What is the creationist's "scientific" alternative?

[RonO]

In the recent thread on the anti science activities of the creationist
political faction Bill brought up the fact that the creationists want to
teach their alternative in the public schools. That has been the intent
for over half a century, since the objection to the upgrading of the US
science standards after Sputnik and the court rulings against the anti
evolution laws that had been on the books for decades. The creationists
decided that their alternative should also be taught as science.
Scientific creationism was the result, but it turned out to be an utter
failure by the mid 1980's. A group composed of scientific creationists
and some younger upstarts that hadn't participated in the scientific
creationist ploy got together and decided to call their efforts
something else since they could no longer call it creationism and have
any hope of getting it into the public schools. They published a
"textbook" called Of Pandas and People in 1989 and updated it in 1993.
This was likely the start of the modern intelligent design political
ploy. The editor of the book was Thaxton and the main author was Kenyon
(both participated in the scientific creationist political ploy). Behe
claims to have written parts of the book, but he was not credited, and
Meyer wrote the teachers notes. All are still fellows at the Discovery
Institute's intelligent design unit. Meyer has been the director from
its start in 1995.

Of Pandas and People was actually a response to the fact that when
scientific creationism first went to court in Arkansas it was found that
there were no suitable teaching materials to teach scientific
creationism. All the literature was laced with Biblical references and
were obviously religious in nature. The creationists needed a book that
could be used in the public schools so they had to remove all the
religious references from the material that they wanted to teach.
Unfortunately for the creationists, they still called it creationism
when writing the book even though the Biblical references were left out.
Multiple drafts of the book were written before the supreme court
ruled that scientific creationism could not be taught in the public
schools. It wouldn't matter if they did take out the Biblical
references, there was nothing worth teaching about scientific
creationism in the science class. The supreme court did say that valid
scientific alternatives could be taught, but creationism was not a valid
alternative. It came out during the Dover court case against ID that
once the supreme court made its ruling the drafts of the book changed.
Creationism was replaced by design alternative wording. It was an
obvious ploy to get around the supreme court ruling, and was something
that had to be done throughout the book.

For some reason Philip Johnson is claimed by the other ID perps as being
the catalyst that started the intelligent design movement, but a lot of
these guys were already working on the ID scam before Johnson got
involved. He may have been the one that got them funding for the ID
scam unit at the Discovery Institute. After the court ruling in Dover
Johnson retired from the ID scam and admitted that the ID science had
never existed and that it was up to the IDiot science guys to come up
with the science that would be worth putting forward. He admitted that
trying to teach intelligent design in the public schools was not going
to happen and likely would not happen in his lifetime. He has not
supported the ID scam since that I know of and he is still alive.

Johnson made that admission over a decade ago. Staunch IDiots like Mike
Gene and Salvador Cordova followed suit and admitted that the ID science
did not exist. Even a guy like Bill has claimed that he is no longer
IDiot. Dembski just quit and resigned from the Discovery Institute, and
there is no doubt that Dembski was the main driver of the IDiot
"science". Behe just came up with irreducible complexity. Dembski
championed space aliens as the most scientific IDiot alternative,
specified complexity, complex specified information, and his new law of
thermodynamics, but nothing panned out for Dembski. No other IDiot that
I know of has anything else. Meyer's Cambrian explosion junk is just a
throwback to scientific creationism, and about the only other argument
that gets kicked around is that life is just too complex to have
evolved. It doesn't matter because as Phillip Johnson admitted nothing
panned out and there was no ID science worth teaching in the public schools.

It turns out that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute understood
this years before the Dover court case. It took over half a decade, but
as creationist began to realize what an utter failure scientific
creationism was, and intelligent design creationism eventually came to
the forefront. In the first Kansas state school board fiasco in 1999
where the creationist dropped the science they didn't like out of the
science standards (things like biological evolution, age of the earth,
the big bang, and radiometric dating were no longer in the standards as
something the students should know) the Kansas board still relied on the
scientific creationists (Hovind was supposed to be their science
advisor). By the second Kansas creationist state school board fiasco in
2005 intelligent design was the major ploy. Dover happened the same
year and intelligent design hasn't been a serious political poly since,
especially, since the ID perps had been running the bait and switch on
any creationist rubes stupid enough to have believed them since 2002 and
the Ohio creationist fiasco. Wells in his own report on the Ohio bait
and switch claimed that the ID perps had gotten together and decided
that they were not going to give the Ohio IDiots any ID science, but
they would give them their switch scam. A switch scam that does not
mention that ID nor creationism ever existed.

The switch scam is the only viable political ploy that the
ID/creationists have left, and even the creationists do not like it.
Whenever they try to implement the switch scam they keep screwing up
because they don't want to teach the obfuscation scam, they want to
teach their alternative. The Discovery Institute has (100% of the time)
run the bait and switch on any creationist rubes too stupid to have
gotten the message by this time. The Discovery Institute has to keep
reminding the rubes that there is no scientific alternative that they
want to teach at this time, and they have to stick with the obfuscation
scam. That is all the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have been
good for since 2002. None of their IDiot science ever panned out.

So what can the ID/creationists do about the current situation? Denial
is all that they have had so far and they obviously do not like the
switch scam that they are stuck with.

The ID/creationists are so far into denial at this point that likely
nothing will save them or their cause unless the dishonest, ignorant and
incompetent are able to force their views onto others. What is the
saddest part of IDiocy is that doing science was obviously never the
intention of the ID perps that signed onto the mission statement of the
Discovery Institute ID scam unit. All they wanted to do was make enough
excuses so that the rubes would think that there might be some type of
alternative. They never tried to scientifically verify any of their
junk. Behe is the obvious case in point. He claimed that his IC
notions were scientifically testable during his Dover testimony, but it
has been 11 years since Dover and no scientific testing has ever been
done, or, at least, Behe has never claimed to have gotten any results.
All the ID perps have ever done is to propose junk, but they never try
to verify the junk. All Behe as ever done is just add junk to IC to
make it even more unverifiable. There really, was never an intent to do
science. As one ex IDiot has claimed (I can't remember his name,
Evoguide or something like that) the ID perps never even got into the
boxing ring. They just paraded around the ring and claimed that they
could fight, but they never got into the ring with science to do any
fighting.

The ID perps did this on purpose. They did not want to do any science
that could be done. They were only interested in doing what could not
be verified. The reason for this is that the young earth creationist
faction is their strongest support base, and any science associated with
their alternative is already known to give the "incorrect" answers. The
ID perps never wanted to build the best scientific alternative because
the IDiot rubes that gave them money couldn't face reality.

So what is the creationist "scientific" alternative at this time? The
ID perps never put one up. They didn't want to do the science that
could be done in order to make their alternative as scientific as it
could be. What the ID scam artist did to further their political goals
obviously should not apply to any real scientists interested in the
subject. Some one should be working on the best creationist scientific
alternative.

This seems to already be happening, but creationists want to deny that
it is happening. Eddie brought up the subject of the alternative that
the Jehovah's Witnesses currently have. Until the 1980s the political
faction of the JWs was on board with the scientific creationists and
their anti science junk was young earth and fossil denial etc. They
apparently were not 7 day literal creationists, but believed that the
earth was less than 50,000 years old and that each day was 7,000 years
long. Since the failure of scientific creationism the JW creation
mythology has changed. A day can now be billions of years long. The
sun and moon were not created on the fourth day like the Bible claims.
It is obvious that creationist alternatives can change.

So the creationist alternative can change and be more consistent with
the current science. Beats me if this is a good or bad thing. I don't
think that any religion should base its theology on science. Just look
at what happened to our estimate of how long ago the Big Bang occurred.
Kelvin was messed up when the first law had to be changed and we found
out that matter could be converted to energy. We now know about
radioactive decay and nuclear fusion. So Kelvin's creationist estimates
were orders of magnitude off.

The YEC over at Answers in Genesis have embraced continental drift.
They just have to claim that it all happened in the year of the flood
just a couple thousand years ago. They will have to come to grips with
how the continents stayed intact while traveling thousands of miles, and
what happened to all the subducted crust and the molten Atlantic basin.
Should they have even tried?

Denton has his alternative. God initiated the Big Bang and everything
unfolded as planned. Behe has his alternative. The earth is billions
of years old and God tweeks lifeforms every few hundred million years to
eventually evolve us. Both admit that common descent is a fact of
nature and that the earth is billions of years old and that life has
been evolving on this planet for billions of years, but why hasn't the
Discovery Institute embraced one of their alternatives, and used science
to differentiate the two models? Other ID perps at the Discovery
Institute have their young earth Biblical alternatives, so why aren't
they doing the science that would confirm or reject one model over the
other? The JWs jumped onto the old earth band wagon, would Discovery
Institute YEC scientists like Kenyon and Nelson be able to be persuaded
by the science that Behe and Denton are relying on?

IDiots obviously have to start doing something about creating a
competitive alternative. You may not like Denton's alternative, but
nothing that science will ever discover will be inconsistent with it
unless we find some way to get around the singularity of the Big Bang.
As science it is pathetic, and as theology likely most IDiots don't want
to believe it. It is likely the most consistent with the science we
understand at this time, but so what? What is there left to argue about?

The point that creationists should have gotten from this post is that it
is stupid to base your theology on the science. You never wanted to do
that in the first place. Creation science and IDiocy were only
political ploys. Most creationists do not want to do any science to
validate their alternative. Most creationists involved in the political
scams do not want to know what the most viable alternative is. Until
that attitude changes creationists are just stuck with the empty denial
of what science is coming up with. As Bill and other IDiots finally
figured out they were arguing about nothing. There was never any intent
to get the answers that could be obtained, and they never wanted to know
the answers to the questions that they were proposing. If the IDiots
ever got an answer it likely wouldn't be what they wanted to believe.

So, if you are not interested in developing the best creationist
alternative is there any point in your science denial? It should be
obvious that the science does not matter to your religious beliefs, so
what is the point?

Try to develop your best creationist alternative and demonstrate whether
or not the facts in this post apply to you. You obviously are not doing
much of anything until you do that.

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

A for effort in my book

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Saying "Creationists are stupid" doesn't
make you smart.

Saying "Creationists don't do real science"
doesn't mean that you do.

Saying "Creationists aren't rational" doesn't
mean that you're rational.

What you need to do is spend a shit ton more
time trying to portray yourself as something
OTHER THAN an emotionally disturbed wannabe,
and less time tearing down creationists.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[Kalkidas]

On 5/28/2017 8:50 AM, RonO wrote:

[snip propaganda for scientism and Tourette's syndrome blather]

> Ron Okimoto
>

[Bill]

You repeat your assumption that those who disagree with you
are "ID Perps", dishonest scam artists but there are
problems. The ID/Creationist folks do not speak for
everyone; it is possible to hold bits and pieces of many
views as possibilities. One doesn't have to hold to some
Grand explanatory scheme, no inviolate dogma requires
universal acceptance. That is basis for all controversy
which is the basis for all intellectual freedom.

You promote a rigid and inflexible doctrine that would
suppress all dissent and forbid whole categories of opinion.
It doesn't even matter if your opinions are entirely correct
since they effectively prohibit discussion. I believe that
people, especially kids, benefit when every opinion is
freely expressed and openly discussed.

When I was in school, communism was believed, fervently, to
be evil. No one read Marx. I did. Alas I lacked the
historical context of the 19th century so I missed a lot.
Later, with more study, I learned to appreciate what the
protests were all about, I learned to sympathize with the
socialists and unionists. I learned that the sanitized
version of Western History I'd been taught was just bald
propaganda. I'd been lied to.

I found out that anything established by consensus is
suspect, tentative agreement. Those who hop on that
bandwagon can't get off without looking foolish. Their
greatest defense is to label all dissent as foolish. I see
your arguments as examples of the phenomenon.

