What ever happened to magical creation and intelligent design?

[Cecilie1200]

To put it in terms you might possibly understand, believing in divine creation of life didn't prevent me from learning anything about biology.

Yeah? What's your take on evolution?

That it needs more evidence to move from theory to law, and that questioning and skepticism are always healthy components of science.

Evolution from theory to law?

Jesus Christ, did you not take science classes in school, or were you just outside smoking behind the gym?

Look it up, Einstein. I'm not in the mood to teach remedial classes today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To put it in terms you might possibly understand, believing in divine creation of life didn't prevent me from learning anything about biology.

Yeah? What's your take on evolution?

That it needs more evidence to move from theory to law, and that questioning and skepticism are always healthy components of science.

Yes, skepticism is a part of science, but I thought any evidence of creationism was supposed to come from the bible. How can science lead to a support of creationism?

You thought wrong. On pretty much every level, from what I can see.

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told". This does not preclude there being actual evidence to back up what they said, in much the same way that there is evidence to support events written about in history textbooks. So, theoretically, human technological capacity could one day advance to the point where we could actually discover and quantify evidence of Creation, in the same way that we - for example - developed technology in the field of astronomy sufficient to prove the then-theory of a heliocentric solar system.

 

[Wuwei]

So, theoretically, human technological capacity could one day advance to the point where we could actually discover and quantify evidence of Creation, in the same way that we - for example - developed technology in the field of astronomy sufficient to prove the then-theory of a heliocentric solar system.

With the continuing advances in archeology and geology supporting evolution, there is a lot of science that creationism would have to "undo". Especially if creationism involved a earth a few thousand years old.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, theoretically, human technological capacity could one day advance to the point where we could actually discover and quantify evidence of Creation, in the same way that we - for example - developed technology in the field of astronomy sufficient to prove the then-theory of a heliocentric solar system.

With the continuing advances in archeology and geology supporting evolution, there is a lot of science that creationism would have to "undo". Especially if creationism involved a earth a few thousand years old.

"Advances in archeology and geology supporting evolution"? And those would be what?

Exactly what science does "creationism have to undo"? And who ever said that creationism requires the Earth to be only a few thousand years old?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told".

And not the infallible Word of God?

 

[Wuwei]

"Advances in archeology and geology supporting evolution"? And those would be what?

Exactly what science does "creationism have to undo"? And who ever said that creationism requires the Earth to be only a few thousand years old?

Some creationists believe the earth is a few thousand years old. Apparently you don't.

The advances are the continual discoveries of the remains and dating of animals that fill in the evolutionary tree, and the continual inching forward in new discoveries of primates to fill in those branches leading to Homo Sapiens. Creationism would have to overcome that wealth of information.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told".

And not the infallible Word of God?

Who do you think told them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told".

And not the infallible Word of God?

Who do you think told them?

Sorry...was that a yes or a no?

If they were just writing down what they saw, then it was their eyes that "told them".

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Advances in archeology and geology supporting evolution"? And those would be what?

Exactly what science does "creationism have to undo"? And who ever said that creationism requires the Earth to be only a few thousand years old?

Some creationists believe the earth is a few thousand years old. Apparently you don't.

The advances are the continual discoveries of the remains and dating of animals that fill in the evolutionary tree, and the continual inching forward in new discoveries of primates to fill in those branches leading to Homo Sapiens. Creationism would have to overcome that wealth of information.

Note your own use of the word "some". I realize how much people like you just LOVE to find some small group you don't like and try to paint them as the mainstream, but it neither interests me, nor obligates me to play along.

I don't have any idea how old the Earth is. I wasn't there. Neither were you.

Please cite me any discovery of the missing links which plague evolutionary theory. Also, if you could show me where fossil studies ever stopped being, "We theorize that these two animals were related", that would be great.

Creationism is actually not required to overcome anything of the sort, since Creationism does not require evolution to be false. You need evolution to disprove Creation. Evolution makes no difference to my beliefs whatsoever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told".

And not the infallible Word of God?

Who do you think told them?

Sorry...was that a yes or a no?

If they were just writing down what they saw, then it was their eyes that "told them".

Why are you illiterate, and why do you think your illiteracy is a debating triumph?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible is basically a story. It is a bunch of guys writing down, "This is what I saw", or "This is what I was told".

And not the infallible Word of God?

Who do you think told them?

Sorry...was that a yes or a no?

If they were just writing down what they saw, then it was their eyes that "told them".

