LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL

[abu afak]

Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class​

Forbes Mag

"..Their findings make interesting reading.
More than 80% at the largely Muslim school believed humans were created by God in their current form, a view shared by around 15% of students at the Christian faith school."
[.....]
"..Presenting a religious creation story as a scientifically valid theory is nonsense,” she says,
in a short film made for a BBC discussion program.
“I don’t have a problem with creationism being discussed in religious education lessons but it has no place in science education,” she says, adding,
“I think creationism has the potential to Ruin a scientific education.”
[.....]

Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class

Evolution may be just a theory, but it has evidence behind it, unlike creationism, which is just not science.

www.forbes.com

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class

Evolution may be just a theory, but it has evidence behind it, unlike creationism, which is just not science.

www.forbes.com

Anyone is free to believe anything they like. They just can't expect people to take them seriously.

 

[DukeU]

That's nice, but a safe bet based on evidence is not faith. Or maybe you are not very familiar with the meaning of the term, "faith".

"Belief without evidence."

There's that word again.

Evidence of what? How was the universe created in your mind?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence of what? How was the universe created in your mind?

Evidence of what? You tell me. What is it you are seeking evidence of?

I don't know how the universe was created. But if and when we figure it out, don't worry:

You can still say God did it. Right? I am not going to argue with you. Maybe she did.

 

[DukeU]

Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class​

Forbes Mag

URL unfurl="true"]https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2014/02/21/creationism-has-no-place-in-a-science-class/?sh=1c080e5d5e0b[/URL]

If evolution is true, then truth no longer exists.

Evolution means EVERYTHING ( time, space, matter ) is constantly changing. If everything is constantly changing, how can what you're saying be true???

 

[DukeU]

I don't know how the universe was created.

Thank you. That has been my point from the beginning.

 

[abu afak]

Thank you. That has been my point from the beginning.

And neither do you
The difference being you Created a god to explain it with NO Evidence.
Just like your primitive ancestors created Fire, Lightning, and Fertility gods.
No evidence.
Science doesn't know and says so.
10,000 Religions made up different gods and at least 9,999 are wrong.
Like you.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If evolution is true, then truth no longer exists.

Evolution means EVERYTHING ( time, space, matter ) is constantly changing. If everything is constantly changing, how can what you're saying be true???

It does not mean that. In fact, it assumes (in its basis in physics) that the laws of the universe have remained the same in all places and will remain the same in all places. A deterministic universe, in fact. A clockwork.

The Theory of Evolution only posits an explanation for the existence of all the species on the planet. Why the extinct ones existed and why the extant ones exist. And it relies 100% on the process of selection upon the life on Earth by the very STATIC laws of the universe.

 

[DukeU]

And neither do you

I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.

But, thanks for the lecture.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.

Which is just a baseline of honesty anyone should expect from another adult.

Where you are running into trouble is to suggest accepting evolution as fact is "faith", for example.

First: it isn't.

Second: You are not -- not ever -- going to put your faith on the same shelf as robust scientific knowledge. Like General Relativity, or Evolution. It doesn't belong there.

 

[abu afak]

I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.

But, thanks for the lecture.

IOW, unlike science which is evidence based, you have no rational/evidentiary basis.
You lost the debate.
Gameover.
And btw, thanks for unwittingly pumping my thread title for 1.5 Pages, hundreds of views.
Frivolous and stupid as your Trolling posts were.

`

 

[DukeU]

It does not mean that. In fact, it assumes (in its basis in physics) that the laws of the universe have remained the same in all places and will remain the same in all places. A deterministic universe, in fact. A clockwork.

If there are laws, there had to be a law maker.

The Theory of Evolution only posits an explanation for the existence of all the species on the planet. Why the extinct ones existed and why the extant ones exist. And it relies 100% on the process of selection upon the life on Earth by the very STATIC laws of the universe.

The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.

 

[DukeU]

Which is just a baseline of honesty anyone should expect from another adult.

Where you are running into trouble is to suggest accepting evolution as fact is "faith", for example.

First: it isn't.

Second: You are not -- not ever -- going to put your faith on the same shelf as robust scientific knowledge. Like General Relativity, or Evolution. It doesn't belong there.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You will never convince me we evolved from rocks.

There's no way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there are laws, there had to be a law maker.

And I say there did not have to be one. How do we test who is correct?

The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.

Well, not really. The Theory of Evolution only attempts to explain how one single species was the ancestor of all the species on the planet that have ever existed since.

So let's parse out the term, "Abiogenesis". Meaning: Formation of life.

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. It happened. Once there was no life, then there was life. That's it. That's all the word means. Just like "star formation" or "volcano formation". Abiogenesis is an accepted fact. Once there was no life, then there was life. Even YOU believe in a form of abiogenesis.

The "Theory of Abiogenesis" attempts to explain NOT how life formed from rocks, but rather from a wet world full of organic chemicals just sitting around.

Is your God not smart enough to have planned that? Not capable enough? Not snark. Honest questions. Why is it impossible that this was God's plan?

 

[DukeU]

IOW, unlike science which is evidence based, you have no rational/evidentiary basis.
You lost the debate.
Gameover.
And btw, thanks for unwittingly pumping my thread title for 1.5 Pages, hundreds of views.
Frivolous and stupid as your Trolling posts were.

You have no evidence we evolved from rocks.

Lost the debate?!? Nah

You haven't proven where the universe came from either.

 

[abu afak]

The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.

You have no evidence we evolved from rocks.

Wrong again Stupid repetition troll! !
That's called abiogenesis.
Evolution doesn't start until after life does.
Evolution is Descent with modification, not creation.
Evolution is demonstrably true no matter how life started.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DukeU okay. Let me try to sell it to you. Hard.

Your omniscient and omnipotent God, who sees all time and space as one, created a universe with physical laws and energy/mass content tailored specifically to one project: creating human life.

His most brilliant stroke was the concept of selection. The physical laws would select for certain states of mass and energy that would ultimately result, in time, in a human being walking the planet Earth.

This brilliance led to the simple idea that certain combinations of the organic chemicals on Earth would be "selected for", about 4 billion years ago. Just as the shape of a water molecule is selected for by physical laws, certain stable and even eventually self-replicating models were "selected for". Carbon at the right temperature allows for these complex chemical structures. Lipids with hydrophobic and hydrophilic poles, that ganged up and produced membranes. These models formed the first cells and the first RNA models. The first primitive life machines. And trillions upon trillions of reactions and millions upon millions of years later, a cell with DNA.

All exactly as God knew would happen.

Thoughts?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

You are assuming all of the animals on the ark were adult sized. But, you know what I was referring to. You are just looking for some wiggle room.





Everything Sowell said has been debunked?!? I'll take your word for it.

1. Now anyone with a G.E.D. reading comprehension can follow the exchange and see that nowhere did I state, imply, insinuate or allude to what you accuse me of here. As is typical with creationist and right wing wonks, you ASSUME that your opinions, speculations, supposition and conjecture are comparable with facts and the logic derived from said facts. But the real issue here is that now you offer yet another fantastic fantasy "explanation" to justify the (yet another) absurd claim by creationist that dinosaurs were part of the cargo on the Ark. This silliness is an attempt to usurp the science which carbon dates life on Earth a few millennium before Noah and company were around, and substantiate their supposed biblical deduction to the Earth's actual age. They believe it, they build an over sized toy to illustrate that belief, so it must be fact. Yeah, that makes sense.

2. Yes, my chuckling zealot....by academic and economic scholars of equal rank who are not financed by right wing think tanks. Of course, folk of your mindset just ignore and deny what you don't like .... proving once again the old adage of blissful ignorance. Carry on,.

 

[abu afak]

DukeU okay. Let me try to sell it to you. Hard.

Your omniscient and omnipotent God, who sees all time and space as one, created a universe with physical laws and energy/mass content tailored specifically to one project: creating human life.

His most brilliant stroke was the concept of selection. The physical laws would select for certain states of mass and energy that would ultimately result, in time, in a human being walking the planet Earth.

This brilliance led to the simple idea that certain combinations of the organic chemicals on Earth would be "selected for". Just as the shape of a water molecule is selected for by physical laws, certain stainless and even eventually self -replicating models were "selected for". These.models formed the first cells and the first RNA models. The first primitive life machines. And trillions upon trillions of reaction later a cell with DNA.

Thoughts?

You need to STFU.
You make big sloppy and wandering posts that give him 10 things to 'debate.'
I refuted him short, sweet, high contrast, airtight and insulting.

Any moron could debate YOUR flabby posts for 100 pages because you are so weak/wandering.
Nothing worse than a weakling like you giving opponents endless opportunity.
\He should be treated like the Troll he is but you are too stupid and treat him to serious discussion- more targets he just trolls.

`

 

[DukeU]

Well, not really. The Theory of Evolution only attempts to explain how one single species was the ancestor of all the species on the planet that have ever existed since.

So let's parse out the term, "Abiogenesis". Meaning: Formation of life.

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. It happened. Once there was no life, then there was life. That's it. That's all the word means. Just like "star formation" or "volcano formation". Abiogenesis is an accepted fact. Once there was no life, then there was life. Even YOU believe in a form of abiogenesis.

The "Theory of Abiogenesis" attempts to explain NOT how life formed not from rocks, but rather from a wet world full of organic chemicals just sitting around.

Is your God not smart enough to have planned that? Not capable enough? Not snark. Honest questions. Why is it impossible that this was God's plan?

You basically just said the same thing I did, you just used bigger words.