Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 1,240)

Showing posts 24,781 - 24,800 of111,962
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25618
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Please refrain from further comments as a few of us are trying to have an intellectual conversation like adults
Where we respect the other view points even if it's not what we believe.
Then stop spamming nonsense and start thinking for once.

Hint: Thinking does not involve copy and paste.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25619
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop spamming nonsense and start thinking for once.

Hint: Thinking does not involve copy and paste.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

Common claims by non-Christians:

“Science proves the Bible is wrong.”

“Evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.”

“Evolutionists believe in science, but creationists reject science.”

Common claims by Christians:

“I believe the Bible over science.”

“Creation is religion, but evolution is religion, too.”

“Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.”

The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientists—and even some Christians—believe it is not science and must be classified as religion.

Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).

But this is where many people are confused—what is meant by “science” or “scientific.”

It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth.
Before we get caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is scientific, we have learned to ask,“Could you please define what you mean by science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.

Defining Science
People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology, of science similar to this one from Webster’s:“from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”

And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word:“the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”

But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25620
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop spamming nonsense and start thinking for once.

Hint: Thinking does not involve copy and paste.
1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.

Can a creationist be a real scientist?
Both creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have religious (or faith) components to their scientific models about origins. Yet both types of scientists are equally capable of doing both operation science and origin science.

Operation science, whether done by an evolutionist or a creationist, has benefited mankind in many ways, particularly through technology. Creationists have contributed greatly in this area of science, including nineteenth-century physicists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, and more recently Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI imaging used by medical doctors (see here).

In origin science, creationists are discovering many things that honor the Creator’s wisdom and confirm biblical history.

Visit www.answersingenesis.org/go/scientist-bios for a list of creation scientists.

Photo courtesy Fonar Corp.

Dr. Raymond Damadian is a young-earth creationist who is also credited by many as “the man who invented the MRI scanner.” He has received numerous awards for his work and in 1989 was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.

So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25621
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop spamming nonsense and start thinking for once.

Hint: Thinking does not involve copy and paste.
The Nature of the Debate
At this point, most people realize that the debate is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.

Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.

Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one kind into another.

Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.

Also during this time, creation geologists have been identifying evidence that points to the catastrophic formation of most of the rock record during the unique global Flood of Noah’s day.

These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.

After we explain these two types of science, people usually begin to recognize the potential problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.

The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true,“big picture” starting assumptions for origin science.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25622
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop spamming nonsense and start thinking for once.

Hint: Thinking does not involve copy and paste.
Different Histories
Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves.

So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).

The next time someone uses the word science in relation to the creation/evolution controversy, ask him first to define what he means. Only then can you begin to have a fruitful discussion about origins.

Proven Facts
Let us be clear. Accurate knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be discovered by the methods of both operation science and origin science. But truth claims in both areas may be false. Many “proven facts”(statements of supposed truth) about how things operate (in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), as well as about how things originated (in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) have been or will be shown to be false. So, as best we can, we must be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and examine every truth claim against Scripture and look for faulty logic or false assumptions.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25623
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be the ark.
Why would a geological formation have ballast rocks all around it. Why would a geological formation have rivets
Lab Report Shows
Rivet Contains Man-Made Metals!
Below is what appears to be part of a large washer that would have been slipped over a shaft and then secured on the shaft by flaring out the end of the shaft. We have drawn circles on the photo to demonstrate the circular effect in the specimen. The surrounding material on the side of the ark around this object had a greenish color. Assuming a circular shape, this sample would be the same size as the rivet found by Mr. Wyatt.
It's not a boat so anything found around it didn't come from a boat.

And Ron Wyatt is a Loon. Even the fundies know he's nuts. You'll catch on eventually. Maybe.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25624
May 9, 2012
 
another world

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25625
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Please refrain from further comments as a few of us are trying to have an intellectual conversation like adults
Where we respect the other view points even if it's not what we believe.
Umm, you don't get to use "us" in that sentence. Nothing that you are saying is even close to "intellectual".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25626
May 9, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
another world
I'd say another universe at this point, he is loony and can't seem to understand everything he copy-pastes has been debunked and demonstrated false more times than anyone can count already.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25627
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well what then about the Grand Canyon?
All that made by the colorado river that today does not even flow all the way to the ocean. It drys up and evaporates before making it to the ocean. Many much bigger rivers have nothing like that and all over the world there are places like the bad lands that show water erosion where none is.
<headdesk>

Really, Langoliers, you should just shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.

The Colorado forms the border between California and Arizona, and flows into the Gulf of California.

Jeez.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25628
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well let's just say for argument sake that there was a ice layer in the atmosphere that made the earth like a green house this would let plant life grow like wild also lizards could live a very long time and sense lizards never stop growing this would account for dinosaurs and no rain so no rainbow.
Now let that ice come falling to earth as rain and lots of it. Flash floods everywhere things like the grand canyon being carved. Dead Dino's and lots of dead plants makes lots of crude
oil. Ok now the terrarium is gone and areas of the earth turn to dessert and other areas freeze. Now if all the ice melts in the world it would cause great flooding not enough to cover the earth in water. but that much rain would cover
Most of the planet for a short time in flood waters.
Oh, Jeez, not the "ice layer" idea again!!!

Please think a little bit about how gravity works and how such a layer could not possibly exist. Really. Not a chance.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25629
May 9, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Langoliers could have just told us he was a F&*^ing retard
I'm beginning to agree with you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25630
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Orbit.
Wrong.

Only the equator of such a sphere could be moving at orbital velocity. As you moved north ans south from that equator, the velocity would decrease. It would be cos(theta)*V, where theta is the latitude and V is the orbital velocity.

Cosine, btw, varies from 1 at 0 latitude to 0 at 90 latitude.

Thus, at the poles, the ice would not be moving at all and would have the full force of gravity upon it.

This is why I stated earlier that a sphere could not possibly stay up. Absolutely impossible.

There are even bigger problems with the idea. A sphere, even if you could somehow make it strong enough to hold together, is orbitally unstable. One side is eventually going to crash into the planet. And it won't take all that long.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25631
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So ... infant staged animals survived in the wild without their parents? Not to mention, after 40 days most species are pretty big even as infants.
40 days is just how long it rained. The Bible mentions a much longer time (one figure is 120 days) of floating around before coming to ground.

Of course, there is still the question of where all that water supposedly went to.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25632
May 9, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a boat so anything found around it didn't come from a boat.

And Ron Wyatt is a Loon. Even the fundies know he's nuts. You'll catch on eventually. Maybe.
It could be. You have read someone's papers on what they found and how their interpretation of the facts with most Likely a predetermination hypothesis. Just like the paper I no doubt read.

Just because someone wrote it don't make it fact. The ark " so called ark " finding the whole thing leave questions on both sides.
yessir

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25633
May 9, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but you cannot expect more than annoyance when you reuse the same points that have already been addressed hundreds of times. Anything from the Discovery Institute, thus anything that also uses it as their only source, has already been addressed hundreds of times, which ironically encompasses the entire creationism dream. So by posting such points, the best you could hope for is ridicule, but most commonly you will just get eyerolling and mocking as it is the "not this one again" thought we have when we see them.

Come up with something new, then you may get some actual dialog, otherwise expect only more of the same because you are just giving the same.
I'm convinced that die-hard macro-evolutionists only feign an interest in truth. Modern scientific discovery confirms what reason and logic have given us cause to suspect. There is order and design in our universe, our world, and within the various forms of life that inhabit it.

For the most part, Darwin was an intellectually honest scientist, courageous enough to question the prevailing views of his day. Yet, not even he would sustain confidence in macro-evolution with the benefit of the observations of modern science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25634
May 9, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm convinced that die-hard macro-evolutionists only feign an interest in truth. Modern scientific discovery confirms what reason and logic have given us cause to suspect. There is order and design in our universe, our world, and within the various forms of life that inhabit it.
For the most part, Darwin was an intellectually honest scientist, courageous enough to question the prevailing views of his day. Yet, not even he would sustain confidence in macro-evolution with the benefit of the observations of modern science.
Really? There is order and design? Where, point this out, because it would seriously be a new find.

Evolution is not ordered at all, and follows all known laws of science, we also know it happens because of fossils and a ton of other evidence. DNA can only be explained with evolution. What does your bible tell about how a computer can be made smaller?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25635
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be. You have read someone's papers on what they found and how their interpretation of the facts with most Likely a predetermination hypothesis. Just like the paper I no doubt read.
Just because someone wrote it don't make it fact. The ark " so called ark " finding the whole thing leave questions on both sides.
Don't think for a second that is someone really found the Ark that there wouldn't be a team with a university and archeologists excavating it , documenting and cataloging the discovery.
Things like that tend to not be ignored , the problem is 98% do not pan out to be the genuine article. As with that location in Turkey it has been repeatedly examined and found to be a natural formation.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25636
May 9, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you will need to listen to Bill Cosby's version of the great flood.
Gotchya,

A fictitious, COMEDIC interpretation of a biblical fable is your best bet?

As Bill Cosby/Noah would say: "R - I - G - H - T!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25637
May 9, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotchya,
A fictitious, COMEDIC interpretation of a biblical fable is your best bet?
As Bill Cosby/Noah would say: "R - I - G - H - T!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
To be fair, a comedian can be intelligent, however Bill Cosby is not the best role model or good spokesman for science.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 24,781 - 24,800 of111,962
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

156 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 3 min The Reluctant Redhead 473
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 7 min cretin56 76,718
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 7 min honeymylove 28,273
"Go Sarah!" 11 min efficiency 3
Word Association (Jun '10) 12 min _Word Woman_ 25,874
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 13 min honeymylove 6,736
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 14 min Bezeer 5,550
How to become Unbannable 56 min Chilli J 93
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Denny CranesPlace 140,567
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••