Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

[mattfelts]

[quote]ecoetter wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”

Swing and a miss.

Not well versed in Big Bang science, are we?

@ Pushharder:

What practical applications do you see emerging in the field of young earth creation science? (In contrast with the myriad pragmatical application of evolution science and genetics, specifically.)

-Eric

[/quote]

YEAAAH…That’s prety much what I said…IM NOT well versed in this so called “evolution science”. Kind of get turned off when they find the missing monkey man for the thousandth time…Oh, and guess what it’s really just a species of monkey’s and really not a monkey/man after all. I do believe there is evolution within a species but not from species to species.

[tom8658]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

BUT, there are some from all four groups (which tend to overlap, yes) that in varying degrees, are dumber than a sack of rocks that got peed on by a three legged mule. Why? Because they are robots. Someone programs them. Someone then pushes their buttons to make them do and say things. They know what to think but not how to think.

[/quote]

I laughed, hard. Thanks for that.

And thanks for that post.

[ecoetter]

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”

Swing and a miss.

Not well versed in Big Bang science, are we?

@ Pushharder:

What practical applications do you see emerging in the field of young earth creation science? (In contrast with the myriad pragmatical application of evolution science and genetics, specifically.)

-Eric

YEAAAH…That’s prety much what I said…IM NOT well versed in this so called “evolution science”. Kind of get turned off when they find the missing monkey man for the thousandth time…Oh, and guess what it’s really just a species of monkey’s and really not a monkey/man after all. I do believe there is evolution within a species but not from species to species.[/quote]

You do understand that the theory of “so called evolution science” and the Big Bang theory have nothing in common and make no assertions concerning one another, right?

-Eric

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]ecoetter wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”

Swing and a miss.

Not well versed in Big Bang science, are we?

@ Pushharder:

What practical applications do you see emerging in the field of young earth creation science? (In contrast with the myriad pragmatical application of evolution science and genetics, specifically.)

-Eric

YEAAAH…That’s prety much what I said…IM NOT well versed in this so called “evolution science”. Kind of get turned off when they find the missing monkey man for the thousandth time…Oh, and guess what it’s really just a species of monkey’s and really not a monkey/man after all. I do believe there is evolution within a species but not from species to species.

You do understand that the theory of “so called evolution science” and the Big Bang theory have nothing in common and make no assertions concerning one another, right?

-Eric

[/quote]

Considering that one is the scientific cause of the other, Iâ??d say they were related. But Iâ??m curious why you didnâ??t chastise the anti-bible guys when they bring up stories like Lott when criticizing the biblical creation story?

[kylec72]

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I think they might do better to come to terms with the fact that a.) the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally…it is a haphazardly-assembled collection of parables that has been subject to translation upon translation, and that if it was indeed “God’s Word” that a good deal of that word has been jumbled up over the centuries,

[/quote]

“It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an author – and not to learn it better.” --Nietzsche

[ecoetter]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?

Apparently so, sorry. I guess we are just going to disagree, so I’ll stop wasting your time.

One more time then. Hindus claim no creation exists so what can we discuss about the physical/scientific aspects of a creation that doesn’t exist? Buddhists claim it is irrelevant and so the physical/scientific aspects have not been addressed, therefore they cannot be discussed. Savvy?

Because proposing that a phenomenon (which we have never directly observed) did not happen is in itself a hypothesis.

But that “hypothesis” in and of itself exports nothing to the discussion of science, i.e., the knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

On the other hand creation science deals directly with various branches of scientific thought, be it geology, anthropology, meteorology, biology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. If you didn’t know this then you too came to the baseball game without your glove. You too would then be guilty of debating a topic of which you know practically nothing about the opposing viewpoint. You too would then be in an inappropriate position.[/quote]

Push, what theories have creation scientists proposed and how were they backed by empirical evidence?

This is kind of a necessary step in the validation of a branch of science.

-Eric

[Sarev0k]

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I think most of us here have seen the Kirk Cameron “banana video” and laughed at the ridiculous assault on reason he and his associate present. If not, here it is…“the athiest’s nightmare”…

Kirk Cameron And Bananas

Now, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, Kirk has created a 50 page “forward” (rebuttal) to the book and has created a special, balanced edition to hand out at University campuses around the country. In it, he associates Darwin with Hitler, and exposes his racism and sexism…

- YouTube

I’m actually open to the idea of a creator/higher power, but the way Kirk and his buddy go about this is pretty disgusting…

1.) You can’t denounce scientific discovery based on the personal beliefs of the scientist or how people interpret the work over the years. (By “scientific discovery” I mean peer reviewed and exhaustively tested). I don’t care if Darwin sodomized goats and hung pentagrams from his balls…his work has stood up to scientific scrutiny, again and again, for well over a century. Trying to mudsling Darwin with irrelevant accusations so many years after his death is beyond pathetic.

2.) He complains that the Gideons can’t hand out bibles in public schools. Well, Mike Seaver, we live in a country with diverse religions, beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. Heaven forbid we aim to make PUBLIC schools religiously impartial, giving each student a moment of silence at the beginning of each day to pray to whichever god they choose. You want biblical study, join a biblical school. There are lots to choose from.

3.) I wonder how Kirk would feel to a “special edition” of the bible being handed out at schools, with a huge rebuttal stuck to the front. Rest assured it would be far more than 50 pages in length.

I really think Kirk, and a lot of other creationists are going about their arguments the wrong way. You aren’t going to convince any reasonable person that Darwin was a quack. Its just not going to happen. I think they might do better to come to terms with the fact that a.) the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally…it is a haphazardly-assembled collection of parables that has been subject to translation upon translation, and that if it was indeed “God’s Word” that a good deal of that word has been jumbled up over the centuries, b.) Evolution exists and c.) Just because evolution has been proven, it does not mean that God does not exist…it could very well be the mechanism of a higher power.

[/quote]

Don’t know if this is a repost or not, but i will post anyway.

All belief systems aside, it is easily approachable that darwin was a racist:

From his 2nd book, THE DESCENT OF MAN

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

Comparing black people to apes? Hmm…

One of Darwin’s protege’s, Thomas Huxley said this in 1871:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).

Simply disgusting. And they teach his theories in school as standard…

You can believe in anything you want, but believing in this may as well be taking advice from the KKK.

Racism = Retardation

[ecoetter]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?

Apparently so, sorry. I guess we are just going to disagree, so I’ll stop wasting your time.

One more time then. Hindus claim no creation exists so what can we discuss about the physical/scientific aspects of a creation that doesn’t exist? Buddhists claim it is irrelevant and so the physical/scientific aspects have not been addressed, therefore they cannot be discussed. Savvy?

Because proposing that a phenomenon (which we have never directly observed) did not happen is in itself a hypothesis.

But that “hypothesis” in and of itself exports nothing to the discussion of science, i.e., the knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

On the other hand creation science deals directly with various branches of scientific thought, be it geology, anthropology, meteorology, biology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. If you didn’t know this then you too came to the baseball game without your glove. You too would then be guilty of debating a topic of which you know practically nothing about the opposing viewpoint. You too would then be in an inappropriate position.

Push, what theories have creation scientists proposed and how were they backed by empirical evidence?

This is kind of a necessary step in the validation of a branch of science.

-Eric

The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research

Answers in Genesis

Creation Research Society

TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust

[/quote]

I was hoping this wouldn’t devolve into the of linking creationist websites.

And you dodged my first question, which is the one I’m really more concerned with.

-Eric

[ecoetter]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”

Swing and a miss.

Not well versed in Big Bang science, are we?

@ Pushharder:

What practical applications do you see emerging in the field of young earth creation science? (In contrast with the myriad pragmatical application of evolution science and genetics, specifically.)

-Eric

YEAAAH…That’s prety much what I said…IM NOT well versed in this so called “evolution science”. Kind of get turned off when they find the missing monkey man for the thousandth time…Oh, and guess what it’s really just a species of monkey’s and really not a monkey/man after all. I do believe there is evolution within a species but not from species to species.

You do understand that the theory of “so called evolution science” and the Big Bang theory have nothing in common and make no assertions concerning one another, right?

-Eric

Considering that one is the scientific cause of the other, Iâ??d say they were related. But Iâ??m curious why you didnâ??t chastise the anti-bible guys when they bring up stories like Lott when criticizing the biblical creation story?[/quote]

“Scientific cause”.

Really?

So a cosmological theory must account for every theory proposed thereafter since, well, without it, there would be nothing to propose. (Note to self: Big Bang is the scientific cause for atomic theory, circuit theory, quantum field theory, speculative reason, etc.)

I must have fallen asleep in that portion of my astrophysics lecture.

-Eric

[limitatinfinity]

[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
PimpBot5000 wrote:
I think most of us here have seen the Kirk Cameron “banana video” and laughed at the ridiculous assault on reason he and his associate present. If not, here it is…“the athiest’s nightmare”…

Kirk Cameron And Bananas

Now, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, Kirk has created a 50 page “forward” (rebuttal) to the book and has created a special, balanced edition to hand out at University campuses around the country. In it, he associates Darwin with Hitler, and exposes his racism and sexism…

- YouTube

I’m actually open to the idea of a creator/higher power, but the way Kirk and his buddy go about this is pretty disgusting…

1.) You can’t denounce scientific discovery based on the personal beliefs of the scientist or how people interpret the work over the years. (By “scientific discovery” I mean peer reviewed and exhaustively tested). I don’t care if Darwin sodomized goats and hung pentagrams from his balls…his work has stood up to scientific scrutiny, again and again, for well over a century. Trying to mudsling Darwin with irrelevant accusations so many years after his death is beyond pathetic.

2.) He complains that the Gideons can’t hand out bibles in public schools. Well, Mike Seaver, we live in a country with diverse religions, beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. Heaven forbid we aim to make PUBLIC schools religiously impartial, giving each student a moment of silence at the beginning of each day to pray to whichever god they choose. You want biblical study, join a biblical school. There are lots to choose from.

3.) I wonder how Kirk would feel to a “special edition” of the bible being handed out at schools, with a huge rebuttal stuck to the front. Rest assured it would be far more than 50 pages in length.

I really think Kirk, and a lot of other creationists are going about their arguments the wrong way. You aren’t going to convince any reasonable person that Darwin was a quack. Its just not going to happen. I think they might do better to come to terms with the fact that a.) the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally…it is a haphazardly-assembled collection of parables that has been subject to translation upon translation, and that if it was indeed “God’s Word” that a good deal of that word has been jumbled up over the centuries, b.) Evolution exists and c.) Just because evolution has been proven, it does not mean that God does not exist…it could very well be the mechanism of a higher power.

Don’t know if this is a repost or not, but i will post anyway.

All belief systems aside, it is easily approachable that darwin was a racist:

From his 2nd book, THE DESCENT OF MAN

[Quote]At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

Comparing black people to apes? Hmm…

One of Darwin’s protege’s, Thomas Huxley said this in 1871:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).

Simply disgusting. And they teach his theories in school as standard…

You can believe in anything you want, but believing in this may as well be taking advice from the KKK.

Racism = Retardation[/quote]

Darwin had no way to distinguish between trait differences and differences in species or sub-species. The model of genetic identity wasn’t yet available, so it would have been just as ludicrous to argue either way.

Like I said before, Darwin was mostly wrong…but not because he was unreasonable.

[anonym]

Push,

I was browsing the links you posted and noticed that the Creation Research Society has their own peer-reviewed journal.

Would you happen to know whether or not creationists publish their research in any non-creationist journals?

[ecoetter]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:

I was hoping this wouldn’t devolve into the of linking creationist websites.

Because you’d rather play fetch with me.

And you dodged my first question, which is the one I’m really more concerned with.

Because you’d rather play fetch with me. Those sites are rife with answers to your question.

I guess you didn’t get the memo. I’ve said repeatedly I won’t get into specifics here that consume a large amount of my time. Not when scientists on those sites and others can answer your questions much more exhaustively than I ever could.
[/quote]

Push, when you send me to sites that profess nothing more than their attempt at debunking long-standing, peer-bolstered scientific theories, that all but eliminates the hopes of an intelligent conversation.

I wanted YOUR opinion on the practical application of creation science and would have been giddy had you provided me a few examples (preferably not in link form).

-Eric

Edit: And I’d steer clear of referencing TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust again. A face-palm inducing, train wreck of a website.

[ecoetter]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:

Push, when you send me to sites that profess nothing more than their attempt at debunking long-standing, peer-bolstered scientific theories, that all but eliminates the hopes of an intelligent conversation…

Whoops! You just fucked up. You revealed you didn’t do much of anything over yonder. I know because I’ve been there many times. Maybe you’d better stick to Wikipedia like the other guy did.

[/quote]

Push, your ability to dodge questions is truly legendary. I’ve admired it from afar in the past, but seeing your superiority live is a site to behold.

The truth is, I did spend time over yonder - more than I’d like to admit considering my position on the issue. I just was appalled you’d “fetch” me Ken Ham’s site - his “were you there?” argument regarding the origins of life and evolution channels Ray Comfort’s banana in the realm of its ineptitude. You can’t possibly expect me to take his work seriously, can you?

And why did you even send me to the Creation Research Quarterly site? No information to be had aside from this gem “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, ALL [capitalized for emphasis] its assertions are historically and scientifically true”.

Seriously?! ==> Does Science Justify Adultery? | The Institute for Creation Research

Push, this stuff is absurd. You assert creation science as legitimate and you would desire its inclusion alongside other respected fields, no?

Then what practical application is there for creation science?

I’d LOVE to hear your opinion, not Brian Thomas’ masterpiece debunking Richard Dawkins*. (Dawkins' Latest Book: The Greatest Lie on Earth | The Institute for Creation Research)

• • sarcasm

-Eric