Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#76
#76
I would like to thank all involved in this conversation for arguing their positions without resorting to name calling. It was a pleasure gentlemen (and possibly ladies) Have a pleasant evening.
 
#77
#77
TrueOrange said:
well the problem is that on the other end, religious people give the same dogmatic responses to their creation ideas or stories ever being questioned at all; it's both sides (i know people who call fossils lies from the devil)

that said, alot of this information and studies are being manipulated to support people's agendas...on both sides
Click to expand...

i tend to agree- having an agenda is inescapable... what's nearly intolerable is when people neither acknowledge nor disclose their bias
 
#79
#79
i'm out too... but to the OP- please realize that evolutionary theory doesn't preclude the notion of creation nor vice versa
 
#80
#80
DownTheField said:
i tend to agree- having an agenda is inescapable... what's nearly intolerable is when people neither acknowledge nor disclose their bias
Click to expand...

ugh i very much agree on that; i wish it could be another way, especially at times with that last part


and what really gets me too is when you have scientists paid to prove "such and such is not true" - which is the complete opposite of how science and scientific discovery works - and then they play it off as correct or definite

...or well i guess when anyone is paid to say something and they act like it's their own belief as well
 
#81
#81
TrueOrange said:
ugh i very much agree on that; i wish it could be another way, especially at times with that last part


and what really gets me too is when you have scientists paid to prove "such and such is not true" - which is the complete opposite of how science and scientific discovery works - and then they play it off as correct or definite

...or well i guess when anyone is paid to say something and they act like it's their own belief as well
Click to expand...

unfortunately, it seems that most of the time it is much more corporate, systemic and complex- we all depend on inherited paradigms for good or ill
 
#82
#82
DownTheField said:
i'm out too... but to the OP- please realize that evolutionary theory doesn't preclude the notion of creation nor vice versa
Click to expand...

I do realize that. It is just that, to begin with, creationism is antiscientific in nature, which prevents some connection between theories. Also, theistic evolution is pretty theologically bankrupt.
 
#83
#83
Okay. Any creationists here, especially equal timers, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with one way of falsifying the hypothesis that God created the universe and all of its inhabitants. Tell me one way we might prove that to be right or wrong. Tell me how we can test it, and build from it as a theory. Tell me one application for other sciences that it would provide. :popcorn:
 
#84
#84
turambar85 said:
Okay. Any creationists here, especially equal timers, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with one way of falsifying the hypothesis that God created the universe and all of its inhabitants. Tell me one way we might prove that to be right or wrong. Tell me how we can test it, and build from it as a theory. Tell me one application for other sciences that it would provide. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
.
That seems to be your problem. Maybe you'll be less smug until you answer it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#85
#85
BigPapaVol said:
.
That seems to be your problem. Maybe you'll be less smug until you answer it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what do you mean? Surely you don't mean that evolution is non-falsifiable. I assume I'm misinterpreting you...
 
#87
#87
Things run in too perfect an order for everything that is to be attributed to chance. This is just my opinion though.
 
#90
#90
turambar85 said:
Then could you enlighten me. That was, after all, part of the question.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you that answering tha question is your problem, since your truth is a panacea. Seems most others don't give a rip about your philosophical gobbledygook. You do. Find your answer. OBTW, good luck with that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#91
#91
BigPapaVol said:
I'm telling you that answering tha question is your problem, since your truth is a panacea. Seems most others don't give a rip about your philosophical gobbledygook. You do. Find your answer. OBTW, good luck with that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

LOL, you obviously have no idea how dialectic/conversation works. This is a thread on creation/evolution. Creationists argue that evolution has flaws, and then demand evolutionary theorists answer them. But, when I ask a simple, easy, obvious necessary question, you say it is my responsibility and "gobbledygook". If you don't like debating/discussing, and if trying to find answers to problems isn't your bag, I'm sure there are other ways of spending your time.
 
#92
#92
turambar85 said:
LOL, you obviously have no idea how dialectic/conversation works. This is a thread on creation/evolution. Creationists argue that evolution has flaws, and then demand evolutionary theorists answer them. But, when I ask a simple, easy, obvious necessary question, you say it is my responsibility and "gobbledygook". If you don't like debating/discussing, and if trying to find answers to problems isn't your bag, I'm sure there are other ways of spending your time.
Click to expand...
But then you asked a horseshat leading question that can have no answer, and you implied everywhere that your answer is THE answer. That's intellectually dishonest at best. Pretending that you're here for discussion on your pet horseshat topic is pathetic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#93
#93
BigPapaVol said:
But then you asked a horseshat leading question that can have no answer, and you implied everywhere that your answer is THE answer. That's intellectually dishonest at best. Pretending that you're here for discussion on your pet horseshat topic is pathetic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It is intellectually dishonest to ask how it is falsifiable? Dude, learn what science is. If you cannot tell me how creation SCIENCE is falsifiable, then it is nothing but metaphysical speculative BS. If you can't tell me how it might be verified...what studies or tests might help show it to be a scientific enterprise...then creationists need to pack it up, and go back to seminary where theology is relevant.

And, evolutionary theory can be falsified and could have been at many steps. There could have been a mechanism for heritability that didn't work with Darwin's theory. He didn't know about it, and could have been wrong. We could find fossilized mammals in the precambrian - that would blow it up. Continental drift may not have happened...that would have caused problems. Evolution has made many predictions, and most have been bold enough to have been risks.
 
#94
#94
turambar85 said:
It is intellectually dishonest to ask how it is falsifiable? Dude, learn what science is. If you cannot tell me how creation SCIENCE is falsifiable, then it is nothing but metaphysical speculative BS. If you can't tell me how it might be verified...what studies or tests might help show it to be a scientific enterprise...then creationists need to pack it up, and go back to seminary where theology is relevant.

And, evolutionary theory can be falsified and could have been at many steps. There could have been a mechanism for heritability that didn't work with Darwin's theory. He didn't know about it, and could have been wrong. We could find fossilized mammals in the precambrian - that would blow it up. Continental drift may not have happened...that would have caused problems. Evolution has made many predictions, and most have been bold enough to have been risks.
Click to expand...

Busted. I need to learn what science is. You need to find a new schtick.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#96
#96
turambar85 said:
I'm sorry, could you be more clear. Monosyllabic grunts aren't very communicative. Busted how?
Click to expand...

You're clearly more gifted with the language than I. I guess we'll have to just call it a day since we can't seem to communicate and you're the only one that knows anything in this thread.

Just look at you, all scientific and linguistic. Intimidating is the word I'd use, but it's probably wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#97
#97
BigPapaVol said:
You're clearly more gifted with the language than I. I guess we'll have to just call it a day since we can't seem to communicate and you're the only one that knows anything in this thread.

Just look at you, all scientific and linguistic. Intimidating is the word I'd use, but it's probably wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm aside, I just want to talk about what the thread is about. I don't see why asking how creationism is a science is bad when a substantial portion of americans are creation scientists...
 
#98
#98
turambar85 said:
That would be great if anybody said things were a result of chance. However, since nobody does, it isn't all that relevant.
Click to expand...

Creationism/Intelligent design is the simplest explanation for everything. I believe in God and believe that he created everything, good and bad.
 
#100
#100
turambar85 said:
It seems as if the religious discussion thread has rocked back and forth between discussion primarily theological (or atheological!) issues and with the scientific validity of evolution and its deranged :crazy: cousin creationism. It might be nice to separate the two a bit, especially as theology doesn't stand or fall on evolutionary theory.

A quick starter: does anybody actually buy the "natural processes couldn't have caused life, as you can't take inorganic matter and create living matter" argument? It is very similar in claims to the "you cant have consciousness without a soul' argument ... or at least they both seem equally silly to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm deranged :crazy: You have to love a thread that wants to discuss something but has already established the opposition as crazy. Open minded approach, I'm sure?

Theology does stand or fall on evolution since God created MAN not Stevie the ape. Can you show me an example of a species evolving into another species in the "scientific" era?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top