Customer Discussions > Science forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:20:19 PM PDT
In reply to your post on May 11, 2012 10:02:10 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Philip J. Allen says: Science can't prove anything about the origins of life.
>The correct statement would be that science has yet proven anything about the origins of life.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. ~ Charles Darwin

PJA. I should have specified who wrote that paragraph as my response was actually the one below. You misquoted me.Look for my initials before every paragraph then you know it's my own writing. Apologies..

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:16:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 5:16:44 PM PDT
"Science it cant never even offer no credible explanation the origins of life. "

Well, as long as you have Noman and John Croft on "ignore", you're quite safe from seeing any of the actual recent scientific evidence that they cite. Stay safe, now.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:21:19 PM PDT
Tero says:
Oh no, not Koonin and the zillion zeros again!

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:28:36 PM PDT
John McClain says:
Hi Christopher!

Just to remind you, you still haven't answered that question. Here it is again incase you've forgotten what it was:

So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?

Posted on May 11, 2012 5:30:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 5:47:28 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 May 11, 2012 6:11:18 PM PDT
brunumb says:
As long as the probability of an event is not zero, then it can happen no matter how small the probability.
So life could arise in the universe, and no God is necessary.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:16:24 PM PDT
And I could win the lottery, Hallelujah! Uh oh, better buy a ticket first (though I'm not sure it would actually statistically increase my chances).

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:17:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 6:18:36 PM PDT
Reposting -----

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_search_res_ti?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgID=Mx1OP3VIBXPQTT9&cdMsgNo=143&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3E2K3TSUV6TV4#Mx1OP3VIBXPQTT9

A. Caplan says:
Ferbilini says: Why not ask your expert Koonin at the Evolutionary Genomics Research Group for an answer. His trouble with accepting possible scenarios of abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with him accepting the fact of biological evolution.
>I communicated by email with Dr. Koonin. Amazingly, he answered. The results: Dr. Koonin has no reason to doubt as to the validity of abiogenesis. I copied and pasted those emails in the Science Forum. Also, I've read Dr. Koonin's book to which CH refers, but apparently CH has not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:24:39 PM PDT
Christopher.

What does the probability statistics have to do with the actual existence of a supernatural creator?
And if you are going to use Eugene Koonin as a reference then I will point you towards Laurence Krauss..You
should read "A universe from nothing"

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:19:03 PM PDT
brunumb says:
To about four decimal places, the probability of winning lotto is the same whether you buy a ticket or not.
:)

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:30:00 PM PDT
barbW says:
hi brunumb, good to have you over here

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 10:05:08 PM PDT
John McClain says:
Hi Christopher!

Just to remind you, you still haven't answered that question. Here it is again incase you've forgotten what it was:

So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?

Posted on May 11, 2012 10:32:32 PM PDT
Ferbilini says:
CH

You don't think whatsoever that it's just a tad silly to hold one scientist and his calculations as the epicenter of ALL scientific knowledge and declare the end of the subject?

You claim that scientist have accomplished nothing in their research of abiogenesis in the last 80 years. Evidence to you that the search abiogenesis is a failure. Scientist have been searching much longer and FAR more diligently for a cure for cancer. Is it your opinion that they are wasting their time? and that cancer and the myriad other diseases, illnesses etc. simply cannot be cured? Why is 80 years a reliable benchmark to you? Why not 15 years or 83 years?

What if Koonin claims a month or two from now that his calculations were off and that the odds of abiogenesis occurring are more likely to be in 1 in 240,000. Would you then consider abiogenesis a feasible option? What number would you be comfortable with?

I think the problem for most of us is your extremely limited perspective that is quite frankly impractical in EVERY area of scientific inquiry for Atheist and Christian Scientist alike.

Pease excuse my grammar ,im sleepy:)

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 12:19:39 AM PDT
They are too frightened of reality to face it!

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 9:56:12 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Well, as long as you have Noman and John Croft on "ignore"..."

**I'm on *Ignore*? I *thought* the Universe felt brighter.

Posted on May 14, 2012 9:32:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 10:35:50 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 May 14, 2012 9:37:13 AM PDT
John McClain says:
Hi Christopher!

Just to remind you, you still haven't answered that question. Here it is again incase you've forgotten what it was:

So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:13:37 PM PDT
A customer says:
Christopher Haynes - "Us Creationists, are we betting the farm on one scientist, Koonin?"

Indeed not. Just on one number from one publication from one scientist.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:53:16 PM PDT
"Creationist Scientists they came up with the same figure as Koonin 50 years ago."

Names? Citations?

I'm not betting the farm on an answer.

Posted on May 14, 2012 3:18:26 PM PDT
God used the Big Bang.

The End.

Posted on May 14, 2012 3:20:21 PM PDT
jpl says:
Creationism..................... can't science offer a credible alternative?

jpl: It has. Pseudo-science "Creationism" hasn't.

Posted on May 15, 2012 3:56:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 8:35:20 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 May 15, 2012 4:20:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 4:22:53 AM PDT
Tero says:
>>3) Compelling empirical evidence has shown that them supernatural forces exist. Like turning water into wine<<

How? Water has no carbon. Is there a nuclear fusion reaction* (minisun) involved or was it a startrekky transporter that exchanged for ethanol somewhere else nearby?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

Posted on May 15, 2012 4:25:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still hiding from the question, I see, Haynes. How pathetic--but typical of cowardly creationist hicks.

Just to remind you, you still haven't answered that question. Here it is again in case you've forgotten what it was:

So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:30:15 AM PDT
A customer says:
Christopher Haynes - "Like turning water into wine"

Red or white? What vintage?
[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
A real scientific question for physicists: 115 2 minutes ago
Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a fraud? 181 4 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 4871 14 minutes ago
Evolution - what the fossils say 421 16 minutes ago
Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate? 9122 18 minutes ago
Antarctic ice at record levels. Read the AGW Pushing Author, doing back flips trying to explain this. 40 30 minutes ago
Quantum entanglement and the Mars Rover 42 58 minutes ago
Scientifically..........When does human life begin? 137 7 hours ago
Nasa is lying Asteroid will hit the Earth in less than 24 hours. 98 7 hours ago
The Origins Of Life 2598 19 hours ago
Energy cannot be created or destroyed 1399 1 day ago
Connections between relativity and quantum mechanics: progress already made 112 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  163
Total posts:  3765
Initial post:  Apr 18, 2012
Latest post:  16 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions