"Inadvertent", My Ass....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:01 pm

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

3 minutes...what took you so long?? actually it is but it is not accepted by non-religious scientists so it is declared non-scientific.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:06 pm

Catching up.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:20 pm

Actually,creationism is not science ,it is religion and has no place in classroom .

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:41 pm

I'll agree that churches don't have to teach evolution. If they prefer fairy tales then they have the constitutional right to teach fairy tales.

Of course, then don't whine when colleges refuse to accept their curriculum for entrance credit.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:21 am

Actually,creationism is not science

ha!ha!ha! since you cannot prove the origin of man or the universe via evoutionary science, it would stand to reason that evolution is not science but a faith or a religion. (it takes more faith to believe that evolution is a viable option than it does to believing God is the creator).

the creation account can be studied scientifically, but only if people are willing to hear the truth.

Of course, then don't whine when colleges refuse to accept their curriculum for entrance credit.

they would just go to a religious college then...

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:41 am

they would just go to a religious college then...

And perpetuate their ignorance!

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:05 am

quote Arch:a!ha!ha! since you cannot prove the origin of man or the universe via evoutionary science, it would stand to reason that evolution is not science but a faith or a religion. (it takes more faith to believe that evolution is a viable option than it does to believing God is the creator).
Actually it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt .Of course not everything is perfectly proven.But the framwork is layed out ,everything concords .Look at it as a puzzle .As you progress and fit the pieces together ,there will be moments when you will have to look hard to find some of them,you will try some and find out they don't fit,some might be missing .
Untill now you have proved numerous times that you are biased to science,too ignorant about it ,yoy apparently lack every understanding of it ,you have a problem with the use of perfectly defined words,tending to give new meanings to them .You don't even understand the simplest notion of evolution at all .You dismiss evidence when contradictory to your belief ,etc.May we all remind you here that it takes more than to storm here in this forum with knowledge of one book and use that as a standard to measure science,I am now talking of the bible .Had you been born in Iran you would cite the Coran .

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:37 am

Trying to sidestep the religious bun-fight, has the "oversight" been corrected yet?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:13 am

Hey Rene and min,

Are you talking about generic evolution (genetic variation within gene pools), or are you talking about Darwinian evolution, where goo morphs into you?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:30 am

please don't encourage him. He can actually talk fairly reasonably when he wants to.....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:12 pm

Actually it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt

only to those who do not accept the creation account. knowing the falacies and errors of the theory, it is easy to see how one must convince themselves that evolution is true. it helps, of course, that many creationists do not display God in their lives which would overcome many of the stumbling blocks they create.

i can never accept evolution because i have proven to my satisfaction that it is not true. even if one just looked at the idea that mutations in finches is extroplated to justify the other parts of the theory that they cannot observe or verify. that one thing alone undermines any credibility evolution may have hoped to contain.

to be unable to verify their main points is also just cause to eliminate evolution from any contention of being an alternative to the genesis account. then to expect people to take their word for it when they refuse to do the same for other perspectives is just hypocritical and wrong. that too demonstrates the weakness of what they propose and undermines the idea that evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

at best that concept proposed by rene is just wishful thinking and a pipe dream meant to convince people that the evolutionary scientists are right when in reality they are not even close to such an ideal.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:49 pm

only to those who do not accept the creation account

Which is anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:40 pm

Which is anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

why don't you refute what i said with facts and links instead being a sideline commentator who posts unconstructive dialogue.

show me where you see evolution in practice that provides direct observation of man evolving from an ape or monkey. without that observation it is unverifiable and unprovable and remains conjecture.

sorry but fossils are not proof, nor is conjecture, declatory statements, wishful thinking and i would need to see the evolution process in action myself.

again people who come up with the general statements about 'the mtns. of evidence' yet it is a flimsy bid to try and convince themselves that it is true.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:42 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Which is anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.
why don't you refute what i said with facts and links instead being a sideline commentator who posts unconstructive dialogue.

show me where you see evolution in practice that provides direct observation of man evolving from an ape or monkey. without that observation it is unverifiable and unprovable and remains conjecture.

sorry but fossils are not proof, nor is conjecture, declatory statements, wishful thinking and i would need to see the evolution process in action myself.

again people who come up with the general statements about 'the tns. of evidence' yet it is a flimsy bid to try and convince themselves that it is true.

Who was around during the 7 days of creation to verify that?

Why are fossils not proof?

Damn - I'm feeding the trolls again.... Sorry Min.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:03 pm

[quote="archaeologist"]
. . . . the crusades, which was orchastrated by the catholics not the christians. nor do i agree with the salem witch trials yet you want to hold those of us accountable for all those things we had nothing to do with.
and it isn't guilt by association.[/quote]

Arch, the Catholics did not come into being as a separate religion until the 16th century after the protestant reformation. So the Crusaders were all just plain old Christians.

What makes you think Christians had nothing to do with the Salem witch trials? And it twere't the Cathoics either. bub.