Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Page 3 of 8 [ 125 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

22 Jul 2011, 4:36 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:

They are not debates, they are attacks out of dislike of the other and defense out of the love and adherence to your faith. The faithful to either the alters of theism or (a)theism may feel illuminated even though, let's be honest... we're all reasoning in the dark on some very large improvable assumptions.

Nonsense.

The subject is evolution vs creationism, not theism vs atheism.
Two different debates.

The opposing teams consists of a subset of theists (who cling to creationism), and everyone else (theists and athiests) who accept evolution.

The motivation of both the majority of evolutoinists (who are theists) and the minority of evolutiionists who are actual athiests is not to pray to any "alter of atheism" but to simply to accept the facts.

Why that subset of theists cling to creationism in defiance of the facts is an open question.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jul 2011, 5:38 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Why that subset of theists cling to creationism in defiance of the facts is an open question.

Do you seriously think that anyone believes things in defiance to the facts? Or perhaps, to the facts that they perceive as factual?

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Jul 2011, 6:26 pm

Metalwolf wrote:

I think the major problem is that science is more suited to how we got here rather then why, which is what religion does. When one side attempts to 'disprove' the other side on a point that it wasn't designed to handle, then it makes both sides look like fools.

and here in lies the problem the Why camp refute the How camp because the facts do not fit in with their rigid ideology.

@ the OP you thread title speaks volumes to me when you use the term science to describe creationist belief when there is no valid science involved and you use the term Theory to describe evolution which when used by creationists is an attempt to paint evolution as unproven.

Why the debate, why is is it so important. Quite simple really it goes to the core of the scientific method, a system that has seen such incredible advances in human knowledge and ingenuity, a system which people who would destroy it in order to maintain their rigid beliefs use every minute of the day, To my understanding there has not been one credible shred of evidence pointing towards intelligent design/ creation science.

Keet you have gone many rounds on this subject with Orwell and you came off a very bad second, when are you going to wake up and acknowledge that your beliefs are founded in ideology and not science.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jul 2011, 6:35 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Keet you have gone many rounds on this subject with Orwell and you came off a very bad second, when are you going to wake up and acknowledge that your beliefs are founded in ideology and not science.

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm

...intuitively empirical <insert bible term>.

That's a very strange collection of words.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

22 Jul 2011, 7:49 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

There's no evidence for creation.

Wrong. There is loads of evidence for creation, everything around you is evidence for creation. However, there is no empirical evidence that indicates creation over a godless universe.

Wrong. There are things around us, but no evidence that it was necessary for them to be created.

_________________
.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

22 Jul 2011, 7:51 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Philologos wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

IMO Creationism, particularly old-world if we're going to take this seriously,.

You mean maybe "young earth"? Or is "old world Creationism" something I just haven't heard about?"

Old Earth Creationism is championed by Hugh Ross over a.

Ugh... ok,, I guess I have to be considerably more careful in how I use descriptors, sounds like any type of phrasing you can use will have an absurd movement behind it that I had no intention of conjuring up.
.

You said it - people have been around a long time and even Swift's Bigendians may exist somewhere.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jul 2011, 8:33 pm

simon_says wrote:

...intuitively empirical <insert bible term>.

That's a very strange collection of words.

Congrats on not bothering to look up words you don't know.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

22 Jul 2011, 8:44 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

I have stated my position on the creation - or is it evolution? - of the absolutely unacceptable "word" [homophobe!?!]

Would you like the short or the long version of my position on the creation [I guess this one has to be creation] of the equally absurd and obnoxious [baramin!?!]?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jul 2011, 8:50 pm

Philologos wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

You dislike the coining of the word baramin which is taken from two Hebrew words, an uninflected "bara-" created and "-min" kind? Or the usage by baraminologists in attaching Greek suffixes and prefixes to it?

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

22 Jul 2011, 8:54 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Keet you have gone many rounds on this subject with Orwell and you came off a very bad second, when are you going to wake up and acknowledge that your beliefs are founded in ideology and not science.

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

I know your questions were not directed at me, but I wouldn't know what the results were because I missed the discussion. Can you provide a link?

And WTF is a holobaramin?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 8:57 pm

Philologos wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

Bara - min is a bogus concept. It has no precise meaning and does not correspond to any experimentally established and grounded biological concept.

ruveyn

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jul 2011, 9:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

simon_says wrote:

...intuitively empirical <insert bible term>.

That's a very strange collection of words.

Congrats on not bothering to look up words you don't know.

Oh Jethro, I know what baramin is in bahble talk.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jul 2011, 9:08 pm

cave_canem wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Keet you have gone many rounds on this subject with Orwell and you came off a very bad second, when are you going to wake up and acknowledge that your beliefs are founded in ideology and not science.

Really? What were the results of the cross holobaramin DNA comparison to DNA within members of what I considered to be intuitively empirical holobaramins?

I know your questions were not directed at me, but I wouldn't know what the results were because I missed the discussion. Can you provide a link?

And WTF is a holobaramin?

I would need to dig through I don't know how many pages of PPR to find it again, if you're referring to where Orwell offered an ultimatum challenge to me. I don't feel like digging for it right now. It's authored by Orwell and it has a bunch of subpages to it. Last I remember Orwell said he had gotten busy with finals and didn't have access to the supercomputer at his university but offered to let other people use programs and datafiles on their own computers.

As for holobaramin: "In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry."

As opposed to apobaramin which do not share common ancestry within this paradigm, and monobaramin which is a member of a holobaramin sharing common ancestry but deviated far enough to not meet species classification with the other members of the holobaramin.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

22 Jul 2011, 9:10 pm

cave_canem wrote:

And WTF is a holobaramin?

It's a Creationist's term meaning...

Wikipedia wrote:

Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

Being a Creationist "buzz-word", it has little if any bearing on real science, and thus can be considered a null term by those whose education and knowledge are not faith-based, but based on empirical evidence, which is both valid and material.

Last edited by Fnord on 22 Jul 2011, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 9:12 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As for holobaramin: "In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry."
.

In the bible there is no reference to biologically inherited characteristics. Quite the opposite. Characteristics are either acquired or bestowed by God. Look up in the bible how Jacob got his sheep to produce spotted and striped offspring.

ruveyn

Page 3 of 8 [ 125 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Jump to:

Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate Post Reply New Topic

Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate