[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Creationist websites are the definition of biased. If you’re looking there for evidence then there’s your first fault because you need to look at unbiased websites.
Also another thing to note is that Science websites and Atheist websites are not biased because they are not asserting anything without evidence (Atheists actually don’t assert anything about God, they simply don’t believe because their isn’t any evidence to do so) and are always open to changing their opinions based on new information. Religions do not offer any such flexibility, and such is a major flaw in the way they operate.[/quote]
Give me a high five
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
…This is the last time I’m going to explain this. “Creation science” wants to get into the science club. However, “creation science” doesn’t follow the same rules that the science club has, so “creation science’s” application for membership keeps getting denied. If “creation science” were let into the science club, this wouldn’t be fair to all the other members of the science club, because “creation science” gets to play by different rules when it wants to bring knowledge in to the club. Not only that, but if Christian “creation science” were let in to the club, then what about all the other types of “creation science”?..
[/quote]
Actually parts of this post were quite accurate. Evolutionists do indeed think along the lines of “We consider ourselves to be in a club, The Origins Club, and we will decide who gets in and who doesn’t.”
A lot of bickering, drama, politics and childishness, not to mention a lack of professionalism, is part and parcel of this “club.”
The Bill Nye, the Club Member Guy video illustrates this rather well.[/quote]
Oh push.
If you want to play football, you play by football’s rules, right?
If you want to play science, you have to play by science’s rules.
It really is this simple.
Matt, your response consists of many fact-free assertions but no evidence.
E.g. you wrote “This article is full of special pleading.” Please demonstrate?
You then quote the article
And follow up with “This is just painful to read”. That isn’t an argument, it is an emotional response. You really don’t get that the quoted bit is what yo are doing, do you? You are defining science to exclude creation and then claiming that creation science is not science!
You then say “Honestly schmichael, you seem relatively bright, so I don’t get why you seem to be having a hard time understanding this.”
Again this a fact free assertion. You haven’t refuted any of the points presented (you haven’t interacted with them at all) and then you claim that I’m not getting it. My question is, getting what?
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Creationist websites are the definition of biased. If you’re looking there for evidence then there’s your first fault because you need to look at unbiased websites.
Also another thing to note is that Science websites and Atheist websites are not biased because they are not asserting anything without evidence (Atheists actually don’t assert anything about God, they simply don’t believe because their isn’t any evidence to do so) and are always open to changing their opinions based on new information. Religions do not offer any such flexibility, and such is a major flaw in the way they operate.[/quote]
You are correct, they are biased. But the creationists are upfront about the bias.
Evolutionists are not. It is pretty hard to conclude that the creation model is accurate when you a) have no clue what it teaches, and b) exclude it from the discussion before even looking at the evidence.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
…This is the last time I’m going to explain this. “Creation science” wants to get into the science club. However, “creation science” doesn’t follow the same rules that the science club has, so “creation science’s” application for membership keeps getting denied. If “creation science” were let into the science club, this wouldn’t be fair to all the other members of the science club, because “creation science” gets to play by different rules when it wants to bring knowledge in to the club. Not only that, but if Christian “creation science” were let in to the club, then what about all the other types of “creation science”?..
[/quote]
Actually parts of this post were quite accurate. Evolutionists do indeed think along the lines of “We consider ourselves to be in a club, The Origins Club, and we will decide who gets in and who doesn’t.”
A lot of bickering, drama, politics and childishness, not to mention a lack of professionalism, is part and parcel of this “club.”
The Bill Nye, the Club Member Guy video illustrates this rather well.[/quote]
Oh push.
If you want to play football, you play by football’s rules, right?
If you want to play science, you have to play by science’s rules.
It really is this simple.[/quote]
But who decides on the “rules”? Usually everyone agrees on the rules up front.
You need to do some research on the founders of what we call modern science. They were mainly creationists (bacon, gallileo, newton, kepler). They made massive advances in science while believing in God (and creation). Do they get to have a say on your so-called “rules”?
schmichael, I’m done with this. You don’t get that “creation science” isn’t accepted by the scientific community based on their criteria, not yours. If you want to remove the bible, and God from “creation science” and then re-apply, you’ll probably have a better chance.
If you feel the need to have the last word, go ahead, but I won’t be replying.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
But who decides on the “rules”? Usually everyone agrees on the rules up front.[/quote]
The scientific method was developed over time with contributors from many different cultures.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
You need to do some research on the founders of what we call modern science. They were mainly creationists (bacon, gallileo, newton, kepler). They made massive advances in science while believing in God (and creation). Do they get to have a say on your so-called “rules”?
[/quote]
None of those people were alive when Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution.
This is creationism:
-
Biological systems are complex
-
Complexity requires an intelligent designer
-
Therefore biological systems have to have an intelligent designer.
