nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 155:
Line 155: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→If this is a joke, it's not that funny.: You need to learn more about the idea that you so readily dismiss.
Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:"''That one's new to me, too!''". Hmmm, it seems that there is a lot that you don't know. Perhaps you should read up on the creation/evolution debate a bit more (and not just from the evolutionary side).
:Michael Ruse is an anti-creationist who denied that evolution was a religion, then later admitted that it is treated that way. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/ here].
:I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a rational one (well, I believe that I am, just like you believe that you are). There ''is'' a concerted effort to push evolution. Whenever anyone suggests even that students ought to consider alternatives, the evolutionists come out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking) to prevent evolution even being questioned. The reason (not that they admit it)? Because at root this is a ''spiritual'' issue. Despite you (and many others) being Christians who believe in evolution, the atheists know that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, and belief in evolution has destroyed many a Christian's faith. Demonstrating that evolution may not in fact be true is therefore undermining one of the atheists' most important weapons.
:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being. But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.
:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''". That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.
:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''". You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before. And it's simply untrue. [[Physical science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists. So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science. Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].
:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''". Huh? What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?
:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''". Why is that?
:"''I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath.''". Who's tossing out geology? The dating methods can be tossed out because they don't stand up to scrutiny, partly because they are, in part, built on assumptions that rule out creation to start with. So using them to argue against creation is circular reasoning. And you just called thousands of scientists and other people "insane and delusional". That's a lovely way to make an argument.
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
== thanks! ==
== thanks! ==