• 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?

sonofskeptish

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
If you reject the scientific method, all which science has given us should be withheld from you.

I'm not being double standard as I'd be happy to reject all which religion has given us.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
It just occured to me that even the phrase "creation science" itself implies that the goal of this "discipline" is to explore a predetermined opinion. Even the name itself is an oxymoron.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
MSizer said:
It just occured to me that even the phrase "creation science" itself implies that the goal of this "discipline" is to explore a predetermined opinion. Even the name itself is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Which means "evolution biologist" implies that the goal of that discipline is to explore a predetermined opinion.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Man of Faith said:
Which means "evolution biologist" implies that the goal of that discipline is to explore a predetermined opinion.
Click to expand...

No, because evolution is a continuously refined theory derrived from facts. Creation was written prior to the exploration of the evidence.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
Nobody that I know of rejects the scientific method.
Click to expand...

ScallopedMirror.jpg
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Man of Faith said:
Which means "evolution biologist" implies that the goal of that discipline is to explore a predetermined opinion.
Click to expand...

... and where have you seen the title "evolution biologist" used in the scientific community?

Painted Wolf is a scientist that studies in the field of Biology. I may be wrong, but I doubt that she has a business card with the title "Evolution Biologist" on it. I'm guessing that she considers herself a Biologist that has come to the conclusion that the evidence that she sees on a daily basis supports the conclusion that evolution is a viable, working explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

See how that works?
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Man of Faith said:
Nobody that I know of rejects the scientific method.
Click to expand...

That should tell you something hnnnnn?

The scientific method works very well in hospitals, labs, computers..well....pretty much EVERYTHING....even "Evolution"....but for some reason you think the method does not validate evolution when in fact it really does. It even serves our point to show that you are in denial....Yes....The scientific method works very, very well.....:cool:
 
H

haltensie

Member
Why waste your time with someone who has no interest in acknowledging realty? This guy doesn't care about the evidence. He only wants to reinforce his own prejudices. These people are not worth the time or effort so I suggest to you all to just give up and let ManofFaith keep living in la-la land.
 
J

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
haltensie said:
Why waste your time with someone who has no interest in acknowledging realty? This guy doesn't care about the evidence. He only wants to reinforce his own prejudices. These people are not worth the time or effort so I suggest to you all to just give up and let ManofFaith keep living in la-la land.
Click to expand...

But that wouldn't be much fun. Then I'd have to find some one else to laugh at! :yes:
 
johnhanks

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
MoF, you seem unaccountably to have overlooked the following:
johnhanks said:
You mean you're walking away? You're not going to explain how thorns and thistles really mean bacterial pathogenicity? You're not going to give us the creationist take on how polymorphism arises? You're not going to explain why lions and house-cats are cat-kind, but humans and chimps are not ape-kind, even though the latter pair are so much more genetically similar?
Click to expand...
Your reply eagerly awaited.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
johnhanks said:
I'm still eager to hear how this
is an application of scientific method.
Click to expand...

The Bible is used by some as a reference for interpreting data that was obtained from using the scientific method. Just like some us The Origin of the Species as a reference for interpreting the exact same data.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
johnhanks said:
MoF, you seem unaccountably to have overlooked the following:Your reply eagerly awaited.
Click to expand...

If you are interested in baraminology, there is plenty of data about it on the internets. I don't have all the answers but refer to scientists for that type of stuff.

Concerning genetic similarity, when The Origin of the Species is on your nightstand and is used as a reference in the interpretation of scientific data then that is how someone will say that a 95-98% genetic match would mean common descent. When the Bible is on your nightstand and is used as a reference of the same data someone will say that a close genetic match means a similar design to live in the same world.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Man of Faith said:
The Bible is used by some as a reference for interpreting data that was obtained from using the scientific method. Just like some us The Origin of the Species as a reference for interpreting the exact same data.
Click to expand...
The huge difference being, Origin is not used to interpret data. Scientist are perfectly willing to show where Darwin was mistaken.
Can the same be said of Creationists? Where have they admitted that empirical evidence shows a part of the Bible to be mistaken?
Answer-they don't. They hold the Bible to be unerring. Thus eliminating a significant part of the Scientific Method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top