Skip to comments.
Creation theory gets boost (Australia)
The Age (Melbourne) ^
| 18th November 2004
| Misha Schubert
Posted on 11/17/2004 7:13:45 PM PST by naturalman1975
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-151 next last
To: PatrickHenry
To: atlaw
"...recombined from utter death to an orgainzed, living system." You seem to be conflating evolution and reincarnation. This needs some clarification. It is not me who is conflating. It is the evolutionist. What "living matter" could possibly be present at The Big Bang? Doesn't evolutionary theory surmise life somehow formed later out of some primordial soup? From whence did it come?
Why does this long-abandoned chestnut of creationism keep rearing its head?
Please inform us all when the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were debunked, by whom, and how?
Unless, of course, one looks looks up from the Bible now and again and takes a peek at the very world that God created.
I do so every day, and am grateful. Frankly, He is under no obligation to tell us everything. But, He has told us enough that we can understand just what He has done.
Do you presume that everything God has to say he's already said?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean if Scripture is now complete (but still unfulfilled), yes. If you mean when we someday stand face to face with Him, no.
I look forward to that day in due time. Do you?
122
posted on
11/18/2004 9:16:31 AM PST
by
Gritty
("I will question you, and you shall answer me" - God to Job; Job 38:3)
To: naturalman1975
So, er, what is this creation "theory"? What does it predict, how can it be tested and what potential observation would falsify it?
And why is it that any time I ask for such a definition, I am met with silence?
123
posted on
11/18/2004 10:45:25 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Gritty
Doesn't evolutionary theory surmise life somehow formed later out of some primordial soup?
No. Evolution theory states absolutely nothing about the origins of the first life forms. That you think that it does indicates that you are so woefully misinformed regarding the theory of evolution that you have absolutely no credibility when speaking on it.
124
posted on
11/18/2004 10:46:25 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Gritty
completely unproven theory, evolution
Are you aware of what a "theory" is within the context of science, and what is required of an explanation to achieve the status of "theory"?
125
posted on
11/18/2004 10:47:18 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: worldclass
. All many of us would like is to return to the post-Darrow ruling that both should be taught.
Why just Biblican creation? Why not the creation myths of other religion? How about the Hoopi Indian creation story?
I think that the real problem is not that people "oppose" alternative viewpoints, I think that the problem is that intelligent, educated people understand that creationism is not science and as such does not belong in a science classroom. Unfortunately, those pushing creationism are clearly uneducated in science, which is why they mistakenly believe that the religion that they are trying to push is actually "science".
But, hey, if I'm wrong, prove me wrong by stating the "scientific theory of creationism", including what it predicts, how it can be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify it.
126
posted on
11/18/2004 10:49:46 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Johnny Crab
We evolved from rocks? That turned into soup?
It's nice to see that some people aren't afraid of exposing their blinding ignorance of science to the world by claiming that any current scientific theory makes such a bizarre claim.
127
posted on
11/18/2004 10:56:45 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: MissAmericanPie
From what I understand given the study of DNA scientists had to admit that life did not come from a single cell organism that branched out into all species.
From what I understand given the study of DNA scientists had to admit that life did not come from a single cell organism that branched out into all species.
I'm sure that you can offer up a citation for this claim.
128
posted on
11/18/2004 11:03:29 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Gritty
Doesn't evolutionary theory surmise life somehow formed later out of some primordial soup? Yikes. It is considered good form to know the rudiments of the topic under debate. Please learn them.
Please inform us all when the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were debunked, by whom, and how?
Oh honestly. You stated that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics contradict evolution. That particular bit of drivel has been so thoroughly parsed and discredited it is now considered by creationists themselves to be an embarrassing assertion. Yet you persist in using it. Do you feel that a smattering of dishonesty is justifiable to achieve your goals? And just what goal are you hoping to achieve? Temporary conversion of a few gullibles?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean if Scripture is now complete (but still unfulfilled), yes.
Frankly, you give every appearance of worshiping the Bible, not God.
If you mean when we someday stand face to face with Him, no. I look forward to that day in due time. Do you?
Self-congratulatory piety coupled with smarmy condemnation. Duly noted.
129
posted on
11/18/2004 11:13:30 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: naturalman1975
The "theory" didn't get a boost. Forcing it into the curriculum got a boost.
130
posted on
11/18/2004 11:14:29 AM PST
by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: Dimensio
"Why just Biblican creation? Why not the creation myths of other religion? How about the Hoopi Indian creation story?"
Evolution is not science either. There is plenty of information to lend doubt to it. But evolutionist faith won't permit it. You are deceiving yourself if you think your faith is based on objective reasoning. It isn't and I have known doctors who have said the same.
As for "creation myths of other religions", your bias is showing. You call them "myths" and reveal your ignorance already.
But here is the challenge:
Allow intelligent design to be taught. Allow it to be debated in a class whether a "creator" (Hoopi or otherwise) is more likely to have made the universe or whether we all descended from a great cosmic accident. Evolutionist won't allow it to be taught because they (and you) FEAR the truth may be something other than your faith.
To: worldclass
Evolution is not science either.
You say this like you have understanding on the subject that surpasses 99% of the world's biologists.
There is plenty of information to lend doubt to it.
And I'm sure that you just meant to offer up a sample of that information.
But evolutionist faith won't permit it.
Right, it has nothing to do with the fact that every "objection" to evolution shown is founded in either religious dogma or scientific ignorance (or both).
You are deceiving yourself if you think your faith is based on objective reasoning.
It's more than objective reasoning. It's interpretation of evidence and consistent results from experimentation.
It never ceases to amaze me that creationists still push this "conspiracy theory" about evolution being totally nonscientific and totally unfounded, yet still pushed by every leading biologist on the planet like there's some kind of hidden agenda to shove through a non-scientific explanation as a genuine scientific theory.
As for "creation myths of other religions", your bias is showing. You call them "myths" and reveal your ignorance already.
So you would have no objection to teaching the Hoopi creation story?
Allow intelligent design to be taught.
Okay. What is "Intelligent design" theory? What does it predict, how can it be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify it?
And why is it that whenever I ask for that, I get silence?
Allow it to be debated in a class whether a "creator" (Hoopi or otherwise) is more likely to have made the universe or whether we all descended from a great cosmic accident. Evolutionist won't allow it to be taught because they (and you) FEAR the truth may be something other than your faith.
Actually, it's more about it not being science. "Evolutionists", as a whole, don't say anything about the formation of the universe from an intelligent designer, because the theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of the universe.
I will, however, note your attempt to shove the logical fallacy of "appeal to incredulity" into scientific classrooms.
132
posted on
11/18/2004 11:37:35 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: worldclass
"
Allow intelligent design to be taught. Allow it to be debated in a class whether a "creator" (Hoopi or otherwise) is more likely to have made the universe or whether we all descended from a great cosmic accident. Evolutionist won't allow it to be taught because they (and you) FEAR the truth may be something other than your faith. Do you really believe a debate amongst hormone-handicapped teenagers in a public-school classroom will shed significant light on the relative merits of intelligent design and evolution?
133
posted on
11/18/2004 11:38:05 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: atlaw
"Do you really believe a debate amongst hormone-handicapped teenagers in a public-school classroom will shed significant light on the relative merits of intelligent design and evolution?"
By that standard, nothing should be discussed in schools. Perhaps you prefer rote memorization and recital.
All I want is for my own kids to not be forcefed a THEORY as if it were a fact.
To: worldclass
All I want is for my own kids to not be forcefed a THEORY as if it were a fact.
Okay. We'll make sure to emphasize that evolution, like gravity, is just a theory.
On the other hand, "intelligend design" does not qualify as a theory and as such has no place in science classrooms.
135
posted on
11/18/2004 11:46:22 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Dimensio
"Okay. We'll make sure to emphasize that evolution, like gravity, is just a theory.
On the other hand, "intelligend design" does not qualify as a theory and as such has no place in science classrooms."
The effect of gravity can be observed even if it stills falls as a theory. On the other hand, ID and evolution, being about the beginning of the universe cannot be observed and both are equally philosophy and science. In fact, the origins of evolution have as much to do with philosophy as they do science. God had to be killed for humanism to take hold.
You have the last word. Your view is obviously set in your faith.
To: worldclass
Perhaps you prefer rote memorization and recital. Actually, yes. That is preferrable when it comes to learning the rudiments of mathematics and science. Call me crazy, but I think half-baked speculation by half-educated teenagers is pretty much useless. Unless of course, you are just trying to "build self-esteem" (the common euphemism for giving ignorance a pat on the head and a lunch-break).
137
posted on
11/18/2004 11:55:33 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: quantim
"A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone." - Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784)
In Diderot's time, the question of what caused fire -
liberation of phlogiston or something else - was a live debate in science. The existence of
the luminiferous ether was a live possibility all the way up to the early 19th Century. An open mind, impartially considering both theories, was proper in his time.
There have been many other scientific questions that were unresolved in the past, and an open mind that impartially considered all competing theories was indeed the proper approach.
As recently as 100 years ago (50 years after Origin of the Species), evolution was still being vigorously challenged by other theories of origins. But today, 100 years later, the debate is over. Deal with it the way that the proponents of phlogiston dealt with it. (How did the phlogiston activists deal with oxygen anyway?)
Or to put it another way, "evolution is a theory in crisis" is soooo 100 years ago.
138
posted on
11/18/2004 12:34:23 PM PST
by
jennyp
(Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
To: worldclass
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It is a description of an ongoing process that is observed all the time.
139
posted on
11/18/2004 12:36:47 PM PST
by
js1138
(D*mn, I Missed!)
To: worldclass
Make predictions based on intelligent design that would, if found false, cause you to at least question a belief in that idea. Tell me how to test these predictions. Test them. If these predictions are found to be true, then ID will be legitimate science. It is not legitimate science to just say, "evolution has problems. It's possible that intelligent design was at work in the creation of life." That is not enough to be taken seriously as science.
140
posted on
11/18/2004 12:39:17 PM PST
by
stremba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-151 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson