• 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.

Which is easier...?

Which is easier?

  • An evolutionist to sit through Instant Creation 101

  • An instant creationist to sit through Evolution 101

  • Neither


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

rockaction

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2010
747
23
✟1,048.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm familiar with the "flaws" concerning the order of the Creation Week -- thanks to someone on here who is much more knowledgeable than I.

QV please: 2

As I said, God created this universe in "flawed order" on purpose.

In my opinion.

But...why? To trick people? To "test our faith"?
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Option 2.

Namely:


It is illegal to teach anything other than evolution in biology class because Darwinists have a totalitarian monopoly in our government education system. Identical to Nazi Germany.
Nonsens.
Evolution is thaught because it is the best theory that unites everything in biology. Not only in biology, but many other sciences like geology, oceanography and atmospheric sciences are permeated by the theory of evolution. That's also why every university world wide.


As for your gouvernment being infested by darwinists: I wonder whether the Bush administration was so darwinian minded.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,525
52,492
Guam
✟5,124,949.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But...why? To trick people? To "test our faith"?
No -- and I don't want to presume to speak for God, but in my opinion He did it on purpose, knowing that in the latter times, some would adhere to evolution as the prima facie explanation.

Thus, by "shuffling the order", it makes creation stand out from evolution like a sore thumb.
 
Upvote 0

JustMeSee

Contributor
Feb 9, 2008
7,703
297
In my living room.
✟31,439.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Which is easier?

  1. An evolutionist to sit through Instant Creation 101.
  2. An instant creationist to sit through Evolution 101.

What do you mean by the word 'easier'?


I can sit through an hour long lecture on most subjects. My level of interest and comprehension may vary depending upon the instructor and the level of intelligence to which the course is intended.

How much information are these 101 courses covering?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Nonsens.
Evolution is thaught because it is the best theory that unites everything in biology. Not only in biology, but many other sciences like geology, oceanography and atmospheric sciences are permeated by the theory of evolution. That's also why every university world wide.


As for your gouvernment being infested by darwinists: I wonder whether the Bush administration was so darwinian minded.
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.

1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

No.

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

No.

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?

There are no other alternative theories.
 
Upvote 0

rockaction

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2010
747
23
✟1,048.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.

1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?

No one says you can't go do research on "alternative theories". Go get some funding, do some creation research! Then submit your theories to peer-review in respectable journals. Then you will have a leg to stand on. No one is afraid of creationism. What is frightening, however, is that creationists realize they can't do any research, so they use politics to wedge themselves into the discussions.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Why?

There are no other alternative theories.
Of course you wouldn't know of any alternative theories because it is illegal to teach them because Darwinists are terrified of all hypotheses besides evolution.

You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

"... Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet." -- Francis H.C. Crick, molecular biologist, and Leslie E. Orgel, biologist, 1972

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟29,524.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.

1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?

If creationism was science and there were no other alternatives then i would be ok with it. however evolution IS science and it has no competing theories.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
No one says you can't go do research on "alternative theories". Go get some funding, do some creation research! Then submit your theories to peer-review in respectable journals.
That's irrelevant because it is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution in public school and it is illegal to present any evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. E.g. it is illegal to teach the Second Law of Thermodynamics in biology class because it contradicts evolution.

No one is afraid of creationism.
Then why is it illegal to teach in public school?

creationists realize they can't do any research
LOL.

According to you Isaac Newton did no research?

Evolutionists can't do any logic.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
If creationism was science and there were no other alternatives then i would be ok with it.
LOL.

So you think that in each field of science only one hypothesis should be legal?

however evolution IS science and it has no competing theories.
You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

Of course, even if there were, you wouldn't know it because it is illegal to teach them because Darwinists are terrified of all hypotheses besides evolution.

Actually, I have a rather sound amount of education on the matter. Moreso than you, I dare say.

And now you are saying hypotheses instead of theories. So which is it? There may well be Creationist hypotheses, but there are no Creationist theories.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually, I have a rather sound amount of education on the matter.
If that's true, then why do you make the uneducated claim that evolution is the only scientific theory?

There may well be Creationist hypotheses, but there are no Creationist theories.
Exactly what part of the word "theory" don't you understand?

"... Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet." -- Francis H.C. Crick, molecular biologist, and Leslie E. Orgel, biologist, 1972
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
If that's true, then why do you make the uneducated claim that evolution is the only scientific theory?

Because it is.

Exactly what part of the word "theory" don't you understand?

I understand the entire word, thanks. Do you?

"... Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet." -- Francis H.C. Crick, molecular biologist, and Leslie E. Orgel, biologist, 1972

That's a "theory" (though really a hypothesis) of panspermia, an alternative to abiogenesis, and has little to do with evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Because it is.
And 2+2=5.

