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

[orogenicman]

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.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

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?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

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!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" 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

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

 

[gtopa1]

scumbags......

The scum of the earth dimocraps are about to lose one of the few governors they have in this Country.....

And all you dickheads got is to pick on some guy that has a different opinion on evolution?

dirtbags.

Explain the Big Bang. It was a Creationist Event.

But you're too stupid to think that far ahead.

Say goodbye to another criminal dimocrap scumbag out in Oregon, asswipes.

I started a thread on it Another Day Another Criminal Politician US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum but I guess the dimocrap scumbag spambots haven't gotten their marching orders from their massas just yet.

Actually, we don't know Walker's "opinion" on evolution - because he refused to answer. BTW, what does the Bible say about the "Big Bang"? Millions of years passed by after the "Big Bang" - so, it seems like God was really, really slow before it got it all assembled.

"God is subtle"

Einstein

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

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?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

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!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" 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

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

 

[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.

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

You really should put the kool aid down. You cannot convince any scientist worth his meddle that a creationist like Ken Ham doesn't have questionable ethics. Work ethic? Busting one's arse to build a "humans and dinosaurs coexisted" panorama neither demonstrates ethics in their science nor due scientific diligence. Such a panorama does not demonstrate scholarship. Clue - the Flintstones is not a documentary. If they presented it to any scholarly scientific publication, they'd be laughed out of the business. Which is why they produce no peer reviewed, scientific work. I do fault their scholarship because they have none.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Certainly they are. The former is a scientific theory. The latter is a religious belief.

 

[peach174]

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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them.
It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

 

[orogenicman]

scumbags......

The scum of the earth dimocraps are about to lose one of the few governors they have in this Country.....

And all you dickheads got is to pick on some guy that has a different opinion on evolution?

dirtbags.

Explain the Big Bang. It was a Creationist Event.

But you're too stupid to think that far ahead.

Say goodbye to another criminal dimocrap scumbag out in Oregon, asswipes.

I started a thread on it Another Day Another Criminal Politician US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum but I guess the dimocrap scumbag spambots haven't gotten their marching orders from their massas just yet.

Actually, we don't know Walker's "opinion" on evolution - because he refused to answer. BTW, what does the Bible say about the "Big Bang"? Millions of years passed by after the "Big Bang" - so, it seems like God was really, really slow before it got it all assembled.

"God is subtle"

Einstein

Greg

Quote mining is not a very good idea because it takes quotes out of context and leaves one with the impression that it means something it may not mean. Creationists have been quote mining scientists for decades to make it appear that they are supporting some creationist point or other. In his own words, what Einstein meant by that was that "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse". Here is the context:

Originally said to Princeton University mathematics professor Oscar Veblen, May 1921, while Einstein was in Princeton for a series of lectures, upon hearing that an experimental result by Dayton C. Miller of Cleveland, if true, would contradict his theory of gravitation.

 

[orogenicman]

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

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.

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

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

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

Are you blind? I just did.

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 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.

Projection. Try again.

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.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

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?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

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!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" 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

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

 

[rdean]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

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.

Belief in creationism is a belief that has no scientific support whatsoever, so whatever creationism is, it's not science.

Occult.

 

[rdean]

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.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

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?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

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!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" 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

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New Intelligent Falling Theory The Onion - America s Finest News Source

 

[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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

 

[peach174]

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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

That you believe that there is an intermediate fossil that demonstrates a lizard evolving into a bird only demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are wrt to not only paleontology, but the theory of evolution. Creationists have often made the assertion, for instance, that there is no fossil demonstrating a cat evolving into a dog. Indeed, there isn't because if there were, that would DISPROVE evolution. Same goes for your claim. Birds aren't descendants of lizards. They are descendants of theropod dinosaurs.

 

[peach174]

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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

Yes I watched it last year.
I thought it was good. I watch a lot of science specials on PBS.
It is still just theories without intermediate fossil proof.
God made us from the Earth so yes we will have traces of these species as well as dust and ocean (salt) in us as humans.

 

[peach174]

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.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

That you believe that there is an intermediate fossil that demonstrates a lizard evolving into a bird only demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are wrt to not only paleontology, but the theory of evolution. Creationists have often made the assertion, for instance, that there is no fossil demonstrating a cat evolving into a dog. Indeed, there isn't because if there were, that would DISPROVE evolution. Same goes for your claim. Birds aren't descendants of lizards. They are descendants of theropod dinosaurs.

So sorry I should have said reptile instead of lizard.

So does your Museum have the theropod fossils that has evolved?
There is none found yet.
This is why they are going to explanation of the different types of eggs theory because they don't have the fossils.
How the shape of eggs can help explain the evolutionary history of birds -- ScienceDaily

 

[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

You really should put the kool aid down. You cannot convince any scientist worth his meddle that a creationist like Ken Ham doesn't have questionable ethics. Work ethic? Busting one's arse to build a "humans and dinosaurs coexisted" panorama neither demonstrates ethics in their science nor due scientific diligence. Such a panorama does not demonstrate scholarship. Clue - the Flintstones is not a documentary. If they presented it to any scholarly scientific publication, they'd be laughed out of the business. Which is why they produce no peer reviewed, scientific work. I do fault their scholarship because they have none.

What abject piffle!!! As if what some arrogant smart arse Scientist says about religion is of any consequence..or a plumber for that matter; any person speaking outside their area of expertise is always a laugh. I fully understand your need for belittling the faith of others, but to deride them as unethical is another thing altogether. You are a braggart and a boaster. I see NO benefit in belittling another person whether they are of the Atheistic Humanist, Evangelical, Animist, Buddhist or any other faith. It is their character that is important in their assessment as a person. Their Science: I will argue until the cows the come home.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse

As for your "faith"...lol. I hope you set well in your new religion. I just wonder; how do you worship?? Do your knees get as sore as when you kneeled for your Communion??

Greg

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

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?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

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!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" 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

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

Hmmm. Science is not about proving or disproving? I guess that whole conclusion thing in the scientific method is just bunk, then. Science always seeks to explain things as precisely and as exactly as possible through proper rigors. That's what I like about science. Then, hacks like you come along pretend it's illusive even as you glory how knowledge based it is relative to religion? You're speaking out of both ends of your mouth.

I don't frankly care what the Catholic church did. Throwing them out there to invalidate religion is a red herring. They've been a corrupt organization since their inception. But that doesn't mean that religion is inherently bad. Just like science, whether its good or bad depends on the application thereof. You want to point to corrupt organizations as an endgame. There are very corrupt governments and corporations too. Does that mean we shouldn't believe in government or business? Of course not.

It's faulty to compare science and religion as subjects that must oppose each other. The truth is not mutually exclusive. But the Bible was not written as a science manual. Faith was clearly part of God's plan. If he wanted us to have all the answers, he would have given them to us. Faith is the process of building character.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Non-sequitur. Why? ALL species are transitional.

They did the fake ones to fit Darwinism, that that is dishonesty. It was not self correction it was down right deceitfulness in order to keep the theory alive and funded for further research.

WTF are you babbling about?

God is perfect and does not need self correcting. He is the Alpha and the Omega -the beginning and the end. His Creation is perfect.

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

Yes all species are transitional but they have not found the actual missing links, the intermediates to each of them. It is still full of holes- no (intermediates) and it should have been found all over the place if it was true.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

That you believe that there is an intermediate fossil that demonstrates a lizard evolving into a bird only demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are wrt to not only paleontology, but the theory of evolution. Creationists have often made the assertion, for instance, that there is no fossil demonstrating a cat evolving into a dog. Indeed, there isn't because if there were, that would DISPROVE evolution. Same goes for your claim. Birds aren't descendants of lizards. They are descendants of theropod dinosaurs.

So sorry I should have said reptile instead of lizard.

So does your Museum have the theropod fossils that has evolved?
There is none found yet.
This is why they are going to explanation of the different types of eggs theory because they don't have the fossils.
How the shape of eggs can help explain the evolutionary history of birds -- ScienceDaily

And you'd still be wrong. Dinosaurs are not reptiles, though they are descended from them. Please don't try to tell me by business. First of all I don't have a museum, though I used to curate at the Louisville Museum of History and Science (now the Louisville Science Center). Transitional fossils between theropods and birds have, in fact, been found. Otherwise, no one would have made the connection between birds and theropods. Duh.

The origin of birds

 

[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.

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

You really should put the kool aid down. You cannot convince any scientist worth his meddle that a creationist like Ken Ham doesn't have questionable ethics. Work ethic? Busting one's arse to build a "humans and dinosaurs coexisted" panorama neither demonstrates ethics in their science nor due scientific diligence. Such a panorama does not demonstrate scholarship. Clue - the Flintstones is not a documentary. If they presented it to any scholarly scientific publication, they'd be laughed out of the business. Which is why they produce no peer reviewed, scientific work. I do fault their scholarship because they have none.

What abject piffle!!! As if what some arrogant smart arse Scientist says about religion is of any consequence..or a plumber for that matter; any person speaking outside their area of expertise is always a laugh. I fully understand your need for belittling the faith of others, but to deride them as unethical is another thing altogether. You are a braggart and a boaster. I see NO benefit in belittling another person whether they are of the Atheistic Humanist, Evangelical, Animist, Buddhist or any other faith. It is their character that is important in their assessment as a person. Their Science: I will argue until the cows the come home.

Don't take it personally. If a well known paleontologist had produced that panorama, I'd have said the exact same thing about him. Why? Because dinosaurs and humans never lived on Earth at the same time. Anyone who promotes this stupid idea as a fact is a fraud.

As for your emotional whine that science is a religion, lots of creationists make that claim. It's friggin stupid, and most of them know this; the reason why they go on the defensive like this is because they usually are out of any words to continue defending their delusions and lies, and so go on the attack. I hate that for you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New Intelligent Falling Theory The Onion - America s Finest News Source

orogenicman and rdean pretending The Onion is a valid source. But in the second place, I don't care what you show me some religionist knucklehead is doing. My arugment isn't that religions are doing great for us. My contention is that they don't have to be inherently bad or scientifically naive like leftist losers pretend.