Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee
AMD seems to think, or is misrepresenting, that creationists believe that supernatural activity is still going on and that this supernatural activity is how we explain observable phenomenon.
Regardless of which of the above it is, he’s wrong (or dishonest). After the 6 days of creation, supernatural activity in creation ceased and everything began following its natural rules. As a matter of fact, Western, non-muslim “science” DEPENDS on this consistency in nature in order to function.
OOOOOOHHHMMMM.... “science is of use and creationism is useless” OOOOOOOOHHHHMMMM
Look doofus, no one is saying supernatural activity is continuing today. Stop misrepresenting what others believe.
That is why science is of use and creationism is useless.
ah... replicatable!
OK, “replicate” molecules to man.
I’ll wait over here.
No kidding? Hoo wooda thunk? I’ve said the same many times (the latest being #271). So why are you telling me something you know I know?
“The Judeo-Christian tradition is perfectly compatible, and actually quite congruent, with the scientific method.”
That’s what Pope Benedict has said. However, I don’t think he would buy off on the idea that the Judeo-Christian tradition is useless.
“What is not compatible or congruent with the scientific method is presupposition of supernaturalistic means to explain physical phenomena.”
Is it, then, your contention that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition is not, as an article of faith, the Creator of Mankind and the Universe?
“Eugenics is as warped a response to knowledge of DNA inheritance as Socialism is in response to knowledge of Free Markets.”
Really?! Why aren’t we told these things? Oh, wait . . .
Observed evolutionary adaptation through mutational derived variations that are subject to selection are both necessary and sufficient to explain a 2% genetic difference in two populations over six or seven million years.
What would stop that mechanism from accumulating differences? What would stop those variations from being subject to selection?
One need not exactly reproduce the Grand Canyon to show that erosion is an understandable predictable and replicable mechanism that can form canyons.
Moreover you have, as is typical of Creationists when discussing evolution, moved the goal posts on to abiogenesis. There is currently no understood mechanism for abiogenesis - so such is not well understood, predictable or replicable.
But evolution sure is.
Too bad for you that you have to try to confuse and conflate the two subjects to try to cast aspersions upon what you obviously have so little knowledge of.
Care to explain to me again HOW organisms adapt to change and your evidence that supports it?
That would really be amusing!
When you can replicate a pool of lifeless molecules “evolving” into a man,
get back to me.
Creationism is useless. That is not to say Christianity is useless - that is your dishonest take on my statement that you wish to misrepresent.
God is the creator of mankind and the universe, and as I pointed out to you previously - the argument is over the METHODS used.
The universe is perfectly compatible with being formed through natural laws. This is a useful model that leads to useful predictions and applications.
The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Until then Creationism is useless.
One need not form a planet using gravity to make use of the model that planets form through gravity.
Apparently that is a difficult concept for those who prefer simplistic thinking.
Thank you for making this so clear and not garbled with word phrases for those of us unfamilar with the deep things of the scientific world.
Though I do understand science and religion ask different questions and apply different methods of study..... This doesn’t make them incompatible. It does make them distinct....... Claims about God as the creator of life are claims of faith...... Claims that there is no divine power behind the created order are claims of a different kind of faith.
... ‘You do not know’ the works of God who makes everything. Ecclesiastes 11:5
‘By faith’.. we understand.... that the worlds were ‘framed’ by the word of God.” Heb 11:3
God created ‘by simply speaking’. He said what should be created, and it was so! Gen 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26
‘By wisdom’ God made the heavens and the heavenly bodies. Psalm 136:5-9
He has ‘established the world’ by His wisdom, and stretched out the heaven ‘By His understanding’. Jeremiah 51:15
Even if it is, scientists have by their own parameters they have set up for themselves, disqualified themselves from speaking on it, so their opinion on it amounts to nothing more than meaningless drivel.
Because a miracle wouldn’t be replicable or predictable or understandable - speaking on it wouldn’t lead to anything productive anyway.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Are you claiming that evolution is steady, predictable and replicable?
Creation is the foundation of the 3 major religions found in the world today.
And please do tell us of the scientific origins theory where everything came to be using only the known natural laws. Every big bang explanation I’ve ever read indicates that all natural laws were suspended and useless for the initial stages of creation. and that is does appear that either everything was created from nothing or we have no explanations for anything prior to the big bang.
Here’s another simple thought experiment for you amd.
Take Einsteins E = MC^2 then apply the zeroth thermodynamic law to energy or absolute zero where all molecular activity ceases. Now solve for Mass.
Once you abandon reason and evidence in favor of your favorite theological interpretation you may as well claim the Sun is in orbit around the Earth......
Wait a minute!!!!!
Creationism is a cardinal tenet of Christianity. Creationism is not a religion, it is an important religious belief of Christianity (that God is the creator of Mankind and of the Universe). To state that Creationism is not synonymous with Christianity is true in one sense of the term (as having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language), however in the sense of Creationism being closely associated with Christianity, Creationism is absolutely synonymous with Christianity (see the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, 2005). And, it’s certainly true that Creationism is and has been closely associated with Christianity since at least 1611. You delude yourself if you think otherwise.
“Creationism is useless. That is not to say Christianity is useless”
That may be the condition of the upside down, bait & switch State of Confusion wherein you reside, but in the normal world to state that Creationism is useless, without further defining Creationism, is to state that Christianity is useless. Take responsibility for your advocacy.
“The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.
A splendid exposition of Materialist dogma. A cowardly Materialism that hasn’t the courage to take responsibility for its advocacy and to articulate its most fundamental dogma: that nothing exists except matter and its movements.
“Creationism is useless.
Which is to say that Christianity is useless. A corel demonstration of the fallacy of the smuggled concept.
Leapin' lizards!
“The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.”
But neither does it hinder application and discovery, apparently. A lot of discoveries about the natural world, and applications from those discoveries, have been made by those who believe God created the world by miraculous means. Believing special, supernatural creation does not preclude discovery about the natural world — been going on for centuries. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
Estimations based upon such claptrap as “hydroplate theory” will never have the accuracy of estimations based upon science.
People use science to discover things.
Creationism isn't useful at all in that regard.
Thank you for sharing the information, dear Quix!
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.