My Creation Science Challenge

[DogmaHunter]

Due to lack of any other explanation, one can only assume the evolutionists believes the beginning poofed and the rest took care of itself.

That's the textbook premise of an argument of ignorance.

If there is no explanation currently known, then there is no explanation currently known. Then there are no "beliefs" to be had (not rational beliefs anyway...). It's just unknown.

If I missed something along the way, maybe you have an explanation based on your own original research to replace the poof. If so, please provide it.

Don't turn it around. This thread is about "creation science" and the "work" they supposedly have done. It is a request to post that work.

After all these pages, there has been a lot of whining and back and forward and dodging... but not a single reference to such "work".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does the standard big bang theory of the origin of the universe count as a poof?

Contrary to popular belief, big bang theory technically isn't actually about the origin of the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then again it's only a theory, but still...I'm game.

Ow my....
Amazing to see that people still say such things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I missed that.

Sure, drop in anytime, I'll make dinner. I'll create it and it will come into being. IOW, after created, it will "be".

Dinner doesn't come "into being", in the sense of poofing into existence.
Your dinner is merely a rearrangement of existing materials.

Then you will claim "how did the ingredients come into being?", which will of course tell me you chose to miss the point.

No. The point is about things "poofing" into existence. That simply doesn't happen. Conservation of mass and energy and all....

The only way things can be is if they are created, we have irrefutable evidence that is absolute fact.

I create, you create, happens every second of the day and in zero of those seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, years does anything come into being without that...NEVER on it's own. I wouldn't even have to explain this to a child.

Who "creates" snowflakes? Ice? Rain? Steam?
It's funny, because even a child would realise that no "who" is present there.

Then the question:

"No, maybe not in seconds or weeks but what about millions of years?"

You mean the millions of years no one can prove? The millions of years no one saw anything happen? The so-called lost in time evidence? Assumed theory, or in short, a lie that only the very illogical or someone who is bound and determined to explain God away will buy or preach.

Funny how you are having a conversation with yourself here.

So in turn, makes perfect sense God "created" those ingredients but only if you allow logic which you tend to try to throw out of the picture unless it works for you.

How is it logical, to attribute actions to a being that can't even be shown to be real - let alone that this being did anything at all?

And science is not necessarily logic...science is often only something the illogical/untruthful try to hide behind. Science is what it is, and people use it for their own purpose, good or bad, to create lies or to bring forth truth and use it for good. Hiding behind the term just to disprove God, is not a good use of science, it's *using* science.

Where did I try to "disprove" gods?

Perhaps you should try and stick to the things I actually say...

 

[AV1611VET]

How is it logical, to attribute actions to a being that can't even be shown to be real - let alone that this being did anything at all?

Like gravity?

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually, it's not funny. It's quite sad. Peer review is losing it's "validity". So is science.

Science used to look at all the data, all the observations were considered as the scientist searched for the truth. Peer review was in place so that a new discovery could be seen by all and thus "reviewed" to see if it correlated with the findings of other scientists and their observations. Everything was heading for the big picture, the real truth of this world. Everyone was open to new ideas and you could get quite a name if you found something new.

The thing is, we have now got a solid fact based truth of how the world got to where it is. It's age and how the creatures and humans ended up here. This "fact" that is taught everywhere is "evolution". Somewhere it went from a theory taught along side creation, to being the one and only possibility for everything we see when we get up in the morning or stare at a starry sky...The elusive "truth" was found.

PROBLEM.... now, if you are a scientist and your are gathering information and tabulating data... it becomes quite a problem if you discover something that is going to be difficult to fit in the "truth" that academia is teaching and drumming into everyone's head. You discover something.... it just won't fit the model. But, you retest and find it to be true. Do you dare present this new observation? Hardly... you will be scoffed at, ridiculed, funding will be stopped, careers ruined.. credibility...lost. Any paper will be ripped to shreds by the hive mind.

So, you have a choice. Cover it up, lose it, distort it so that it fits. Skew the results or forget it all together.

Now, on the other hand, a paper of vague credibility that fits the present day model, will be welcomed with open arms and you will be patted on the back for such a superb job. If your work is close but not a perfect fit, someone else out there will be happy to show you the way to mold it into the model.

What I am saying is that scientist today are looking, more, for proof of the existing dogma instead of looking at the observations and letting the truth unfold. The are out to prove a concept at whatever cost.

Why have we veered from this foundational necessity of science? Pour water on the ground and see where it flows... but oh no.......... that's not where the water should have went, according to the past predictions. So, you carve up the land, digging here, mounding there and in the end the water flows just where it was predicted to flow........ Not the true path but that's not what matters.

Science is no longer a quest for truth. It is a bunch of egg heads picking up the pieces they want and leaving behind anything that could cause difficulty in putting the truth together.

