Presumptuous Creationists

[DialecticMaterialist]

I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america.

In fact the only place creationist theory is taken seriously is in churches and religious journals. That to me in itself speaks voulmes.

Do you really believe that 1 or 2 posts are going to refute a 120 year strong theory supported by 99.9 percent of biologists? Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous?

If someone made apost saying they could "disprove einstein" like the one here: http://www.thedeepdark.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=184&replies=31


wouldn't you be more then a bit apprehensive?

Isn't such a belief more then a bit presumptuous?

It seems odd that Xians talk about the value of trust and faith, yet believe that the world's top biologists are spreading falsehoods for no really reason other then the fact that some fringe scientists have questioned the theory.

I mean, do they not realize in light of every scientific theory, there are a few quacks who question it? Vilovosky and modern astronomy for example. It seems thus their faith and trust are very selective indeed.

 

[VeraciousMaven]

Creationism is thought so poorly of that any scientific journal would be put to shame by publishing it. That's probably why you don't see any proofs in Scientific America.

But regarding the other points, why not let people question these scientific practices? If it is the truth, then this questioning will only confirm it.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Science is all about questioning. THat is how science progresses. Yes, it is true that sometimes certain scientific notions become almost dogmatic with a few proponents - but the weight of new evidence generally convinces the whole scientific community eventually.

Scientists such as Biologist John Davison from the Uof Vermont do question evolution without censure. If his or someone elses arguments had enough merit they could eventually overturn or rewrite the whole theory. Yet evolutionary theory has remained in place in face of challenges. That is what makes it good and valuable science - because it is questioned. The basic concept of evolution has remained as new evidence has accumulated, the basic concpet has remained even as the theory has been updated. It is unlikely - but not impossible - that evolutionary theory could be overturned in favor of a whole new theory - but creationism does not pose a serious challenge. Anyone who did find a better, but contradictory theory to evolution would likely face opposition but in the end would probably walk home with the NObel prize.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Do you really believe that 1 or 2 posts are going to refute a 120 year strong theory

Do you think a 120 year old Theory is going to refute a 6,000 year old Fact.

 

[Douglaangu]

Whoops, looks like you're ignoring all dating methods, and the known age of the earth.

The earth is 4.5-5 billion years old. This is not a theory. This is a fact.

 

[npetreley]

I notice that no satanic worship articles are published in Christian magazines. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by Douglaangu
Whoops, looks like you're ignoring all dating methods, and the known age of the earth.

The earth is 4.5-5 billion years old. This is not a theory. This is a fact.

True, but man has only been around for 6,000 years so the FACT of creation as known to men has been for that period.

And you clearly stated it was only a Theory and that it was only 120 years old.  And hasn't it changed many, many times in such a little time.  What a confusing theory it is.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley
I notice that no satanic worship articles are published in Christian magazines. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

Let me think.

Satanism isn't Christian, so it's not being published in Christian magazines.

Creationism isn't science, so it's not being published in science journals.

Hey, makes sense to me. Glad we're on the same side. *High fives Nick*

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LightBearer
What a confusing theory it is.

Perhaps it's not the theory that is confusing, but it's you that is confused?

 

[chickenman]

ahahaha, ahaha aha

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The old "it's only a theory strawman" draws upon the fact that the word theory had several meanings. When used in science, "theory" means a group of principles based on observation that are used to explain natural phenomenon. When used in vernacular, "theory" often means speculation or conjecture. These are very different meanings.

From the merriam webster's dictionary:
the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>



Can you enlighten me as to the evidence for the fact that the world is only 6000 years old?

 

[Cantuar]

Can you enlighten me as to the evidence for the fact that the world is only 6000 years old?

Says so in the Bible. Who needs science?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

No. That's the bacterial infection.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I know its ok to question science, but one should do so in a respectful/realistic manner, posting something from a MB and going "well this refutes evolution" is very presumptuous to say the least.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by Cantuar
Says so in the Bible. Who needs science?

I did not&nbsp;say that the world was 6,000 years old, I said man is 6,000 year old.&nbsp; The bible allows for any age you or science wants to put upon it.

 

[Sky]

Man is actually 50,000 or more years old.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sky77
Man is actually 50,000 or more years old.

Which man? I'd like to ask him a few questions about stuff that happened 40,000 years ago.

 

[Sky]

Why do you have to be so sarcastic?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sky77
Why do you have to be so sarcastic?

Don't blame me, I evolved this way.