Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
A better analogy would be if you ever find a hundred dollar bill that is counterfeit, take it to the evolutionist currency exchange and they’ll say its good to go.
Do you agree with these definitions? How do you define Creationism?
Who discovered that Piltdown man was a fraud? Scientists did. It didn't fit what the rest of the data about the evolution of humanity anyway.
Who discovered that the Chinese half bird was a fraud? Oh yeah, it was scientists again.
Unlike science, creationists embrace their frauds and charlatans. Dinosaur tracks besides those of modern men. Dinosaurs painted on rocks. False quotes and lies about death bed renunciations. Creationists just LOVE those little lies. And unlike in science, there is no criteria to distinguish between the really whacked out lies and frauds and the wacky irrational beliefs legitimately come by.
Why do you make this harder than it needs to be? I defined creation in a very classical manner. You have derrided those who are adherents to one of (I suspect creatio ex nihilo) the theories of creation. I have not, in this thread said which view I hold, although I suppose you divined my view when you referenced "Creationists generally are lacking in that ability....". I am an extemely straight talking person.
OK, I'll play for now; what statement?
This statement of yours.
So, please do provide falsifiable evidence of a truth. Say for instance,provide falsifiable evidence of the truth that people (it does not have to be all people) have a conscience (bad or good, little or large).
Why would you want me to defend your statement?
They were perpetrated by the same scientific community that fell for them, sometimes for years before the glorious, all knowing scientific community demonstrated that they were frauds, which creationists knew they would be all along.
The only ones who thought they were real was the scientific community that got duped.
If the guy who's been caught printing fake one hundreds hands me a $100 bill, I'm going to be suspicious.
Do you think religious charlatans and fakers (of which there have been many thousands) discredit religion to an equal degree that a couple hoax fossils do?
Of course they discredit religion and frauds deliberately perpetrated by the scientific community to put the ToE beyond dispute discredit science, and it isn't just in the area of evolution. The antics of the APW crowd has similarly discredited science.
Face it, science and peer review have taken a real beating on more than one front these days. Scientists are being knocked off their pedestal and their egos are having a hard time dealing with it.
Just for the record, you don't have anything to add that's actually a comment on the topic of the thread, do you? I mean, really. Your first post in the thread is post 95 which doesn't address the topic of the thread at all, but is merely a slam at creationists for not being gullible enough to believe everything that comes down the pike in the way of fossil finds.
Who perpetrated the Piltdown Man fraud? Oh yeah, it was scientists.
Who discovered that the Chinese half bird was a fraud? Oh yeah, it was scientists again.
WHo perpetrated archaeoraptor? Oh yeah, it was scientists again.
Unlike science, creationists embrace their frauds and charlatans.
But not all creationists.
Creationists would not have discovered that the frauds were frauds because no scientist would allow a creationist to actually examine said fossil to begin with. For one thing, they are working under the presumption and delusion that creationists are incapable of doing the science involved to make that determination. The other would be that then someone just might discover that it really was a fraud and blow their cover, instead of it taking 40 years to have it happen.
Dinosaur tracks besides those of modern men.
And I'll raise you an archaeoraptor....
Creationists just LOVE those little lies.
Scientists just love their big lies.
Face it. There isn't a thing you can throw up in creationist's faces that can't be equally applied to scientists.
Extremely straight talking? LOL You gave three definitions of creationism, creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex deo, and creatio ex materia. Are you claiming that all three definitions are equivalent? Is there a reason why you aren't stating which one you believe in?
Are you deliberately trying not to provide a straight answer or are you unable to provide a straight answer? Either way you are providing evidence for my original statement.
From the guy who upthread told everyone that everything he says and believes (his truth) is meaningless.
What a hoot!!!!
TS. Your definitions simply don't match his, or what he wants them to be, ergo he considers them not valid.
More of that meaningless chemical activity that he claims passes for thought and reasoning.
“I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say."
This statement of your was in direct correlation to your statement;
"Only 'truth' that can be falsified (tested) can have any meaning;” and, in the context with metmom, a moral truth, not a physical truth.
So I'l ask again more plainly; do it; falsify a (moral) truth.
Industry values science education and pays people if they know and understand science and can produce things of value.
Industry has no use for creationists. They produce nothing of value.
I know this subject. The discovery of epigenetic factors is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that evolution takes place through natural selection of genetic variation; it just expands the notion of genetic variation to include not only the DNA sequence, but the epigenetic context of how protein bound that DNA sequence is.
I didn't say that I could falsify a 'moral' truth. Morality is not 'truth'. Can you even define a morality that is true in all circumstances?
Okay look you have made it plain that you as most evolutionists harbor a rabid hatred for ‘the creationist’. So what, its a false argument. It does not enter into the discussion except as a tool for the evolutionist to divert scrutiny away from an insight into his beliefs.
And no, it was one or just a few individuals who discovered those frauds, the vast majority of ‘the scientists’ as you call them were deceived for years because they wanted so much to believe it as true. And its not like people who had suspicions had access to investigate these things anyway.
Oh and by the way, it was a ‘creationist’ who was the first to point out all the problems with skull 1470. Skull 1470 was yet another fossil find hailed as world shattering ‘missing link’ by the evolutionists only to be quietly set aside later on the dusty shelf of debunked evo theory’s.
Since the creator has given man a free will as part of his plan for us, no one, not even the creator can make man turn towards him if he insists on worshiping at the false altar of evolutionism. All he can do is warn us to the eternal consequences of such idolatry.
‘Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them’
Scrutiny into scientific evidence is what I engage in daily. There is no attempt to divert scrutiny away from the evidence that supports the conclusions.
Piltdown was not a case of people wanting “so much to believe”. If Piltdown were real it would throw quite a ‘monkey’ wrench into what we know about human evolution.
Acceptance that living things develop through natural selection of genetic variation no more removes God as the ultimate creator of living things than accepting that stars form through gravity and nuclear fusion means that God did not create the stars and our Sun.
I am going to try not to be angered by your ignorant statements. The world is not as simple as a single definition, and you stating I gave you 3 definitions for creation is not the same as saying I gave you three basic views of the origin of the universe. In a civil attempt to broach the subject of cosmologies I simply started a conversation with you. I cannot say all things in a single simple post.
Regarding your insinuation that that I fear stating my personal understanding of origin, all you have to do is ask. I will tell you that I believe in Creatio ex nihilo, moreover I believe that the only reasonable explaination is that this spacetime, matter, energy continuum in which we find ourselves is a Theistic Christian Universe, and assert that any other cannot be logically, reasonably, and by rational thought be accounted for. I hope that is clear. I will tell you, moreover, that the Transendental argument of the existence of God is that without the existence of God you cannot prove anything. That is because in an atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for, laws, in general: philosophically the laws of thought, laws of nature, laws of logic, the laws of reason. Atheism and materialism cannot account for logic, reason, or rational thought, or conciousness, or any other abstract idea and therefore cannot materially account for even their claims of being logical and adherents to scientific inquiry and method cannot be accounted for. The laws of logic cannot be accounted for in a materialists worldview. The very 'claim' that the atheist materialist is the protector of reason and logic is absurd on its face and is in fact the proof that God does exist. I do not say materialists cannot be logical. To the contrary, they may use the laws of logic while denying the Origin of the very logic which they claim they champion. When asked what is the chemical formula or the molecular weight of logic or consciousness, they feign outrage and begin with ad hominem attacks such as you have demonstrated in a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the questions which I put to you.These question of molecular weights and chemical formula are used, not to embarrass, but to put you inside your own thought domain and allow you to come to a conclusion yourself, if you decided to use the step-by-step reasoning and logic the materialist cannot account for.
Tee it up, fellow. I will answer any serious question you put to me. I will not be as nice as I might otherwise have been. I will be blunt and to the point with you. I will not call names. I will not answer inane questions. I will dialogue with you, but I will not take the time to induldge your foolish comentary.
These quotes from that post show it.....
Sure, Science produces things of value. Creationists produce nothing of value.
Industry values science education and pays people if they know and understand science and can produce things of value.
Industry has no use for creationists. They produce nothing of value.
You're clearly saying that creationists can't do science and that's simply not true. There are plenty of creationists even on this forum who practice science and technology. And there are evolutionists on this forum who have nothing to do with science and clearly don't understand it and act like they do simply because of their belief system.
So, from your reasoning, only valid scrutiny can come from scientists.
If creationists express skepticism, they’re just a bunch of ignorant, knuckle dragging, Luddites who don’t really understand how science works, simply because you as an evo, don’t like or approve of their reasons for skepticism.
Creationists can only do science if they leave out the creationism. Creationism isn't science, never was and never will be.
Science produces things of value.
Creationism produces nothing of value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.