legov Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 .... and we now get into the whole "but my assumption is better than yours" that both sides seem to take up in this argument, without anybody ever convincing their opponents (though I'm certain many will try). And that battle about assumptions is called science. Creationist "science" is just bad, bad science, and most of those people Julie listed either have degrees from bible bashing universities, or the sort you buy from online vendors. Succinctly put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 29 pages? Bloody hell. The answer is NO! /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Over 90% of the National Academy of Scientists are non believers . So what ? You shouldn't believe in anything based on how many others do or do not agree . You should base your beliefs on the actual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 One is less valid than the other because one is the honest admission of a lack of knowledge, and the pursuit to attain that knowledge through means of evidence and experiment (science), the other is the dishonest claim of knowledge and the refusal to find any evidence to support it, or acknowledge the evidence that opposes it (religion). I think you'll find that the evidence to support their claims is in the historical person of Jesus. You may dismiss this evidence, but it is hardly a dishonest claim, a refusal to find any evidence nor an inability to acknowledge the evidence that opposes it.... ... that apparently you are honest enough to say doesn't exist. :winkold: That isn't evidence at all. There is very little, if any, proof of the existence of Jesus in historical records. None of the prolific historians or writers of the time make any mention of him whatsoever. In fact Jesus was only considered an important character after the Roman council of Nicea decided they needed one religion to unite all their domains in 325 AD. Even if I give Christians the benefit of the doubt and say that there was definitely a preacher who answered to the name of Jesus, that still does nothing to prove that he had any kind of magical power of was the son of God. Citing Jesus as evidence of Christian claims is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can someone please summise this argument for me so I don't have to read all 28 pages? Thanks. Steakandchips is trolling that the biblical flood happened (or is mad), Julie actually believes it did, everyone else points out why this madness, some point and laugh. Same old. Remember to buy Watchtower and get down the Kingdom Hall. Oooooh! Fascina...zZzZzZzzz... Thanks Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Do find it slightly sad that the non believers have to ridicule the believers in almost every post Ok they have a belief that I can't fathom and one could argue it's a blind faith as they don't seem to want to accept any evidence that counters their claim but even so hasn't the bible taught us to love our neighbour ... and then kill him if he doubts the word of God (Deuteronomy 17) There is no evidence to counter Creationists claims. The constancy of the decay rates of isotopes is well supported in science. Evidence for this constancy includes the correspondences of date estimates taken from different radioactive isotopes as well as correspondences with non-radiometric dating techniques such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records. Although scientists have noted slight increases in the decay rate for isotopes subject to extreme pressures, those differences were too small to significantly impact date estimates. Yes. There. Is. In fact I will give you a rather quick, easy to understand example. The male urethra travels through the prostate gland on its path from the bladder to the external meatus of the penis. The prostate gland swells over time in a process known as BPH, or benign prostate hyperplasia, which results in a constriction of the urethra and a consequential difficulty in passing urine. This stasis of urine can lead to urinary tract infections such as urethritis, cystitis and, if left untreated, pyelonephritis. Now, this BPH is not a disease in itself, it is a natural part of male human physiology and a simple consequence of ageing. Which begs the question - what kind of intelligent God would put a flexible tube through a gland that swells with time? Why not just put it to the side? What a stupid thing to do. This is just ONE example of fundamental structural flaw in the human body. If we had truly been designed by God we would be flawless in structure, even if we are susceptible to disease now that we've 'sinned'. One day you, like 99% of men, will have great trouble pissing, on that day you can thank God for a truly wonderful design. edit: In case you didn't get it, let me summarise - the evidence against intelligent design by God is in your own body!! My very good friend Dr J. Sarfati could answer this for you..Not sure if he is on the list...Can we add him if not? http://creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I've given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the others are actually intelligent people who went to decent universities, and not the crackpot creationist universities that have cropped up in the States. You're being unduly lenient there. The first two I picked at random were charlatans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I've given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the others are actually intelligent people who went to decent universities, and not the crackpot creationist universities that have cropped up in the States. You're being unduly lenient there. The first two I picked at random were charlatans. Brian