No there isn’t anymore to it than that.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, I’m done with this. You don’t get that “creation science” isn’t accepted by the scientific community based on their criteria, not yours. If you want to remove the bible, and God from “creation science” and then re-apply, you’ll probably have a better chance.
If you feel the need to have the last word, go ahead, but I won’t be replying.[/quote]
Oh, I get it but my objection still stands. Defining science to exclude creation prior to examining the evidence and then claiming that creationism isn’t science is totally circular.
I am truly sorry that you’re done with this. I hope that before you try and criticise creationism in the future that you will at least attempt to understand the issues first.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
None of those people were alive when Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Irrelevant.
The fact that you think it is relevant is indicative of a strong faith in the founder of your religion (even though Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution he is credited with being its first apostle) and the religion itself.[/quote]
We’ve had our rounds on this topic before.
I think I’ll stick to discussing this topic with someone new.
Good day.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
But who decides on the “rules”? Usually everyone agrees on the rules up front.[/quote]
The scientific method was developed over time with contributors from many different cultures.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
You need to do some research on the founders of what we call modern science. They were mainly creationists (bacon, gallileo, newton, kepler). They made massive advances in science while believing in God (and creation). Do they get to have a say on your so-called “rules”?
[/quote]
None of those people were alive when Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Raj, evolutionary theory predates Darwin by centuries. Some of the ancient philosophers before Christ such as Anaximander (d. 546), Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and Lucretius (d. 55) had evolutionary ideas that life arose spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another.
Your objection that they weren’t aware of evolution fails. They were aware of it and yet, amazingly, still made massive scientific advances despite rejecting it.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Oh, I get it but my objection still stands. Defining science to exclude creation prior to examining the evidence and then claiming that creationism isn’t science is totally circular.
I am truly sorry that you’re done with this. I hope that before you try and criticise creationism in the future that you will at least attempt to understand the issues first.[/quote]
Let me ask you something: What are your thoughts on astrology? Is that also science?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Creationist websites are the definition of biased. If you’re looking there for evidence then there’s your first fault because you need to look at unbiased websites.
Also another thing to note is that Science websites and Atheist websites are not biased because they are not asserting anything without evidence (Atheists actually don’t assert anything about God, they simply don’t believe because their isn’t any evidence to do so) and are always open to changing their opinions based on new information. Religions do not offer any such flexibility, and such is a major flaw in the way they operate.[/quote]
You are correct, they are biased. But the creationists are upfront about the bias.
Evolutionists are not. It is pretty hard to conclude that the creation model is accurate when you a) have no clue what it teaches, and b) exclude it from the discussion before even looking at the evidence.[/quote]
Well to be honest about it, asking me to read a 25 page document posted on a creationist website isn’t going to happen because I’ve been duped too many times to spend that much time being duped again. The amount of bias and general lies have simply destroyed their credibility. It’s a waste of my time, and probably everyone’s. Especially when one of the headers is ‘Scriptural Considerations’ because that means someone has been playing the pick and choose game with the Bible, taking out the bits they like and ignoring all of the immoral verses. Science however has been excellent at providing answers.
Anywho, if you want to post your single greatest piece of evidence for creation I’ll gladly read it in detail and then reply accordingly, but if it’s a creationist site then I’m sorry because it’s simply not reliable.
And PS Evolutionists don’t have to be biased because evolution is already an observed and confirmed scientific fact.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
But who decides on the “rules”? Usually everyone agrees on the rules up front.[/quote]
The scientific method was developed over time with contributors from many different cultures.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
You need to do some research on the founders of what we call modern science. They were mainly creationists (bacon, gallileo, newton, kepler). They made massive advances in science while believing in God (and creation). Do they get to have a say on your so-called “rules”?
[/quote]
None of those people were alive when Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Raj, evolutionary theory predates Darwin by centuries. Some of the ancient philosophers before Christ such as Anaximander (d. 546), Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and Lucretius (d. 55) had evolutionary ideas that life arose spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another.
Your objection that they weren’t aware of evolution fails. They were aware of it and yet, amazingly, still made massive scientific advances despite rejecting it.
[/quote]
There was never really a fully form theory until the 19th century though. They just contributed to “evolutionary thinking”
Astrology, as in horoscopes etc? I don’t believe that is science.
I presume you are trying to compare creationism with astrology? Creationism has evidence (in spite of your insistence to the contrary) but astrology does not.
The evidence for creationism includes many sources including geology, biology, chemistry and physics. Actually the evidence is exactly the same for evolution, it is the interpretations that differ.
Anyways, I’m going to step away from the computer for a bit so I’ll just not bother to wait for your answer on the astrology question.
If the definition of science were to changed to include creationism, the loosening of the definition would allow astrology to be considered a science by extension.
This was noted over and over again by prominent Creationists Michael Behe during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial.
“Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.”
“Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.”