Bill

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 28, Bill wrote
(in article <ogfb8i$jme$1...@dont-email.me>):

> I found out that anything established by consensus is
> suspect, tentative agreement.

when did you do this? what support can you offer for this position?

> Those who hop on that
> bandwagon can't get off without looking foolish.

I can think of numerous times when the scientific consensus on something has
changed. Big Bang vs Steady State, for example. Some never accepted the
concept of the Big Bang; the very name ‘Big Bang’ was hung on the concept
by one of those most virulently opposed, in an effort to ridicule it.
However, despite everything the nay-sayers could do and say, over time--and
not very much time at that--the consensus changed and the vast majority
dumped steady State for Big Bang. The bird-dinosuar connection is another
example. There still are some who insist that Birds Are Not Dinosaurs, but
the BAND is small and getting smaller. (Except, for course, among
creationists. They still cling to BAND. But they’re not scientists, and
their objections are religious-based, so who cares? Certainly not me.)

> Their
> greatest defense is to label all dissent as foolish. I

not all dissent, just the kooks. Like, well, you.

> see
> your arguments as examples of the phenomenon.

and I see your blather as total bullshit.

BTW, it’s been two weeks, and you still haven’t got back to me about your
tendency post total bullshit and when called on it to run away.

And I wonder, I wa wa wa wa wonder
Why a why why why why why
Bill ran away
And I wonder where he will stay
My little runaway
My run run run run runaway

[RonO]

This is likely better than your usual denial. Beats the heck out of me
why you even responded. Anything that isn't true in my post, or that
you can counter with any rational argument?

What is the creationist's scientific argument? Why isn't it an option
to actually try to make such an argument instead of the stupid denial
that you have been living with for over a decade?

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 28, RonO wrote
(in article <ogfij8$eio$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 5/28/2017 1:55 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On 5/28/2017 8:50 AM, RonO wrote:
> >
> > [snip propaganda for scientism and Tourette's syndrome blather]
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> This is likely better than your usual denial. Beats the heck out of me
> why you even responded. Anything that isn't true in my post, or that
> you can counter with any rational argument?
>
> What is the creationist's scientific argument?

they don’t have one, and Kalky knows it

> Why isn't it an option
> to actually try to make such an argument instead of the stupid denial
> that you have been living with for over a decade?

denial is all they have left.

>
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You know who the ID perps are. They are the ones that sold you the ID
creationist scam, and then ran the bait and switch when it was apparent
that there was no ID science worth putting forward. Lots of people
disagree with me. That doesn't make them ID perps. The ID perps are
the ones that are still selling the ID scam even though you know that no
one is ever going to get the promised ID science. Dembski was one of
the ID perps, but he seems to have quit.

You were just an IDiot, and you claim to have given up on that.

>
> You promote a rigid and inflexible doctrine that would
> suppress all dissent and forbid whole categories of opinion.
> It doesn't even matter if your opinions are entirely correct
> since they effectively prohibit discussion. I believe that
> people, especially kids, benefit when every opinion is
> freely expressed and openly discussed.

It is the ID perps that are suppressing their own junk. They have the
opportunity to participate in the scientific endeavor, but they refuse
to do that. Instead they are satisfied with running the bait and switch
scam on rubes like you. They sold you the scam that they had the ID
science to teach in the public schools, but what did you get from them
instead?

What is the switch scam instead of any ID science? No one made them
give up and run the bait and switch. They decided to do that before
they lost in court. It was the ID perp's policy years before everyone
could see for themselves that ID wasn't worth teaching, and why the bait
and switch had been going down for several years before the ID perps
lost in court.

>
> When I was in school, communism was believed, fervently, to
> be evil. No one read Marx. I did. Alas I lacked the
> historical context of the 19th century so I missed a lot.
> Later, with more study, I learned to appreciate what the
> protests were all about, I learned to sympathize with the
> socialists and unionists. I learned that the sanitized
> version of Western History I'd been taught was just bald
> propaganda. I'd been lied to.

The ID perps have lied to you for years and you claim to have finally
realized that and quit being an IDiot. Have you changed your mind?

It was the ID perps that lied to you about the science of ID. It was
not the science side. It was the ID perps that decided to run the bait
and switch instead of face their failure and admit that they had come up
short.

It was the Dover rubes refusal to take the bait and switch scam that
exposed the ID scam for the stupid ploy that it was. Unfortunately for
the ID perps the Dover rubes had already obtained their "free" legal
service before the ID perps could convince them to take the switch scam.

Why does the bait and switch go down on any group of creationist rubes
that want to teach the science of intelligent design. Who tells them
not to do it and gives them the obfuscation switch scam instead?

>
> I found out that anything established by consensus is
> suspect, tentative agreement. Those who hop on that
> bandwagon can't get off without looking foolish. Their
> greatest defense is to label all dissent as foolish. I see
> your arguments as examples of the phenomenon.

Unfortunately you jumped off the band wagon so late that you looked
ridiculous for years. How long could you have known that ID was just a
stupid scam, but refused to understand the least thing about what the ID
perps were actually doing for years. What would happen to any
creationist rubes that needed the ID science to teach in the public
schools since Ohio in 2002? In 2005 the ID perps ran into a group of
creationists that refused to take the switch scam and what happened in
Dover? Since then all the creationist rubes have either dropped the
issue or taken the switch scam when faced with the bait and switch. All
the ID perps have to do to convince them is tell them about the million
dollar cost of the Dover IDiot's free legal service.

Dissent is not always foolish. Buying into a bait and switch scam when
the perpetrators never had what they were selling isn't just stupid at
this late date.

So are you going to even try to produce a viable alternative? The ID
perps did not run the bait and switch on the science side. They ran the
scam on rubes like you for years. Are things so bad that you can't even
consider trying to come up with a viable option? Is the bait and switch
scam the best that creationists can do?

Why not try to figure out what the best option might be and live with
those consequences? You are the one that claims to have given up in the
ID scam, so why not try to figure out what your best option actually is?

Ron Okimoto

>
> Bill
>

[RonO]

Misunderstanding reality as badly as you do, makes you what you are.

Did I claim creationists were stupid? Doing what they did may be
stupid, but some of them were just plain dishonest.

Who said creationists don't do real science. What does the ID perps
running the bait and switch scam on the rubes that believed them have to
do with legitimate scientists that happen to be religious? Not all
creationists were involved in running the bait and switch on the
creationist rubes.

What you need to do is actually formulate a coherent argument and reason
it out for yourself before making more of a fool of yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Pop quiz: What's the "Scientific Alternative"
to creationism?

(Tic... toc... tic... toc...)





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/penis

[RonO]

On 5/29/2017 1:06 AM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>
> Pop quiz: What's the "Scientific Alternative"
> to creationism?
>
> (Tic... toc... tic... toc...)

You were so wrong about it in the thread that you started that your
clock obviously never was running.

Why do you insist on being so wrong about the stupidest things? I hate
to tell you, that it may be a tautology of some kind, but the
alternatives that science comes up with are scientific alternatives.
You may want to try to understand that before making more of a fool of
yourself.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/penis
>

[Kalkidas]

I'll be happy to argue with you if you ever propose an argument. But I
haven't seen one from you in over a decade. All I've ever seen is, as I
pointed out, "propaganda for scientism and Tourette's syndrome blather".

Get help, Ron.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > Pop quiz: What's the "Scientific Alternative"
> > to creationism?
> >
> > (Tic... toc... tic... toc...)

> You were so wrong about it in the thread that you
> started that your

You're scientifically illiterate. You probably
know it, and put on this act as a way of
compensating for your stupidity.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[RonO]

Why lie to yourself like this? What good does it do? You know that you
ran out of arguments years ago. Why lie about it? The bait and switch
is still going to go down on rubes like you even if there hasn't been
any rubes stupid enough to demonstrate it in public for several years.
You can't change that reality by lying to yourself.

Why not try to make the best IDiot alternative that you can make and try
to use actual science to figure out if it works or not? Denial is just
stupid. What has any IDiot acomplished with your type of denial in over
a decade? Why not do something like take Denton's latest alternative
and try to build on it. You can even start with your Vedas and see if
any of it makes sense in terms of what we have learned about nature.
Lying to yourself like this accomplishes nothing.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/29/2017 10:52 AM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> Pop quiz: What's the "Scientific Alternative"
>>> to creationism?
>>>
>>> (Tic... toc... tic... toc...)
>
>> You were so wrong about it in the thread that you
>> started that your
>
> You're scientifically illiterate. You probably
> know it, and put on this act as a way of
> compensating for your stupidity.

Poor guy. How can you get through life like this? You may not be
illiterate, but understanding is something beyond you. Does it really
help to remove the parts of the post that you can't deal with? It isn't
like those parts disappear. You can still see my original post.
Running from reality in this fashion is pretty senseless.

Ron Okimoto

>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979
>

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:oghh3i$6jl$1...@dont-email.me...

Do I understand correctly that you are now a full blown atheist?

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> Poor guy. How can you

Help us out: How does anything you say alter
the fact that abiogenesis can not be falsified?

HINT: Abiogenesis can't be falsified.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Glenn wrote:

> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote
[Moron droppings]

> Do I understand correctly that you are now a full blown atheist?

you misspelled "Moron."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> Why lie to yourself like this? What good does it do? You know that you
> ran out of arguments years ago. Why lie about it?

What makes this so precious is that you say
this not knowing that there isn't any
"Scientific alternative" to creationism...

Then again, you're so frigging scientifically
illiterate that you don't know that a valid
hypothesis has to be falsifiable...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> You know who the ID perps are. They are the ones that sold you the ID
> creationist scam, and then ran the bait and switch

Actually, this makes you WORSE. It makes you MORE
gullible. You makes you a BIGGER jackass.

There is no "Scientific Alternative" to creationism.

There isn't. If you weren't scientifically illiterate
you'd know this.

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It's not a valid
scientific hypothesis.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[RonO]

Go up to all my responses to JTEM and try to figure out where you came
to that conclusion.

I will help you. This is as close to the subject that we ever got.
Look up the thread and see for yourself.

QUOTE:

Misunderstanding reality as badly as you do, makes you what you are.

Did I claim creationists were stupid? Doing what they did may be
stupid, but some of them were just plain dishonest.

Who said creationists don't do real science. What does the ID perps
running the bait and switch scam on the rubes that believed them have to
do with legitimate scientists that happen to be religious? Not all
creationists were involved in running the bait and switch on the
creationist rubes.

What you need to do is actually formulate a coherent argument and reason

it out for yourself before making more of a fool of yourself.
END QUOTE:

An atheist obviously wrote that. How can you tell?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/29/2017 11:46 AM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Poor guy. How can you
>
> Help us out: How does anything you say alter
> the fact that abiogenesis can not be falsified?
>
> HINT: Abiogenesis can't be falsified.

It can't be falsified because it must have happened. What a dope. Life
might have always existed, but the big bang seems to negate that option.
Even creationists admit that abiogenesis had to happen somehow. What
you are likely going on about is the various hypotheses that scientists
are coming up with about how life may have originated. Unfortunately
for you it is a science because the bits and pieces that they are
putting together can be tested by the scientific method and they are
making progress as to how life could have originated. As I have said it
is among the weakest of sciences, but learn something for once.

[RonO]

On 5/29/2017 11:51 AM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Why lie to yourself like this? What good does it do? You know that you
>> ran out of arguments years ago. Why lie about it?
>
> What makes this so precious is that you say
> this not knowing that there isn't any
> "Scientific alternative" to creationism...
>
> Then again, you're so frigging scientifically
> illiterate that you don't know that a valid
> hypothesis has to be falsifiable...

You may not understand much of anything, but the creationists have been
claiming to have a scientific alternative to biological evolution for
decades. Do you have any understanding what it means to put quotes
around a statement in the context that I did it? Think for a moment
back to English class, likely around Junior High or middle school level.

We both know who the sad case is in terms of understanding what the
science is. Grow up and try to learn something. What is with you? Do
you have any notion of how wrong you are? What would cause you to make
such blunders like you have made above?

[RonO]

On 5/29/2017 11:55 AM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> You know who the ID perps are. They are the ones that sold you the ID
>> creationist scam, and then ran the bait and switch
>
> Actually, this makes you WORSE. It makes you MORE
> gullible. You makes you a BIGGER jackass.
>
> There is no "Scientific Alternative" to creationism.
>
> There isn't. If you weren't scientifically illiterate
> you'd know this.
>
> Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It's not a valid
> scientific hypothesis.

My guess is that you don't even know what you are trying to say at this
time. Take a break. Eat something. You can hope that it is low blood
sugar.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

You're attacking creationists for being
better than you, less gullible than you.

Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
You're such an idiot that you think you
have "Science" behind you.

Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
not be falsified. It does not meet the
criteria for legitimate science.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> You may not understand much of anything, but the creationists

The creationists know that they're faith based,
while you keep giving every indication that
you are totally ignorant here.

Abiogenesis isn't falsifiable. It's not legitimate
science. There is no "Scientific Alternative" to
creationism.

If you weren't such an emotional mess you could
deal with this fact.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> It can't be falsified because it must have happened.

You're so ignorant, you're so divorced from
an educated opinion here that you clearly
don't even know what "Falsifiable" means in
a scientific context.

I'm laughing at you!




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ron O wrote:

> My guess

Who gives a shit? Not me. This isn't about
anybody's "Guess." This is about what is and
is not legitimate science. Abiogenesis is
NOT legitimate science. It's not falsifiable.
It's not science.

Accept reality, you idiot.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You're attacking creationists for being
>better than you, less gullible than you.
>
>Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
>You're such an idiot that you think you
>have "Science" behind you.
>
>Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
>not be falsified. It does not meet the
>criteria for legitimate science.

Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> Ron O wrote:
>
>> You know who the ID perps are. They are the ones that sold you the ID
>> creationist scam, and then ran the bait and switch
>
> Actually, this makes you WORSE. It makes you MORE
> gullible. You makes you a BIGGER jackass.
>
> There is no "Scientific Alternative" to creationism.
>
> There isn't. If you weren't scientifically illiterate
> you'd know this.
>
> Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It's not a valid
> scientific hypothesis.
>

It isn't meant to be, which sort of renders your claim moot, even before
one were to analyze if falsifiability is a necessary condition for all
scientific hypothesis (or indeed any at all)

"abiogenesis" is a term for a stipulated event. Asking for it to be
falsified is a bit like asking if Waterloo or sunsets can be falsified.

Now, leaving this category error aside and treating it as shorthand for
the process of finding out about abiogenesis, then this too isn't "a"
hypothesis. It is a research field. You could with equal right (or
non-right) claim that chemistry or physics are invalid scientific
hypothesis.

Even if one accepts falsificationism as a demarcation criterion, only
specific claims of specific theories are ever falsifiable. And that
holds of course also for hypotheses about abiogenesis. So you need to
identify one specific theory, and ask what exactly it says - only then
it makes sense to ask if it can be falsified.

One such thpery is e.g. the "Mica world" theory- as discusssed in
"Possible origin of life between mica sheets: does life imitate mica?"
by H G Hansma in the J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2013 Aug; 31(8): 888–895.
The general idea is that life originated between the sheets of
muscovite mica that protected the primitive precursor cells in the
absence of a membrane, and also provided energy.

Is it falsifiable? The paper states several predictions that can be
tested in laboratory settings, though it acknowledges that the
practicalities of the tests can be high. One prediction is e.g. that the
formose reaction will produce fewer products between mica sheets than in
solution, due to confinement effects. In that case, the author tried to
test this herself, though due to changes in personnel could not complete
the research. Another prediction is Mechanochemistry formation of that
bonds by the mechanical energy of moving mica sheets. This too can be
tested and measured, though again the sensitivity needed and he fact
that you want measurements from inside the sheets as well makes it not
trivial. So definitely falsifiable in principle, and also arguably in
practice.

Now, if the hypotheses passed sufficient tests to become a good
candidate for a possible pathway to life, can also the claim that it was
the actual pathway here on earth be falsified? Arguably yes, though the
answer is more complex. The hypothesis e.g. assumes that certain
conditions obtained on early earth. So if an abiogenesis theory requires
that temperatures did not exceed a certain point, but our best current
theories about early earth tell us that it was much hotter at the
critical period of time, then we have to abandon this specific
abiogenesis theory.

Not falsification in the sense of Popper, rather consistency checking
with other theories, but that is how in the real world (as opposed to
the philosopher Popper's university office) much of theory revision is
done.

Furthermore,falsification, to the extend that it works at all, assumes
that the theory in question is of the form of a universally quantified
sentence ("all swans are white"). That links them to the Humean problem
of induction, and from there to modus tollens as the one logically valid
way to reason with them.

But existential statements about unique events have a different logical
structure. So you either remove all of geography, history (including
natural history) and most of geology etc from science, you accept that
falsification isn't appropriate for this type of claim. From a logical
point of view, they are the exact opposite of universal statements, that
is they can;t be falsified, but they cam be verified.

[RonO]

On 5/30/2017 1:12 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're attacking creationists for being
>> better than you, less gullible than you.
>>
>> Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
>> You're such an idiot that you think you
>> have "Science" behind you.
>>
>> Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
>> not be falsified. It does not meet the
>> criteria for legitimate science.
>
>
> Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.

He is just a lost cause and doesn't seem to understand what a field of
science is.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:19:53 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 1:12 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> > <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You're attacking creationists for being
> >> better than you, less gullible than you.
> >>
> >> Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
> >> You're such an idiot that you think you
> >> have "Science" behind you.
> >>
> >> Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
> >> not be falsified. It does not meet the
> >> criteria for legitimate science.
> >
> >
> > Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.
>
> He is just a lost cause and doesn't seem to understand what a field of
> science is.
>
> Ron Okimoto

He's certainly a lost cause, and fairly unpleasant to boot. But it obviously gives you such pleasure to call him an idiot every time he posts, that he can go to bed at night knowing he's increased the net happiness of the world at least a little.

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ogjk5i$e69$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/30/2017 1:12 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're attacking creationists for being
>>> better than you, less gullible than you.
>>>
>>> Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
>>> You're such an idiot that you think you
>>> have "Science" behind you.
>>>
>>> Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
>>> not be falsified. It does not meet the
>>> criteria for legitimate science.
>>
>>
>> Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.
>
> He is just a lost cause and doesn't seem to understand what a field of
> science is.
>

Ron: "Abiogenesis is a scientific theory and the creationists claim to have an alternative to that."

[Ray Martinez]

Absolutely true.

Abiogenesis is an unsupported scientific theory that believes non-life can give rise to life. Darwinists have been vigorously pursuing research into the matter but have yet to produce one scrap of evidence supporting abiogenesis to have occurred even one time.

If evolutionary theory accepted a deistic or theistic First Cause then abiogenesis would not be pursued. Abiogenesis clearly tells us the objective claim of evolutionary theory regarding metaphysical First Cause.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:19:53 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/30/2017 1:12 AM, jillery wrote:
>> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> > <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You're attacking creationists for being
>> >> better than you, less gullible than you.
>> >>
>> >> Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
>> >> You're such an idiot that you think you
>> >> have "Science" behind you.
>> >>
>> >> Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
>> >> not be falsified. It does not meet the
>> >> criteria for legitimate science.
>> >
>> >
>> > Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.
>>
>> He is just a lost cause and doesn't seem to understand what a field of
>> science is.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>He's certainly a lost cause, and fairly unpleasant to boot. But it obviously gives you such pleasure to call him an idiot every time he posts, that he can go to bed at night knowing he's increased the net happiness of the world at least a little.

As far as calling people idiots and similar, there has been plenty of
that in both directions, so one can't reasonably distinguish Ron O for
that.

I leave as an exercise whether any net increase of happiness of one
side equivalently decreases the net happiness of the other side.

[RonO]

Glenn didn't you know that biological evolution is a fact and a theory?
What do you think that the event of evolution from a common ancestor
for chimps and humans is. Do you think that there is a scientific
theory of that evolution? Even Guys like Behe and Denton know that such
evolution is a fact, and that the event obviously happened, what Behe
doesn't agree with is that nature is all that there is. Denton would
likely claim that nature is his gods way of doing it. What do you think
that abiogenesis is? Even creationists (with any reasoning power left)
understand that abiogenesis had to happen whether God did it or not.
The big bang means that life did not always exist in this universe, and
the creation mythology claims that God created life where there was
none. The sad thing is that abiogenesis is among the weakest of
sciences, and IDiots can't even match that. That is why IDiots like
Mike Gene admitted that the ID science did not exist, and why guys like
Bill no longer claim to be IDiots. Grow up and try to learn something
that you likely have known for over a decade. Are you going to claim
that you didn't know? Wouldn't that be sad after all this time?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ogntpl$oac$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/30/2017 8:29 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ogjk5i$e69$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/30/2017 1:12 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're attacking creationists for being
>>>>> better than you, less gullible than you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationists KNOW that they're faith based.
>>>>> You're such an idiot that you think you
>>>>> have "Science" behind you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again: Agiogenesis is NOT science. It can
>>>>> not be falsified. It does not meet the
>>>>> criteria for legitimate science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abiogenesis refers to an event, not an hypothesis. Try to keep up.
>>>
>>> He is just a lost cause and doesn't seem to understand what a field of
>>> science is.
>>>
>> Ron: "Abiogenesis is a scientific theory and the creationists claim to have an alternative to that."
>>
>
> Glenn didn't you know that biological evolution is a fact and a theory?

No I do not know that. I've heard it ad nauseam though. It used to be funny to hear.

[RonO]

Just saying, but it might be time to actually learn something about what
you think that you are arguing about. Denial hasn't amounted to much
for you over the years.

Ron Okimoto

[jeffrey....@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> In the recent thread on the anti science activities of the creationist
> political faction Bill brought up the fact that the creationists want to
> teach their alternative in the public schools. That has been the intent
> for over half a century, since the objection to the upgrading of the US
> science standards after Sputnik and the court rulings against the anti
> evolution laws that had been on the books for decades. The creationists
> decided that their alternative should also be taught as science.
> Scientific creationism was the result, but it turned out to be an utter
> failure by the mid 1980's. A group composed of scientific creationists
> and some younger upstarts that hadn't participated in the scientific
> creationist ploy got together and decided to call their efforts
> something else since they could no longer call it creationism and have
> any hope of getting it into the public schools. They published a
> "textbook" called Of Pandas and People in 1989 and updated it in 1993.
> This was likely the start of the modern intelligent design political
> ploy. The editor of the book was Thaxton and the main author was Kenyon
> (both participated in the scientific creationist political ploy). Behe
> claims to have written parts of the book, but he was not credited, and
> Meyer wrote the teachers notes. All are still fellows at the Discovery
> Institute's intelligent design unit. Meyer has been the director from
> its start in 1995.
>
> Of Pandas and People was actually a response to the fact that when
> scientific creationism first went to court in Arkansas it was found that
> there were no suitable teaching materials to teach scientific
> creationism. All the literature was laced with Biblical references and
> were obviously religious in nature. The creationists needed a book that
> could be used in the public schools so they had to remove all the
> religious references from the material that they wanted to teach.
> Unfortunately for the creationists, they still called it creationism
> when writing the book even though the Biblical references were left out.
> Multiple drafts of the book were written before the supreme court
> ruled that scientific creationism could not be taught in the public
> schools. It wouldn't matter if they did take out the Biblical
> references, there was nothing worth teaching about scientific
> creationism in the science class. The supreme court did say that valid
> scientific alternatives could be taught, but creationism was not a valid
> alternative. It came out during the Dover court case against ID that
> once the supreme court made its ruling the drafts of the book changed.
> Creationism was replaced by design alternative wording. It was an
> obvious ploy to get around the supreme court ruling, and was something
> that had to be done throughout the book.
>
> For some reason Philip Johnson is claimed by the other ID perps as being
> the catalyst that started the intelligent design movement, but a lot of
> these guys were already working on the ID scam before Johnson got
> involved. He may have been the one that got them funding for the ID
> scam unit at the Discovery Institute. After the court ruling in Dover
> Johnson retired from the ID scam and admitted that the ID science had
> never existed and that it was up to the IDiot science guys to come up
> with the science that would be worth putting forward. He admitted that
> trying to teach intelligent design in the public schools was not going
> to happen and likely would not happen in his lifetime. He has not
> supported the ID scam since that I know of and he is still alive.
>
> Johnson made that admission over a decade ago. Staunch IDiots like Mike
> Gene and Salvador Cordova followed suit and admitted that the ID science
> did not exist. Even a guy like Bill has claimed that he is no longer
> IDiot. Dembski just quit and resigned from the Discovery Institute, and
> there is no doubt that Dembski was the main driver of the IDiot
> "science". Behe just came up with irreducible complexity. Dembski
> championed space aliens as the most scientific IDiot alternative,
> specified complexity, complex specified information, and his new law of
> thermodynamics, but nothing panned out for Dembski. No other IDiot that
> I know of has anything else. Meyer's Cambrian explosion junk is just a
> throwback to scientific creationism, and about the only other argument
> that gets kicked around is that life is just too complex to have
> evolved. It doesn't matter because as Phillip Johnson admitted nothing
> panned out and there was no ID science worth teaching in the public schools.
>
> It turns out that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute understood
> this years before the Dover court case. It took over half a decade, but
> as creationist began to realize what an utter failure scientific
> creationism was, and intelligent design creationism eventually came to
> the forefront. In the first Kansas state school board fiasco in 1999
> where the creationist dropped the science they didn't like out of the
> science standards (things like biological evolution, age of the earth,
> the big bang, and radiometric dating were no longer in the standards as
> something the students should know) the Kansas board still relied on the
> scientific creationists (Hovind was supposed to be their science
> advisor). By the second Kansas creationist state school board fiasco in
> 2005 intelligent design was the major ploy. Dover happened the same
> year and intelligent design hasn't been a serious political poly since,
> especially, since the ID perps had been running the bait and switch on
> any creationist rubes stupid enough to have believed them since 2002 and
> the Ohio creationist fiasco. Wells in his own report on the Ohio bait
> and switch claimed that the ID perps had gotten together and decided
> that they were not going to give the Ohio IDiots any ID science, but
> they would give them their switch scam. A switch scam that does not
> mention that ID nor creationism ever existed.
>
> The switch scam is the only viable political ploy that the
> ID/creationists have left, and even the creationists do not like it.
> Whenever they try to implement the switch scam they keep screwing up
> because they don't want to teach the obfuscation scam, they want to
> teach their alternative. The Discovery Institute has (100% of the time)
> run the bait and switch on any creationist rubes too stupid to have
> gotten the message by this time. The Discovery Institute has to keep
> reminding the rubes that there is no scientific alternative that they
> want to teach at this time, and they have to stick with the obfuscation
> scam. That is all the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have been
> good for since 2002. None of their IDiot science ever panned out.
>
> So what can the ID/creationists do about the current situation? Denial
> is all that they have had so far and they obviously do not like the
> switch scam that they are stuck with.
>
> The ID/creationists are so far into denial at this point that likely
> nothing will save them or their cause unless the dishonest, ignorant and
> incompetent are able to force their views onto others. What is the
> saddest part of IDiocy is that doing science was obviously never the
> intention of the ID perps that signed onto the mission statement of the
> Discovery Institute ID scam unit. All they wanted to do was make enough
> excuses so that the rubes would think that there might be some type of
> alternative. They never tried to scientifically verify any of their
> junk. Behe is the obvious case in point. He claimed that his IC
> notions were scientifically testable during his Dover testimony, but it
> has been 11 years since Dover and no scientific testing has ever been
> done, or, at least, Behe has never claimed to have gotten any results.
> All the ID perps have ever done is to propose junk, but they never try
> to verify the junk. All Behe as ever done is just add junk to IC to
> make it even more unverifiable. There really, was never an intent to do
> science. As one ex IDiot has claimed (I can't remember his name,
> Evoguide or something like that) the ID perps never even got into the
> boxing ring. They just paraded around the ring and claimed that they
> could fight, but they never got into the ring with science to do any
> fighting.
>
> The ID perps did this on purpose. They did not want to do any science
> that could be done. They were only interested in doing what could not
> be verified. The reason for this is that the young earth creationist
> faction is their strongest support base, and any science associated with
> their alternative is already known to give the "incorrect" answers. The
> ID perps never wanted to build the best scientific alternative because
> the IDiot rubes that gave them money couldn't face reality.
>
> So what is the creationist "scientific" alternative at this time? The
> ID perps never put one up. They didn't want to do the science that
> could be done in order to make their alternative as scientific as it
> could be. What the ID scam artist did to further their political goals
> obviously should not apply to any real scientists interested in the
> subject. Some one should be working on the best creationist scientific
> alternative.
>
> This seems to already be happening, but creationists want to deny that
> it is happening. Eddie brought up the subject of the alternative that
> the Jehovah's Witnesses currently have. Until the 1980s the political
> faction of the JWs was on board with the scientific creationists and
> their anti science junk was young earth and fossil denial etc. They
> apparently were not 7 day literal creationists, but believed that the
> earth was less than 50,000 years old and that each day was 7,000 years
> long. Since the failure of scientific creationism the JW creation
> mythology has changed. A day can now be billions of years long. The
> sun and moon were not created on the fourth day like the Bible claims.
> It is obvious that creationist alternatives can change.
>
> So the creationist alternative can change and be more consistent with
> the current science. Beats me if this is a good or bad thing. I don't
> think that any religion should base its theology on science. Just look
> at what happened to our estimate of how long ago the Big Bang occurred.
> Kelvin was messed up when the first law had to be changed and we found
> out that matter could be converted to energy. We now know about
> radioactive decay and nuclear fusion. So Kelvin's creationist estimates
> were orders of magnitude off.
>
> The YEC over at Answers in Genesis have embraced continental drift.
> They just have to claim that it all happened in the year of the flood
> just a couple thousand years ago. They will have to come to grips with
> how the continents stayed intact while traveling thousands of miles, and
> what happened to all the subducted crust and the molten Atlantic basin.
> Should they have even tried?
>
> Denton has his alternative. God initiated the Big Bang and everything
> unfolded as planned. Behe has his alternative. The earth is billions
> of years old and God tweeks lifeforms every few hundred million years to
> eventually evolve us. Both admit that common descent is a fact of
> nature and that the earth is billions of years old and that life has
> been evolving on this planet for billions of years, but why hasn't the
> Discovery Institute embraced one of their alternatives, and used science
> to differentiate the two models? Other ID perps at the Discovery
> Institute have their young earth Biblical alternatives, so why aren't
> they doing the science that would confirm or reject one model over the
> other? The JWs jumped onto the old earth band wagon, would Discovery
> Institute YEC scientists like Kenyon and Nelson be able to be persuaded
> by the science that Behe and Denton are relying on?
>
> IDiots obviously have to start doing something about creating a
> competitive alternative. You may not like Denton's alternative, but
> nothing that science will ever discover will be inconsistent with it
> unless we find some way to get around the singularity of the Big Bang.
> As science it is pathetic, and as theology likely most IDiots don't want
> to believe it. It is likely the most consistent with the science we
> understand at this time, but so what? What is there left to argue about?
>
> The point that creationists should have gotten from this post is that it
> is stupid to base your theology on the science. You never wanted to do
> that in the first place. Creation science and IDiocy were only
> political ploys. Most creationists do not want to do any science to
> validate their alternative. Most creationists involved in the political
> scams do not want to know what the most viable alternative is. Until
> that attitude changes creationists are just stuck with the empty denial
> of what science is coming up with. As Bill and other IDiots finally
> figured out they were arguing about nothing. There was never any intent
> to get the answers that could be obtained, and they never wanted to know
> the answers to the questions that they were proposing. If the IDiots
> ever got an answer it likely wouldn't be what they wanted to believe.
>
> So, if you are not interested in developing the best creationist
> alternative is there any point in your science denial? It should be
> obvious that the science does not matter to your religious beliefs, so
> what is the point?
>
> Try to develop your best creationist alternative and demonstrate whether
> or not the facts in this post apply to you. You obviously are not doing
> much of anything until you do that.
>
> Ron Okimoto

I was under the impression that big bang is creationism. It was the creationist's alternative to an eternal universe. Now they teach it in school and most scientists believe it. Creationists: 1, Science: 0

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Jun 05, jeffrey....@yahoo.com wrote
(in article<3aa6f14e-b06e-4d93...@googlegroups.com>):

> I was under the impression that big bang is creationism.

you would be wrong.

> It was the
> creationist's alternative to an eternal universe.

nope. The person who first proposed what is now known as the Big Bang was a
Roman Catholic priest who was also an astronomer and a physicist. He was not
a creationist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

> Now they teach it in school
> and most scientists believe it.

evidence is the key. There is actual data available which steady state theory
could not explain but which big bang could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
> Creationists: 1, Science: 0

nope.

[RonO]

On 6/5/2017 11:30 AM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Jun 05, jeffrey....@yahoo.com wrote
> (in article<3aa6f14e-b06e-4d93...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> I was under the impression that big bang is creationism.
>
> you would be wrong.
>> It was the
>> creationist's alternative to an eternal universe.
>
> nope. The person who first proposed what is now known as the Big Bang was a
> Roman Catholic priest who was also an astronomer and a physicist. He was not
> a creationist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

He was obviously a creationists, he just was not a young earth creationists.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The Big Bang is the closest thing to a creation event that science has
come up with, but the YEC (young earth creationists) and even some old
earth creationists do not want to believe that it happened. It isn't
Biblical enough for them. The Big Bang has been consistently one of the
science topics that the creationists have wanted to ban from the public
school education. As I stated above the creationists on the Kansas
State board of education dropped biological evolution from the state
science standards in 1999, but they also dropped the Big Bang, age of
the earth and radiometric dating from things that the students should
learn in the public schools.

The most active political faction of creationists do not like the Big Bang.

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:oh4ltt$9nv$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/5/2017 11:30 AM, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 2017 Jun 05, jeffrey....@yahoo.com wrote
>> (in article<3aa6f14e-b06e-4d93...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> I was under the impression that big bang is creationism.
>>
>> you would be wrong.
>>> It was the
>>> creationist's alternative to an eternal universe.
>>
>> nope. The person who first proposed what is now known as the Big Bang was
>> a
>> Roman Catholic priest who was also an astronomer and a physicist. He was
>> not
>> a creationist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
>
> He was obviously a creationists, he just was not a young earth
> creationists.
>

It would of course be great if we could point to one or more facts as
evidence of how and why the universe came into existence.

In the meantime, enjoy the fact that it is there for you to enjoy.

But as long as we are confident that it exist

[derdagian1]

I'm willing to think things, but, I'll need all current theories and Current Evidence.

There are other ways to find missing mass.

Another Energy Exists that affects the Universe.

Derdag