Posted on 09/04/2001 10:28:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Creationists are a strange bunch. They like to use the scientific method (as they interpret it) to justify their claims about the age of the Earth, evolution and so on. However, if anyone uses that same scientific method to refute their claims, then obviously that person is completely wrong. (Note : This article deals with "Young Earth" creationists, although there are many other types.)
Creationists are happy to accept any scientific data that supports (or at least appears to support) their theory, whether it comes from fellow creationists or from the scientific establishment. Where their theory is not supported, or even flatly contradicted by "standard" science, they fall back on faith, ad hoc hypotheses, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations of science or even outright lies.
If you examine creationist articles, they often cite many papers from mainstream scientists, and use these to back up their claims. Interestingly, if you examine the citations, you often find that they are quite old (often at least twenty years, and occasionally over seventy!). Whether or not the theories are out of date, or have changed or even been abandoned since then is irrelevant - it's a science paper that can be interpreted as supporting a young universe, so it will do nicely. The intended audience is unlikely to know the current state of that particular science, so the reference to the paper or journal lends a lot of weight to the creationist argument (which would float off into space otherwise). Also, any controversies in science are good ammunition for the creationists. Whenever scientists disagree over something, that will be used as solid evidence that the theory in question is defunct (unless, of course, it's a creationist theory). Most people recognise that science thrives on debate. All current theories can be, and should be, questioned. If theories were not questioned, and scientists never argued, science would grind to a halt and no progress could ever be made. Could it be a coincidence that creationists rarely disagree with or question each others theories (even contradictory ones), and their "science" has not changed in the thousands of years since Genesis was written?
Here I shall explore some of the blatant problems with key points of Creationism - the doctrine that the Universe was created exactly as described in the Book of Genesis.
[Long article, with good links. 90% is omitted here.]
For the full article, go to the site: Creation Science .
I think the ebola virus is just about done eating your brain.
At last, after months of lurking, I find someone I can understand.
Guided or unguided?
Isn't that the critical question we so often debate?
I've heard it said:
"We have no evidence of any divine guidance. End of story."
BUT... I'll remind you.
We don't have any evidence because we cannot begin to formulate a method of testing for such influence.
So it's not really true that we have no evidence of the species' development being guided.
We just have no method of testing for such guidance and...that is not in and of itself, evidence to say the guidance hasn't always been there, active behind the scenes.
I challenge anyone to suggest a way of ruling out guiding influence before they insist that "no evidence" exists.
*Please* Use Extreme Caution In Messing With the Speed of Light -- Perils of CDK Were Adam and Eve Toast?
We do do research before posting...
So do I. When a blanket statement like "All available evidence shows that the speed of light is always constant" is made to buttress a point, then expect to be challenged on it if there is some available evidence that disputes it, as we've seen there is.
I have no theory or preference on the age of the earth nor the age of the universe. It really doesn't matter to me.
I would put almost none of the stuff in your link in the category of "evidence" at all. Essentially all of it is raw speculation
Essentially, it is not raw speculation. The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. Gravity slows down light. Atmosphere slows down light. It's not inconcievable that other forces do so also.
Did you read the link or have you read other theories?
The fact that we don't have the method does not negate the fact that we don't have (yet) any evidence of any divine guidance.
We don't have any evidence that people can walk through walls. Does this mean I should get a dog to guard my apartment anyway?
God doesn't care about what scientists think, and scientists aren't afraid of God, so how can this ever be resolved here in this simple forum?
Not that the illustration is perfect or was even the real reason Hitler started WW II, but what about Hitler's 'Master Race'.
Unknown, although at some point their ancestors would not have been parasites, but probably started out as bloodsuckers. Fleas are secondarily wingless, and their closest relatives are flies.
As far as I can tell (rumaging about breifly on the web) the oldest fleas are found in Dominican Amber from the Eocene and Miocene, and are not substantially different from modern forms. If I am not missing something, then there is no evidence that fleas predated mammals. Is there some reason you think they did?
No-Kin-To-Monkeys: At last, after months of lurking, I find someone I can understand.
82 Posted on 09/04/2001 17:00:16 PDT by No-Kin-To-Monkeys
Oh Christ, it's spreading. Call CDC.
In fact, often the Bible was used to justify it. The whole races of man from Noah's sons bit.
Really? And what is scientific about Marxism, aside from the claims of Marxists?
Marxism is ideology, not science.
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.