03 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou know that the journals you accept are controlled by those that believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. They will not even print anything that has a creationist conclusion. The bias is so great that known creation scientists even have a hard time getting anything printed in those journals when the subject has nothing to do with the evolution - creation conflict. You will not accept any creation science journals as legitimate sources of peer reviewed papers.
Sure, another opinion piece. Show me the peer reviewed paper.
I didn't think you would.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd that would be because the creationists are biased in favor of creationism from day one. That is not science. That is why you don't see peer reviewed papers on creationism.
You know that the journals you accept are controlled by those that believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. They will not even print anything that has a creationist conclusion. The bias is so great that known creation scientists even have a hard time getting anything printed in those journals when the subject has nothing to do with the evolution - ...[text shortened]... You will not accept any creation science journals as legitimate sources of peer reviewed papers.
There is no creation science that has not been refuted 10 times over.
Creationists have nothing but opinion pieces designed to sway weak minds like yours.
Creationism at its heart is a political movement having nothing to do with real science.
It has to do with their failed attempt to sway large enough portions of the population in an effort to force creationism into classrooms and evolution out simply based on faith.
That is so far from science it is not even funny. It's really sad is what it is.
03 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is possibly relevant here:
And that would be because the creationists are biased in favor of creationism from day one. That is not science. That is why you don't see peer reviewed papers on creationism.
There is no creation science that has not been refuted 10 times over.
Creationists have nothing but opinion pieces designed to sway weak minds like yours.
Creationism at i ...[text shortened]... ed on faith.
That is so far from science it is not even funny. It's really sad is what it is.
Ken Ham Drops All Pretense and Admits Creationism Isn’t Scientific
...
Well, get ready for a bombshell. Now one of the most prominent young-Earth creationists out there, Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis fame, has openly admitted that creationism is not science. In fact, he basically goes on to say that if you are given a choice between science and (his particular interpretation of) the Bible, then you should choose the latter.
...
Ham admitted that there is ZERO scientific evidence to support creationism, although he still contends that the Bible is evidence enough to force people to learn about it.
http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/ken-ham-drops-all-pretense-and-admits-creationism-isnt-scientific/
<edit>
Actually, having listened to the actual advert, he doe not explicitly do this. What he actually admitted was that there was no scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrated that evolution was a lie.
But that didn’t mean there wasn’t solid evidence that evolution was a lie. The solid evidence just wasn’t scientific.
“We have solid proof in in our hands that evolution is a lie: the Bible. You see, we can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. We present the evidence and do the best we can to convince people the truth of God by always pointing them to the Bible.”
And how do we know that the Bible is telling the truth? because it tells us it is. Oh, hang on...
</edit>
--- Penguin
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinNot relevant.
This is possibly relevant here:
[quote][b]Ken Ham Drops All Pretense and Admits Creationism Isn’t Scientific
...
Well, get ready for a bombshell. Now one of the most prominent young-Earth creationists out there, Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis fame, has openly admitted that creationism is not science. In fact, he basically goes on to say that if you ...[text shortened]... the Bible is telling the truth? because it tells us it is. Oh, hang on...
</edit>
--- Penguin[/b]
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I thought it was since, at the top of the page, you said:
Not relevant.
You know that the journals you accept are controlled by those that believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. They will not even print anything that has a creationist conclusion. The bias is so great that known creation scientists even have a hard time getting anything printed in those journals when the subject has nothing to do with the evolution - creation conflict. You will not accept any creation science journals as legitimate sources of peer reviewed papers.
Since you seemed to be talking about 'creation science' and scientific evidence, I thought it relevant that the poster boy of creationism has effectively said that the only evidence that can be used to support creationism is the Bible. Thus saying that creationism is not science.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinYes, I am talking about 'creation science' and the scientific evidence that supports creation. Creationism is the belief that God created everything as described in the Holy Bible. Darwinian evolution is also a belief and not science.
Well I thought it was since, at the top of the page, you said:
[quote]You know that the journals you accept are controlled by those that believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. They will not even print anything that has a creationist conclusion. The bias is so great that known [b]creation scientists even have a hard time getting anything print ...[text shortened]... o support creationism is the Bible. Thus saying that creationism is not science.
--- Penguin.[/b]
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo anything that refutes creationism is a belief and NEVER a science. Wow. I did not know that.
Yes, I am talking about 'creation science' and the scientific evidence that supports creation. Creationism is the belief that God created everything as described in the Holy Bible. Darwinian evolution is also a belief and not science.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Did you feel the sarcasm?
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf evolution is wrong, the scientific method will demonstrate that it is wrong since the theory can be used to make specific testable predictions. Therefore, it is a scientific theory.
Yes, I am talking about 'creation science' and the scientific evidence that supports creation. Creationism is the belief that God created everything as described in the Holy Bible. Darwinian evolution is also a belief and not science.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Creationism cannot be used to make specific testable predictions. It is the same as Last Thursdayism. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.
--- Penguin.
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinEvilution theory can not be used to make a testable prediction about changing one kind of animal into another. It has never happened. However, intelligent design theory is the only theory to be used that has ever produced any testable prediction. Without intelligence, it ain't going to happen.
If evolution is wrong, the scientific method will demonstrate that it is wrong since the theory can be used to make specific testable predictions. Therefore, it is a scientific theory.
Creationism cannot be used to make specific testable predictions. It is the same as Last Thursdayism. Therefore, it is [b]not a scientific theory.
--- Penguin.[/b]
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSays a dude who lives maybe 100 years Vs the hundred million years it takes to do just that. You have a short sight of life. You think the whole kit and kaboodle is a few thousand years old. That registers so high on the ridiculousity meter it is pathetic.
Evilution theory can not be used to make a testable prediction about changing one kind of animal into another. It has never happened. However, intelligent design theory is the only theory to be used that has ever produced any testable prediction. Without intelligence, it ain't going to happen.
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI would bet my life that a frog never changed into a prince. That's not in the Holy Bible.
Says a dude who lives maybe 100 years Vs the hundred million years it takes to do just that. You have a short sight of life. You think the whole kit and kaboodle is a few thousand years old. That registers so high on the ridiculousity meter it is pathetic.