Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creation Science at its best

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JasperST View Post
    It can be. We just had a long discussion on this and it got deleted, I suspect that this is a retaliation thread for hurt feelings.

    The creationist point of view is constantly being misrepresented. Theists are all over the map on it, but the most fundamentalist biblical point of view gets represented as the norm. That's because those who prefer a secular answer, even though there are none are insecure with their own position.
    On the previous thread that the moderators inexplicably deleted, you went through great lengths to state that ID was not the same as creationism, yet in this thread you are defending creationism and appear to be conflating the two. It seems like we have a little cognitive dissonance on your part, Jasper.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
      Newtons Laws are that...Laws, meaning they have irrefutable proof and evidnece supporting them..perfect no, but a Law is much more proven than a Theory...
      Advances in science, Using the Scientific method, Have shown the newtons 2nd law need modification in the theory of relativity. Also, Newtons 3rd law seems to fall apart in quantum mechanics. Two areas that were developed well after Newton. It just shows the improvements in science and the understanding of the systems on our blue ball.

      Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
      True, evolution remains sound, Evolution is not. There is a difference between the two. evolution undoubtedly occurs, it is seen all the time and has a great deal of science to support it...Evolution (Darwinism if you prefer) is not sound and has no proof. There is only supposition. If it were irrefutable as many believe and try to state it would be the Law of Evolution..
      Darwin's evolutionary theory is the foundation of evolution. Science has added to it to make it stronger and has questioned aspects of it as well. That's what the scientific method is all about. It's odd that you can except and invisible man in the sky, but you don't understand how the scientific method works.

      Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
      OK, bu creationism and ID are mutually exclusive. All I want is for the science to be correct. So much of what has been put forward as science is really been art disguised as science. The Hoeckls wood carvings of embryo's....a known fraud but still used in modern day biology classes and used to illustrate evolution as a fact...(also another thing which took well over 100 years to correct but EVERY evolutionary scientist believed, and some still do) Archeoraptor, Piltdown, Nebraska man, etc, etc...these are things which taken individually may mean very little, but, when taken as a whole indicate a pattern of thought which leads to doubt as to the motives of the scientists and by extension, their work.
      Do you type in"against evolution" in a search engine and take bits and pieces from the stuff you find? You know the argument that Darwin used Haeckel as inspirations is just a horrible argument! Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 and the descent of man 1871 before Haeckel posted his illustrations of embryos in 1874.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BigPat View Post
        Read the end of the article, the museum curator is a YEC and he is displaying the fossil to try and show the fallibility of science.
        The point is probably most YECists don't agree with it and YECists are not even a majority of Christians, let alone theists. So it pointless to make an issue out of it, especially since there's been frauds adopted by the scientific community.
        Why does there have to be a motive? Why do people so easily jump to the assumption that man is somehow the end result of a grand plan?
        He is far from being a Christian or even a theist in any traditional sense, his training was bio-science and he was speaking generally about self organizing increasing complexity.

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=JasperST;2034149]That's an excellent example of secular bias, I was thinking of that one. I remember being taught that human embryos had gills because we came from fish.

          The area were gills develop for fish is the Pharyngeal arch. I know parts of the branchial pouches form into our larynx but, I will have to check what else it does form into.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BigPat View Post
            On the previous thread that the moderators inexplicably deleted, you went through great lengths to state that ID was not the same as creationism, yet in this thread you are defending creationism and appear to be conflating the two. It seems like we have a little cognitive dissonance on your part, Jasper.
            I don't know why it was deleted either, I assumed something was said after I left it last.

            I have only defended creationism in the general sense. I think you misunderstood Pirsig's quote. All ID proponents believe an intelligent designer created the universe, hence the term. They do not all adopt biblical creationism and even biblical creationists differ widely on what it means.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JasperST View Post
              I don't know why it was deleted either, I assumed something was said after I left it last.

              I have only defended creationism in the general sense. I think you misunderstood Pirsig's quote. All ID proponents believe an intelligent designer created the universe, hence the term. They do not all adopt biblical creationism and even biblical creationists differ widely on what it means.
              People like Dr. Ken Miller Ar. Francisco Ayala are theists that support the Darwinian theory of evolution and have fought vigorously against the idea known as "intelligent design". While they certainly believe in a creator, they have opposed the pseudoscience of teh Discovery Institute and their ilk.