I understand the entire word, thanks.
Reading comprehension fail?

That's a "theory"
This statement contradicts your claim that evolution is the only scientific theory.

(though really a hypothesis) of panspermia, an alternative to abiogenesis, and has little to do with evolution.
LOL.

If all life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials, you don't think that would contradict evolution?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rockaction

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2010
747
23
✟1,048.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's irrelevant because it is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution in public school and it is illegal to present any evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. E.g. it is illegal to teach the Second Law of Thermodynamics in biology class because it contradicts evolution.

You're pulling out all the classics! 2nd law and everything. You clearly are faking this. Even AiG doesn't use that argument anymore.

Then why is it illegal to teach in public school?

It's not science, that's why. We don't teach things in the science classroom that haven't been established in the scientific literature.

LOL.

According to you Isaac Newton did no research?

Evolutionists can't do any logic.

Newton didn't do any research on creationism. You know what I meant. People like Behe actually have done legitimate research in science, but that research doesn't have anything to do with creationism. There is no legitimate creation research out there.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
And 2+2=5.

No, it doesn't. Just like Creationism is not a theory.

Reading comprehension fail?

On your part, maybe,

This statement contradicts your claim that evolution is the only scientific theory.

Please note the quotation marks I used.

LOL.

If all life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials, you don't think that would contradict evolution?

Nope. It might alter our views on evolution, but it would not contradict it. Evolution is about the change of life, not the origin of it. The extraterrestrials that created life would themselves be subject to evolution.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859

That is true. But no such complex organ has ever been found.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not science, that's why.
So any hypothesis or theory that contradicts evolution is not science?

LOL.

Directed Panspermia and Intelligent Design are both peer-reviewed science.

We don't teach things in the science classroom that haven't been established in the scientific literature.
That is utter nonsense.

"In physics [sic] as ordinarily set forth [i.e. math+religion], there is much that is unverifiable: there are hypotheses as to (a) how things would appear to a spectator in a place where, as it happens, there is no spectator; (b) how things would appear to a spectator in a place when, in fact, they are not appearing to anyone; (c) things which never appear at all." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1914

Furthermore, Directed Panspermia and Intelligent Design are both established in the scientific literature. Yet it is illegal to teach them in science class because of Darwinist totalitarianism and thought control.

There is no legitimate creation research out there.
There is no legitimate evolution research out there.

How do you account for all the peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design?

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973

Axe, D.D., Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004

Lönnig, W-E., Dynamic Genomes Morphological Stasis and the Origin of Irreducible Complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pages 101-119, 2005

Couvreur, P., and Vauthier, C., Nanotechnology; Intelligent Design to Treat Complex Diseases, Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 23, Number 7, Jul 2006

Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A., Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009

"The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." -- Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, physicists, 1935

Darwinism has never made a successful experiment or measurement.

Newton didn't do any research on creationism. You know what I meant.
I take it you've never read Newton before.

Ever heard of the Principia?

People like Behe actually have done legitimate research in science, but that research doesn't have anything to do with creationism.
I take it you've never actually read Behe.

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Creationism is not a theory.
I know. It's a fact.

Or at least a law.

"Then God said, 'Let us [extraterrestrials] make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth.'" -- Genesis 1:26

"When the gods instead of man
Did the work, bore the loads,
the gods' load was too great,
The work too hard, the trouble too much.
The great Annunaki made the Igigi."
-- The Atrahasis Epic, 18th century B.C.

"Far sighted Enki and and wise Mami
Went into the room of fate.
The womb-goddesses were assembled.
He trod the clay in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces (of clay)
(And set) seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left. ...
Seven created males.
Seven created females."
-- The Atrahasis Epic, 18th century B.C.

Nope. It might alter our views on evolution, but it would not contradict it.
So according to you, no evidence can possibly falsify evolution. Therefore evolution is not scientific.

Evolution is about the change of life, not the origin of it.
So evolution doesn't contradict creationism in your view?

The extraterrestrials that created life would themselves be subject to evolution.
No.

Extraterrestrials haven't evolved in hundreds of thousands of years.

Their morphology and phenotype have undergone no observable evolution.

wandjina2.jpg


Watcher.jpg


That is true. But no such complex organ has ever been found.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -- Romans 1:20
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.

1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?

2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?
No one is "afraid" of alternate theories. Best scientific practice demands that the theory that best fits the available evidence is the one taught. That theory is evolution. Teaching theories other than the one that best fits the available evidence is something other than science. So by all means, teach creationism all you want, just be aware that what you're doing is not teaching science. Thats all.

Until such time as a theory that better fits available evidence comes along, evolutionary theory will be taught in science classes. Complaining about how unfair this is to your prefered theory doesn't change the way science works, unfortunately.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.