Customer Discussions > Science forum

Creationism..................... can't science offer a credible alternative?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 3478 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 18, 2012 3:58:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2013 6:51:13 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 18, 2012 6:12:42 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
I'm no expert in evolution...but creation states woman came from the rib of man. I'd say the chances of this actually happening are less than even the numbers you cite from Dr Koonin's work. The Bible states the sun stood still in the sky. This has no scientific backing whatsoever as anyone with basic astronomy knowledge would know. As for multiverse speculation, your own statement says "Their speculation begins by considering the idea that an infinite number of universes exist. There is, of course, no empirical data to support this idea, but it can't be disproved." And the scientists who speculate on multiverses say nearly the exact same thing. They know they cannot prove the existence of multiverses as does their scientifically inclined audiences. More importantly, it is not multiverses that has been accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation for the Universe coming into being. It is the big bang theory which does not address what came before the BB at all.

But rather than go on yet another tired creationist vs evolutionist debate...I will simply say that if creation works for you, go for it. It does not work for me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 8:11:23 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 8:20:29 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
How can you be sure it wasn't the Chupacabrans?

Posted on Apr 18, 2012 9:11:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 18, 2012 9:17:06 PM PDT
Christopher, sorry you are bored trying to defend stone age myths against those who study reality. Science could care less about the existence of your creator/God existing before existence existed. The expanding cosmos is plenty interesting for those...who believe in it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/07/repairing-sun-damaged-dna-with-light.html

Posted on Apr 18, 2012 9:35:57 PM PDT
Probable* path of evolution:
t = 0: universe mass converted to universe energy
t = 1 nanosecond: energy perturbations convert to sub-nuclear particles
t = 1 second: physics rules!
t = 1 hour: massive expansion
t = 1 year: expansion of mass
t = 1 millenium: agglomeration of mass - hot swirling mayhem
t = 1-10 billion years: cool condensed elemental edges of hot swirling mayhem - some water - first random pre-protein reaction/replication (pre-prion)
t = 13.6 billion years: yesterday - modestly evolved DNA replication where conditions allow
t = 100 billion years: mature universe - DNA evolution and "life/mind" unimaginable - our universe fills with "life/mind"
t = >100 billion years:the universe fulfils its unsupervised purpose of interacting with other mature universes in an infinitely expanding ocean made of a froth of universes
t = hyperbolically approaching infinity: You tell me?!?

071V8
* to me anyway

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 5:11:45 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Credibility depends on the ability to recognize it.

Therefore, nothing science produces will ever appear 'credible' to creationists. They are too stupid to accept reality.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 5:52:32 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"Currently, there is no credible and scientific alternative to Creationism, which states that life originated through divine intervention."

You can't even show evidence that divine intervention is actually real and happens. The next time you write such long word salad, try not to fail so hard on your very first sentence.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 6:26:33 AM PDT
David Félix says:
This belongs in the Science Jokes thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 7:09:40 AM PDT
But it does prove one thing --- that Haynes can write in proper English when he *really* *really* tries.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 7:53:41 AM PDT
A customer says:
Or perhaps cut and paste.

He doesn't seem to know that more complex precursor chemicals such as amino acids have been known to form spontaneously in reaction vessels since the 1950s, mind. As Miller-Urey demonstrates that even in piffling portions of primordial atmosphere an intermediate stage has already been reached, clearly Koonin's result is either in error or, more likely, falsely represented. All that basically stands between amino acids and proteins is autocatalytic polymerisation, and the same goes for nucleotides to DNA.

Probability really does not come into it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 7:57:07 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Christopher Haynes says: Currently, there is no credible and scientific alternative to Creationism, which states that life originated through divine intervention.
>By you continuously repeating the same old falsehoods, I have come to the conclusion that you are just a troll. All of your contentions have been refuted in numerous threads.

By the way, did you actually read Dr. Koonin's book, yet? You cited him as an expert, but now refer to him as another ignorant scientist. I'll have to tell him, not because I that he really cares about your opinion, but it gives me a chance to practice my Russian.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 9:49:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 9:50:34 AM PDT
Give me one actual investigation of another earth-like planet orbiting a sun-like star over a thousand scientists' armchair calculations of the supposed probability of what might happen on such a planet any day of the week. (Well, not on weekends because on weekends I like to relax).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 9:50:07 AM PDT
On second thought, looks pretty convincing to me!

:)

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 9:58:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 10:12:55 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 10:14:15 AM PDT
Do you believe that lack of a detailed explanation for how life could have arisen spontaneously is proof that it couldn't have?

I would argue that lack of a detailed explanation for how life could have arisen spontaneously is only proof that so far no one has been able to come up with one.

It seems to me quite likely that progress in understanding this question will require much more information than we have now on what kinds of prebiotic chemistry can occur on earth-like planets around sun-like stars, of which there now appear to be many.

Actually getting this information may be a challenge....

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 10:30:49 AM PDT
Unless you can go back and time and literally witness the beginning of the universe, you will NEVER know how we got here, so feel free to debate the issue for the remainder of existence.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 10:37:08 AM PDT
Creationist science is a contradiction in terms.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 10:37:21 AM PDT
JMcC: The next time you (Christopher H) write such long word salad, try not to fail so hard on your very first sentence.

I'm not sure I don't prefer his other writing style, John. At least it's amusing.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 10:39:35 AM PDT
Elliott Bignell says:Or perhaps cut and paste.

I think you're right, Elliott.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 10:41:04 AM PDT
That's more like it, Christopher.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 11:31:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 11:52:21 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 11:33:28 AM PDT
Extending this logic, one can never know what's going on inside the sun, or in quasars, or inside the earth......

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 11:38:44 AM PDT
1. It's "We" Creationists.

2. It's we "have" a question.

3. It's "The public school teaches", not "The public school it teaches".

4. It's "those gurus", not "them gurus".

5. It's "they weren't", not "they wasn't".

Agree that the origin of chiral preference in biological molecules is unknown. That does not mean an explanation can't someday be found, just that right now it's not known.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 12:28:51 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Alias McAlias says: Unless you can go back and time and literally witness the beginning of the universe, you will NEVER know how we got here, so feel free to debate the issue for the remainder of existence.

Lj3d: I agree with your logic to a point. The point being that we will never know with 100% certainty how we got here. However, we can know with high degrees of certainty how we got here. Someone with scientific understanding usually knows this without having to say it. This logic can apply to creation or science by asking for example, how can we be 100% certain that what the Bible says is true any more than we can know what came before the big bang if anything?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 140 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 Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Questions for Intelligent Design Fans 4929 1 minute ago
Is it just me ... 79 27 minutes ago
The US climate change counter movement is comprised of 91 separate organizations, with annual funding, collectively, of "just over $900 million." 0 59 minutes ago
Flight shot down in Ukraine carrying 108 AIDS researchers 39 1 hour ago
Hyped Claims About Warming Deep Ocean is Debunked 5 1 hour ago
Thermodynamics Blowout!!!..... Creationists: 4,..... Nobel Prize Winners: Zero 63 2 hours ago
Failed scientific theories 32 2 hours ago
Hyped Stories of Himalayan Glacier Disaster is Debunked 15 2 hours ago
Creationists state the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics 6 2 hours ago
Creationists are trying to rewrite the Laws of Thermodynamics! 1419 2 hours ago
Hands up, all those who actually believe that the Antarctic is in danger of melting! 289 4 hours ago
BRITE Constellation 0 9 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  159
Total posts:  3478
Initial post:  Apr 18, 2012
Latest post:  1 day ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions