Creationists, where do you get your facts?

[hangback]

Where did this stupid curse creationism come from? who in there right mind could possibly bring themselves to believe it? it's complete nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did this stupid curse creationism come from? who in there right mind could possibly bring themselves to believe it? it's complete nonsense.

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Where did this stupid curse creationism come from? who in there right mind could possibly bring themselves to believe it? it's complete nonsense.

Key phrase: "right mind".

 

[thaumaturgy]

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

When will he know it, All Seeing One?

 

[rjw]

Are you going to pay me for my services? By the tone of your response I can already tell that you want nothing to do with charity, so can you pay me?

If it's tone of response you are worried about then are you going to pay me to "grow up"?

And naturally, if you had anything to offer with respect to backing up your claim, you could always do it for charity, like the rest of us.

Every time someone asks a question, whether innocently or intentionally abrasive, the mood of the thread shifts to Christianity vs. Atheism.

So yes, you all DO need to grow up if you are so distracted that you cant even answer or debate ...

So how about demonstrating that I am always like this?

If those people mattered, other posters here would be mindful of that instead of antagonizing situations. And, if you dont care ADMIT IT! Be a man or woman and admit you dont care about other onlookers on this forum, you just want to argue. But don't act like you care about anything if you are just here to argue and hear yourself speak.

Remember - "tone of reply"?



Regards, Roland

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

He doesn't know it because it's not true.

Sorry AV -- but words do not change their meanings on your say so.

 

[rjw]

The following is based on my biblical AND scientific background...

1. Earth is "probably" billions of years old.


2. Dinosaurs existed, but their progress is not necessarily evolution.


3. Humans are NOT any more than 14,000 years old at the UPPER LIMIT, and 5500 years old at the LOWER LIMIT.


4. Mathematically speaking, the origin of species cannot progress to what we consider the present without immense time.

Number 4 is important. I don't necessarily refute the idea of "evolution" as it were, but the platform of science we deem evolution is not correct enough to be entertained right now.

Take Humans, for example. After 14,000 years of life, we are still 99.996% identical. To average that, in order to get to 99.980% genetically identical, it would take us 224,000 years. To get to 99.0% genetically identical, it would take 13,944,000 years! That is, of course, we allow nature to flow freely. So, it takes a while for genetic differentiation to occur, and we have faced PLENTY of life-threatening things that would induce evolution.

Truthfully, I believe we got the short end of that knowledge stick. I think Darwin had this idea, and it solved so many problems at the same time for scientists, and people believed it. It was more like a cover story for scientists so that they could work on real discoveries of our origins without pressures from the public. Evolution needs a lot of work, and it needs to first be stripped of all spiritual, political, and business connotations. It needs to be taken off of the public science market and fully revamped. Think about it, in early 1900s models of atoms were forged, then a decade or so later at the advent of quantum, Bohr, Pauli, Schrodinger, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. destroyed the older model with a "better one". The same evolution theory has been around for four centuries without much change at all. At this point its political, and that is without any spiritual bias.

Yes Darwin is still around because his ideas continue to be fruitful. However, ToE has moved well beyond Darwin. What makes you think that we are still back in Darwin's time with respect to evolution?


Regards, Roland

 

[Split Rock]

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

And you are an evolutionist... correct? Weeeeeee! Now neither term has any meaning!

 

[thaumaturgy]

And you are an evolutionist... correct? Weeeeeee! Now neither term has any meaning!

We can toss them on the junk heap along with "age", "history" and "time"!

This is truly a great day.

My only worry is that at some time the following words may also lack meaning:

"In"
"the"
"Beginning"
"God
and
"created"

but until then....

 

[MoonLancer]

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

Its comments like these that make it hard for people to respect you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did this stupid curse creationism come from? who in there right mind could possibly bring themselves to believe it? it's complete nonsense.

I've got news for you, you're a creationist too --- you just don't know it.

Its comments like these that make it hard for people to respect you.

Nice Catch 22.

Either believe:

1. creationism is a stupid curse
2. I'm not in my right mind for believing it
3. creationism is complete nonsense

--- or ---

gain peoples' respect.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nice Catch 22.

Either believe:

1. creationism is a stupid curse
2. I'm not in my right mind for believing it
3. creationism is complete nonsense

--- or ---

gain peoples' respect.

Not really a Catch-22, since most people do a pretty good job doing both at the same time.

 

[Hespera]

We can toss them on the junk heap along with "age", "history" and "time"!

This is truly a great day.

My only worry is that at some time the following words may also lack meaning:

"In"
"the"
"Beginning"
"God
and
"created"

but until then....

Everything is seemingly spinning out of control We lost science, religion, history, time and age just like that. Now Im worried someone will falsify the Law of Diminishing Returns. If the Law of Averages goes we have had it.

 

[rjw]

In answer to this claim of yours:-

...the power of physics (and likewise math) is to be able to derive most all situations, and to debunk things for yourself.

The following hardly helps at all:-

Quantum Physics is basically supercharged chemistry. It is physics on a atomic scale, so its sorta like you inherently know chemistry. Mechanics, E&M, condensed matter physics, math and chemistry are all used for the biology that is involved in evolution. In addition, most physicists MUST be avid in computer programming and modeling, including biophysical modeling.

For example, the carbon dating technique is nuclear physics.

Mapping a genome & DNA is about 25% genetics/biology and 75% cryptography/math... we use the genetics more, but the CODE (i.e. programming/cryptography) has to be deciphered before we know.

The computing involved is comp sci/physics

Mechanics explains how and why dinosaurs "must" have the shape, height, muscle tissue, and other dimensions we often see associated with them

E&M, fluid dynamics and chemistry (or quantum physics) can explain the earth, age, progression, and composition.

Now, my specialty is quantum electrodynamics which is closer relativity and field theory, so it would take some work for me to precisely prove things outside of this bounds, but someone who concentrated more on fluid dynamics, mathematics, or nuclear physics would be able to whip it out pretty quick -- I have friends who can do it

Quantum mechanics, chemistry, physics are all specialized fields just like biology, genetics and evolution are. They have their own bundles of theories just like biology, genetics and evolution.

Like biology, genetics and evolution, they also rely on tools to collect and analyze data before those data are used to draw inferences and make deductions. That is, QM, physical theories, chemical theories also rely on tools to collect and reduce data before those data are interpreted.

OTOH, carbon dating, mathematics and computing are all examples of those tools used to collect data or handle those data once they are collected.

They are not the inferences we draw from those data, They are not the deductions we make. The are not the interpretations we make.

This applies to QM, physics, chemistry, as much as it applies to biology, genetics and ToE.

Collecting data and reducing them, no more tells us of the reality of electron than it tells us of the reality of a duplicated chromosome.



Regards, Roland

 

[Hespera]

In answer to this claim of yours:-



The following hardly helps at all:-




Quantum mechanics, chemistry, physics are all specialized fields just like biology, genetics and evolution are. They have their own bundles of theories just like biology, genetics and evolution.

Like biology, genetics and evolution, they also rely on tools to collect data before those data are used to draw inferences and make deductions. That is, QM, physical theories, chemical theories also rely on tools to collect data before those data are interpreted.

OTOH, carbon dating, mathematics and computing are all tools used to collect data or handle those data once they are collected.

They are not the inferences we draw from those data, They are not the deductions we make. The are not the interpretations we make.

This applies to QM, physics, chemistry, as much as it applies to biology, genetics and ToE.

Collecting data and reducing them, no more tells us of the reality of electron than it tells us of the reality of a duplicated chromosome.



Regards, Roland

You is thumpin' on the ground where the dead horse used to be.

 

[MoonLancer]

Nice Catch 22.

Either believe:

1. creationism is a stupid curse
2. I'm not in my right mind for believing it
3. creationism is complete nonsense

--- or ---

gain peoples' respect.

nice red herring. its not a catch 22. I was talking about declaring everyone a creationist to deflect criticism from creationism.

your list included everything but calling people creationists when they are not.

 

[rjw]

You is thumpin' on the ground where the dead horse used to be.

I thump on that ground over, and over, and over, with creationists. My feet get very sore from it.


Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

nice red herring. its not a catch 22. I was talking about declaring everyone a creationist to deflect criticism from creationism.

I declared everyone a creationist in this thread, did I?

your list included everything but calling people creationists when they are not.

That was not my list I was listing, it was hangback's list.

 

[Split Rock]

I declared everyone a creationist in this thread, did I?

You certainly inferred it. If hangback is a "creationist too," then doesn't that mean we all are?

This is the secret to your huge post count. Just use semantics and word games to entice others into asking the same question over and over again.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You certainly inferred it. If hangback is a "creationist too," then doesn't that mean we all are?

This is the secret to your huge post count. Just use semantics and word games to entice others into asking the same question over and over again.

Nope. The secret is counting threads. Which are threads where they just count out numbers. You know, instead of doing something useful or productive. Except for verifying that 146,976 actually does come after 146,975.

Turns out integers still work! WIN.