Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh gee not having you participate will so break my heart.
But I do think it helpful to consolidate in one thread a list of ALL branches creationists must deny , so as to put down the lie that they are not anti science but just have issues with one small specific part of science. Kind of like writing down ALL your bills in one list when your money doesn't make it to the end of the month and you cant figure out why, because you don't seem to be spending as much as you really are. Seeing it all at once has an effect that thinking about them individually and separately does not.
Well to be honest I couldn't figure out how they might be denying chemistry, so that's not on my list. But admittedly I didn't have to work hard on my initial list of 6 and didn't research much after those.
Actually, they'd be denying chemistry because of all the various chemical reactions that would have to take place in regards to evolution. After all, much of our biology involves chemistry.
Please. Spare us the dumbstuff arguments rejecting things we have figured out and know how it goes down and what the deal is/was.
I won't even participate in a debate on this...it is a waste of time and effort.
Okay, you can put GldnRule denying this debate on your list.
Actually, they'd be denying chemistry because of all the various chemical reactions that would have to take place in regards to evolution. After all, much of our biology involves chemistry.
OK I am going to play at referee some in this , or devils advocate if you will , and take (somewhat) the side of questioning the validity of chemistry. Im not sure how creationists specifically deny chemistry , so some explanation on this one is needed.
Also not sure how geography comes into play , although getting those kangaroos from Ozland to the ME for the Big Boat Ride does present a logistical problem. But still up in the air on this one until further info is given.
As to Astronomy and physics, I would combine them into one field of astrophysics. I don't see how astronomy alone causes problems for creationists, and while I guess at some level basic physics does , I think it is the combination of the two into the field of astrophysics that gives them the problem of deep time and an expanding universe from nothingness to deal with by denial.
So for now, until further explanation on these above , lets add astrophysics to the list of sciences denied by creationists. Which was on my list. So we are at 5 out of the 7 I see, one having been added by Trout.
Looks like creationism is turning out to be pretty well anti science all around rather than just anti evolution.
Last edited by wallflash; 03-01-2016 at 09:26 PM..
I think isotopes are part of chemistry even when they are used in radio metric dating. If you prefer it to be all include in physics I have no problem with that either.
I think isotopes are part of chemistry even when they are used in radio metric dating. If you prefer it to be all include in physics I have no problem with that either.
OK, bingo. Radiometric dating. Did not think of that when compiling my initial list although I have argued the idea before, especially the misapplication of carbon 14 dating on dino fossils . Now the list is at 8 counting my 2 that have not been brought up yet, with 2 still to go ( at least ).
Thanks to bad and Shirina.
Things are looking even more anti science on the creationists part than I thought.
PS at 11:38. After some consideration I have upped the branches of science shown to be denied to 9 , with 7 named so far. While at first it felt like cheating to list radiometric dating under 2 disciplines, it does indeed fall within both physics and chemistry, so in truth chemistry is now one of the branches creationism has to deny. Apologies to Shirina.
Last edited by wallflash; 03-01-2016 at 09:38 PM..
Okay, you can put GldnRule denying this debate on your list.
I won't debate with evolution deniers.
But I will debate the merit (actually, lack thereof) of arguing with those who deny evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
