| Subject: |
|
That is why it's your faith, not science |
| Name: |
|
whoisyourcreator |
| Date Posted: |
|
Feb 29, 08 - 8:06 AM |
| IP Address: |
|
75.72.61.158 |
| Email: |
|
Click here to Email |
| Message: |
|
In regard to your comment:
"Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field."
Since you admit that proof for a 'naturalistic' creation of the universe and life from non-life "hasn't been discovered yet," why do evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students claiming it has?
In regard to your comment:
"The supernatural does not exist in science."
Yes, we know that and that is why you guys keeps making up these utterly outrageous scenarios which are taken seriously ONLY because they leave no room for God:
Creation of the universe:
“A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.”
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm
“The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.”
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
“The Earth initially formed from the same disk of dust and gas from which the sun itself coalesced. As the mass of the Earth increased, so did the gravitational force it exerted, and it was bombarded by objects from space ranging in size from dust particles to small planets (planetismals). The accretion of this material increased the size of Earth. The impacts of large bodies and the decay of radioactive elements generated heat that melted the materials of the young Earth, creating the “hellish” conditions for which the Hadean Eon was named.”
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/hadean2.html
At least NASA admits to the futility of it all:
“Even though we now know the age and recipe of our Universe, we don't know what started it all. What was the energy that powered the Big Bang? What came “before” the Big Bang? What process planted the primordial seeds? We will go Beyond Einstein as we study these profound questions and attempt to understand our origins.”
http://universe.nasa.gov/science/bigbang.html
Theories for abiogenesis are even more entertaining:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2434&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://www.physorg.com/news115988029.html
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/463.html
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/071030_DNA.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news100533246.htm
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
In regard to your comment:
"Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural."
I don't call the creation of the universe and life 'Intelligent Design.' It's called Creationism and, as seen on this board, I don't think evolution OR creationism should be taught as fact in science as neither can be proven by empirical evidence.--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to: "However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also."
What utter tripe. Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field.
"Evolutionary supernatural event"? Sorry, no such thing. The supernatural does not exist in science.
"Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;"
You mean like "Intelligent Design"?
"2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;"
You mean like "Intelligent Design" via the Discovery Institute?
"3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true"
You mean like the way Casey Luskin, Michael Behe and William Dembski act?
"4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?"
Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural.
(I can only guess what your response is to this. I hear it coming... and you're wrong.) |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com