Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[hadit]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Evolution is the best idea that man can come up with if he deliberately excludes even the possibility of life being designed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

 

[gtopa1]

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Who says that creationism is a science?

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's a belief.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

You can't say that creationists are wrong.

Are you blind? I just did.

Were you there at the start of the world?

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do you know exactly how life was formed?

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.

Projection. Try again.

I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Nonsense. You are confusing two issues. One is faith; the other is the workings of a system. That some point to God as the "Ultimate": cause etc is faith. Science is about the nuts and bolts that tie the Universe together. I say the two should NOT be confused, but all you do is confuse them.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Then you don't know many creationists. Creationists don't believe in the biological theory of evolution, nor do they believe in an old Earth (~4.57 bya). They have argued that creationism should be taught as science in the science classes in our schools. Some of them, like Ken Ham, believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed (they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, apparently). And sir, it is not MY version of creationism. I am a geologist, and so fully subscribe to the biological theory of evolution. I am also an amateur astronomer, and so fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Maybe you have come to the table after everyone has sat down, but this is the way it is and has been for decades.

I know many creationists most are very reasonable. Sort of the Muslim thing, you only hear about the radicals.

But that doesn't stop you from lumping everyone into one.

I haven't met a single one that knew what he/she was talking about. And I have talked to many. If you are concerned that I am lumping people together, then have at it. Don't be shy. Tell us what creationism, in your view, is all about and why it should be considered scientifically valid? (this should be entertaining)

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

noun
1.
an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.;disproof



You do speak ENGLISH, no?

Since when has "peer review" had anything to do with it?? Galileo's "peers" reviewed his work and found it lacking. Does that mean that he was wrong?? Of course not!

" I know what it is"

Do you?

""The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). "

Truth cannot contradict truth!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Evolution is the best idea that man can come up with if he deliberately excludes even the possibility of life being designed.

I disagree. "Design" is one thing; working out the structure is another. I do not understand the "design" at all but accept that somehow it is there. The mechanisms I can work on, and that is Science...and Evolution is a very powerful theory in all of it. When one looks at the way the theory has been modified over the years it seems that "belief in" Evolution is a rather fickle thing. And there is NOTHING wrong in that; as the facts change so does the theory. The theory is only valid while it can accommodate the new facts. When it cannot one must look for a new theory; one that incorporates the successes of the theory being ditched.

Greg

 

[chikenwing]

I don't care that someone created a website, and you somehow think that it's an all encapsulating view of creationism. Probably 99.9 percent of creationists haven't even been to that website. Creationism is simply a traditional view that God created life. It doesn't mean that God isn't beholden to scientific concepts. It doesn't even mean that evolution isn't a valid concept. People like you want it to be a litmus test for enlightened vs. unenlightened because it soothes your bigotry.

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

More pretzel logic,if the holy rollers put evolution and creationism on equal ground,that not rejecting anything.
You think before you post?

 

[hadit]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Evolution is the best idea that man can come up with if he deliberately excludes even the possibility of life being designed.

I disagree. "Design" is one thing; working out the structure is another. I do not understand the "design" at all but accept that somehow it is there. The mechanisms I can work on, and that is Science...and Evolution is a very powerful theory in all of it. When one looks at the way the theory has been modified over the years it seems that "belief in" Evolution is a rather fickle thing. And there is NOTHING wrong in that; as the facts change so does the theory. The theory is only valid while it can accommodate the new facts. When it cannot one must look for a new theory; one that incorporates the successes of the theory being ditched.

Greg

It sounds like you subscribe to the idea that evolution is making ongoing changes to life, but are open to the idea that life itself was designed. That alone would make you a heretic in many circles.

 

[gtopa1]

I don't care that someone created a website, and you somehow think that it's an all encapsulating view of creationism. Probably 99.9 percent of creationists haven't even been to that website. Creationism is simply a traditional view that God created life. It doesn't mean that God isn't beholden to scientific concepts. It doesn't even mean that evolution isn't a valid concept. People like you want it to be a litmus test for enlightened vs. unenlightened because it soothes your bigotry.

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

This is the whole point. You dismiss "anything similar" without realising that they are two different things. Science has its limits; when it goes beyond those then it is not science. If it can be tested then Science is in play; if it cannot then it becomes speculation, discussion, creative suggestion...anything you want to describe it as. It is NOT science.

Greg

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

More pretzel logic,if the holy rollers put evolution and creationism on equal ground,that not rejecting anything.
You think before you post?

Science has not concluded that Evolution and Creationism are scientific theories of equal merit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

This is the whole point. You dismiss "anything similar" without realising that they are two different things. Science has its limits; when it goes beyond those then it is not science. If it can be tested then Science is in play; if it cannot then it becomes speculation, discussion, creative suggestion...anything you want to describe it as. It is NOT science.

Greg

Do most believers in Creation Science acknowledge that Evolution is the better supported theory?

 

[hadit]

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

More pretzel logic,if the holy rollers put evolution and creationism on equal ground,that not rejecting anything.
You think before you post?

Science has not concluded that Evolution and Creationism are scientific theories of equal merit.

That's somewhat like asking Obama if raising taxes and cutting spending are of equal merit in balancing the budget. There's a bit of a conflict going on there.

 

[gtopa1]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

RUBBISH!! Their ethics are beyond question and are in the right place. Their diligence and work ethic are second to none. That there are those who look to refute the time scales is frankly quite healthy and also quite Scientific. Whether their SCIENTIFIC PROOFS hold up is another question. To fault their scholarship is absurd!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

This is the whole point. You dismiss "anything similar" without realising that they are two different things. Science has its limits; when it goes beyond those then it is not science. If it can be tested then Science is in play; if it cannot then it becomes speculation, discussion, creative suggestion...anything you want to describe it as. It is NOT science.

Greg

Do most believers in Creation Science acknowledge that Evolution is the better supported theory?

Dunno. Depends on what you mean by "creationist" I suppose. That's really the point. I would suggest that most who believe in a God also accept that Evolution is a very powerful theory. What we are really talking about...is whether it has any real affect on people. I know for example that the Higgs Boson has been discovered. So what? It's going to pay my mortgage? It's going to put food on my plate? It doesn't affect me at all!! The work of Jenner has indeed affected me, while the breeding of better beef has also. That they can find a cure for my little skin blemishes affects me. There are some things which are just a passing interesting tidbit and Evolution is one of those. The study of genetics of course is very important to me but that there are similarities between pig and human DNA is only a passing interest...after all protein has basically the same chemicals(amino acids) as is found in all living things. But if the world is 6000 or 6B years old? No real effect on my life at all, and nor on most people's. Maybe on a few scholars who stress about it. It is merely an intellectual interest.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

More pretzel logic,if the holy rollers put evolution and creationism on equal ground,that not rejecting anything.
You think before you post?

Science has not concluded that Evolution and Creationism are scientific theories of equal merit.

That's somewhat like asking Obama if raising taxes and cutting spending are of equal merit in balancing the budget. There's a bit of a conflict going on there.

Not in my mind there's not!! I'm a Keynsian and every one of us fools should know that unbalanced budgets are only a SHORT TERM fix!! Deficits should not be a permanent feature of budgets!! If Keynes were resurrected he'd be kicking Obama's advisers to bloody death with his sacred heavenly Doc Martens!!

Greg

'Edit: they to "deficits".

 

[gtopa1]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Evolution is the best idea that man can come up with if he deliberately excludes even the possibility of life being designed.

I disagree. "Design" is one thing; working out the structure is another. I do not understand the "design" at all but accept that somehow it is there. The mechanisms I can work on, and that is Science...and Evolution is a very powerful theory in all of it. When one looks at the way the theory has been modified over the years it seems that "belief in" Evolution is a rather fickle thing. And there is NOTHING wrong in that; as the facts change so does the theory. The theory is only valid while it can accommodate the new facts. When it cannot one must look for a new theory; one that incorporates the successes of the theory being ditched.