Why are you illiterate, and why do you think your illiteracy is a debating triumph?

Sorry....was that a yes, or a no? If they were writing down what they saw...there was no need for gods to tell them anything. Please clarify.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I remember when republicans worked tirelessly to teach that nonsense in schools.

What happened?

Is that like "magical creation" when a company creates the car you drive, or the phone you use?

 

[AZGAL]

Never heard of "magical creationism". I went to public school where I learned about science, and on the weekends at religious activities I learned about love and God. I find that both science and God both work well together. The friends I know that homeschool smoke pot and live in a teepee. So much for stereotypes.

 

[Yarddog]

I remember when republicans worked tirelessly to teach that nonsense in schools.

What happened?

disapointed?

 

[Wuwei]

Note your own use of the word "some". I realize how much people like you just LOVE to find some small group you don't like and try to paint them as the mainstream, but it neither interests me, nor obligates me to play along.

People like me? Nope; I don't really care. You are just as presumptuous as I was when you assume what you think I LOVE.

I don't have any idea how old the Earth is. I wasn't there. Neither were you.

Look up age of earth. It's around 4.5 billion years old.

Please cite me any discovery of the missing links which plague evolutionary theory. Also, if you could show me where fossil studies ever stopped being, "We theorize that these two animals were related", that would be great.

It seems you don't trust science. Many people don't these days. So I'm not going to waste my time getting into a vast interminable argument. Do your own research if you are at all interested.

Creationism is actually not required to overcome anything of the sort, since Creationism does not require evolution to be false. You need evolution to disprove Creation. Evolution makes no difference to my beliefs whatsoever.

Well, if your understanding of creationism doesn't require evolution to be false, then we seem to be in the same boat. I'm not going to presume what else you think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Note your own use of the word "some". I realize how much people like you just LOVE to find some small group you don't like and try to paint them as the mainstream, but it neither interests me, nor obligates me to play along.

People like me? Nope; I don't really care. You are just as presumptuous as I was when you assume what you think I LOVE.

I don't have any idea how old the Earth is. I wasn't there. Neither were you.

Look up age of earth. It's around 4.5 billion years old.

Please cite me any discovery of the missing links which plague evolutionary theory. Also, if you could show me where fossil studies ever stopped being, "We theorize that these two animals were related", that would be great.

It seems you don't trust science. Many people don't these days. So I'm not going to waste my time getting into a vast interminable argument. Do your own research if you are at all interested.

Creationism is actually not required to overcome anything of the sort, since Creationism does not require evolution to be false. You need evolution to disprove Creation. Evolution makes no difference to my beliefs whatsoever.

Well, if your understanding of creationism doesn't require evolution to be false, then we seem to be in the same boat. I'm not going to presume what else you think.

Oh, of course you don't. You're just in this thread trying to paint all believers in Creation as being exactly the same because you're totally disinterested and unbiased.

Unless you were there 4.5 billion years ago, or know someone who was, you have no way of stating that as a 100% certainty.

I trust science fine. I'm just aware of what it knows for certain, and what it theorizes.

 

[Wuwei]

Oh, of course you don't. You're just in this thread trying to paint all believers in Creation as being exactly the same because you're totally disinterested and unbiased.

Unless you were there 4.5 billion years ago, or know someone who was, you have no way of stating that as a 100% certainty.

I trust science fine. I'm just aware of what it knows for certain, and what it theorizes.

There you go second guessing my motives again, and you are wrong about that.

Science discovery works with statistics: standard deviations, confidence levels. Nothing is ever 100% certain in science. The more colloquial word "certainty" should be replaced with "evidenced confidence". There is an enormous amount of research used in dating and classifying ancient remains. That leads to confidence, but never 100% certainty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unless you were there 4.5 billion years ago, or know someone who was, you have no way of stating that as a 100% certainty.

We have no way of knowing anything with 100% certainty. We do not rely on eyewitness account in science, because that is well know to be the most unreliable method of observation available. EVERY observation and measurement we make is of a past event.

 

[Spotted Drongo]

Perhaps if they levelled the playing field between the filthy rich and the poor we could all hmeschool our kids.

And then we wouldn't have so many economic illiterates like you.

Filthy rich eh?

 

[LittleNipper]

I remember when republicans worked tirelessly to teach that nonsense in schools.

What happened?

Is that like "magical creation" when a company creates the car you drive, or the phone you use?

I thought automobiles and phones evolved!?!?! I had no idea someone created anything!