Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

I found it, now read it please


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
117 replies to this topic

#91    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:10 AM

Yes but we showed that to be false.

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#92    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:12 AM

Oh really??? Why dont you post in that thread and tell me whats false about it.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#93    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:13 AM

QUOTE
Creationism is a scientific theory as it meets all the same criteria that evolution meets for a scientific theory as I pointed out here.


And as I keep pointing out to you (and you keep ignoring) there is nothing scientific about the mythology of creationism. A scientific theory is arrived at be examination of facts. Creationism was arrived at BEFORE the examination of any facts, and then a desperate search for these facts went underway.

Creationism is a practice in which contradictions and facts that would disprove creation are utterly ignored, and peices of varying theories are cannibalised and altered to suit what you're trying to prove.

This is not scientific methodology; it's lying. What creationist "science" has done is twist the system as much as they can to try and find facts to support a conclusion they've already reached, to the exclusion of every fact that doesn't go towards proving their agenda. Science (i.e. the theory of evolution) was reached because it's what the facts...ALL the facts...led to.

There's a vast difference, and it lends far greater credibility to evolution...when all the facts are considered, as we've seen time and time again in this thread and others, creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on; most first year university students can tear it apart.

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#94    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:33 AM

Theres no reason the why the theory cant come before the data or 'facts' as you say. Theories are often proposed in the sceintific community, and then the data is found to support those theories. Einstein did this several times when formulating the theory of relativety. Therefore creationism is just as scientifc as any theory thats been proposed in scientific community which came before the data. original.gif

Where are the contradictions in what i have said about creationism? Oh please do point out.

Edited by Venomshocker, 18 May 2004 - 04:35 AM.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#95    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:40 AM

QUOTE
Theres no reason the why the theory cant come before the data or 'facts' as you say. Theories are often proposed in the sceintific community, and then the data is found to support those theories.


There has never been a scientific theory that did not have, at the very least, a logical base to it, and some kind of investigation to establish that, even if it could not be proven, it was at least a possibility.

Creationism has done no such thing. And even if we are to entertain the possibility that it did, the facts do NOT support it...what evidence that has been found to support creationism has been debunked; each and every scrap of it.

What 'facts' have been found, have been the result of a cannibilisation of actual scientific data, with huge chunks removed so that it better fits the arguement. To this day, there has never been any enduring arguement to support creationism...while the same arguements do crop up over and over from your side of the fence, they've all been debunked years ago huh.gif



Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#96    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:44 AM

The fact that speciation has not been proven is evidence for creationism. Try debunking that!

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#97    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:48 AM

There has been evidence of speciation presented to you earlier in the thread: you ignored it.

I see no need to repeat what someoone else has already explained to you if you hid from it the first time. However, even if speciation couldn't be proven, that is not proof of creationism; evolution has a great deal of further evidence behind it that would still support speciation, even if that fine point itself could not be absolutely proven.

Creationism offers evidence for none of its points (well...none that hasn't been debunked anyway). Even if evolution was to be established as unlikely, it would be a far cry from proving creationism.

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#98    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:52 AM

QUOTE
even if speciation couldn't be proven, that is not proof of creationism

I agree. Its not proof, but it  is evidence.
I would also like to point out evidence is and can be quite relativistic, where proof is not. I mean I see the fossil record as evidence of intelligent design, the laws of nautre, the existence of humans, I see these all as evidence of creationism. But that is completely relativistic from my point of view. You may see the same evidence and think it supports evolution. Either way the evidence is a matter of opinion. It cant be debunked either way!

Edited by Venomshocker, 18 May 2004 - 04:54 AM.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#99    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 05:05 AM

QUOTE
I agree. Its not proof, but it is evidence.


That's like saying, if it could be proven bigfoot didn't exist, that would be evidence for the loch ness monster. Disproving evolution (personally, I don't think it can be done...there's simply far, far too much evidence for evolution not to be the most accurate possibility of how life came about) would not make creationism any more or less likely...it would still have no evidence of its own.

You'd just be back to the drawing board on both sides of the fence (since all the evidence for creationism is drawn from a chop-shop method of taking theories from evolutionary science)

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#100    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 18 May 2004 - 05:30 AM

Venom your a smart fellow, but I think it is obvious that you just have to believe in a creator, and thats fine.

But what you seem to miss is that you can not take your own personal belief as such and try to match wits with hundreds of years of science inorder to factualize your belief.

Either your belief is scientifically viable or it is not. You want science to back you because you obviously love science, but your moving backwards with your belief by trying to shoe-fit with already established data.

You can not prove evolution wrong with belief in a creator, and by trying to prove evolution wrong with a creator you will still not prove a creator.

Theres only one way for you to prove to YOURSELF that there is a creator and it doesn't involve science......but I hope you don't take that route because the world is better with you in it. thumbsup.gif  

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#101    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 May 2004 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE
Either they a)evolved or b ) they were created. These are the only two logical options, and both are still sceintific theories and therefore should be considered


what about c) they have always existed


#102    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE
what about c) they have always existed

Not possible, the earth is only some 4.5 billion years old.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#103    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:49 PM

just because the whole idea of creation is based around God does not mean there cannot be scientific theory around it.  You seem to believe that all of science can only be believed by athiests and that's utter crap.  Many well respected and famous scientists are also religious.  Many scientists use science to try and prove creation.  There's not only one side of science.  Science is a process to determine facts from data collected and evolution isn't the only theory science has for the dawn of time.  Creation is also one of them.  If you refuse to believe that anything to do with God is a science because in your mind God doesn't exist, then that's your own opinion, but science isn't only there to prove God wrong.  Most evolutionists actually have said the more they dwell into evolution, the more they realize how impossible of a theory it is.  


#104    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 06:46 PM

QUOTE
Most evolutionists actually have said the more they dwell into evolution, the more they realize how impossible of a theory it is.


lol...Saucy, a vast majority of the scientific world agrees with the theory of evolution, because it is what all the facts currently point towards. There is nothing "impossible" about it, and the fact that a few splinter groups break away does not mean that "most" evolutionists, or anything like it, are abandoning their trust in it.

The fact that there are an increasing number of athiests in every generation is actaully suggesting the opposite original.gif

QUOTE
Many scientists use science to try and prove creation. There's not only one side of science. Science is a process to determine facts from data collected and evolution isn't the only theory science has for the dawn of time. Creation is also one of them.


As we keep trying to point out to you however, creationism science isn't science at all...it's more like politics. The conclusion to all the expiriments was reached before they even started (not that any expiriments have actually taken place...), and there is no attempt being made to find the truth....just a mad dash to find facts that might loosely support of the idea of creationism.

In creationist science, contradictions are ignored, opposing facts and known data are swept under the carpet, and anything that can be used to prove creationism is trimmed off the rest of the the theory it came from, and stuffed into this rather sad form of shoe-fit science....it's interesting to notice that all the evidence gathered in this way, when coupled with the theory it origonally came from to form the complete data, doesn't support creationism at all.

This ridiculous method isn't hard to see....you've even seen how every peice of evidence presented by creationism has been debunked already. This is because, as much as they try to ignore opposite veiw points and hope they go away, the fact is the arguements of evolutionists are far stronger, and what few facts are tried to force into place by creationists are easily proven to be invalid.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is creationism has nothing to do with scientific methodology....science is a search for the truth, based on a consideration of all the facts you have available. Creationism is the search for facts that support a veiw you've already reached, to the exclusion of everything that might contradict you.

Edited by Seraphina, 18 May 2004 - 06:47 PM.

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#105    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 18 May 2004 - 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Venomshocker @ May 18 2004, 05:44 AM)
The fact that speciation has not been proven is evidence for creationism. Try debunking that!

The fact that theres completely no proof or evidence of creationism is very strong evidence of evolution. Try debunking that!

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users