|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Chatterbox on August 16, 19100 at 20:43:41:
In Reply to: Re: Oy Vey posted by Spotcheck on August 16, 19100 at 11:42:34:
: I just asked a question that you are unprepared to answer!
: So you insist!
I insist because it is true!
: To be a scientific theory, creationism has to have the possibility of being shown untenable. Evolution does, and I gave an example. Why can't you give an example of the same thing for creationism?
: Because creationism is not science. That's simple enough for all of us to see. I've got no problem with it not being science. It's a religion as we all know. I'm not even a creationist -- unless that definition is pushed to extremes.
Thank you, so the answer is that creationism does not have a scientific theory?
Fine. Why was this like pulling teeth?
: Two things cannot be true if they are mutually contradictory.
: They aren't which is precisely the point you keep missing. Do you not think it's possible to integrate a natural logarithmic function that will nicely convert 6, 24 hour days into 15 billion years? Remember your radioactive decay rates and what happens there? Keep on pushing, and you will be surprised by this one!
I.m pushing, and pushing very hard. I'm pushing you! Will this get you to produce this "surprising" stuff?
Oh, and put it on a fresh thread, since it has nothing to do with the question I ask on this one.
Want me to push harder?
: Then what is the point? And what does it have to do with stating an observation that would make you abandon creationism?
: Creationism is a religion, but it also has some empirical data within it that can indeed be extraoplated into that which I have alluded to above. It that what you needed to hear?
No. Now read this carefully. Ready?
I did not ask for data in support of creationism.
I asked for data that would cause creationists to abandon creationism.
Got it?
: : : An act of God?
: No place for such an entity in science I am afraid, but then this only underlines my point.
: We do not need God right here, if you take me up on the offer above. Just get ready to be surprised as I was.
I will be more than surprised if you can post anything I have not seen before several times. But don't let that scare you off.
Indeed, I don't even know if this can be adequately explain in this cyberworld format. But I will attempt it you'd like. Or not. It's completely up to you.
Go ahead. But since it is irrelevant to the question I asked, put it on a new thread.