Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[AV1611VET]

I should have included the stipulation from the start that no creationist has provided any science in support of creationism -

Oh, and now that you know the real challenge, you can hop to it.

Hop to what? I agree with you. There is no science that supports creationism; since God didn't use science to create the universe.

I've only been saying that here for six years.

Of course not; creationism isn't science.

 

[Jamin4422]

yeah the whole basis of the thread is off.

science is constantly going to get things wrong, go down dead ends, have failed experiments. You typically produce 99 wrong answers before you find the right one that works. There is funding, fame and glory for those on the cutting edge and you will get fraudsters and liars trying to get in on the act.

None of this in any way invalidates any of the actual science that works, has been proven and is backed by solid evidence, prediction and experimentation.

Edison went through 10,000 failed experiments. But he learned a lot along the way.

 

[Jamin4422]

That however does not mean that any of them used creationism in their science

In order to be a Creationist they had to reconcile their Science with their faith. This takes extra effort. Something Darwin was just to lazy to do. Any Science that can not be reconciled with TRUE Creationism is going to fail, it is just a matter of time. You really can not have one without the other. Creationism fails without science and science fails without creationism.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Hop to what? I agree with you. There is no science that supports creationism; since God didn't use science to create the universe.

I'm unaware of any creationist who claims Yahweh/Allah/whatever used science to create the universe (actually, no coherent mechanism has ever been put forward). At no point have I operated under that assumption. It's not pertinent.

What is pertinent is that every creationist I've ever encountered claims that science can be used to derive facts about 'creation', and that known science supports the 'creation account'.

Until now, apparently.

 

[CabVet]

Creationism fails without science and science fails without creationism.

This one is going to the creationists lies thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is pertinent is that every creationist I've ever encountered claims that science can be used to derive facts about 'creation', and that known science supports the 'creation account'.

Until now, apparently.

Now you know why I'm sometimes called 'backwater', or any of its various synonyms.

And for the record, maybe you need to get out more; our asst. pastor preached a message a couple of months ago and mentioned in his sermon that creationism has nothing to do with science.

 

[Metal Minister]

Now you know why I'm sometimes called 'backwater', or any of its various synonyms.

And for the record, maybe you need to get out more; our asst. pastor preached a message a couple of months ago and mentioned in his sermon that creationism has nothing to do with science.

Science is not a hermenuetic for the bible. God created through a series of miracles, and miracles cannot be measured, tested, or recreated (pun intended) by science.

 

[Trogool]

Science is not a hermenuetic for the bible. God created through a series of miracles, and miracles cannot be measured, tested, or recreated (pun intended) by science.

So you agree with AV and AV's preacher that creationism is scientific nonsense. Yay.

 

[Metal Minister]

So you agree with AV and AV's preacher that creationism is scientific nonsense. Yay.

Hey, way to put words in my mouth! Science cannot explain origins, right?

 

[CabVet]

Science is not a hermenuetic for the bible. God created through a series of miracles, and miracles cannot be measured, tested, or recreated (pun intended) by science.

Oh, someone that agrees with me! (not about the content, but about miracles)

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh, someone that agrees with me! (not about the content, but about miracles)

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean that God's miraculous events in creation can't be reproduced by man? Then yes, we agree.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

In order to be a Creationist they had to reconcile their Science with their faith. This takes extra effort. Something Darwin was just to lazy to do. Any Science that can not be reconciled with TRUE Creationism is going to fail, it is just a matter of time. You really can not have one without the other. Creationism fails without science and science fails without creationism.

You are of course aware that Darwin lost his faith largely as a result of the death of his daughter - he never saw much of a problem with evolutionary theory. But why not insult the man - he's been dead too long to protest.

Science does perfectly well without creationism. Indeed, it'd be shackled if its discoveries had to match your pre-determined ideas of what it should find. Absolute anathema to real science.

 

[And-U-Say]

This just seems to be an extension of the creationist lies thread.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This just seems to be an extension of the creationist lies thread.

Funny that. Since the aforementioned has been "closed for review" it's nice they've got here to put them.

 

[Split Rock]

In order to be a Creationist they had to reconcile their Science with their faith.

No, this is theistic evolution. Creationism is about rejecting science for faith.

This takes extra effort.

It takes cognitive dissonance..

Something Darwin was just to lazy to do.

Something Darwin was too intellectually honest to do. Just look at your own O.P. and you can see that creationists are incapable of intellectual honesty when it comes to matters which conflict with their faith.

Any Science that can not be reconciled with TRUE Creationism is going to fail, it is just a matter of time.

Whatever is "TRUE Creationism?"

You really can not have one without the other. Creationism fails without science and science fails without creationism.

Science doesn't need creationism. We scientists like to stick with reality, thank you very much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not a hermenuetic for the bible. God created through a series of miracles, and miracles cannot be measured, tested, or recreated (pun intended) by science.

Amen, brother!

Genesis is just a series of one miracle after another.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree with AV and AV's preacher that creationism is scientific nonsense. Yay.

Not science ≠ scientific nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are of course aware that Darwin lost his faith largely as a result of the death of his daughter -

You are familiar with the Lady Hope story, are you not?

I don't know if it is a true story or not, but if it is true, then Mr. Darwin is in Heaven right now; if it is not true, then Mr. Darwin is in Hell.

I prefer to believe the Lady Hope story for Mr. Darwin's sake.

Pascal's Wager

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You are familiar with the Lady Hope story, are you not?

I don't know if it is a true story or not, but if it is true, then Mr. Darwin is in Heaven right now; if it is not true, then Mr. Darwin is in Hell.

I prefer to believe the Lady Hope story for Mr. Darwin's sake.

Pascal's Wager

I'm familiar with both the story and the fact that it's unlikely at best.

Even your mates at AiG don't buy it: Darwin’s Deathbed Conversion—a Legend? - Answers in Genesis

I do not second guess God. I do not pretend to know what judgement God makes. Not much point having a God if we can do it ourselves. God alone knows exactly on what basis Darwin found it impossible to continue to believe in him. Last I checked he was described as abounding in mercy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know if it is a true story or not, but if it is true, then Mr. Darwin is in Heaven right now; if it is not true, then Mr. Darwin is in Hell.

Or the third option: he's just dead.