Why creation science is an oxymoron

Quote from jem:

that is some good stuff. You have put together a very intriguing construct based on your faith. I will grant you that.

You should take all your contributions from ET - put them into some organized pattern and write a book. I fear it may screw many people up... but I would like to see the chronicles of the et gnostic.
More...

Thanks for the encouragement. I will consider it. If and/or when something comes out, I'll let you know. Peace.
 
Quote from jem:

I have often wondered if it were possible that the universe reorganizes in response to a discovery.
More...

Yes. When it is discovered what it is (ie. nothing, imagination) it may begin to shift in response to the percievers attitudes, primarily attitudes about S/self. Attitudes about Self are primarily what the perciever is seeing (appearing externally). With a higher Self-esteem, one may see a better world...until all one sees is the World of Go(o)d. When one sees the World of Go(o)d, one is knowing Self as Self is...as Self was created.

P.S. The Knower does not "see". Seeing is alien to what knows all. Seeing is an aspect of believing. The believer does not know (anything).

did the universe really exist that way before it was observed?
More...

No. It's "existence" and observation are simultaneous. If there were no observer, it would be "nothing". Even while it is observed, it remains "nothing".

If light can have a nature dependent on the observer - what else does?
More...

All of time/mass. Once could argue that mass is gravitationally trapped light. I mainly say that time/mass are beliefs that are observed as they are manifested.

To comprehend this, one must credit his mind with more power than is understood by the common man. And one must also open his mind to the possibility that there are not many minds, but one mind responsible for what is observed.
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

"creation science" ...

LOL

you know what I've found ... the "smartest" people say the most idiotic things
More...
Not my phrase, dumbass.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

Quote from FeenixRizin:

further, it's a rare event when someone references thermodynamics when explaining their faith
More...
Not rare for this forum.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2720634#post2720634

What, you thought I just decided to post this thread out of the blue? LOL
 
Quote from Barth Vader:

1) I am speaking of macro-evolution as defined by Huxley and Darwin, not micro or adaptation.

2) Thank you for catching that. I mis-stated my point. I meant to say that I concede your point that evolution could occur in an open system, however, any laboratory exercise to obtain quantitative data supporting the thesis would be occuring on a closed system.

3) No. Solar energy would be sufficient for much of the theory, however the magnitude of the ordering (keeping in mind the baseline of the starting point, molecules-to-man) would hypothetically require non-random energy such as magnetic, electro-chemical, surface tension, gravitational, etc.. In other words, ordered energy in addition to random energy.

My analogy of the computer laying on the ground, waiting for solar radience (random energy)to start it, would obviously require an ordered energy potential such as the solar panel or a connection to a power source.

I quote Gish ( The Origin of Biological Order and the Second Law):

"...The evolutionary scenario begins with a primitive earth surrounded by a primordial atmosphere of simple gases bombarded by the deadly destructive ultraviolet light of the sun and electrical discharges. Somewhere in all of this, according to evolutionists, exists a remarkable mechanism. This mechanism is so all-powerful, all-pervasive, so precisely effective and specifically directed that it is sufficient to conquer the all-pervasive unceasing tendency of matter to become disordered.

This mechanism would have to be so powerful, so all-pervasive that it would be obvious to all scientists, regardless of their philosophical persuasion. After a careful search of much of the literature on this subject, however, I have failed utterly to find it. Certainly a thorough search of the publications of Prigogine, Blum, Morowitz and others fails to uncover it. Suggestions have been many - crystallization, open systems with flow-through of energy, differential rates of movement toward disorder, irreversible thermodynamics with sudden movements far from equilibrium, epicycles with autocatalytic molecules. All fail close scrutiny............"
More...
1) The vast majority of biologists don't accept this distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" invented by creation scientists.

2) "I concede your point that evolution could occur in an open system, however, any laboratory exercise to obtain quantitative data supporting the thesis would be occuring on a closed system." I fail to see the validity of this assumption. Plenty of experiments take place in open systems. Furthermore, if evolution did take place in a closed system, that would be iron-clad proof that no net decrease in entropy was taking place as a result of evolution. Again, there is no violation of the second law.

3) You keep referring to solar energy as "random". It is highly directional, high-order energy. It can be directly converted to electricity with little waste.

Creation scientists (scientists devoted to a literal interpretation of Genesis) turn a blind eye to all contradicting evidence. They've done this not only with origins, they've done it with evolution, which is entirely post-origins. Biological evolution is separate from abiogenesis, yet both are rejected because they contradict the account in Genesis. That is not a scientific viewpoint, that is a dogmatic religious viewpoint.
 
I believe - but I fail to understand why anyone would pin their creation science to a literally 6 days of 24 current hours. Do creation scientists really do that?

The bible was most likely written in what hebrew -- would not we want to figure out what the meaning of the original hebrew is? I could not care less what the king james version says - if we can figure out what the source says.

But even in the King James version -

The bible says in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. It does not say how long the heavens and the earth existed. The day was not started until he created light and divided the light from the darkness.

I see no reason to think that first day was 24 hours.
 
Quote from jem:

I believe - but I fail to understand why anyone would pin their creation science to a literally 6 days of 24 current hours. Do creation scientists really do that?
More...
Yes, they do.
Quote from jem:

The bible says in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. It does not say how long the heavens and the earth existed. The day was not started until he created light and divided the light from the darkness.

I see no reason to think that first day was 24 hours.
More...
The heavens to the ancient Hebrews were a solid canopy that separated "the waters above" (rain) from "the waters below". The heavens didn't get filled with the sun, the moon, and the stars until the fourth day (after photosynthetic plants were made btw). So basically 99.9999999999999999% of the universe was made in one day, almost as an afterthought. The Hebrews had no clue that stars were more than pretty lights in the sky so it was easy to treat them as an afterthought.
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

hmmmmm, ...

"creation science" MOST CERTAINLY IS YOUR TERMINOLOGY (so is "DENIER")
More...
"Creation science" is not my invention, it was invented by those who proudly call themselves "creation scientists".

And I've never said the d-word in this website. Did you forget to take your meds? :confused:
 
Quote from jem:

I believe - but I fail to understand why anyone would pin their creation science to a literally 6 days of 24 current hours. Do creation scientists really do that?

The bible was most likely written in what hebrew -- would not we want to figure out what the meaning of the original hebrew is? I could not care less what the king james version says - if we can figure out what the source says.

But even in the King James version -

The bible says in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. It does not say how long the heavens and the earth existed. The day was not started until he created light and divided the light from the darkness.

I see no reason to think that first day was 24 hours.
More...

hey jem i found another religious bible is literal nutcase who uses slightly more convoluted thinking than you do. enjoy:
http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress...nt-torah-doubted-treated-lightly-quaint-fair/
 
Quote from kut2k2:

"Creation science" is not my invention, it was invented by those who proudly call themselves "creation scientists".

And I've never said the d-word in this website. Did you forget to take your meds? :confused:
More...


no I did not forget ... I have a guinness popped ...

"creation science" is a slander to anyone who dares to admit that they will never fully know (and those who dare to challenge those who claim to ... )


you see, your belief system requires just as little discernment as that which you ridicule. At least that which you ridicule has redemptive value
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top