Cox was D-Ream....I see a pattern emerging ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Arf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Do find it slightly sad that the non believers have to ridicule the believers in almost every post Ok they have a belief that I can't fathom and one could argue it's a blind faith as they don't seem to want to accept any evidence that counters their claim but even so hasn't the bible taught us to love our neighbour ... and then kill him if he doubts the word of God (Deuteronomy 17) There is no evidence to counter Creationists claims. The constancy of the decay rates of isotopes is well supported in science. Evidence for this constancy includes the correspondences of date estimates taken from different radioactive isotopes as well as correspondences with non-radiometric dating techniques such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records. Although scientists have noted slight increases in the decay rate for isotopes subject to extreme pressures, those differences were too small to significantly impact date estimates. Yes. There. Is. In fact I will give you a rather quick, easy to understand example. The male urethra travels through the prostate gland on its path from the bladder to the external meatus of the penis. The prostate gland swells over time in a process known as BPH, or benign prostate hyperplasia, which results in a constriction of the urethra and a consequential difficulty in passing urine. This stasis of urine can lead to urinary tract infections such as urethritis, cystitis and, if left untreated, pyelonephritis. Now, this BPH is not a disease in itself, it is a natural part of male human physiology and a simple consequence of ageing. Which begs the question - what kind of intelligent God would put a flexible tube through a gland that swells with time? Why not just put it to the side? What a stupid thing to do. This is just ONE example of fundamental structural flaw in the human body. If we had truly been designed by God we would be flawless in structure, even if we are susceptible to disease now that we've 'sinned'. One day you, like 99% of men, will have great trouble pissing, on that day you can thank God for a truly wonderful design. edit: In case you didn't get it, let me summarise - the evidence against intelligent design by God is in your own body!! My very good friend Dr J. Sarfati could answer this for you..Not sure if he is on the list...Can we add him if not? http://creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed If the prostate had been intelligently designed it would not swell at all, regardless of exposure to disease or as a consequence of poor health. The fact that the prostate swells at all, regardless of cause, is direct evidence against 'intelligent' design. I will quite happily admit that this leaves open the possibility of 'inept', 'incompetent' or 'inebriated' design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Names not on the list. Michael Behe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe Micheal Denton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton Karl Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Fred Hoyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Names not on the list. Michael Behe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe Micheal Denton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton Karl Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Fred Hoyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle I don't know about the others, but Michael Behe has repeatedly embarrassed himself in scientific circles with his assertions of irreducible complexity (mammalian eye, bacterial flagella etc.) that disprove evolution. Unfortunately for him every one of his assertions to date has been proven incorrect on every level as each one of his examples has been shown to be reducible to basic elements. The man is a fool. Anyway, regardless of how many 'scientists' you name that support creationism, the list of those who think creationism is moronic will always be millions of names longer. Hell, project Steve has produced a list longer than the nonsense one Julie posted, and half the names on her list were from completely irrelevant fields! Have the courage to admit your beliefs are nothing more than beliefs, they aren't based in reality and aren't supported by evidence. The more you try to assert otherwise, the more you will be shown to be incorrect by members of this board and the sillier you will look. edit: Holy Christ! Did you even read the articles before you posted them? You and Julie are really making a mockery of yourselves by posting information without reading it first. From the Michael Denton article: Denton however is not a creationist, he describes himself as an evolutionist, he has rejected biblical creationism. He has proposed an evolutionary theory which is a “directed evolution” in his book Natures Destiny (1998). Karl Popper: And yet, the theory [evolution] is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Names not on the list. Michael Behe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe Micheal Denton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton Karl Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Fred Hoyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle You're trying to claim those as creationists? Be off with you. At most, Behe is an exponent of Intelligent Design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 Fred Hoyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_HoyleHoyle's Fallacy. He was wrong about steady state as well. EDIT: P.S. Use short links. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can someone please summise this argument for me so I don't have to read all 28 pages? Thanks. Steakandchips is trolling that the biblical flood happened (or is mad), Julie actually believes it did, everyone else points out why this madness, some point and laugh. Same old. Remember to buy Watchtower and get down the Kingdom Hall. Oooooh! Fascina...zZzZzZzzz... Thanks Chindie No problem. I thoroughly recommend standing on the sidelines with this look on your face - :shock: - when some of the really crazy crap comes out though, it's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So all you've managed to do is make yourself look a little silly by producing a list of a few dozen names Oh I'm gutted again... NOT! I said it was a random search of Google.. ie a press of a button. I am not interested in who they are or what their beleifs are or their credential as I stated but it is certainly NOT true that ALL credible Scientists are Atheists..who reject the Biblical Creation account. Far from it! Whether these so called Scientists believe in Creationism or Creation I also have no idea...nor am I bothered. Einstein beleived in an Intelligent Designer even if he didn't beleive in a personal God. He rejected the Bible but he also rejected Atheism and he is probably the most famous and revered Scientist of the 20th Century. The Bible states over and over again that God eventually will indeed reveal himself to mankind and make sure that every person on the Earth will be in no doubt as to his existence and what his plan for mankind and the Earth. In the meantime Jesus ascerted the Flood of Noah's day and likened people's attitude towards that message in our day exactly the same way as an ancient world reacted to Noah & his family... If you or anyone else wish to think that's silly.... then fine I couldn't give a hoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 The Bible states over and over again that God eventually will indeed reveal himself to mankind and make sure that every person on the Earth will be in no doubt as to his existence and what his plan for mankind and the Earth. In the meantime Jesus ascerted the Flood of Noah's day and likened people's attitude towards that message in our day exactly the same way as an ancient world reacted to Noah & his family... If you or anyone else wish to think that's silly.... then fine I couldn't give a hoot.Good for you. I DO think it's silly, but I respect your right to believe it if that's what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You keep saying that you don't care Julie, and that you're going to stay out of these threads, but there you are again with your flood nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 7, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2011 My very good friend Dr J. Sarfati could answer this for you..Not sure if he is on the list...Can we add him if not? http://creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed Thing is... his degree is in Chemistry and his PHD specialised in Spectroscopy and they were awarded in the 60's, he has no scientific background in Biology nor Geology / Paleontology and he only started writing about creationism and intelligent design in the late 1990's He is actually less qualified than me in the relevant sciences he currently publishes articles / books on. Next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So all you've managed to do is make yourself look a little silly by producing a list of a few dozen names Oh I'm gutted again... NOT! I said it was a random search of Google.. ie a press of a button. I am not interested in who they are or what their beleifs are or their credential as I stated but it is certainly NOT true that ALL credible Scientists are Atheists..who reject the Biblical Creation account. Far from it! Whether these so called Scientists believe in Creationism or Creation I also have no idea...nor am I bothered. Einstein beleived in an Intelligent Designer even if he didn't beleive in a personal God. He rejected the Bible but he also rejected Atheism and he is probably the most famous and revered Scientist of the 20th Century. The Bible states over and over again that God eventually will indeed reveal himself to mankind and make sure that every person on the Earth will be in no doubt as to his existence and what his plan for mankind and the Earth. In the meantime Jesus ascerted the Flood of Noah's day and likened people's attitude towards that message in our day exactly the same way as an ancient world reacted to Noah & his family... If you or anyone else wish to think that's silly.... then fine I couldn't give a hoot. ...NOT!! - what is this, 1992? If you're not interested in who they are, why the hell did you post that list and say 'debate with them, they're all creationists!'? You clearly did care who they were when you posted the list, what has happened since is that you've realised how irrelevant half the names on the list are, and are hence back tracking. How many times does it need to be said, Einstein did not believe in an intelligent designer! Unlike creationists, I have no need to get scientists 'on my side', and hence have no need to make things up about revered scientists in order to support my cause. Einstein repeatedly referred to 'God' in the metaphorical sense, at no point in his writings did he ever admit to belief in intelligent design. Not that it would matter anyway, as the number of people who support a position has no impact on whether that position is true or not. Again, why do you keep referring to what the Bible says as if it makes a difference to the argument? I'm starting to get the impression that you care more about worshipping a book than you do about God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts