Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[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]

No…I pretty much think they are the same thing since they are both propagated by the same group of people…which is a lame attempt to debunk creationism. But what do I know ive got a business degree and therefore didnt set through an astrophysics class. Which let me guess…was taught by an atheist or agnostic and couldnt possibly so closed minded as to believe in creationism.

242

Lol!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1927200%2C00.html

243

[quote]ecoetter wrote:
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)
[/quote]

I would like to conclude my stint in this thread by saying three things:

  1. Richard Dawkins is an odious windbag and a bigot.
  2. The argument put forth in that article is unscientific garbage.
  3. Those two deserve each other.

I’m done arguing.

Push, I’m glad that we were able to discuss this civilly, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

246

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

I couldn’t find the earth is flat, but something on it being stuck in one place and unmoving, so the sun must revolve around it. What it does do is provide a handy price list for a virgin. I think the point was that the bible makes many indefensible statements, do bible literalists believe in these statements too?

What does this prove at all?

Customs were much different back then, you didn’t have sex before marriage in some cultures, it just wasn’t really allowed.

A guys sleeps with a virgin that he isn’t married to and has to pay a price, is that so different from how middle eastern cultures view things?

I still want to see verses about the earth being flat and the sun revolving around it.

By your reasoning:
“Traditions were different 2000 years ago as well, so what Jesus said is irrelevant.”

As for the earth is still (and so the sun must revolve around it):
“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
“The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.”
“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
would be the quotes that are relevant. The bits about the world being flat actually talk about “the ends of the earth” and the “four corners of the earth”, which are sayings, so I’d disregard them.
[/quote]

?? I did not imply that at all, I don’t know how you even came up with that statement being my reasoning. You made a comment about how the bible talks about men who sleep with virgins outside of marriage have to pay a price and this is supposed to disprove the bible or something, when most of the eastern world still operates like that.

Dude, give me the verses, there is context to be considered.

248

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I believe in God. I also probably know more than you do about mitochondrial DNA considering all of those genetics related classes I took in school so it blows my mind that some of you actually believe that people who believe in God are so stupid or uneducated that ignorance is why we believe.

That doesn’t make you look too bright. You don’t really want to know what educated Christians think. You just want to tear down the act of belief in a higher power.

Who here has written that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Anyone? I sure as HELL don’t believe it so why do you think everyone who believes in God does?

Why do you think an omnipotent entity would need a “beginning”?[/quote]

Because saying you know a lot about [subject] is oh-so-convincing. You must have been too busy cataloging your vast knowledge of mDNA to bother reading the question mark at the end of my QUESTION about whether you believed the earth was six thousand years old.

For the record, I already know what educated Christians think. I was raised catholic and my extended family, who remain (I would say nominally, but is there any other type?) catholic all accept the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution. I am wondering how many people in this debate seriously believe that the earth is six thousand years old and if they do, what explanatory power creationism has, since it leaves unanswered the question of God’s own origin.

250

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
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.

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

There are numerous technical articles on those sites. Many would serve the purpose you asked about practical applications. Many of them make no mention of religion or the Bible whatsoever. You are a fool to say they aren’t there. And you are a dishonest fool to say you looked for them.

There are also apologetics type articles as well, as you mentioned.

You are one of the antagonizers. You have no true interest in this subject; you merely revel in your self-appointed role as court jester.[/quote]

Untrue, and I’m sorry our banter devolved so quickly.

You would be wrong in assuming that I have no interest in the subject; I honestly do. And I asked you a non-facetious question with aims not to antagonize, but to gain opinion of an intelligent body on the other side of the coin.

Push, the sites you referenced contain false, misleading information - this cannot be argued. Whether or not they reference religion or the Bible is not of any matter to me; slandering the work of scientists is. Allow me an example:

On Ken Ham’s site, there is a section that “debunks” abiogenesis, citing the Miller-Urey study as disproving its own hypothesis. What they fail to mention is the research, which is now close to 60 years old, never made any assertion about abiogenesis, it merely simulated the early Earth atmosphere and is in no way indicative of the current model for the theory. Abiogenesis’ framework currently follows the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis - why not mention the research that presently represents the theory?

I had no intention of becoming a dishonest fool, but I hope you’ll see that I’m not the only one being dishonest here. And one cannot expect cite a source with such glaring fallacies and have the end user not object.

Interferonics, discovered through evolution science and genetics, is currently allowing scientists to gain a better understanding of the growth rates of tumors in reference to advanced and improved treatment options. This would be an example of a practical application of evolution science.

I was simply asking you for a practical application of creation science, since you’re much more versed in the subject matter than I, not attacking the science itself.

-Eric

251

[quote]Chrysalis wrote:

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?
Linette[/quote]

Really, the bible says the world is flat or are you going on the assumptions that when it is spoken in Revelations that John went “to the ends of the Earth” as your biases for the bible saying it’s “Flat”

Isaiah 40:22 says, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth…”

252

[quote]pushharder wrote:
fleeben wrote:
…the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution…

Now it’s a law, huh?

And some said we were quibbling over the semantics of hypotheses, theory and law…and how unimportant the distinctions are…sure…[/quote]

Due to the public’s lack of understanding concerning what words such as ‘theory’ and ‘law’ mean in a scientific context, I think it is more appropriate to refer to it as a Law the same way we talk about the Law of Universal Gravitation.

254

I think you’ll find that most scientists who study evolution, when asked, will tell you that it rests on as firm a ground as the Laws of Gravity, optics, etc.

Also, to be clear: there is no scientific debate regarding whether all(or most, depending on what you think of some types of bacteria) species on earth possess a universal common ancestor.

255

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:

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”.

Really?

46 years worth of abstracts. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of technical articles - many of them “practical applications of creation science.”

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htm

Books:

http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BK-THE1&Category_Code=

Research papers:

http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc/papers.html

Get lost, kid. You shot your wad of tomfoolery. Back to the frat house for another hit or two of some sweet Georgia bud.

[/quote]

I appreciate the jeer.

I want an application. Not a study, or and abstract, or academia - an actual practical application.

In simpler terms, how does knowing organisms are designed help make this world a better place?

-Eric

256

My favorite part of this is that the book is called “On the Origin of Species”. You’d think if you were distributing thousands of copies of a book you’d take a glance at the title.

As a scientist it seemed like the few articles I read from CRS quarterly use an a priori approach to the scientific method. I will find observations which support my theory. Real science is done by drawing the logical conclusion from observations regardless of whether they support your theory.

If you want more proof that Darwin was right, check out everyone’s great-great-great-great grandmother in Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

258

I am honestly dumbfounded and speechless.

259

I am honestly dumbfounded and speechless.[/quote]

Great avatar. If there was any doubt we descended from apes, Chabal puts those to rest.

I’ve yet to find a paper from that publication that actually contains any lab work. Every one lacks a materials and methods section simply because all they do is try to reinterpret other data. If there is one, someone point it out.