My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Or maybe the Vedas.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Maybe may be or may not be..

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Really?
REALLY?!?After all this time on this forum, you still think that the Theory of Evolution explains:
a) How life began
and
b) How the universe began.Jesus Christ on a bike!
Do you find it that hard to learn?

Creationist definitions: --Percy

Panda, can you LEARN how to seperate paragraphs? His first paragraph is dealing with TOE. THAT is evolution he is talking about. I believe his SECOND paragraph is about the "Big bang". I know it's so easy to always say Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate when you evo's don't have an answer for something but how very convienient! Yes, your not at all concerned where life came from we know, evolution ONLY deals with existing life. Well that's dandy.I wonder if ALL medical fields did this what would happen? Forget baby shots, the childs history, his parents history of illness or disease, how or if he was premature or where or when he was born and from WHO. I know, CRAZY right? Can you imagine a Doctor doing this? He would be locked up! But when an EVOLUTIONIST says that abiogenesis and Evolution are seperate where just supposed to say- oh yeah! that's right, sorry guys I forgot that makes things more confusing than the already obsurd theory BOTH of then are!...my apologies, I don't mean to confuse you with valid questions to your obsurd theology. Yes, theology.Edited by Chuck77, : spelling

We do-se-do to do a switch-y-do for you. ID creation science = chaotic disorder to complex order via planned work, compatible with objective real life observation and basic science law. Singularity, BB, abiogenesis and evolution = chaotic disorder to order void of intelligent planned work and objective real life observation and basic science law. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add 2 paragraphs

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The first paragraph is about Abiogenesis, not TOE. Abiogenesis and TOE are separate the same way your birth and your life are separate. We don't need to know everything (or anything about your birth) in order to know what you ate this morning. Science separate different subjects in order to study them more easily, not out of some conspiracy.Contrary to your beliefs that stuck us in the dark arges, science actually works(something you should know well since you are currently using a computer) but if we did things your way, all progress would be stopped.I don't see you guys saying that the theory of gravity is false because we don't know how the universe began.Now, could you explain to me how having the first life magicked into existance or brought forth by natural processes would affect TOE?

Hi Chuck77,Not being able to keep other fields of science separate from evolution is not only typical creationist thinking, but also terrifically ironic in this case because some creationists believe that God created the original life forms and then evolution produced all the species we see today. This particular flavor of creationist view requires that the origin of life and evolution be separate.Both evolution and abiogenesis are fields within biology. Evolution is how species change over time. Abiogenesis is how the first life came to be. We understand the mechanisms and processes of evolution pretty well, those of abiogenesis barely at all.But abiogenesis and evolution are related to one another. There must have been a considerable period of overlap and ambiguity where early life was more than complex chemistry but less than what we would consider life. There was no clear line of demarcation where one instant there was no life and the next instant there was.A true creationist thinker will reject this information and continue to insist that classifying abiogenesis and evolution as separate fields within biology is a dishonest evolutionist shell game.--Percy

Evolutionist definitions:Science: Science acceptable to Evolutionists
Creationism: Science not acceptable to EvolutionistsReal Definition of Science:Definition of SCIENCE
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.Merriam-Webster.I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

You must have missed the memo - auditions for town fool are next week.--Percy

Well, now you're just highlighting another problem with creationist thinking: illogic. The creationist confusion about fields of science is very real, we see it all the time. There is no equivalent evolutionist confusion, particularly since "creation science" has made no contributions for science to ignore. This is a hodgepodge of familiar examples of creationist confusion about evolution and science and is typical creationist thinking. Most of these fall into the category of fallacy of, "If I can disrespect it I've refuted it."--Percy

I will quote Son Message 67 (as he answered this, but you chose to ignore it). (The emphasis is mine.)Buz has been on this forum for years and has been told this more times than I care to remember.Here's a task for you:
Go and find a scientific web-site that has a definition of the ToE that includes an explanation of 'first life' (or abiogenesis, as scientists call it).
Go on.
I dare you.p.s.
If his 2nd paragraph is not related to the ToE then it is simply a pointless 'rabbit hole'.

Perhaps the town majistrate will be prepared to falsify the town fool's do-se-do at the audition.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Son, click on my Buzsaw profile to see that Buzsaw has understood the alleged scientific claims of abiogenesis and ToE. I am fully aware of them. Chuck was right. One of the functions of paragraphs is to separate points posted. BB and ToE pertain to points posted.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

I thought you said earlier that you only looked black?