The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 05:22 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 08:33 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Welcome to the forum. Smile

Fundamentalist Christians think that the scientists are biased, in much the same way that we view scientists who attempt to reckon a young Earth to be biased. It's based on this idea that "whoever is not with us is against us", the rallying cry of victimization. One of the main problems with convincing them to "see the evidence for themselves" is that it's not something that the typical person can understand or accept.

I personally like to demonstrate the universe's old age with the commonly accepted notion that many visible stars are millions of light years away, suggesting that their light took millions of years to get here. Obviously a theist will not accept this (cognitive dissonance at work) and will probably argue that we can't be certain that light always remained the same speed or will argue that the distance of these stars has been miscalculated (though anyone with an understanding of trigonometry can do the calculations himself)... but once they presume this uncertainty, that makes the claims of those who have "calculated" a young Earth equally uncertain since they've also had to necessarily induce past patterns as constant.
It is true that the stars are commonly accepted to be millions of light years away from us. However this is itself a philosophical construct with no proof of this being the case.The fact that most theists have sold out to a lesser or greater degree to the ravages of anti-Scripture, anti-Church and anti-Christian precepts of modern thinking is a disgrace. As for me. If the whole world abandons the truth of the special revelation, I WILL NOT and will remain true.
This is not to say that I must set aside my own reason to do so. In fact I have reasoned it all through and confirmed that the stars are not millions of light years away and have built a model of the universe which is not opposed to my reason at all and is in agreement with all the scientific and natural facts that I am in a position to verify for myself.

However, your facts are incomplete. The facts that place stars light years away from us are verified independently by many observers and by many different kinds of observation. Your knowledge is very limited and your model flawed.

You are also assuming that an ancient book, unsupported by fact, contains truths about the universe that are disprovable and disproven.

You are welcome to live in your little world, but you will convince no one here that it is rational.

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
23-08-2013, 05:48 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(20-08-2013 12:39 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  What I really hate is when a creationist says, "we should teach the controversy and let the student decide.".

It's a backdoor to further indoctrination.
On the contrary, it is proof that indoctrination of our children is travelling at full force in this country. The reason evolutionists oppose the teaching of creationism in the schools is because they know that if a fair representation of both systems were given to students that the majority would freely choose creationism. The only reason they demand exclusive access to our children is so that they can indoctrinate them with atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 06:00 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 05:48 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(20-08-2013 12:39 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  What I really hate is when a creationist says, "we should teach the controversy and let the student decide.".

It's a backdoor to further indoctrination.
On the contrary, it is proof that indoctrination of our children is travelling at full force in this country. The reason evolutionists oppose the teaching of creationism in the schools is because they know that if a fair representation of both systems were given to students that the majority would freely choose creationism. The only reason they demand exclusive access to our children is so that they can indoctrinate them with atheism.
No, it's because evolution is science and creationism is theology. We teach science in science class.

And which creation stories should we teach? All of them to be fair and balanced.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(20-08-2013 03:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I think rather than pointing at the gaps in scientific knowledge, the gaps in evolution the proponents of ID ought to look to their leaders and demand a falsifiable scientific theory to back up ID.
They ought to ask hard questions of their leaders. e.g. If we redefine science does this mean we will have ID science, Creationist science, Catholic science, Anglican science, Mormon science, Muslim science? How will the different groups ever agree?
Does it mean when a difficult scientific problem comes up that we won't investigate natural cause but will instead look to insert theology?
Does this mean we will stop learning about the natural world?
Evolution has been falsified a thousand times and does not die because it is itself not a falsifiable scientific system. It is a philosophical belief every bit as much as ID is.

The difference between the two systems is probability. Evolution is highly improbable to the point of absurdity. The junkyard tornado analogy demonstrates this.
The improbability of the simplest living cell being constructed by natural forces in the environment is so ridiculously improbable which therefore indicates that ID is the most probable system.

In actual fact, Evolution is not a science at all, it is a pseudo-science or a philosophy. Philosophies are deductive and cannot be absolutely proven, but measures of probability are important aspects of deducing truth. If probability is considered then the probability that the simplest cell was designed by a superior intelligence approaches certainty every bit as much as the existence of a Boeing 747 demands an intelligent designer.

Some people call this philosophy or pseudo-science or some other disparing title. I just call it common sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 05:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This is so painful to watch.
There is no debate, Creationism is wrong wrong wrong WRONG.
It should never be anywhere near a school.
Explain why it is wrong then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 06:07 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(20-08-2013 03:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I think rather than pointing at the gaps in scientific knowledge, the gaps in evolution the proponents of ID ought to look to their leaders and demand a falsifiable scientific theory to back up ID.
They ought to ask hard questions of their leaders. e.g. If we redefine science does this mean we will have ID science, Creationist science, Catholic science, Anglican science, Mormon science, Muslim science? How will the different groups ever agree?
Does it mean when a difficult scientific problem comes up that we won't investigate natural cause but will instead look to insert theology?
Does this mean we will stop learning about the natural world?
Evolution has been falsified a thousand times and does not die because it is itself not a falsifiable scientific system. It is a philosophical belief every bit as much as ID is.

No, it hasn't. Not once. Please present a peer-reviewed citation.

Quote:The difference between the two systems is probability. Evolution is highly improbable to the point of absurdity. The junkyard tornado analogy demonstrates this.

This merely shows your lack of understanding of cumulative change.

Quote:The improbability of the simplest living cell being constructed by natural forces in the environment is so ridiculously improbable which therefore indicates that ID is the most probable system.

Ditto. You do not understand the mechanism. At all.

Quote:In actual fact, Evolution is not a science at all, it is a pseudo-science or a philosophy. Philosophies are deductive and cannot be absolutely proven, but measures of probability are important aspects of deducing truth. If probability is considered then the probability that the simplest cell was designed by a superior intelligence approaches certainty every bit as much as the existence of a Boeing 747 demands an intelligent designer.

The mechanisms of biology do not look designed, they look jerry-built.

Quote:Some people call this philosophy or pseudo-science or some other disparing title. I just call it common sense.

Your common sense is shallow. Look more deeply into the reality of the natural world.

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
23-08-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:03 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 05:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This is so painful to watch.
There is no debate, Creationism is wrong wrong wrong WRONG.
It should never be anywhere near a school.
Explain why it is wrong then.

[Image: 299-Evidence-for-evolution-bible-creatio...ution1.jpg]

It's that simple.
You can deny the evidence all day long, but saying an orange is an apple doesn't make it an apple.
Drinking Beverage

/thread.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
23-08-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 05:22 PM)excubitor Wrote:  It is true that the stars are commonly accepted to be millions of light years away from us. However this is itself a philosophical construct with no proof of this being the case.The fact that most theists have sold out to a lesser or greater degree to the ravages of anti-Scripture, anti-Church and anti-Christian precepts of modern thinking is a disgrace. As for me. If the whole world abandons the truth of the special revelation, I WILL NOT and will remain true.
This is not to say that I must set aside my own reason to do so. In fact I have reasoned it all through and confirmed that the stars are not millions of light years away and have built a model of the universe which is not opposed to my reason at all and is in agreement with all the scientific and natural facts that I am in a position to verify for myself.

However, your facts are incomplete. The facts that place stars light years away from us are verified independently by many observers and by many different kinds of observation. Your knowledge is very limited and your model flawed.

You are also assuming that an ancient book, unsupported by fact, contains truths about the universe that are disprovable and disproven.

You are welcome to live in your little world, but you will convince no one here that it is rational.
Which observers? How independent were they? How did they verify that the stars were man light years away? Can you confirm these observations for yourself? Why do you believe their testimony? How is my knowledge limited and my model flawed?
Which teachings of the scripture are disproved and how are they disproved? You are just spouting out semantics. Not good enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
Creationist know that Egyptian empires go back a good 6000 years right? Sigh
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2013 06:17 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
I made a video just for you excubitor...

I've got a small stash of 380 million year old fossils. Genesis is a load of BS, the earth is a much older place.





Ps. BeardedDude let me know if I got anything wrong/how to pronounce 'crinoid.'

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: