Jump to content

Creation Scientist, Give Me Your Best Shot.


neverclear5
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is from a conversation about evolution that drifted off topic but people REALLY need to here this. I didn't think the creation science out there was this bad. Really I didn't..... I figure they must have some good points...............they don't.

 

 

[

[slam] As I understand it, creation scientists suggest that decay rates could have been affected by the catastrophic forces dealt by the flood, among other things. I know that ICR scientists have published volumes of literature about this. Of course, it is all rejected by conventional science. My position is that the earth is about 6000 years old as the Bible says and their 8 year research on helium diffusion stronlgy supports that position. http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

 

[me]

Um, I just read this and....wow. If figured to get people to beleive this stuff it would be pretty convincing.......... it's not!

 

The evidense for accelerated decay is miniscule and highly questionable at best. It has huge holes in it and make some odd asumptions.

 

The big, obvious, stumbling point though is heat. The earth would be so hot that it would have cooked anything on it. The attempt at an answer to this is laughable. The verse about god stretching the stars across like a curtain ( a pathetic description of the universal expansion it apparently describes) is used yet again, and the idea is that this expansion would have cooled everything.

 

Expansion of a gas to twice its volume under constant pressure, will cause it's temperature to half.

Fine. There's no gas in space! Also, the earth is what would be hot, the earth never expanded. The actual matter in the universe is not expanding, its the gaps between it that are getting larger!

Its like kids in a playground. If they spread out, the total area they are in and the distance between them is larger but the kids are the same size.

 

Making every ridiculous assumption that they did, the idea still falls flat on its face!!

This has to become a new thread, I need more people to know the standard of the opposition.

I seriousely, as a scientist, thought disproving this stuff would be hard, otherwise why do people beleive it? This was not even a what I'd call a task. Barely a passing thought needed. (just so you know, I did go over it a few times and, yeah, it is that silly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual matter in the universe is not expanding, its the gaps between it that are getting larger! Its like kids in a playground. If they spread out, the total area they are in and the distance between them is larger but the kids are the same size.

 

Expansion: I admit that I don't understand this a lick and that my lack of being able to picture it makes me disbelieve that it is the case.

 

What is the difference in the space between my body's molecules and the space between galaxies? If the expansion of space can push pull or drag galaxies apart, why can't it push apart molecules? This just isn't common sense.

 

Quantum physics defies common sense and yet I can sorta see it's reality. The same is not true of expansion. It makes me want to think that one of the other explanations of of red shift must be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ugh:

 

Creationwiki...? A bigger collection of creationist lies and bullshit you'll be hard pressed to find. For example...

The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth, which is more formally known as the General Theory of Evolution. It was derived from atheistic presupposition, although some theists now espouse to the idea. The theory encompasses the processes of biological evolution, the origin of life, and aspects of cosmic evolution via the Big Bang.

And don't get me started on the "information is lost, never gained" bollocks they insist is true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scales like this are always hole in their theories. The reason the earth is dated to billions of years is because the amount of time and energy it takes for the continents to move where they were to where they are and the shape, size and density of the landmasses points to it taking billions of years to form.

 

If you shrink the scales to 6,000 years then the continents would be colliding into each other by now and the force would probally amount to never ending earthquake and volcanic activity.

 

Once again, evolution and the Big Bang are two completelty different theories on two completetly different subjects...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[chef]

What is the difference in the space between my body's molecules and the space between galaxies? If the expansion of space can push pull or drag galaxies apart, why can't it push apart molecules? This just isn't common sense.

 

 

The molecules in matter are held together with electrostatic forces. In comparison gravity is pathetically small. think about hanging from a rope, the rope is narrow and the only thing holding your whole weight is about an inch thick of molecules held together with electrostatic force. This tiny bit of electrostatic force is resisting the pull of the entire earth!!

The gravity pulling the planets etc. towards each other is tiny compared to the force holding you and me together.

 

The kids in the playground thing really is a very good example of the universal expansion thing. Perhaps fish in a pool would be better for the 3D image. The size of the objects in the universe doesn't change (excluding gases or liguids which arn't really objects).

 

[chef]

"What is the difference in the space between my body's molecules and the space between galaxies? If the expansion of space can push pull or drag galaxies apart, why can't it push apart molecules? This just isn't common sense."

 

 

The molecules in matter are held together with electrostatic forces. In comparison gravity is pathetically small. think about hanging from a rope, the rope is narrow and the only thing holding your whole weight is about an inch thick of molecules held together with electrostatic force. This tiny bit of electrostatic force is resisting the pull of the entire earth!!

The gravity pulling the planets etc. towards each other is tiny compared to the force holding you and me together.

 

The kids in the playground thing really is a very good example of the universal expansion thing. Perhaps fish in a pool would be better for the 3D image. The size of the objects in the universe doesn't change (excluding gases or liguids which arn't really objects).

 

So anyway, are there any actual creation scientists here?

I'm sick of hearing people talk about the "many" creation scientists in the world and I have yet to meet one I knew about in the past 5 years in scientific institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neverclear, have you heard anything about an idea called expansion theory? I just finished reading a book by Mark McCltcheon called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy". ISBN # 1-58112-601-8. The basic premise is that everything in the universe, including atoms, are expanding. If every atom was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice the expansion at all.

 

I will admit the book was a little too much for me to completely understand, I'm not good at math at all, but he claims that thinking this way would explain alot of the mysteries we can't explain today, such as what gravity really is, and how a magnet can stay up without an enegry source.

 

I haven't had a chance to look for any other books or websites that talk about it, if you could shed any light on it I'd love to hear you thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neverclear, have you heard anything about an idea called expansion theory? I just finished reading a book by Mark McCltcheon called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy". ISBN # 1-58112-601-8. The basic premise is that everything in the universe, including atoms, are expanding. If every atom was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice the expansion at all.

 

I will admit the book was a little too much for me to completely understand, I'm not good at math at all, but he claims that thinking this way would explain alot of the mysteries we can't explain today, such as what gravity really is, and how a magnet can stay up without an enegry source.

 

I haven't had a chance to look for any other books or websites that talk about it, if you could shed any light on it I'd love to hear you thoughts.

 

 

I havn't heard of this before and am off on a little journey but I'll definitely get back to you on it. Might be monday though. A site I found a quick review thing on looked a bit dodgy and the few Q&A pages I found didn't look too promising. As I said, I'll have a good read through and get back to you. Promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The molecules in matter are held together with electrostatic forces. In comparison gravity is pathetically small. think about hanging from a rope, the rope is narrow and the only thing holding your whole weight is about an inch thick of molecules held together with electrostatic force. This tiny bit of electrostatic force is resisting the pull of the entire earth!!

The gravity pulling the planets etc. towards each other is tiny compared to the force holding you and me together.

 

The kids in the playground thing really is a very good example of the universal expansion thing. Perhaps fish in a pool would be better for the 3D image. The size of the objects in the universe doesn't change (excluding gases or liguids which arn't really objects).

 

So anyway, are there any actual creation scientists here?

I'm sick of hearing people talk about the "many" creation scientists in the world and I have yet to meet one I knew about in the past 5 years in scientific institutions.

 

 

[slam] This is very interesting what you're saying - Molecules are held together "electrostatically." While the Bible doesn't use scientific words, it doe say that there is a "force" holding all things together. Another poster has cited the basic idea that even atoms are expanding. The bible also records that all matter will one day "come apart" from what is holding it together. Science uses scientific words to explains this, but could it be that science is only explaining what the Bible says is happening and will happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are at the topic "science and the wholly babble", let's talk about...

 

...the scientifically impossible flood

 

...four-legged birds and insects

 

...the biblical flat earth with (sometimes) four corners

 

...and many many other totally ludicrous things.

 

Over here we have a proverb "Auch ein blindes Huhn findet einmal ein Korn", roughly meaning that there's always the chance of a random hit if you keep on trying. So if the babble is (more or less) right, say, ten times, what to make of it in light of the thousands of nonsensical claims? :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are at the topic "science and the wholly babble", let's talk about...

 

...the scientifically impossible flood

 

[slam] Is it possible for some things to be unscientific, but still be true?

 

...four-legged birds and insects

 

[slam] ??

 

...the biblical flat earth with (sometimes) four corners

 

[slam] ??

 

...and many many other totally ludicrous things.

 

Over here we have a proverb "Auch ein blindes Huhn findet einmal ein Korn", roughly meaning that there's always the chance of a random hit if you keep on trying.

 

[slam] So if a bunch of squirrels ran across your computer keyboard long enough, they would eventually type out "Jesus Christ the Son of God who died for the sins of the world:-)"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Is it possible for some things to be unscientific, but still be true?

 

Is that your only point?

 

So if a number of men, over the course of two thousand years, modified, added to, removed, and conjured your so-called doctrine of "truth" out of a nomadic middle eastern culture and religion this could possibly be "true" too? Or maybe it's "true" because it says it's true, which is yet another logical fallacy.

 

If you give Sidney Pollack enough time and enough paint, his spatter paintings may actually resemble something other than... spatter painting.

 

Nice way to turn around what Thur was saying about a "random hit" into the infinite monkey theorem

 

Not quite the same thing, huh?

 

Funny I mention monkeys as we're all monkeys anyway. Right, slamdunk? That's what you think evolution is all about, am I wrong?

 

Are you even trying to defend creationism? Or do you just like typing out ??s in confusing loaded quotes?

 

While we are at the topic "science and the wholly babble", let's talk about...

 

...the scientifically impossible flood

 

[slam] Is it possible for some things to be unscientific, but still be true?

 

...four-legged birds and insects

 

[slam] ??

 

...the biblical flat earth with (sometimes) four corners

 

[slam] ??

 

...and many many other totally ludicrous things.

 

Over here we have a proverb "Auch ein blindes Huhn findet einmal ein Korn", roughly meaning that there's always the chance of a random hit if you keep on trying.

 

[slam] So if a bunch of squirrels ran across your computer keyboard long enough, they would eventually type out "Jesus Christ the Son of God who died for the sins of the world:-)"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Is it possible for some things to be unscientific, but still be true?

 

Is that your only point?

 

So if a number of men, over the course of two thousand years, modified, added to, removed, and conjured your so-called doctrine of "truth" out of a nomadic middle eastern culture and religion this could possibly be "true" too? Or maybe it's "true" because it says it's true, which is yet another logical fallacy.

 

[slam] Let's stick to the point. Does everything have to be scientific to be true? Can truth exist without having to subject it to the scientific method?

 

If you give Sidney Pollack enough time and enough paint, his spatter paintings may actually resemble something other than... spatter painting.

 

[slam] Well, I guess if one of his splatterings came out round you could say it looks like the earth. BUt there is some randomness that goes beyond the realm of possibility, like a squirrel eternally running across your keyboard and typing out the national anthem, or as Frederick Hoyle once said about the chances of life forming randomly: A tornado sweeping through a junk yard and forming a Boeing 747. Did you take the Random Mutation Generator test?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, still haven't looked throught that whole expansion thing but what I've seen looks like bull to me. Either way, its an interesting idea and I'm keeping an open mind.

Slam, you're not a creation scientist. I'm looking for the actual guys here. My point is I doubt there are actually any here as I doubt there are more than a few in the world!

 

If you know any and want to direct them here then great.

 

Oh, and with respect to the vague biblical words people have started talking about.......... I could do better, and I think an all powerful god would have a better vocabulary than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you give Sidney Pollack enough time and enough paint, his spatter paintings may actually resemble something other than... spatter painting.

Hey there! :grin: Don't be deflying Jackson Pollack's name, putting him in the category of the intellectually dishonest charlotans like the Religious Creationists who pose as credible scientists. Jackson Pollack was a genuinely gifted artist. Also, I consider the music of Ornette Coleman to be highly inspired like Pollack, while others may only hear nothing but random noise. There's more to music and art than realism. Realisim is only one of many forms of art.

 

Read what I said about Jackson Pollack today in this post here:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=236060

 

 

BTW, if you want to talk about pseduo-artists, then go after hacks like Thomas Kinkade and his cheezy comercial "paintings of light" crap. http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/....tk.HomeServlet

 

P.S. Sorry, I just really connect with Pollack's art. Also, that silly analogy of a tornado forming a Boeing in a junk yard is just plain dumb, and an intellectually dishonest argument about nature. (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm and http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/thoughts.htm ) It sounds reasonable until you realize that what became was not what was intended. It's just what happened. But then again, I've already pointed this out before, so why am I even bothering? :shrug:

 

But there is a point here: Jackson Pollack's art reflects the beauty of nature to me; in that patterns emerge from the void that has an inherent beauty to them in their interconnectedness. I suspect Slam's idea of creation tends to follow the sickly-sweet, overly-romantic "vision" of nature as seen through the eyes of Thomas Kinkade, but I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, you're not a creation scientist. I'm looking for the actual guys here. My point is I doubt there are actually any here as I doubt there are more than a few in the world!

Isn't "creation scientist" an oxymoron ( :HaHa: Ah, I love that video, so I thought I'd share even though it isn't science related). Science is testing ideas, collecting data and basing conclusions on studies. Creationism does no testing, collects no data, and starts with its conclusion(s).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Okay, still haven't looked throught that whole expansion thing but what I've seen looks like bull to me. Either way, its an interesting idea and I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[slam] The expansion of the universe is bull?

 

Slam, you're not a creation scientist. I'm looking for the actual guys here. My point is I doubt there are actually any here as I doubt there are more than a few in the world!

 

[slam] There might a few hundred. I don't really know. What I have been saying in these forums doesn't require a degree in science. My two basic points are that the fossils don't support macroevolution and the universe could have been brought into existance by an intelligent designer. In his book, "The world as I see it," Albert Einstein said that natural law, "Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

 

If you know any and want to direct them here then great.

 

[slam] I would love to see some of the PHDs at ICR spend some time here.

 

Oh, and with respect to the vague biblical words people have started talking about.......... I could do better, and I think an all powerful god would have a better vocabulary than me.

 

[slam] What vague words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Is it possible for some things to be unscientific, but still be true?

 

[slam] ??

 

[slam] ??

 

1. Learn how to quote. Damn it, even I can do it, so it can't be that difficult.

 

2. I didn't say "unscientific". Read what others post before you reply. I posted "scientifically impossible".

 

Note this: The very moment you argue for babblical cretinism and say anything remotely similar to "gawd can do miracles" you have lost. With supposed miracles you can explain everything, thus the concept is meaningless. With miracles, the invisible pink unicorn can have screwed the flying spaghetti monster and the universe was born.

If you want to argue without miracles, you have lost before you even try to start. For example, where do you think all that water came from (and went back to), and how would the beasties after the flood (even if they could have survived aboard this ludicrous little ship) have flourished again? Hint: All those carnivores would have immediately eaten the herbivores just to survive, and everything would've gone down the drain before noah came back to his senses after getting himself drunk and lying around stark naked.

 

And this is just for starters. Don't challenge us to present you the whole list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Note this: The very moment you argue for babblical cretinism and say anything remotely similar to "gawd can do miracles" you have lost.

 

[slam] If "Gawd" did it, you lose. It's not a question, "if," but how. You know, just like evolutionists tell us, it's not that it happened, but how.

 

With supposed miracles you can explain everything, thus the concept is meaningless. With miracles, the invisible pink unicorn can have screwed the flying spaghetti monster and the universe was born.

 

[slam] Creation was a miracle since no one really knows what happened.

 

For example, where do you think all that water came from (and went back to),

 

[slam] The scripture explains it: "The flood gates of heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep erupted (Gen. 7:11). God caused a wind to pass over the earth and the water subsided. (Gen. 8:1)

 

and how would the beasties after the flood (even if they could have survived aboard this ludicrous little ship) have flourished again? Hint: All those carnivores would have immediately eaten the herbivores just to survive, and everything would've gone down the drain before noah came back to his senses after getting himself drunk and lying around stark naked.

 

[slam] The animal kingdom remained herbivorous for an undetermined length of time. Don't know when animals began killing others for food. Gen. 9:3 could indicate that animals and man became carnivorous after the flood. We really don't know what happened. But all animals were herbivorous before the fall of man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Note this: The very moment you argue for babblical cretinism and say anything remotely similar to "gawd can do miracles" you have lost.

 

[slam] If "Gawd" did it, you lose. It's not a question, "if," but how. You know, just like evolutionists tell us, it's not that it happened, but how.

 

With supposed miracles you can explain everything, thus the concept is meaningless. With miracles, the invisible pink unicorn can have screwed the flying spaghetti monster and the universe was born.

 

[slam] Creation was a miracle since no one really knows what happened.

 

For example, where do you think all that water came from (and went back to),

 

[slam] The scripture explains it: "The flood gates of heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep erupted (Gen. 7:11). God caused a wind to pass over the earth and the water subsided. (Gen. 8:1)

 

and how would the beasties after the flood (even if they could have survived aboard this ludicrous little ship) have flourished again? Hint: All those carnivores would have immediately eaten the herbivores just to survive, and everything would've gone down the drain before noah came back to his senses after getting himself drunk and lying around stark naked.

 

[slam] The animal kingdom remained herbivorous for an undetermined length of time. Don't know when animals began killing others for food. Gen. 9:3 could indicate that animals and man became carnivorous after the flood. We really don't know what happened. But all animals were herbivorous before the fall of man.

 

 

I'm curious, can you explain what exactly the "floodgates of heaven" are, are they like the "windows" of heaven that open so the rain can fall through :lmao: ? If all the animals remain herbivores why did some of them have such sharp teeth? How would an alligator or a T-rex be a herbivore? Even for a short time, their teeth are made specifically for shredding flesh, not grinding plants, so how exactly would they eat if they are herbivores?

As for the flood how did noah keep alive all the fish? Some fish cannot live in salt water and some fish cannot live in fresh water, did he have special salt water and fresh water tanks that he kept all the fish alive in? And if so, how could he have done that without sinking the damn boat? Or is that just another miracle? How could Noah have possibly fit "pairs" of the some 16,000 different species that would have been alive during that time period onto the ark? This ark being only about 450 feet long? Even if he could by some miracle fit them all, what did he do with all their poop? Can you even comprehend how much feces that is? And I'm supposed to believe that a family of eight could haul tons of shit overboard, daily? Please.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that the fossil record doesn't show macroevolution? And as far as transitional fossils go have you ever bothered to look at the Tiktaalik?

 

On top of all that, if Noah and his family were the only humans to survive this flood where in the fuck did all the people come from? You honestly believe that of the roughly 6 billion people that live on earth today were produced from a family of eight? Seriously, a family of eight repopulated the whole world? Or is this simply another "miracle" of gawd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f all the animals remain herbivores why did some of them have such sharp teeth? How would an alligator or a T-rex be a herbivore? Even for a short time, their teeth are made specifically for shredding flesh, not grinding plants, so how exactly would they eat if they are herbivores?
Good point. I'd like to add, how did they digest the plant material? Carnivorous animals have digestive systems too short to get much of anything out of plants.
How do you come to the conclusion that the fossil record doesn't show macroevolution?
(S)He didn't "come to the conclusion" but started with it.
And as far as transitional fossils go have you ever bothered to look at the Tiktaalik?
Of course not. Slam has only read creationist propaganda. To give slam no excuse, here is an article about transitional fossils using Tikaalik as an example. And here is an article about another transitional fossil, the gognasus andrewsae.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I LOVE these "order" vs "chaos" arguments. The most overlooked fact is that "order" is just a subset of "chaos". Order is what we call Chaos when we're either looking too close or too far away...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f all the animals remain herbivores why did some of them have such sharp teeth? How would an alligator or a T-rex be a herbivore? Even for a short time, their teeth are made specifically for shredding flesh, not grinding plants, so how exactly would they eat if they are herbivores?
Good point. I'd like to add, how did they digest the plant material? Carnivorous animals have digestive systems too short to get much of anything out of plants.

Answer: God temporarily gave them flat teeth and enlarged the guts to process vegetation. Additionally, he shrank them down in size to fit inside the ark. The T-Rex for example, was briefly in its history, no larger than the size of a modern shoebox.

 

Of course you may wish to ask for fossil evidence to support this, but only science that dares to challenge God's word will be held to such standards as "fossil evidence". God's word settles the argument without the need of evidence as he guides his True Scientists in their works to glorify his holy name.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that the fossil record doesn't show macroevolution?
(S)He didn't "come to the conclusion" but started with it.

I used to say the same thing to him, over and over and over again, but now I see the light. You start with the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, and you no longer need research or evidence! The walls of Jerhico and the gates of Darwin shall fall flat at the sound of his mighty shofar! Praise His name!

 

And as far as transitional fossils go have you ever bothered to look at the Tiktaalik?
Of course not. Slam has only read creationist propaganda. To give slam no excuse, here is an article about transitional fossils using Tikaalik as an example. And here is an article about another transitional fossil, the gognasus andrewsae.

Yes, but can you show me where these frogs ever became a cow, or a cow ever became a cat? Besides, these are not fossils, they are just silly drawings by some Darwinist. They could be anything.

 

Even scientists make mistakes. All I'm doing right now is asking for the fossil evidence of disappearing legs. When I only see drawings of what scientists believe was real, then I have to pause, unless it is backed up with solid fossil evidence.

 

 

 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you give Sidney Pollack enough time and enough paint, his spatter paintings may actually resemble something other than... spatter painting.

Hey there! :grin: Don't be deflying Jackson Pollack's name, putting him in the category of the intellectually dishonest charlotans like the Religious Creationists who pose as credible scientists. Jackson Pollack was a genuinely gifted artist. Also, I consider the music of Ornette Coleman to be highly inspired like Pollack, while others may only hear nothing but random noise. There's more to music and art than realism. Realisim is only one of many forms of art.

 

Read what I said about Jackson Pollack today in this post here:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=236060

 

 

BTW, if you want to talk about pseduo-artists, then go after hacks like Thomas Kinkade and his cheezy comercial "paintings of light" crap. http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/....tk.HomeServlet

 

P.S. Sorry, I just really connect with Pollack's art. Also, that silly analogy of a tornado forming a Boeing in a junk yard is just plain dumb, and an intellectually dishonest argument about nature. (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm and http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/thoughts.htm ) It sounds reasonable until you realize that what became was not what was intended. It's just what happened. But then again, I've already pointed this out before, so why am I even bothering? :shrug:

 

But there is a point here: Jackson Pollack's art reflects the beauty of nature to me; in that patterns emerge from the void that has an inherent beauty to them in their interconnectedness. I suspect Slam's idea of creation tends to follow the sickly-sweet, overly-romantic "vision" of nature as seen through the eyes of Thomas Kinkade, but I may be wrong.

 

Thank you for the links on Pollack. I saw the Ed Harris movie on his life when it came out several years ago and I really enjoyed the movie, though I'm not a fan of abstract art.

 

It was a bad example I used and I did not intentionally mean to connect Pollack to the joke that is creation "science." I'm sorry for doing that and I did not mean it.

 

What I should have said was a toddler's spiral crayon drawing may actually at one point resemble something other than an image we make through matrixing, if the toddler was given infinite time, infinite crayons and paper, and was never allowed to grow up... but then again, maybe not.

 

The link is to TAPS, who are paranormal investigators who star in a Sci-Fi channel docusoap show called Ghost Hunters. Though it wouldn't be exactly fair to compare their kind of pseudo-science to the garbage that is "creation science," I gotta admit they are in the same league, though not in the same field or even ballpark. TAPS at least goes into an investigation trying to debunk and find realistic explanations for problems before resorting to the paranormal, which is a lot better than these other "investigators" out there. But in the end, it's still pseudo-science... NOT science.

 

I acknowledge the fact there are clearly "truths" or what-have-you that cannot be explained scientifically. However, this does not yield to the existence of some mastermind creator, or the non-existence of such a being. These phenomena may be explained by science one day, or they may not, where they will continue to be unexplained phenomena.

 

A basic community college course in geology or astrophysics will completely wipe away the bullshit and nonsense of creation science. Especially geology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neverclear, have you heard anything about an idea called expansion theory? I just finished reading a book by Mark McCltcheon called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy". ISBN # 1-58112-601-8. The basic premise is that everything in the universe, including atoms, are expanding. If every atom was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice the expansion at all.

Funny to write a book about that. If we can not notice it, we can not measure it, we can not know it, we can nothing explain with it. :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.