Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[Dunenewt]

Caid, please give a better description of Entogenesy

[emprworm]

Anytime. However I think all you wanted were key words so you can search for an opposing web page. Such is the tactic you have been using extensively. About that link, the type of webpage first sets me off - Creation Science. This is in itself an oxymoron , and very doubtful of a reliable source to formulate conclusions. But towards the content of the webpage, first off, the most important axiom of radiometric dating is that the decay rate of the nuclide (of which the half-life is measured) is constant, nothing can affect it. Better explained is in these two paragraphs:

lol! And you accuse me of not listening Acriku? That was pathetic. Talk about ad-hominem fallacy.

I dont like your source for X

Therefore X is false

No true scottsman fallacy (*yawn* u still doing this? cmon)

No true scientist can be a creationist

Therefore your claim X is false

Acriku, will we ever move past these fallacies?

Now if you want reasonable debate, you will address those flaws in radiocarbon dating.

"creation science is an oxymoron"

How is this Acriku? Please explain how this can be the case.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, that was to sneezer... ;)

I questioned the source, as I should do for everything, but I still went on with the content as if it had a good source, and argued towards it thusly. I never said it was false.

Creation Science is an oxymoron because to put supernatural forces into this "science," makes it an oxymoron.

[emprworm]

Creation Science is an oxymoron because to put supernatural forces into this "science," makes it an oxymoron.

if a creation scientist talks about flaws in radiocarbon dating, how is that putting supernatural forces into anything?

A creation scientist discovered calculus. Was that an oxymoron?

[Acriku]

I said creation science is an oxymoron, but that doesn't mean valid points are not regarded as such, but there is a sense of doubt overhead because after all - the whole profession of this "scientist" is an oxymoron. But I bring out evidence to disprove it nonetheless.

[emprworm]

I said creation science is an oxymoron, but that doesn't mean valid points are not regarded as such, but there is a sense of doubt overhead because after all - the whole profession of this "scientist" is an oxymoron. But I bring out evidence to disprove it nonetheless.

i know you said creation science is an oxymoron- but I propose there is no such thing as "creation science". you (or some atheist) just invented that term. There is a such thing, however, as a creation scientist.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, just stop it right now, because for a creation scientist to exist, there must be a creation science. Elementary knowledge. The word creation before scientist is not the type of scientist, like a black scientist or german scientist, but what that scientist has been educated in, like a biology scientist is educated in biology. Not to say creation science is anything like biology science.

[sneezer3]

Well, breaking it apart is it the origin of words? It isn't in my dictionary though, and not in www.yourdictionary.com or www.dictionary.com.

maybe its that i have websters dictionary and a slightly old one they must have updated that word. but i think you know what i mean when i say fish with legs i mean a fish with legs that lives in the water.

If I said there should be much less of the population for it to be 6000 years old, you would want proof right? You would want some evidence to consider it as an argument? Well you have no proof, and no evidence on your side, so how do you expect me to consider it an argument? You are making a claim, so back it up.

I have backed it up and you have refused to see the chart. however this time after lots of searching i found one.

http://geography.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa061798.htm

Explan if we have been here for so long. how come the population isn't at least 30 billion.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, just stop it right now, because for a creation scientist to exist, there must be a creation science. Elementary knowledge. The word creation before scientist is not the type of scientist, like a black scientist or german scientist, but what that scientist has been educated in, like a biology scientist is educated in biology. Not to say creation science is anything like biology science.

this is simply false, Acriku. There is no such thing as creation science in the context you refer to it as. THere are scientists who believe in creation....

what exactly is "creation science" anyway? because I have no idea what it is.

[Dunenewt]

Well, breaking it apart is it the origin of words? It isn't in my dictionary though, and not in www.yourdictionary.com or www.dictionary.com.

maybe its that i have websters dictionary and a slightly old one they must have updated that word. but i think you know what i mean when i say fish with legs i mean a fish with legs that lives in the water.

Mudskipper?

[sneezer3]

Mudskipper?

it does depend on the defenition. but when i said a fish with legs. i ment a fish with legs

[Acriku]

I was talking about Caid's word entogenesy, not a fish ;)

I saw the chart, I didn't refuse, and frankly I don't find it perplexing. And how do you expect me to explain why it isn't 30 billion? Well... Let's see.

First off, what logical and reasonable reason do you have to ask that question? Is there evidence that the population of human people should be much higher?

Second, randomly occurring events such as earthquakes, floods, fires, diseases, plagues, volcano eruptions, etc, takes out a good number of organisms in a population. War has taken toll on hundreds of millions of lives. Lives that could have bred and made the population double. Plagues for people without proper medication and immunity wiped out tens of millions. Lives that only lasted half a century at best due to poor conditions, weak medical practices, etc. Now the population is enlarging at a faster rate due to better medical practices, more immunity and vaccines, better living conditions, etc.

So it isn't hard to imagine the population as it is today, because, well, it is.

this is simply false, Acriku. There is no such thing as creation science in the context you refer to it as. THere are scientists who believe in creation....

what exactly is "creation science" anyway? because I have no idea what it is.

Simply false? I just explained it to you, you won't acknowledge it. There are scientists who believe in creationism, but are biology scientists, biologists, but were educated in biology and continue their work in biology, that doesn't make them a creation scientist.

Creation science is applying science to creationism.

[emprworm]

Simply false? I just explained it to you, you won't acknowledge it. There are scientists who believe in creationism, but are biology scientists, biologists, but were educated in biology and continue their work in biology, that doesn't make them a creation scientist.

It makes them a scientist who believes in creation. "creation scientist" is an appropriate term. Just like an atheist who is a biologist could be properly called an "atheist biologist". Is the person a creationist? Yes. Is the person a biologist? Yes. SO whats the problem?

Creation science is applying science to creationism.

that is an impossible definition. "applying science" is a verb. Creation science appears to be a noun. I still do not know what "creation science" is.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, you do not understand. You are applying irrelevant adjectives to one's profession title. Whatever word before scientist tells what that scientist is educated under and continues work in or has worked in, not what their beliefs or lack thereof are.

Oh come on empr, surely you did not stoop that low. But for your childish semantics, let me put it this way: Creation science is the application of science to creationism. Does that make you happy? Changing the verb to a noun that was meant to be understood anyways is not what this debate is about.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, you do not understand. You are applying irrelevant adjectives to one's profession title. Whatever word before scientist tells what that scientist is educated under and continues work in or has worked in, not what their beliefs or lack thereof are.

Oh come on empr, surely you did not stoop that low. But for your childish semantics, let me put it this way: Creation science is the application of science to creationism. Does that make you happy? Changing the verb to a noun that was meant to be understood anyways is not what this debate is about.

give me an example of someone doing this. your whole premise is that the "application of science to creationism" is an oxymoron. fine. now show me an example where this is done by an actual scientist.

[Acriku]

www.creationscience.com is an example. Isn't that hard to research outside of this site ;)

[emprworm]

i am looking for a specific example, not a domain name. i dont believe there is a such thing as "creation science"

i am being honest. it does not exist. that is way i want you to cite an expiriment or something performed by a creation scientist that represents "creation science"

[Dunenewt]

It basically means the science behind the Creation theory

[sneezer3]

I was talking about Caid's word entogenesy, not a fish ;)

I saw the chart, I didn't refuse, and frankly I don't find it perplexing. And how do you expect me to explain why it isn't 30 billion? Well... Let's see.

First off, what logical and reasonable reason do you have to ask that question? Is there evidence that the population of human people should be much higher?

Yes.

Second, randomly occurring events such as earthquakes, floods, fires, diseases, plagues, volcano eruptions, etc, takes out a good number of organisms in a population. War has taken toll on hundreds of millions of lives. Lives that could have bred and made the population double. Plagues for people without proper medication and immunity wiped out tens of millions. Lives that only lasted half a century at best due to poor conditions, weak medical practices, etc. Now the population is enlarging at a faster rate due to better medical practices, more immunity and vaccines, better living conditions, etc.

Earthquakes have been way higher now then any recorded time in history(as predicted in the Bible) if there were many more there would be evidence of it. Floods and fires couldn't take that many lives. diseases plagues there would be evidence for such. and some of the really strong ones would still be in existance. There should be more people if we were here 3 million years. some basicly unexplored areas even.

So it isn't hard to imagine the population as it is today, because, well, it is.

Stuff like this isn't put in science books. as i have said before, evidenceotherwise is "censored" out of of the books.

[sneezer3]

that is an impossible definition. "applying science" is a verb. Creation science appears to be a noun. I still do not know what "creation science" is.

"Creation Science" means Creation plus science. as in applying Creation with science and saying it makes since along with science. The story of the seven day Creation can be found in the first book of the Bible.

:)

[emprworm]

that is an impossible definition. "applying science" is a verb. Creation science appears to be a noun. I still do not know what "creation science" is.

"Creation Science" means Creation plus science. as in applying Creation with science and saying it makes since along with science. The story of the seven day Creation can be found in the first book of the Bible.

:)

then here is the problem. when you say

"applying science" to "X"....this does not mean that the science is bad.

I can take the science of building rockets, and apply it to _____________ (fill in the blank).

Does that make the science of building rockets somehow untrustworthy or bad?

Applying science to ______X_______

My point is that regardless of any value for X, the SCIENCE is still completely valid and credible.

Hence there really is no such thing as "creation science". There is simply "applying science to creation theory". BUt that says nothing at all about the science.

[Acriku]

Yes.

I would be delighted to hear what that logical and reasonable reason would be.

Earthquakes have been way higher now then any recorded time in history(as predicted in the Bible) if there were many more there would be evidence of it. Floods and fires couldn't take that many lives. diseases plagues there would be evidence for such. and some of the really strong ones would still be in existance. There should be more people if we were here 3 million years. some basicly unexplored areas even.

There is no reason to think that the tectonic plates are moving faster and faster now. And also, there may be more earthquakes now because back then there were no methods like today to report such occurrences other than writing it down in a story, but my point is that we basically have our eye on the whole world and an earthquake won't get by us, but back then not that many people were living so many earthquakes could have happened but not reported.

And fires and floods do take many lives, they can wipe out entire populations, just think of the fires raging in the US without any help getting them out - they won't go out by themselves for a long while, if at all.

And floods can't take out that many lives? What about Noah's Flood? ;) Ok joking aside, floods can vary in size - wiping out populations not adapted to water at all. As for the unexplored areas comment, this is a huge planet in respect to our sizes, so put 10 billion people on this earth and most of the planet will still not be explored (the ocean, deep forests in the Amazon).

Diseases and plagues leave evidence - dead bodies. Also, viruses can lay dormant for a long time before occurring again. We have the Black Plague in Europe during Shakespeare's time, do you think plagues started to appear at that time or did this happen a long time before?

Stuff like this isn't put in science books. as i have said before, evidenceotherwise is "censored" out of of the books.

That article is completely stocked with opinions and an additional link to sell his book, he claims that it is impossible for abiotic synthesis to occur, when it is very possible. I wish he would pick up the science book (AP Biology) I am reading, it explains it all so well. Abiotic synthesis of monomers to line up amino acids from your basic elements to form a short strand of RNA that would be a catalyst (ribozyme) and self-replicate and off goes on life. This is a hypothesis, with evidence to support it due to lab experiments where scientists have created an atmosphere similar to the early earth atmosphere with voltage running through and with abiotic monomers and after a while organic compounds were formed. It isn't fully concluded to be the accepted theory, but it's a start.

Hence there really is no such thing as "creation science". There is simply "applying science to creation theory". BUt that says nothing at all about the science.

Why do you always seem to go on and on about inconsequential arguments? If there is no such thing as creation science, drop www.creationscience.com a message so they can change their non-existant name.

[emprworm]

"Why do you always seem to go on and on about inconsequential arguments? If there is no such thing as creation science, drop www.creationscience.com a message so they can change their non-existant name."

i dont care what someone else says. I am asking you what exactly it is. I don't believe in something called "creation science" and I would like to know specifically what you think it is. Since you tell me it doesn't exist (or is a contradiction), then obviously you have some idea as to precisely what it is right?

you said "applying science to creation" (or something like that).

but how does applying science to X have any effect on the science?

[Acriku]

i dont care what someone else says. I am asking you what exactly it is. I don't believe in something called "creation science" and I would like to know specifically what you think it is. Since you tell me it doesn't exist (or is a contradiction), then obviously you have some idea as to precisely what it is right?

you said "applying science to creation" (or something like that).

but how does applying science to X have any effect on the science?

All I know about creation science is that the two words together are an oxymoron, which was a joke I pointed out but somehow it blew up in my face. I also know a bit of what it is, but I've already told you what I know so anything else you want to know go to www.creationscience.com

Applying science (nature) to creationism (supernature) has effect on the science because you can't test it, and the evidence can be interpreted to provide evidence towards the bible which would be subjective evidence, because using science to provide evidence for supernatural events and beings is ludicrous.

[emprworm]

Applying science (nature) to creationism (supernature) has effect on the science because you can't test it

ahhh but here is where (i believe) you are wrong. it has no effect on the science it has an effect only on your conclusions.

the science itself is fully valid!!

Example: a scientist who believes in God has hypothesized, with evidence, that the speed of light may not be constant through time and is slowing down entropically along with the rest of the universe. (this is a real example).

This would mean that he universe may be younger than we thought (since light traveled faster in the past).

This is the SCIENCE PART. This is fully valid science. A scientist has a theory, and has evidence to support it. It has nothing...NOTHING to do with the supernatural.

He then applies this as evidence to support his view that the universe is 10,000 years old (or whatever his religion tells him)

Now, what you are saying (as I see it) is simply that because he has some kind of religion and he is using his theory to support his religion, therefore the 'science' is unreliable.

Well I'm telling you this is hogwash. Regardless of what he attempts to apply his theory to, the theory that light may be slowing down is a completely valid scientific theory that should not be discounted by anyone solely because the man that first theorized it happens to use it to support his theistic views.

i am telling you that I don't believe in 'creation science'. I believe in science. Period. From science, we draw conclusions as to whether or not there is a supernatural or not. Your conclusions are fully, 100% irrelevant to the science you use to draw them from.