              As for Pirsig's quote, it doesn't matter if he is a theist or atheist, his assumption that there must be a "motive" seems unwarranted to me.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                I don't know why it was deleted either, I assumed something was said after I left it last.

                I have only defended creationism in the general sense. I think you misunderstood Pirsig's quote. All ID proponents believe an intelligent designer created the universe, hence the term. They do not all adopt biblical creationism and even biblical creationists differ widely on what it means.

                I made this point in the other thread that got deleted for some reason.

                4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

                I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
                William A. Dembski He is a senior fellow for the Discovery institute.
                http://www.ask.com/bar?q=+William+De...=1256140490747

                Now that is why I asked you in the previous thread who was the designer. The designer in all generic terms can be used to slot whoever your personal religious god is. However, you have one of the major spokes person for ID coming out and stating the Designer is the Christian god. So know the argument that ID is just creationism using science to help support the teaching of the Christian religion. Even Using the assumption of ID is discrediting the bible in every way.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                  He is far from being a Christian or even a theist in any traditional sense, his training was bio-science and he was speaking generally about self organizing increasing complexity.
                  I just looked up who he is, he is not a scientist, he is the "Author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                    You know the argument that Darwin used Haeckel as inspirations is just a horrible argument! Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 and the descent of man 1871 before Haeckel posted his illustrations of embryos in 1874.
                    You do realize that Haeckel is still used in biology classes despite not being true? At no point did I say anything about Darwin using Haeckel, I talked about school books currently using it.
                    A Veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America, for an amount up to, and including their life. That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
                      You do realize that Haeckel is still used in biology classes despite not being true? At no point did I say anything about Darwin using Haeckel, I talked about school books currently using it.
                      In my biology book that i have kept from college. I only have CT scans or ultra sounds of embryos and drawings from those scans. That was in the mid 90's.

                      The Haeckel drawings had some artistic influences in them. Haeckel's Recapitulation theory is basically rejected by modern biological standards. Now the study of embryo's in the early 1800's was barbaric to say the least. Human embryo's were only obtained from abortions, miscarriages or death of the mother. A bit different now when study can be done with living subjects.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                        In my biology book that i have kept from college.

                        The Haeckel drawings had some artistic influences in them. Haeckel's Recapitulation theory is basically rejected by modern biological standards. .
                        High School bio still uses it...it was not about artistic license, they were outright lies. They did not accurately represent what he purported them to be. He said they were at the same stage of develpment, they were not. Some were literally months apart and he cherry picked the ones he used to fit his preconceived idea.
                        A Veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America, for an amount up to, and including their life. That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
                          High School bio still uses it...it was not about artistic license, they were outright lies. They did not accurately represent what he purported them to be. He said they were at the same stage of development, they were not. Some were literally months apart and he cherry picked the ones he used to fit his preconceived idea.
                          The only information I can find that his drawings are still used in biology books is from the anti evolution websites mainly the ones licensed by the discovery institute and the discovery institute website itself. I really can't imagine them using drawings from the 1800's in JR high and High school level biology books. I do have some family friends that their kids are in JR high. So when I get a chance I'll check it out.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                            The only information I can find that his drawings are still used in biology books is from the anti evolution websites mainly the ones licensed by the discovery institute and the discovery institute website itself. I really can't imagine them using drawings from the 1800's in JR high and High school level biology books. I do have some family friends that their kids are in JR high. So when I get a chance I'll check it out.
                            Let me know, I can only go by what I have read. I know back in the 70's (still called it middle school when I went) I remember seeing them.
                            A Veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America, for an amount up to, and including their life. That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              This is scientific process at it's best. Ida which was touted as a missing link is now label a distant relative.

                              By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer – Wed Oct 21, 5:09 pm ET
                              NEW YORK – Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
                              In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

                              He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

                              Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, "The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor."
                              http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/...versial_fossil

                              Comment


                              • #45




                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3248 users online. 243 members and 3005 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X