El Blanko:
Dr Dino seems to be another case in point with topics such as:
"The Dangers of Evolution (2/2)"
"More Reasons (Why Evolution is Stupid)"
It's like trying to prove evolution by arguing creationism is stupid. It's only a very small part of the story.
Let me repeat that I'm not sure what's left when exclude evolution bashing from creationist accounts. Oh yeah, here is one interesting topic by Dr Dino:
"The Garden of Eden (2/2)". Looks like a piece of hard creationist science.
Pole
What do creationsts have to offer?
by Pole 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pole
-
EvilForce
Ok El Blanko....
I gave it the college try and listened to about 15 minutes of "More reasons why evolution is stupid" and couldn't take it any longer. He set up so many false arguments and used false analogies my eyes started burning.
Feel good self justification, not scientific debate. But to each their own. -
hooberus
Let me repeat that I'm not sure what's left when exclude evolution bashing from creationist accounts.
Speaking as a straightforward Biblical creationist I would say that what's "left" is a model of earth's history that creationists believe reflects the truth of how the world and its life came about. This model explains homologies (old definition), homoplasies, sharred biological universals, design in living things, vast global strata sediments, many fossil patterns, observations of creatures reproducing within basic kinds, etc.
-
Pole
hooberus,
Let me repeat that I'm not sure what's left when exclude evolution bashing from creationist accounts.
Speaking as a straightforward Biblical creationist I would say that what's "left" is a model of earth's history that creationists believe reflects the truth of how the world and its life came about.
So what does this model boil down to in scientific terms? What can be said about the act of creation in scientific terms, apart from a bunch of genesis-like statements, such as: "and on the second day God created amoebas".
I guess this problem is felt by the creationists you've pointed me to as manifested in the "biotic messaging" claims?
If so would you care to explain the biotic message carried by malicious viruses in one of your threads, instead of discussing even more "evidence against evolution"? (Sorry to repeat this again - but I'd interested to know how the adherents of intelligent design account for such cases.)
How can a "model of creation" be studied and verified if it becomes inherently mystical the moment we're done with bashing evolution?
This model explains homologies (old definition), homoplasies, sharred biological universals, design in living things, vast global strata sediments, many fossil patterns, observations of creatures reproducing within basic kinds, etc.
Fine, I guess it sounds good enough, but you're enumerating what you consider to be the material evidence for mystical creation. How does that explain the "mechanism" of creation? Or would you agree that creationism ultimately denies the scientific methodology by leading us in an apparently scientific fashion (90% of the time it's basically concerned with picking holes in evolution) to the unknowable act of creation?
Cheers,
Pole
-
stevenyc
"I find closed thinking 'brain garbage" -- qcmbr
"Doubtless it is a good thing to have an open mind, but a truly open mind should be open at both ends, like the food-pipe, with the capacity for excretion as well as absorption." --Northrop Frye
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." -- Richard Dawkins
steve
-
144001
What do creationists have to offer? Bull feces to placate the mind and dull the senses.
-
Evanescence
"scientific-creationism" class in highschool?
Funny enough there is a teacher at my school who teachers both science and r.e!
I went up to him one day and ask "how can you support both science and r.e they are two completly different things!"
The teachers reply was "no they're not! I'll talk to you about it someday" then he ran off!
Also there was a program that popped up called "Science talent quest" It involved creativity like photography, poems and creative writing but science related.
All the students responce was Hows that possible?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I asked my science teacher and she said that yes its about witing poems and taking pictures but it is science related. Why not use your talent but use it in science?
Evanescence
-
Evanescence
science claims that there was a big bang but they yet have not figured out what caused the big bang! it couldn't of just happened by itself?
Evanescence
-
hooberus
If so would you care to explain the biotic message carried by malicious viruses in one of your threads, instead of discussing even more "evidence against evolution"? (Sorry to repeat this again - but I'd interested to know how the adherents of intelligent design account for such cases.)
First of all it should be noted that while all biblical creationists (such as myself) believe in intelligent design, not all intelligent design advocates are biblical creationists. The following (from a biblical creationist prespective) may be helpful on the virus issue:
-
Pole
Hooberus,
Thanks for the link - I'll certainly look at the whole site as it seems to accumulate the best arguments creationists may come up with.
As for the link to the article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/viruses.asp) you have provided - I must honestly say it's one pathetic exercise in setting up a smokescreen and avoiding the real theological question. It is precisely this sort of responses that made me feel realize how much better it is to admit you have no answer at all than to make one up.
The article illustrates how to use scientific and half-scientific information to smuggle understatements based on an unshakeable agenda, some of which go as far as putting the blame on the person who dared ask the question about the existence of pathogenic viruses.
A point in case:
Evidently, inappropriate sexual acts by humans caused the transfer of a lentivirus from a monkey to humans. As long as the HIV lentivirus lived in monkeys, it was not a threat for humans. HIV in monkeys (called SIV), ?appears not to cause disease in most of its natural hosts?, and ?bacteria and viruses that cause disease today may not always have done so?.The same situation also is true of syphilis (apparently from sheep) and many other infectious diseases. Baboons resist being adversely infected by HIV, and for years researchers have been exposing certain animals to the virus without infecting them.
I truly encourage everyone to read the articles you've mentioned. They clearly show intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
Pole