Remember Occam’s Razor? Hard to accept the side that needs to twist and ignore and lie about the physical evidence to create a complicated theory using only the words of pre-science creative writers.
In almost every way, the “Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs” excursion at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) last year was a normal — even enjoyable — field trip. Standard geologic terminology was used in the accompanying field trip guide, and throughout the trip itself. The trip leaders discussed past events in terms of millions and billions of years. At each stop along the trip, the guides relied on orthodox geologic thinking, including a standard examination of sedimentary features and the nature of contacts between units.
But in reality, the trip was anything but a normal geology field trip. Instead, it was an example of a new strategy from creationists to interject their ideas into mainstream geology: They lead field trips and present posters and talks at scientific meetings. They also avoid overtly stating anything truly contrary to mainstream science.
But when the meeting is over, the creationist participants go home and proudly proclaim that mainstream science has accepted their ideas. It’s a crafty way of giving credence to creationism. But is there anything mainstream scientists, or the conveners of meetings and field trips, can or should do about it?
That link doesn’t make any sense. Talking about the “scientific” fact of the earth features taking millions of years to form is inconsistent with ascribing such features to “Noah’s Flood” which would not be missed/not noticed at all.
Sounds like “Earth” is just trying to whip up readership from anyone dumb enough to believe creationism is given any credence at all, in any setting, regardless of how much lipstick is wasted.
Alfie? Can you shed any light on this for us? Please don’t hesitate to go into as much detail as needed.
As long as the loons are happy and stay out of my business, their fairy tale fine by me.
Sorry, Occam ’s razor isn’t a part of science and all conclusions depend upon presuppositions.
If creationism is true who planted all the evidence for the science?
#2 Dallas, the problem is that the loons are NEVER happy and will NEVER stay out of your business. You haven’t really forgotten that, have you? They use the Bible and the Creator it describes as their authority to get all up in your business.
#2, Are you talking about religious fanatics or politicians? It’s hard to tell from your statement.
Clever Creationists? That’s an oxymoron. (or is that oxymoran?) 23 degrees, sunny and a nice breeze here. Finally going out for a nice walk in the forest with my daughter. Have a great day, eh.
Teach religion (in general) in schools – solve the problem. There is absolutely no problem with Creationism as a part of Religion. There is a problem created by population viewing “how things came to be” as a religious issue and school system attempting to teach it only as a Science (which has completely different view on life and things). Hence this bleed-through that could be easily solved.
The Bible doesn’t say the Earth is 6 or 7 thousand years olds. In fact, it says the Earth is billions of years old.
I doesn’t actually say Adam was the first man either, but that’s another subject.
The Bible has been mistakenly or purposely misinterpreted for centuries.
The greatest thing Satan ever did was convince the world he doesn’t exist.
Evolutionism isn’t a science. “The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.” — Richard P. Feynman.
#9, God clearly wanted discord here on earth, so he intentionally inspired the Bible’s authors to write with such utter ambiguity and seeming contradiction that even sincere, intelligent readers would disagree significantly amongst themselves over the true meaning of the scriptures. God even wanted the disagreements to reach the level where different groups of his worshipers would often find it completely untenable to attend the same church.
Mission accomplished!
Maybe an intelligent designed form of life was created to evolve? Obviously evolution exist, but scientist should spend time trying to counter the de evolution of the White Western civilisations. Devolving into a dumber browner more violent and hostile society isn’t going to improve any species.
Since god doesn’t exist, we can pretty much take satan out of the picture as well. If god did exist the Joplin Mo, tornado shows he, she, it, to be a sadistic fucker who doesn’t deserve reverence.
If god knows all, is omnipotent, has a plan, and is benevolent and loving. Please explain all the shit in the world. Free will no longer applies as god being all of the above would have planned for any “choice” you think you might have made.
# 4 Jess Hurchist said:
“If creationism is true who planted all the evidence for the science?”
Must be Loki, that darn clever trickster!
Its amazing how dogmatic allegedly open minded scientists and academics can be
Science has created its own dogma and religion itself not to be questioned by any means
I don’t what the conflict is between creationism and “science”
The two follow the same progression of development
It is amazing to a great degree how primitive peoples basically got it right
Yet there are plenty of holes in the logic and proof of science
Its supposed to be about questioning and an open mind not about dogma
Look at global warming as one example
!%–Global==name one scientific dogma.
We’ll wait.
Hi. I’m baaack. Let’s start with this one Shubee, bluebubble et al.
(Genesis 1:27) “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”
God is male. He didn’t create ‘mankind’ in his own image, the Bible says he created man in his own image. Christians argue that God is a spirit and therefore can’t possess human traits. According to the bible he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit… a spirit being only one form. Seems convenient… a weak argument to claim that two forms are spirits, when there is no tale to support that claim.
So answer this… why is god male? Being male, he would by definition have a penis and testicles for the purpose of reproduction. For what purpose? Why not genderless?
The truth is that God was made in the image of man. Women’s rights were non existent when the babble stories were invented.
Anyway, this debate is kinda pointless. People believe what they believe and arguing Creation and Evolution back and forth will prove nothing. Creationism is not going to replace Evolution Theory any time soon…not in our lifetime. Both are “evolving” theories based on the INTERPRETATION of the evidence available and neither side will budge. Besides, none of us, or anyone we know were around when it all happened. 🙂
So next subject….Less filling….Tastes great?
The basic problem with the arguments for both sides is the assumption that humans are intelligent.
To properly teach intelligent design as Bachmann desires, one must also address the issue of poor or unneccessary organ design and why people need to have their teeth fixed (bonus points for explaining Mitochondria).
A truly powerful God would create the universe (possibly the true origin of the Big Bang) and set up the conditions and rules that enable life to exist. Any decent scientist can tell you how a small change in any of the physical laws would have resulted in a universe unable to support life as we know it. That we are here at all to observe this universe is a miracle in itself.
Creating the stage and letting nature take its course would allow for all science to be correct without diminishing the importance of God as the source of all of it. Evolution and natural selection are nature’s tools to explore and exploit the opportunities for growth and development God has given us.
IMHO, arguing that God created us “as is” diminishes God’s glory. God created the world around us and we are just a part of life’s glorious response to it.
#8 Dusanmal
Which religion? Some people will have a problem with teaching any but their own.
Also, I did learn about religion in school. Public school in the religious south. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and more were covered.
Teaching religion as if it were science is foolish, and accomplishes nothing but producing ill informed students.
#25 TeaDud
“You assume things exist now precisely as God intended, but scripture reveals in its opening pages that isn’t the case.”
But everything is according to your “infinite in power, omnipotent and also, omniscient” god’s plan.
Freewill doesn’t explain poor design. Even if I grant you that god had a pretty good dental plan in Eden, it doesn’t explain the multitude of design flaws that even a moderately Intelligent Designer would have scrapped and redone.
Pseudo science. Pseudo religion. Double fail for the lack of faith in either.
“we claim He is infinite in power, omnipotent and also, omniscient. Being omniscient”
Alfie explain the difference between infinitely powerful etc. and all powerful.
Thou art God.
Pass the water, please.
Creationists do juvenile things like this because they are losing badly in courts and public opinion, even in the US. Creationism (whatever it actually means) as science will go away over time as baby boomers disappear from the earth. Like dinosaurs.
#29 Teadud
Hey, you were the one who said it didn’t go according to plan, not me.
#33 “Because god said so” is a poor answer. Its not an answer at all and explains nothing.
Tell me how many vaccines, computers, spacecraft and agricultural advancements Christianity has produced? If science is so useless, then that box you’re posting comments on must be very sinful.
#35 LL
Well said. =)
Hmmm… found something interesting in the first post here:
http://abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread559230/pg1
#41
Wow, that was impressive in how little it addressed anything I said in #40 or #27. or what SmartAlex said in #23
I see a lot of scripture, but none of the answers you claim it provides.
Keep looking, I’m sure the cure for cancer is in there someplace.
#45 TeaDud
Not, my argument, those were your words
“You assume things exist now precisely as God intended, but scripture reveals in its opening pages that isn’t the case.”
You answered SmartAlex’s question about questionable design choices with scripture about free will. Its not a straw man if you said it.
Trying to be enigmatic with vague scripture only works for god. We hold you to a more earthly standard.
Truth by told, it doesn’t really work for god either.
How much has science advanced humanity and how much Christianity? I’m surprised you didn’t even use the most obvious example – works of monks like Mendel.
Your god sure didn’t imbue you with much rhetorical ability. Another poor design choice…Or maybe he wishes you wouldn’t speak for him.