LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL

[DukeU]

That's called abiogenesis.

 

[abu afak]

Non-responsive emoticon Troll. (#40)

 

[TheDefiantOne]

The Right is not racist, Sowell is not their token darling, and he's never been debunked. And on top of that, I don't believe he's ever weighed in on the creation vs evolution, but if he did I am quite sure it would've been on the evolution side.

Ever since Ronnie Raygun lifted the tent flap and let those tree stump preachers have a seat at the table, the GOP has really taken a turn towards full blown racism ... with less dependence upon "dog whistle" politics. This is why you have had neocons, teabaggers, alt right rummies and fibbertarians running around gerry mandering and trying to dismantle Civil Rights laws. Sowell tells them what they want to hear..."economic proof" that blacks are responsible for their own plight. And yes, ivy league academics, economist, etc., have all taken Sowell's screeds to task and found them wanting. That you are in denial of this is of no worth. I just pointed out that in addition to the absurd creationist clap trap you support yet another disproved theory (theorists) with religious fervor. Your last sentence confirms this. Carry on.

 

[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.

`

 

[DukeU]

Thoughts?

Really? You want my thoughts....

I think you just conveniently combined your faith with mine.

I believe God created man in his image just as the Bible teaches.

 

[DukeU]

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.

You're a Prick.

Just an FYI.

 

[abu afak]

You're a Prick.

Just an FYI.

IOW.
I beat the **** outa you while he humored you.
Yes, to TROLLS like you, NO mercy.
**** you again
You can't debate me you little POS.

`

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

Creation science or scientific creationism is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.

It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]

In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[10][11]

Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.

Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. [13][14][15][16][17]

Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[19]...

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Creation and science are apposed one to the other. God did not bring death. That is what the church is saying, saying people can prove creation with what we see as science. Their own book says the Jesus will make all things new. Their Bible does not say that science as we know it, will be preserved.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You need to STFU.

Haha, yes, I know. But that isn't the point of the post. As I do think he gets. While he may believe all or none of what I mentioned occurred, he is still faced with the question of why it could not just be part of God's plan. Why not? Is God not capable?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

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?

unnh-oh.....science AND theology meshing together? Blasphemy!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1)Why couldn't abiogenesis by "grace" of the laws of the universe be part of God's plan for creation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

unnh-oh.....science AND theology meshing together? Blasphemy!

Right? But we managed to get past that on condoms vs. AIDS. Surely we can reconcile evolution someday.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Right? But we managed to get past that on condoms vs. AIDS. Surely we can reconcile evolution someday.

Almost.....there are those who still believe that contraception is a sin, as is sex before marriage .... and HIV=AIDS is a profitable lie for big pharma and a lot of scientist, as there has NEVER been a peer reviewed paper that proved such.

And the band played on.

 

[DukeU]

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,.

Yes, I made a mistake with the quote. Sorry.

And, never did I state that dinosaurs were on the Ark. My point was that IF they were on the Ark, they didn't have to be adult sized.

Carbon dating................. LOL

Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric ...​

 

[DukeU]

You can't debate me you little POS.

With one question, you prick.

How did the universe come to exist?

Game, set, and match.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Almost.....there are those who still believe that contraception is a sin, as is sex before marriage .... and HIV=AIDS is a profitable lie for big pharma and a lot of scientist, as there has NEVER been a peer reviewed paper that proved such.

And the band played on.

Yes. And I have not heard enough apology from the Catholic Church on that. They set back entire countries by decades on the AIDS pandemic with their backwards ideas about condoms.

Their authoritative declarations. Presented, quite shamelessly, as the will of God.

 

[abu afak]

With one question, you prick.

How did the universe come to exist?

Game, set, and match.

Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'.

They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
But when they found out they dropped them

IOW it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.
Never worked yet.
Your FALLACY is called '
God of the Gaps.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

And more words. why can't it be part of God's plan?

 

[DukeU]

Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'.

Thanks.

 

[DukeU]

And more words. why can't it be part of God's plan?

It could have been IF that were his plan. But, it wasn't.......