Please explain why Lucy does not have eye brow ridging while erectus does? In fact Lucy's skull I posted looks more human that many erectus skulls. Why are there few fossil chimp ancestors or even other primates been found? Why do you class Turkana Boy as human when his skull shows clearly ape traits and bears no resemblence to any variety of human skull today, but does resemble other primates? Turkana Boys skull actually resembles the first reconstruction of rudolfensis before it was corrected. I think Turkana Boy has been misrepresented yet still looks like an ape.

Please answer if you disagree with my assertions.
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟25,338.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
About 150 years ago they forbade God. They forbade miracles. That sounds strangely religious and unscientific. Since when is it the provence of Science to assume away debate?
It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.

If science included non-empirical methods and data it wouldn't be science, and if miracles were explainable by natural and empirical means they wouldn't be miracles.
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟25,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.
----
Chalnoth..please also address my 3 questions. Otherwise there is no point trying to maintain that evolution is a science, rather than a philosophy. Quite clearly many creationists here are alleging creation is based on more robust science than evolution.
While I am sure you would like your questions answered.

I do feel you are being alittle unreasonable in the last section.

A unanswered question does not mean evolution would suddenly go from science to philosophy. It may indicate a field to study, before conclusions can be drawn. That is how science works after all to find questions and work to answer them, Gravity is not a philosophy if we cannot explain why electrons arent effected.

Secondly,
Even if you were willing to personally say that the default answer is god and that refuting evolution would be good enough for you. That would still not change the standards for the scientific methode so it would still be incorrect to say creation is a science. (But it would convince you personally, fair enough.)

when saying creation is scientificly robust. I think you will find that it is merely based on a false dichotomy between 'evolution vs creation' where they believe that if evolution is false creation MUST be true, and feel that they require no further evidence. (the notion that if we do not currently know the answer god is the default answer.)

Both of these are untrue however. The germ theory of disease did not become accepted science simply because disease-demons were dismissed it had to stand on its own research.
There is non I currently know for creation that does not fall into the missunderstanding I mentioned.

I am not saying the questions should not be adressed. Just that the conclusion you tied into them was alittle unreasonable would you agree?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!
Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth.
See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com

Anything that puts any question on evolution is taboo.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.

Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.[\quote]

I'd sure like answers.

Many of these skulls in his post are not in the human line. Homo erectus in Africa and Asia disappeared 500,000 years ago. Modern man appeared 200,000ya in Africa, according to current dating methods.

Actually, there is a new discovery of a homo sapien in Israel that is dated 400,000 years ago. This discovery challenges not only the out of Africa theory but sets back the date for human's which in itself will have some interesting shuffling to the family "tree".

Note the complications in dating relating to Homo erectus in Indonesia.
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

Another ancestor older once again.


lOl sorry, I did't read the whole post...obviously.

I am also trying to find the reference in the Bible about mankind's birthplace as Israel. I just can't remember the book, chapter or verse. Hate when that happens.:doh::doh:
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!
Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth.
See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com

Hi there

Good point!

There are quite a few creationist researchers that have been sacked and have law suits pending. The link below cites some of them.

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟25,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Hi there

Good point!

There are quite a few creationist researchers that have been sacked and have law suits pending. The link below cites some of them.

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

article said:
"In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scien tist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists touse the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing."
.................
"My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant."
................
But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal.

The person in this story was fired for refusing to do the work for which he was hired.
Which apparently was over 90% of the work they were doing, while recieving full pay.
It is rather like firing math teacher who refuse to teach substraction, they are hired to do a specific job that they were aware of from the start.
It is not religious persecution to fire a person who refuses to do that job.
It would be religious persecution to fire a person for their believes if it do not influence their job.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.

Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.[\quote]

I'd sure like answers.



Actually, there is a new discovery of a homo sapien in Israel that is dated 400,000 years ago. This discovery challenges not only the out of Africa theory but sets back the date for human's which in itself will have some interesting shuffling to the family "tree".



Another ancestor older once again.



lOl sorry, I did't read the whole post...obviously.

I am also trying to find the reference in the Bible about mankind's birthplace as Israel. I just can't remember the book, chapter or verse. Hate when that happens.:doh::doh:

Hi there

I know that it is believed that the Garden of Eden was likely near the Persian Gulf. So to find the oldest humans in Isreal or around that area, rather than Africa, correlates to biblical text, as usual.

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see the only response to either of our questions is Exiledoomsayer, who has chosen to take up an aside of no consequence to any of the questions posed nor the discrepencies.

You know...the silence and lack of serious responses to our challenges is sufficient to get any creationist thinking we have shown how Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

:clap: :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟25,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I see the only response to either of our questions is Exiledoomsayer, who has chosen to take up an aside of no consequence to any of the questions posed nor the discrepencies.

You know...the silence and lack of serious responses to our challenges is sufficient to get any creationist thinking we have shown how Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

:clap: :thumbsup:

Well I do like to speak on the things I know about.
Which is generally just logic and being reasonable. (Not counting when im provoked ;))
Pointing out things I think we can generally agree on.

If you want me to take a poke at human ancestry I could, but I really do not know anything about it so I do not speak on it. Atleast that is one way to avoid embarishing things like repeating factually wrong information like 'creation=science' :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gotta love how you creationists, when confronted with evidence that specifically refutes your arguments, just put you fingers in your ears and keep saying, "la la la la la".

So what is your reason for not responding to my questions?
 
Upvote 0