• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the biggest scam in world history?

Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
There are two models, evolution and creation, whom the creator was can be investigated, sort of like abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

So basically you reject the scientific method completely? How's that working for you?

How might we go about that? In what way would it resemble abiogenesis research?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
One thing you might want to know, MoF. The early geologists who first realized that the earth was at least millions, not thousands, of years old, were Christians and Young Earth Creationists. They went out looking for the evidence of what Genesis describes. They were quite surprised when they found it wasn't there; quite the opposite. The evidence clearly indicated that the earth was very old, and had been gradually changing for all that time. Being honest men, they changed their opinions.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Man of Faith said:
All I can tell you is if the scientific and educational communities would let creationists get on equal footing, we could go head to head and flesh out all these issues.
Click to expand...
As soon as creationists start using the scientific method....
Wait...
They can't use the scientific method.
If they did, Creationists would have absolutely nothing to present.

Funny how this fact escapes you, ManofFaith.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Let me see if I can answer this question with information that Darwin didn't have during his days which makes me, if I think about it, more educated than Darwin. We have the genetic code and both sides agree with that. The creationists model says that a creator created the original forms in their original condition, fully formed, beetles, wolf, horse, human, rabbit, etc... And inside these original forms was the genetic make up for diversity of species but limited to their original forms. Meaning the original forms can take on different characteristics and variety but only in their same original forms. They don't take on any other form. Non-coincidently that is what we see in nature.
Click to expand...
This is gobbledygook....
If we look at the genetic make up of living things we see that they are all related closely in lines of decent back to a common ancestor.
The fossil record and thus, nature backs this up.

Additionally... education and understanding are not the same thing. Being taught a bunch of buzzwords does not mean you know what they actually mean and how to use them.

Tell me, what was the "original form" of the horse?

wa:do
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
As soon as creationists start using the scientific method....
Wait...
They can't use the scientific method.
If they did, Creationists would have absolutely nothing to present.

Funny how this fact escapes you, ManofFaith.
Click to expand...

Creationists use the scientific method when doing science. Nobody uses the scientific method when interpretating scientific data.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
painted wolf said:
Not to mention physics.

wa:do
Click to expand...

and....and....and...................


As to the OP, my original answer had been "the first crusade", but I'd like to add a notable mention to "creation science". It's trying very hard to edge out the first crusade as the biggest scam in history. Luckily there aren't enough people in the world ignorant enough to grant it creedence and reverse 200 years worth of human progress in the sciences.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Walkntune said:
Or possibly believing material exists at all???
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I mean it's totally obvious that when when a rawandan baby girl stands and watches her mother get raped and then bludgeoned, she's clearly delusional about the whole imaginary event.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
MSizer said:
Oh I know, I mean it's totally obvious that when when a rawandan baby girl stands and watches her mother get raped and then bludgeoned, she's clearly delusional about the whole imaginary event.
Click to expand...
I get that you're not willing to discuss philosophical topics, but this kind of response is not only unhelpful in missing the mark, it is perverted and twisted.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Willamena said:
I get that you're not willing to discuss philosophical topics, but this kind of response is not only unhelpful in missing the mark, it is perverted and twisted.
Click to expand...

I disagree on all acounts actually. I am passionate about philosophy, particularly about morality. I do not believe I have missed the mark at all. Are you willing to take a child rape victim in your arms and say "don't worry, it's only a misguided perception"? Now that is missing the mark. And lastly, "perverted and twisted"? How? By acknowledging that those of us sitting on cushy computer office chairs who have the luxury of pondering whether what we think is real is actually real shouldn't be brought back to the ground where most people live? I don't see that as anything but sobering.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
Creationists use the scientific method when doing science. Nobody uses the scientific method when interpretating scientific data.
Click to expand...

Anyone doing science uses the scientific method. However when creationists use science, it is not to advance creationism, and when they advocate YEC, they are not doing science. This has been explained to you repeatedly, as well as exactly why and in what ways. Yet you continue to repeat this falsehood. Why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top