Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Creationist Teaching is now the established settled science.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 675 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 1, 2013 8:32:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 8:41:49 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 8:36:17 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
Uh oh. Haynes has wandered into the religion forum. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 8:45:08 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 23, 2013 1:42:12 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:46:40 AM PST
Not to worry. On this topic, his posts are merely noise. Put him on "Ignore", and you'll miss nothing of value or merit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 9:18:08 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
I normally do. But I peeked. My bad.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 10:16:55 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 10:38:51 AM PST
S. Friedman says:
Hi Christopher,
Well done! Clearly this is what the schools should be teaching.

So what's our next move? How do we update science texts, get this into the evening news and front page of the papers, and most importantly, how do we eliminate the global conspiracy that's clearly keeping this accurate information out of the public's hands?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 3:09:20 PM PST
That's hilarious. Um, it is a joke, right? You can't possibly be serious.

There seems to be a precise inverse relationship between fervency of evolution denial and knowledge of evolution. Your post does nothing to disprove that relationship.

Settle science indeed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 3:23:23 PM PST
Aardwizz says:
Christopher Haynes: "'The making of the first life required supernatural intervention. '

This teaching by Creationist Science leads to this specific testable and falsifiable prediction..."

indeed it does, but you've got the wrong prediction. To test this hypothesis, you need to summon a Supernatural Intervener.

Now, please.

...

...

...

<we're waiting>

...

...

Any supernatural agent will do.

...

There's another path: bring forth a witness to a supernatural agent creating life. If they're dead, the name of that witness will do for a start. Or course, that witness will have needed to have taken proper scientific precautions, such as examining any "dust" that Agent blows into to create "life" (if that's the method) to verify that it was life-free prior to the Intervention.

Since you cannot, your theory isn't even based on anything observed, and therefore not qualify as a theory, and thus not science. It can therefore place no demands on any other theory, forcing that other theory to fit the observation.

Which blows the entire premise of your OP.

Exit by the nearest door, please. The Science Forum is four doors down, on the right.

õ¿õ¬

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 4:17:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 4:18:09 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 4:37:49 PM PST
Also, living matter is made of exactly the same atoms as non-living matter... so what's the difference between the two? I'd say that the evidence we have shows that life is complex chemistry, and that there is no "magic ingredient" which differentiates living from non-living matter.

If a Creationist / Vitalist wants to argue otherwise, they're going to have to produce some supporting evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 5:04:08 PM PST
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:01:18 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 23, 2013 1:42:23 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:12:32 PM PST
I suggest you buy, read and understand Logic For Dummies (yes, there really is such a book). Your claims are laughable. You apparently don't understand that simply saying, without providing any evidence, that life can't have arisen naturally doesn't prove it true, nor does it establish the truth of your ridiculous claim (much as you'd like it to).

I'll wager you haven't the first clue as to what abiogenesis is, nor any idea of what is being done in the field and what progress has been made. Your claims serve only to demonstrate your abysmal lack of ignorance on the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:26:44 PM PST
"Lack of ignorance"? More like superabundance.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:41:36 PM PST
Um, yes. I should have proofread that one more time before posting. Thanks for the correction.

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 6:37:46 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 6:45:43 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 6:45:31 AM PST
If it's the "settled science," then it's been proven true. In any case, it *isn't* the settled science. You don't know what you're talking about. You keep repeating the same nonsense with every post you make, in the apparent belief that eventually simple repetition will wear me down. It won't. You're wrong.

Newton's laws were not disproved by Einstein. Einstein refined Newton's laws. For everyday applications, Newton's laws work fine. Good grief, you apparently don't know anything.

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 6:54:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 7:25:15 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 7:30:07 AM PST
Gneiss Guy says:
If you want to calculate the forces generated on NASCAR racecar by a 5.0L supercharged engine Newton will give you all the answers you will need as the relativistic effects will be too small to measure. Same for stresses on a building. Synchronized Atomic clocks with one in orbit will decouple on the order of a microsecond, hardly ballpark. You need much higher speeds or much larger gravity wells for Einstein to become significant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 7:52:41 AM PST
Actually, there's no such thing as conservation of mass. What there is is conservation of mass and energy. Mass can be converted into energy, and vice versa. If you're going to throw scientific concepts around, you should make sure you understand them. You clearly don't.

Your creationist teaching is settled science only for creationists. To the rest of us, those in the reality-based community, it's complete nonsense. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence for it. All you have is an argument from ignorance fallacy, to wit: You can't explain it? Well, then my explanation must be true. That doesn't work.

Newton's laws give extremely accurate answers in every situation except those involving extremely high velocities. Rockets have been successfully sent to the moon and various planets using nothing but Newton's laws. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of logic, proof and evidence. Your suggestion is worthless, as is virtually everything you post.

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 8:06:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 8:39:15 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 8:46:35 AM PST
You are unclear about converting mass into energy? Good grief. When wood burns, mass is converted into energy. When an atomic bomb explodes, mass is converted into energy. Creationist science - what a ludicrous, laughable term - is wrong on this (as well as everything else).

Where Newton's laws are concerned, you're talking nonsense. I don't propose to repeat my earlier post, so I'll just say you are appallingly ignorant. Every post you make digs you deeper into a hole, and you're obviously not smart enough to realize it.

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 8:58:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 8:58:57 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 9:06:33 AM PST
Creation Science is full of crap. Creation Science is wrong. Creation Science is a contradiction in terms. What I said was quite clear. You are obviously too stupid to understand simple sentences. Try to find an adult to explain it to you. Your denials are laughable, based as they are on nothing but ignorance and stupidity.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  50
Total posts:  675
Initial post:  Jan 1, 2013
Latest post:  Jun 19, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions