Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 2,461-2,474 next last
To: AndrewC
How can ID say this? My understanding is that ID has stated nothing.

Some things just follow logically. If evolution does not exist as a process, then the only source of design is God. Aliens of whatever could not have evolved, so even if were were designed by other creatures, they had to be designed by God.

Since evolution doesn't exist, nothing has undergone macro change since the original. If changes have occurred, the changes were made by God.

What are the alternatives?

1,281 posted on 03/22/2002 7:29:13 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: js1138
. If evolution does not exist as a process,

Darwin blinds you.

1,282 posted on 03/22/2002 7:32:11 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Vade [speaking very incorrectly about philosophy]: "A dry, abstract subject."

You: A good description of life without Intelligent Design or purpose.

Actually, whether we are designed or evolved, our lives seem the same to us. Either way, I'm still me, you're still you.

1,283 posted on 03/22/2002 7:34:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
A good description of life without Intelligent Design or purpose.

"Dry, abstract?" Have you ever been an atheist or agnostic? (OK, I've never been the first one, myself.)

Obladi! Obladah! Life goes on, Brah!

1,284 posted on 03/22/2002 7:36:29 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
our lives seem the same to us.

I've never repeated a day.

1,285 posted on 03/22/2002 7:37:26 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1283 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Vade [speaking very incorrectly . . .]

[Howard Cosell voice]
I'm never wrong. I once thought I had been, but I was mistaken.

1,286 posted on 03/22/2002 7:38:07 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1283 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Free will…
1,287 posted on 03/22/2002 7:39:52 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1283 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I've never repeated a day.

Although, occasionally, I would have liked "overs".

1,288 posted on 03/22/2002 7:41:23 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1285 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Darwin blinds you.

Enlighten me. Or at least respond to what I said.

1,289 posted on 03/22/2002 7:43:34 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
ID stands for "Intelligent Design" which specifically implies that critters did not come about by chance but by being designed. Hence, DESIGN. Otherwise, you'd be back to evolution ...
1,290 posted on 03/22/2002 7:44:15 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Darwin blinds you.

And makes you cryptic. Flighty "pooh-poohs" such as this might have impressed the co-eds in college, but they add nothing to the discussion. If you know to what he is blinded, please do inform us.

1,291 posted on 03/22/2002 7:46:18 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: Junior; AndrewC; gore3000
Junior: ID stands for "Intelligent Design" which specifically implies that critters did not come about by chance but by being designed. Hence, DESIGN. Otherwise, you'd be back to evolution ...

But that tells you nothing but nothing about whether dinosaurs had mammary glands. When you go the evolutionary model, OTOH, mamms on a T. rex are pronounced spectacularly improbable.

1,292 posted on 03/22/2002 7:48:49 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1290 | View Replies]

To: medved; RadioAstronomer; Junior; longshadow
Basic reality, you look at any sort of a real river which is more than a mile wide, the Volga, Amazon... and you expect it to be shallow, at least at the edges. I mean, you don't expect to take three steps into the Volga and then go straight down 1500'. Nonetheless, that's precisely what you see on the edges of the Grand Canyon, is this unbelievable vertical drop of 1500 or 2000 feet, sharp pristine edges everywhere you look mesas which would have been 2000' below the surface with sharp, pristine edges and features everywhere... Rivers just don't do that sort of thing. Moreover the topology of the river is basically fractal, with sinuous rills just everywhere and thousands of micro-tributaries if you want to call them that; you don't see that sort of thing with real rivers.

Basic bottom line, the Grand Canyon was blasted straight out of the rock by a fantastic electrical discharge between this planet and some other cosmic body, a comet, asteroid, or another planet, and most of the material from the canyon was either vaporized or blasted straight out into space. Real interesting spectacle, but you'd have wanted to watch from a considerable distance...

I think I've seen everything now. A "fantastic electrical discharge"??? ROFL! I believe you've violated several laws of physics alone with that statement, but there are many better qualified than I to answer this claim. (RA, can you help here? Bode's Law, Roche's Limit?)

What about all the talus and detritus strewn around the canyon at rather inconvenient places such as alluvial fans and the like? I would think if the canyon was created by a massive electrical discharge that all that stuff would be gone, vanished, poof! And what about the evidence for massive lava flows from the Kaibab Volcanic Field? There's pretty solid evidence to suggest that at least a dozen or so of these flows actually dammed the Colorado River for periods of time before being breached and themselves being washed away?

I'll tell you truthfully, I have more respect for the Creationists attempting to fit the Grand Canyon into a great flood scenario than this electrical discharge nonsense. At least they have evidence for water being the primary mechanism of erosion.

1,293 posted on 03/22/2002 7:50:51 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
mamms on a T. rex are pronounced spectacularly improbable.

Question is, would they have excited Mr. T.?

1,294 posted on 03/22/2002 7:51:21 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Have you ever been an atheist or agnostic?

No, not really – but I was for quite a while what I guess I would consider gnostic. I did the whole soul searching thing and studied different religions (including atheism). Thought I had all the spiritual answers and lived like I knew nothing about them – if you know what I mean…

1,295 posted on 03/22/2002 7:53:19 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Exactly, but with the ID model T. Rex might not only have had mammary glands, but been colored bright purple simply because the DESIGNER happened to be infatuated with Barney the Dinosaur.
1,296 posted on 03/22/2002 7:53:41 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Enlighten me. Or at least respond to what I said.

I did respond, only in a fashion unfamiliar to you. It is not either/or. Evolution is apparently not the question. If you carefully read through these threads you will find something called micro-evolution. Nebullis has even pointed out that this distinct variant name was coined by the "evolutionists"(for lack of a more precise indicator). It seems as if most people on these threads adhere to this variation. Now the question is what are the other variants of evolution? If the label Intelligent Design chaps your hide maybe Cellular Engineering won't. I'll let you think some more.

1,297 posted on 03/22/2002 7:59:10 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1289 | View Replies]

To: Junior
And makes you cryptic.

And allows you to think and come to your own conclusions.

1,298 posted on 03/22/2002 8:00:46 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
1. finding the correct size of the gene for the faculty which needs to be developed.

. . .

7. for the above to have happened over 20,000 times in man and its ancestors and a similar amount of times in the millions of diferent species, genus, orders, and phylums of known dead and alive species which have populated the earth.

What is the correct size of a gene? Are you sure there's no slop factor in coding for a protein? What if there's more than one way to get it right? What if there's more than one "right" protein?
1,299 posted on 03/22/2002 8:02:00 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1224 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When you go the evolutionary model, OTOH, mamms on a T. rex are pronounced spectacularly improbable.

With those short little arms how could she latch......Never mind.

1,300 posted on 03/22/2002 8:04:09 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 2,461-2,474 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson