[_ Old Earth _] Can "Creation Science" be dropped?

[Barbarian]

Declare victory and run away. Great tactics.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Declare victory and run away. Great tactics.

I prefer "Declare victory and march back home." But it is "Great tactics." :-D

 

[KenEOTE]

Your logic is baffling and quite frankly mystifying. I have no idea how you came to the above conclusions.

Deep for a guy who claims to be a deep thinker you are easily baffled and mystified.

The conclusion was very easy. I just simply switched words. Before I said Creation Science, then I said Evolution.

Read it slowly, it will eventually come to you.

Can you literally hold evolution in your hands? Can you literally hold creation science in your hands?

I just took your logic, becuase I thought you were such a deep thinker, and therefore would not say something illogical. Perhaps I gave you too much credit.
I have found that most Atheists don't have much of a sense of Humor, I blame it on there parents.

 

[Snidey]

[quote="Deep Thought":6c79b]....Yes, I love my wife and children. It can be detected scientifically as the brain produces certain chemical reactions and brain wave patterns when you are in love.....

Talk about bogus science!! If I look at some chemical reactions and brain wave patterns, that doesnt prove they are "love". We have only the word of the subject whose patterns are being tested that he is in love. He could be lying. That is not proof. If that is proof, then I have the word of armies of saints that they have had visions of God, and I can test their chemical reactions and brain wave patterns to prove it as well.

You have justy destroyed your credibility. Score "one" for the Catholic dude.

And on that high note, I'm outta here.[/quote:6c79b]

...lol. I guess you think declaring something untestable and declaring it untrue is the same thing. Sadly, while ranting about "bogus science" you easily reveal how little you know about the topic at hand. Your objections are ridiculous. He could be lying? We can tell if he's lying neurologically too. You believe relying on neuroscience is enough to destroy one's credibility? Then call this post a high note for you?

The fact is, comparing different people in clearly different stages of their lives can alert us to what emotions are associated with activity in what parts of the brain. If someone claims to be in love but is not, we can see that, too, because thousands of people have been scanned in such a way, meaning that anomalies (such as your liar) can be identified and weeded out.

Your final analogy is ridiculous. While you can't test God by testing the truthfulness of saints' visions of him, you CAN test whether or not they really believe that those visions occurred. The difference between this and love is that the reality of the existence of a god is separate from what is going on the in their heads. When two people believe they are in love, they almost certainly are, and can be shown to be so because we know what brains look like when they are in love.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the question now is, can anyone think of a thread topic Bob feels is not appropriate for some Patterson quote-mining?

the point is that GIVEN the horrible contrast of atheist darwinist blunders where EVEN the atheist darwinists THEMSELVS are whining about it -- why in the world would we FIRST go after YEC that is LACKING those hoaxes frauds blunders etc?

It makes no sense to BYPASS the elephant in the living room (Junk-science hoax based religion of atheist darwinism) and then say "yes but the YEC guy is ALSO a religioinist just as the atheist darwinist devotee -- he just doesn't have that glamorous hoax-history of Darwinism to ADD to it".

But -- I suppose another way to approach that is to "gloss over the details and pretend not to understand the point."

I will grant you that this is a common solution lately.

Put it another way GIVEN that Atheist Darwinists themselves argue "STORIES about HOW one thing came from another are stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP but they are NOT science" -- why in the world would those who pander to those admitted "stories" be going after YEC Christians who do NOT have the hoax-and-fraud history of junk-science to prop up YEC the way it is CONFIRMED to have been used for atheist darwinist "story telling"?

(Story telling that we agree is NOT SCIENCE)

Why do they continually then pretend to "miss the point" time after time?

(admittedly I am simply asking "the obvious question" here but -- atheist darwinist devotees seem to be stuck on "denying the obvious" with rabbit trail after rabbit trail side point)
Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I prefer "Declare victory and march back home." But it is "Great tactics."

Worked for the French, um?

 

[Deep Thought]

Your logic is baffling and quite frankly mystifying. I have no idea how you came to the above conclusions.

Deep for a guy who claims to be a deep thinker you are easily baffled and mystified.

The conclusion was very easy. I just simply switched words. Before I said Creation Science, then I said Evolution.

Read it slowly, it will eventually come to you.

Can you literally hold evolution in your hands? Can you literally hold creation science in your hands?

I just took your logic, becuase I thought you were such a deep thinker, and therefore would not say something illogical. Perhaps I gave you too much credit.
I have found that most Atheists don't have much of a sense of Humor, I blame it on there parents.

What you have done is take my original argument and distorted and twisted the logic, therefore your analogy is wrong.

BTW, you can hold fossils in your hand :D

 

[BobRyan]

Hint -- "Pot calls kettle black" -- People notice...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32890&p=389846#p389759

Pot complains and attempts rabbit trail after rabbit trail.

enter the Atheist darwinist devotees playing the part of "the pot" in this thread.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Creation Science look at the best evidence it can find and attributes it to God.. or if you prefer ID
Evolution Science look at the best evidence it can find and attributes that to a rock, that somehow can to life....

So who do I choose,, Rock or God..................... I think I will go with God... 8-) 8-)

*sigh*
Evolution mentions nothing about a rock. It doesn't actually say anything about the orgins of life, that would be abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis = Theory on how life formed =/= Evolution

This forum needs a bot to automatically correct everyone who makes that mistake, since it's made an awful lot.

Creation science also doesn't really work in the order you specified. It has a predetermined conclusion and it looks for evidence to support it.

On topic though, Creation "Science" will never be dropped, as unfortunate as that may be. It will wax and wane, change form, pick up and drop numerous fronts and names and continue to needle science whenever it smells blood in the water. With any luck it will fade as technology and education spreads to the masses, but -it's proponents belligerently impervious to reason and logic- I don't think it'll ever truly stop trying to poison the fountain of knowledge.

 

[KenEOTE]

BTW, you can hold fossils in your hand

True then we can both agree fossils can be dropped.
Now we have a place to start form a place we both agree.

Someday we might even become friends and go have a beer.

 

[BobRyan]

bump
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32890&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p389759