Creationism · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#21

Start with the conclusion, then work your way backward.

erjaq wrote:

Yeah. Treat it like a drunken Vegas weekend.
=p~

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#22

Wow, are you myopic. I paraphrased what you said. I find your justification is funny. Since all scientific evidence proves creationism invalid there is nothing I need to prove to you. Instead of trying to justify creationism with invalid points, why not just say you believe in creationism? You could even say based on your religious beliefs you believe in creationism. But when wheel says creationism is the same as evolution and intelligent design proves it I have to laugh because that argument cannot be suported. I have tried not to discredit your arguments. I have decided to quit doing that. If you see that as anger that is your problem not mine.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#23

The real question is:
Do Creationists believe in the Brontosaurus?

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#24

TG, well played.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#25

What about the Flintstones..?? 😕

jackconrad
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#26

Science still has not answered who put the stuff here to start everything from the Universe to animals...

Science is not always right either , it is a fairly young practice that is in only the infant stages of it's evolution..

Just like young people always think they are right about things
So does young science think that way too.

But as both mature they realize that they were simplistic and immature in their early stages and as result were wrong about many things.

So those who argue for science should think about these things and realize that mankind cannot grasp all concepts yet .

Edited by user 12 years ago | Reason: Not specified

TMCTLT
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#27

gryphonms wrote:

Wow, your another wordsmith who thinks he smarter than everyone else too. Worlds full of them these days!! Not a highly religious person believe it or not, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that a group of scientists hold " The Truth " on how the World began....sorry. Just never have been one to let another piss down my leg and tell me it's raining....
Your just another dude who obviously believes everything he reads. Yay

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#28

There you go again with fact less statements.

I have never said I am smarter than anyone else. That is an assumption on your part.

I have never said I believe science blindly. Again you are making an assumption. When the amount of empirical data is vast, it is easy to discern what is true and what is not.

You find it arrogant to believe scientists, I find it to be common sense when scientists as a who believe the same thing.

fiddler898
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#29

Creationism & "Intelligent Design" (now there's an oxymoron for you) are basically what's called a "God of the Gaps" theology, which is both fallacious and just bad theology. I'm actually mildly surprised whenever people of faith resort to it, as it tends to undermine the foundation of their own positions.

TMCTLT
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#30

gryphonms wrote:

The adjectives "creation" and "evolution" get added to the term "science" when the matter of presuppositions and conclusions are dealt with. There is no scientist anywhere in the world who does not hold to some kind of presuppositional truth in his own life. That which he considers true will invariably color his understanding of the science he is involved with. Thus, those who believe evolution to be true will see their work in terms of evolution theory. Those who believe creation to be true will see their work in terms of creation theory. Each will form conclusions based on what they consider true in the first place. The data can be exactly the same, but the conclusions can be radically different because of this. Thus, "creation science" is not a separate science itself, but a way of looking at science through the eyes of those who believe, in whatever form, that the universe and all life was the result of creation by some kind of deity.

Pretty well covers it in my mind...thank you.

Edited by user 12 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

12 years ago

#31

Science still has not answered who put the stuff here to start everything from the Universe to animals...

jackconrad wrote:

Jack... this is the fundamental problem with creationists or IDers... The instances where science has not yet found an answer are NOT proof of a god. The bible still hasn't answered who put the god in the sky... does that prove all evolution is correct suddenly? Stop thinking so binary.

Science is not always right either , it is a fairly young practice that is in only the infant stages of it's evolution..

Just like young people always think they are right about things
So does young science think that way too.

I agree. Many times science comes up with the incorrect answer. But do you know how we determine that? Through continued use of the scientific method to then disprove it. Religion has never proven science to be incorrect. To abandon the scientific methodology in favor for religious quackery simply because a scientist is incorrect is just plain stupid.

But as both mature they realise that they were simplistic and immature in their early stages and as resuly were wrong about many things.

So those who argue for science should think about these things and realise that mankind cannot grasp all concepts yet .

.... so because we "cannot grasp all concepts yet" we're supposed to abandon scientific thought and start believing in things which have not proof? That's not good decision making. Smart decision making would be to try to improve our ability to understand things by gathering more and more information about the universe we live in.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#32

like.. Where did BigFoots come from..?? 🤔 🤔

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#33

No Drafter, more like gathering data about your lunch habits to make logical decisions about the next restaurant to build near your workplace.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#34

using my past data prolly wouldn't be very logical... they should ask if I'd like something new.... 😟

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#35

True, I was giving a very straight forward example of statistical analysis being used to determine a potential outcome. This is very simplistic in form, but does support the basic concept that science can answer questions. Though in truth the stretch is that this is math and not science. But I think it illustrates the concept for you, enough empirical data will often lead to an accurate conclusion. Though the point that must always be considered is how much data is enough to be conclusive. If anyone wants to expound on this or show it's flaws please do as it is a quickly thought out example.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#36

Al Gore invented the universe.

Evolution made it more universey.

I love how everything just appeared without saying something at some point WAS created.

eye2
Connoisseur

12 years ago

#37

It's more probable (not more truthful) that we are a computer simulation running on some kid's computer.

Look at the game called The Sims. It's not very sophisticated of course. But it only took a decade to make and millions of copies are there running the simulation. The Earth, by contrast, took 4,500,000,000 years to make and there is only one. What would a Sims-like game say 1 billion years in the future look like (considering that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old and some civilization may have a billion year leg up on us)? It would be a lot better than it is today. Maybe even good enough to have the simulation models have a "conscience". And there might be billions of copies running by kids on some planet in some universe. That is, it's a lot easier to create a simulation than it is a world/Universe with life in it.

jetblasted
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#38

like.. Where did BigFoots come from..?? 🤔 :-k

DrafterX wrote:

They caught a big foot in the North Georgia Mountains a few years ago 😟

gryphonms
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#39

Science and God are not mutually exclusive unless you are an atheist. Science does support evolution. Is it to much of a stretch to think God created the universe though evolution? There are times when science is used to attempt to prove God's existence, hence the God particle.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

12 years ago

#40

gryphonms wrote:

.... the god particle is in no way a reference to any biblical god nor is it an attempt to prove the existence of any sort of sentient creator. It was a fun name.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: