Posted on 03/26/2009 2:29:09 PM PDT by Fichori
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny the law of gravity!
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Don't be ridiculous. Of course I meant that every piece of scientific evidence that's germane to evolution or astrophysics points to an ancient, hundred-billion+ year old universe.
“To be clear then, your son believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and that man walked the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs? Because that’s what it takes to be a creationist.”
Yes, that’s right. So do all the scientist members on my previous post.
Just to say, there are many well educated and legitimate scientists who believe there was a direct, 6 day creation of the earth and its systems by God, and they seem to be able to function just fine in their various positions.
Yeah, one of my favorite unscientific buffoons is Doctor Ben Carson, a world renowned neurosurgeon. Flippin' moron, that guy. Someone needs to tell him that he either needs to accept all of science or just carve out his brain and throw it away. You tell him, BM.
Do you offer testability? What is the test?
“Regarding the author's attempt to say there are two kinds of science, and that creationists believe in one and not the other, I say rubbish.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]I agree, you do say rubbish.
We had this same discussion previously.
You ask for the testability of evolution.
If I plate the colony from a single bacterial cell onto ten different plates, and then subject each plate to ten different stresses, do you predict that...
a) all ten plates will be exactly the same as before all genetically identical, thus no evolution took place.
b) the heat treated plate will develop heat resistant bacteria, the cold treated plate will develop cold resistant bacteria, the antibiotic treated plate will develop antibiotic resistance, etc, etc.
c) some other result.
?????????????????????
Testability. Evolution has it. Creationism doesn’t.
“Do you offer testability? What is the test?”I know of no way to test Evolution.
Do you offer testability of creationism?
“We had this same discussion previously.Yeah we did.
You ask for the testability of evolution.” [excerpt]
Untestable? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just because something isn't testable, doesn't mean it's not observable.
On need look no further than the HIV virus. Science has been observing it's evolutionary progress for well over 25 years now. The same can be said for hundreds of thousands of other virus and bacterium that have been under relentless study since the time of Pasteur, Cohn and Koch.
What is a test I can do right now in regards to the supernatural?
Then how does he explain stars/galaxies greater than 5,000 lightyears away?
I know this - Liberals reject the science of nuclear power.
“Do you offer testability of creationism?”Get back to me when the Government is spending your tax dollars on teaching Young Earth Creationism in public schools.
“What is a test I can do right now in regards to the supernatural?”Same way you test soup to sucker Evolution: Ask some scientist like Al Gore and believe whatever they tell you.
It isn't enough that the prosecution show that the wound is consistent with a gunshot, and the bullet is consistent with one fired from the suspects gun, or that nitrogen on the hand of the suspect is consistent with him having recently fired a gun; NOPE, you want a time machine to see the guy pulling the trigger.
Sorry, science doesn't work that way despite your petulant demands that it should.
“Untestable? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just because something isn't testable, doesn't mean it's not observable.” [excerpt]Yeah, fine.
“So it isn't just testability that you demand, but an exact demonstration of what happened in the past.” [excerpt]Scientists assert that all living creatures (including mammals) evolved from, at worst, non-life, and at best, pond scum.
It appears that you don’t know of such a test.
Ummm...sorry to burst your bubble, there, Fichori, but even within the 6,000 years most creationists say is the age of the universe, human beings have evolved markedly.
We know empirically that human beings once lived in caves, in small communal groups; that they were hunter-gatherers, used primitive stone tools, and wore animal skins in cold climates and little-to-nothing in hot climates. Humans gradually evolved from nomadic hunter-gathers to farmers; from farmers to craftsmen; from craftsmen to industrialists; from industrialists to our own information age.
BTW, even if one accepts that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, we know that the time of Jesus occurred 4,000 years later. That means even religious beliefs have evolved from the time of the cave dwellers. Try wrapping your mind around that puzzle for awhile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.