Greg

It sounds like you subscribe to the idea that evolution is making ongoing changes to life, but are open to the idea that life itself was designed. That alone would make you a heretic in many circles.

Nah: I'm Catholic. We burn heretics...ah: the good old days!!!

Greg

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say understand, I said prove for yourself. At some point you have to realize that you take it on faith that the information you've read is true and analyzed accurately, and that the missing link existed. Given the countless potential explanations for existence, discounting a man based on which group of people's word on the subject he was swayed by in stead of examining his existing political record seems silly to me.

To prove for yourself is to understand, is it not? You shouldn't take anything on faith. Science certainly does not. It is merciless in its drive to obtain data, to test hypothesize, generate theories, and ultimately discover the laws of nature and develop practical applications. Explanations for existence may be countless, but as science progresses, the number of probable explanations diminish, and have been diminishing for the past 500 years. What seems reckless and irresponsible to me, considering the vital position science and technology has within our society, how utterly dependent we are on it, is to not insist that our leaders (and our political candidates) have a modicum of understanding of the fundamental principles of science. These leaders and candidates mold our science policy, and ultimately, our country's future, as well as that of the world at large. They had better friggin know what they are talking about!

 

[orogenicman]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

I love it when people make up strawmen about a group of people they disagree with then pat themselves on the back for being better than them.

What straw man, where? WTF are you babbling about? This is where scientists are expected to apologize to creationists for actually being the experts in their fields. How friggin stupid is that?

 

[chikenwing]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Evolution is the best idea that man can come up with if he deliberately excludes even the possibility of life being designed.

I disagree. "Design" is one thing; working out the structure is another. I do not understand the "design" at all but accept that somehow it is there. The mechanisms I can work on, and that is Science...and Evolution is a very powerful theory in all of it. When one looks at the way the theory has been modified over the years it seems that "belief in" Evolution is a rather fickle thing. And there is NOTHING wrong in that; as the facts change so does the theory. The theory is only valid while it can accommodate the new facts. When it cannot one must look for a new theory; one that incorporates the successes of the theory being ditched.

Greg

It sounds like you subscribe to the idea that evolution is making ongoing changes to life, but are open to the idea that life itself was designed. That alone would make you a heretic in many circles.

That is a very sensible position to have,evolution and intelligent design are not exclusive of each other.

 

[Kosh]

I didn't say understand, I said prove for yourself. At some point you have to realize that you take it on faith that the information you've read is true and analyzed accurately, and that the missing link existed. Given the countless potential explanations for existence, discounting a man based on which group of people's word on the subject he was swayed by in stead of examining his existing political record seems silly to me.

To prove for yourself is to understand, is it not? You shouldn't take anything on faith. Science certainly does not. It is merciless in its drive to obtain data, to test hypothesize, generate theories, and ultimately discover the laws of nature and develop practical applications. Explanations for existence may be countless, but as science progresses, the number of probable explanations diminish, and have been diminishing for the past 500 years. What seems reckless and irresponsible to me, considering the vital position science and technology has within our society, how utterly dependent we are on it, is to not insist that our leaders (and our political candidates) have a modicum of understanding of the fundamental principles of science. These leaders and candidates mold our science policy, and ultimately, our country's future, as well as that of the world at large. They had better friggin know what they are talking about!

Oh the irony of these comments coming from the far left drone that has shown they do not understand or believe in evolution.

 

[orogenicman]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

No doubt you can name each and every one of them and the hoaxes they presented. You do realize that unlike your religion, science is self-correcting. Hence those hoaxes as dismissed and science moves on.

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Non-sequitur. Why? ALL species are transitional.

 

[Kosh]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

No doubt you can name each and every one of them and the hoaxes they presented. You do realize that unlike your religion, science is self-correcting. Hence those hoaxes as dismissed and science moves on.

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

Non-sequitur. Why? ALL species are transitional.

Wrong!