Peer review becomes "pal" review. A bunch of good 'ol boys patting each other on the back, keeping the funding and gravy train rolling, maintaining their "good" names and fancy labs. Keeping their supporters and investors happy while the truth, well the truth is not important.

Hi Jacksbratt, I don't accept what you're saying but it shouldn't be difficult for you to find a peer-reviewed article, show us how it is wrong and how the peer review system covered up those mistakes...... I eagerly await your report!

 

[JoeP222w]

You are just trying to be funny, right?

Romans 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi Jacksbratt, I don't accept what you're saying but it shouldn't be difficult for you to find a peer-reviewed article, show us how it is wrong and how the peer review system covered up those mistakes...... I eagerly await your report!

Scientists cover their tracks well.

Nebraska Man, for example, is considered a "hoax," not a "mistake."

The Pluto vote in 2006 was a rigged vote; which was clearly brought out on this site.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Its not about how ridiculous it sounds. Its about the evidence.

Actually it's about answering the question at the moment.

Hint: ridiculous = unlikely it's evidence of anything...at least that's how I meant it.

I really am going to have to stop being so gullible and giving people as much credit as I do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So.... no research to post, then?

Done, pay attention.

I have never seen anything "come into being". I've only ever seen things being re-arranged.

Rearranging things into being another thing. Word it how you like, but can't escape the facts.

This thread is about "creation science" and the claims associated with it.

Cop out.

Read the OP.

Again, pay attention if you are going to join in the conversation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like gravity?

You think gravity can't be shown to be real?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again, this thread is about "creation science".

Imagine that, an off topic post on an internet discussion board. Will wonders never cease.

For the sake of argument and for the purpose of this thread, I'll just say "I don't know".

You mean for your purpose of coping out?

Now, meet your own burden of proof.

Done.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually it's about answering the question at the moment.

And the evidence is what will determine the accuracy of the proposed answer.

Hint: ridiculous = unlikely it's evidence of anything...at least that's how I meant it.

There was a time when it was also considered ridiculous that time is not a constant, but it's correct.
There was a time when it was also considered ridiculous that things can be measured in one place, while showing up in another place, but that is exactly what particles do.

The problem here, is that you are using "common sense" as your foundation to call something ridiculous or not. But that's the thing... you do NOT know what is sensible in advance. Your common sense only deals with the things you already know and it doesn't take things into account that you do not know or do not understand.

"Common sense" doesn't lead you to the conclusion that time is relative, for example.

As a matter of fact, just about every time major breakthroughs happened in science, it defied our common sense.

I really am going to have to stop being so gullible and giving people as much credit as I do.

First and foremost, you need to stop thinking that you have all the answers before asking the questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think gravity can't be shown to be real?

Yes, gravity can be shown to be real: by observing its effects.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Done, pay attention.

Are you saying that you DID post original "creationist" research?
I must have missed it. Care to repost it? A link to the post in question is fine as well. Thanks.

Rearranging things into being another thing. Word it how you like, but can't escape the facts.

Stop moving the goalposts.
We were talking about things "poofing into existence" out of nowhere.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that things that "begin to exist", in fact, are just rearrangements of pre-existing materials. That is what I meant from the very beginning.

Cop out.

No. Thread topic. You're not familiar with the concept?

Again, pay attention if you are going to join in the conversation.

There's an explicit request in the OP concerning a specific subject. It's the whole point of this thread. Anything else, is off topic.


Maybe you should take your own advice and read the OP again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's the textbook premise of an argument of ignorance.

Not arguing that...poofed sounds like a pretty ignorant explanation tho me as well.

Don't turn it around. This thread is about "creation science" and the "work" they supposedly have done. It is a request to post that work

Polly want a cracker?

After all these pages, there has been a lot of whining and back and forward and dodging... but not a single reference to such "work".

I did my work...do you like the name Polly?

If there is no explanation currently known, then there is no explanation currently known. Then there are no "beliefs" to be had (not rational beliefs anyway...). It's just unknown.

Then you have no explanation for creation if you cannot tell us where it began....why are you even participating?

Ow my....
Amazing to see that people still say such things.

You ARE aware there is still the original definition for the term? Just assume from now on that's what I am referring to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean for your purpose of coping out?

No. For the purpose of staying on topic.

I'll happily engage other subjects in other threads where those subjects are the topic. Go ahead and create one, if you want.

Done.

Where?

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

??

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, gravity can be shown to be real: by observing its effects.

Then what was the point of your previous comment?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did my work...

Where?

Then you have no explanation for creation if you cannot tell us where it began....why are you even participating?

This thread is about the claims of creationists.

You ARE aware there is still the original definition for the term? Just assume from now on that's what I am referring to.

Words mean different things, in different contexts.

If you are refering to the word as it is used in non-scientific context, then you're just in error, because in "big bang theory", it IS a scientific context.