Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
This is the kind of dodgy tactics creationists are forced to do.

Why aren't these Ph.D's in the field doing actual research trying to find evidence for creation? Why are they relegated to trying to poke holes in evolution?

Their entire enterprise, even if they succeed in finding any holes, is flawed from the get go. Finding holes in evolution would never prove the existence of their god. Even if evolution is proven wrong tomorrow, 'God did it' would not become the next best answer by default. That is claim that requires evidence and reasoned argument on its own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Simon Moon's post
05-09-2014, 06:17 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Harwood is an Electical (or Mechanical) Engineer.
A PhD in an unrelated subject requires no help refuting.

See : http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
Just amazing that in 2014 humans are still wasting their time arguing about whether the Earth is flat, and or giving this bullshit 2 seconds of respect.
Why not argue about the validity of pink sparkly unicorns ?
[/quote]

I am sorry to say that talking about my pink sparky unicorns is pointless as I use it to go to work!! ;-)

Thanks for your input!!

K:

Arguing with a zealot is only slightly easier than tunneling through a mountain with your forehead!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(02-09-2014 04:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why not argue about the validity of pink sparkly unicorns ?

You mean blue sparkly unicorns, of course. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-09-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Everytime I see this thread pop up I think "Who in the hell is trying to debunk me?" Angry

Then I finish reading the rest of the thread name and I'm all like "Oh, right, nevermind..." Unsure

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(05-09-2014 11:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 04:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why not argue about the validity of pink sparkly unicorns ?

You mean blue sparkly unicorns, of course. Drinking Beverage

Dodgy

[Image: pp375x360.u1.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Right now I am 2000 miles from home and if the unicorn in questions is pink blue or if it's not well Gray! I just will not get far with this theist!!
However I thank all who have helped me and the it here's who have given me something to chuckle at!!
Kind regards to you all.

K:

Arguing with a zealot is only slightly easier than tunneling through a mountain with your forehead!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Hi,

I'm new to this site.

I was given this book by a member of my family that has 'been captured' by the Born Again Christian community here in Australia. She thought that the book 'would help' me understand and eventually reject the body of science that runs counter to the teachings of the Bible which, in their case is the 1611 KJ Authorised version. Unfortunately my sweet relative hasn't understood that I've no problems in her having 'faith', I just object to the statements that the version of events on the Bible is to be taken has the absolute truth and not for its symbolic value.

I have a background in Science (1st Class Hons) and I've practiced Chemistry in several fields for over 40 years. I also keep current on new discoveries and I follow political and other news. I've a particular interest in Climate Change and the political processes linked to it.

I've provided my relative with long and detailed answers with regard to blatant errors made in this book. These documents are too voluminous and relatively personal to be included here, but I'll be happy to provide edited versions to anyone interested. I would prefer to send them by email. Here is an extract from one such document.

"I randomly opened it on page 180 and immediately discovered some wrong facts. The section deals with large boulders found some 500-1000km away from where they originate. Biblical geologists P. Klevberg & M Oard estimated that, in order to move boulders of this size the distance required, a river would have had to flow @ 105km/h and in a depth of 60m, which they state is “three to four times greater than flash floods of today”.
There are several things wrong with their conclusions:
• Most boulders are moved not by rivers but by glaciers, e.g. see https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/ga...atics.html
• Boulders need not be carried in a single event but over several events
• Recent studies based on the 2011 tsunami in Japan have shown that large boulders have been moved by the water rushing through a valley. This was covered in a recent Catalyst program http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4099073.htm . Watch it from 07:50 to see boulders and other information"

My conclusion is this is an excellent book but it's in the wrong genre, it is perfect as a comic book to provide humorous respite to working scientists that would enjoy it with good cabernet and some fine cheese.

Creationists just can't get it that Science isn't interested in debunking their faith because their is just that, faith. Science, on the other hand, is interested in proving, questioning, formulating and validating hypothesis, and in general applying critical thinking instead of dogma.

One argument that often floors Creationists is "would you like our Justice system" to be based on 'faith' or on 'evidence'? We had a 'faith-based' system several centuries ago and didn't end up well for Christ followers in various trials in Rome and during the Inquisition. Why is it that we require 'proof' for such mundane things as our short permanence on Earth but we are happy with just 'faith' for our eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dante's post
07-11-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(07-11-2014 06:51 PM)dante Wrote:  I was given this book by a member of my family that has 'been captured' by the Born Again Christian community here in Australia. She thought that the book 'would help' me understand and eventually reject the body of science that runs counter to the teachings of the Bible which, in their case is the 1611 KJ Authorised version.

Tell her you'll be happy to read it if she's willing to read a book of your choosing. You can compare notes afterwards.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(07-11-2014 06:51 PM)dante Wrote:  One argument that often floors Creationists is "would you like our Justice system" to be based on 'faith' or on 'evidence'?

Excellent suggestion. "I have complete faith that you are the murderer, no evidence can sway me." Consider

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(01-09-2014 06:03 AM)JONES Wrote:  It has 9 Ph.D's who have contributed to the book. Now my problem is simple.
I can do the chem and some of the biology! That is my place of work shall we say!
However, the problem I have is showing this lad the true answers without getting to heavy on the science.

It has Dr.David Catchpoole.Phd in Plant Physioloyy and Dr Mark Harwood who was part of the Australia's national satellite system. They are covering Ethics and Morality. Now I would have liked an ethicist and a philosopher to cover this but no we have a plant and radio man!

Harwood is no more an expert on Evolution than anyone else walking the street :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
EVERY, (and I mean EVERY) of the secular universities and accredited colleges and research institutions in the entire world teach Evolution.
The fact that ONE plant physiologist goes CONTRARY to the established concensus in his OWN field, means he cannot speak as an authority in science as he does not agree with the vast majority of authorities IN HIS ON field ... so they are both out.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: