Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

[bmolsson]

The discussion starts to feel like the movie 13th floor.....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.

As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock


In other words like I said thier cluless on the matter of where matter came from.

[Papewaio]

Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand. Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.

On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand.

Im not talking about the big bang theory

Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.

It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god. Again I think a combination of the two is the most likely scenario. Of course you are free to think what you like but you cannot prove anything. You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.

I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...

Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.

I am sure you and many creationist will be happy the day someone will come up with some evidence that evolution is flawed or Big Bang was the wrong idea about it all; oddly, it will be the vctory of science. That's how science works. Then the next theory will come up and will be tested and tried again. Until it fails too. And then we start again. It will never end.
That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.

Louis,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.

Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?

I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...

Thas basicly what I said.

Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.
.

I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.

I am sure you and many creationist

Whoa whoa whoa . Im no creationist. I dont believe that god created the earth in 6 days . If anything Im a total skeptic. I dont believe anything you cant prove to me for the most part. This is why I stopped being a catholic. I question everything. Ive said this in the past but I really try to look at bothsides of an arguement to the point where I can usually argue either side pretty well. I guess its because Im a Gemini. Astrology now theres a science

That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.

I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?

LOL.

Thas basicly what I said.

Certainly not.

I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.

And college degrees are absolute bullshit. I know trouble are coming when someone says "I know this, I studied it in college". College is the basic, like the alphabet, the very first step of education.
You learn to read in college, but you have not read anything yet. Real stuff starts later. Don't bring degrees to the discussion, as they are irrelevant anyway.

You sure don't know it very well, or we would not have this discussion.

...

I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAR WINNER IN SCIENCE.
It's only a question of not failing yet.

On the other hand, THERE IS NO WAY CREATIONISM CAN "LOSE", and that's the reason why it does lose as a science.

(go ahead pick again a contradiction... )

Can't you see that backing both horses is not a consistent position?

Louis,

[bmolsson]

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

The energy comes from Bubba.

[Papewaio]

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

Quantum Vacuum.

[Paul Peru]

It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god.

There is, however, no evidence that fits better with the existence of any deity than with its non-existence.

You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.

No it isn't, for reasons others have stated.
Scientific theories are based on empirical observations, and can be proved wrong.

Religion is based on hearsay, brain disorders etc., and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways. We can show how the systems of belief currently in fashion have evolved from earlier ones, though.

Minor concession: You may say that "Thunder and lightning is caused by the god Thor riding across the sky with his paraphernalia" was a scientific theory, because it was as good an shot at explaining it as the people who believed it had. It is now proven to be wrong, and noone believes in it anymore.
Most natural phenomena have reasonable scientific explanations by now. This is very useful. One problem remains: How come the universe exists? Of course we wouldn't be wondering if it didn't. "God created it" may be as good an answer as any, but given the track record of religious attemts at giving explanations for real stuff, I'd say probably not. Which deity the creator would be is also something for which no convincing argument has been heard, and how come that deity existed in the first place? Turtles all the way down?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

...and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways.

One got to love when typo meet poetry



Louis,