Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
262

[quote]pushharder wrote:
fleeben wrote:
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.

And those scientists (won’t quibble over the adjective “most” at this point) would be exhibiting “faith” and disingenuousness. Darwinism is on very shaky ground presently.

One example is Gould’s concept of “punctuated equilibrium”. Even he, the preeminent Harvard evolutionist, admits the lack of transitional forms is devastating to conventional Darwinistic thought and he was compelled to dream up an answer as to why the fossil record is so woefully incomplete.

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.

Whoa. You owe to yourself to do some research into creationists’ perspective on this topic.
[/quote]

Darwinism is on fine ground. More so than gravity which to you is a law. If gravity is universal then most of the matter in the universe in unaccounted for. Don’t play the semantics game. Actually look at the fossil record.

And the incomplete fossil record: it couldn’t be that our common ancestor with chimps is believed to be 7 million years old, which is kind of a long time for bones to stick around? Go read today’s issue of science.

He said there was no scientific debate on the subject. Creationists are not scientists.

263

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
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.

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

Go back and read your post prior to this one.

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.

You would be wrong in assuming that I have no interest in the subject; I honestly do.

Then why did you make the obviously spurious charge that you did? The one about CRS?

Push, the sites you referenced contain false, misleading information - this cannot be argued.

It can easily be argued. You’re being presumptuous here. You’re taking liberties here that you have no business taking.

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?

That may be true but that abiogenesis experiment from the 50s is STILL referenced to this day as valid. I know this because it was mentioned on previous c/e debates on this very site in the not too distant past. The early earth atmosphere simulation was horribly flawed.

…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 know little of interferonics but I suspect it has something to do the body’s immune system and viral infections. I would also strongly suspect that the principles (and research) of adaptation are what you are referring to when you mention “evolution science”. If so, what is going to take to get it through your head that creationists have no problem with adaptation? They proclaim it as true from the highest mountaintops.

[/quote]

I appreciate the response, Push.

It would actually take nothing at all.

I think you’re focusing on an instance where you can dive into a c/e debate with me, but I have made no assertion on either side of the issue. I understand that most creationists accept microevolution, adaptation, and mutation as fact - I would hope all scientists would, as they are the basis for most of what we know about modern medicine.

You would agree, though, that this ideology is shared by multiple branches of science - you could argue microevolution from the perspective of an evolutionist, a geneticist, or even a creationist.

Instances occur in which a particular science has reached the end of the spectrum and another modality must be implied to take the idea any further. I’ll reference Sir Issac Newton here - when Physics and Astrology could not account for the elliptical orbit of the planets, Newton - locked in a cellar for years, no doubt - had to invent what we now know as Calculus to explain the phenomenon.

Are there instances that you’ve observed/read where creation science supplants other branches in practical application?

-Eric

264

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Fergy wrote:

Research papers:

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

I am honestly dumbfounded and speechless.

I’d have to say that might just reflect on you.

[/quote]

Of course, silly me. I was just comparing what I was reading to what I would find in say… Nature, Cell, Science, PNAS, etc. But these journals obviously have nothing on the creation research society quaterly journal. I must simply be too stupid to realize this. -_-

268

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One example is Gould’s concept of “punctuated equilibrium”. Even he, the preeminent Harvard evolutionist, admits the lack of transitional forms is devastating to conventional Darwinistic thought and he was compelled to dream up an answer as to why the fossil record is so woefully incomplete.[/quote]

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

-Gould

So, he actually believes they are abundant between larger groups, but generally lacking at the species level (which you admit happens, anyhow).

An very cool video for those interested in an evolutionists take on whether or not we are lacking in transitional fossils:
Ninth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - “No transitional species have ever been found.”

270

[quote]anonym wrote:

An very cool video for those interested in an evolutionists take on whether or not we are lacking in transitional fossils:
Ninth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - “No transitional species have ever been found.”

Aronra’s videos are all top-drawer :slight_smile: .

271

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Bones and fossils. Two separate things. Is it imperative that I explain the difference?

And the fossil record is not just incomplete when it comes to hominids and primates. It is incomplete across the board. Use Gould as a reference.

He said there was no scientific debate on the subject. Creationists are not scientists to me. And I am a self-appointed authority on who gets deemed a scientist and who doesn’t.

Another fix for you. I’ll send you a PayPal invoice if you keep making me edit your posts for accuracy.

[/quote]

Thanks. How much does it cost to make me sound dumber? Actually I’m a state appointed authroity on science since I actually am a scientist at UW. Science relies on a burden of proof. Anyone who’s makes conclusions based solely on faith or adherence to a dogma is not a scientist. Hence creationists are not scientists. Find a CRS paper for me where they actually do scientific work and I might change my mind, and mis-interpreting other people’s results doesn’t count.

The beauty of science is that we know how much we don’t know and we’re searching for answers. The problem with creationists and Christians throughout history is that they claim to know all the answers and steadfastly refuse to recognize any evidence that disagrees with them.

273

[quote]pushharder wrote:
anonym wrote:
pushharder wrote:
One example is Gould’s concept of “punctuated equilibrium”. Even he, the preeminent Harvard evolutionist, admits the lack of transitional forms is devastating to conventional Darwinistic thought and he was compelled to dream up an answer as to why the fossil record is so woefully incomplete.

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

-Gould

So, he actually believes they are abundant between larger groups, but generally lacking at the species level (which you admit happens, anyhow).

But look at the inconsistencies in his statement. They are abundant in larger groups because he fabricated it to be so in order to support his hypothesis.

And who give a flying F-18A fuck if he is infuriated?[/quote]

So he is telling the truth about what creationists want him to be saying, but lying about the things that would support evolution?

Sounds good - I’m sure you will have an equally insightful retort to the video I posted.

274

Seriously guys, if you want a transitional form read this. How could anyone not call this a transition between us and chimps?

Or if you’re an AAAS member:
http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

275

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ecoetter wrote:

…Are there instances that you’ve observed/read where creation science supplants other branches in practical application?

-Eric

“Supplants?”

Maybe you’re confusing creation science as a separate branch of science? I don’t look at it that way.

[/quote]

Possibly, but also I view genetics and evolution science as two different branches, as does much of the scientific community. Same goes for physics, biochemistry, you name it. More of a holistic approach with specialized pieces - much like a sports team.

How should it be included?

-Eric

276

[quote]Fergy wrote:
anonym wrote:

An very cool video for those interested in an evolutionists take on whether or not we are lacking in transitional fossils:
Ninth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - “No transitional species have ever been found.”

Aronra’s videos are all top-drawer :slight_smile: .[/quote]

Based on the clips he uses in his series, it’s safe to say the dude also has badass taste in movies.

But, yeah… this video series was posted a little while back in PWI and it just covers so much of the CvE debate. It’s impressive that he put together so many videos of such quality.

279

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Minto11 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Bones and fossils. Two separate things. Is it imperative that I explain the difference?

And the fossil record is not just incomplete when it comes to hominids and primates. It is incomplete across the board. Use Gould as a reference.

He said there was no scientific debate on the subject. Creationists are not scientists to me. And I am a self-appointed authority on who gets deemed a scientist and who doesn’t.

Another fix for you. I’ll send you a PayPal invoice if you keep making me edit your posts for accuracy.

…Actually I’m a state appointed authroity on science since I actually am a scientist at UW.

Don’t try and impress with me your credentials. I could (and have previously) listed the names of numerous scientists with impeccable credentials and educations who eschew Darwinism and embrace creationism. It doesn’t make any difference to those I’ve debated on this subject here on TN. So just for spite I won’t be impressed by your credentials. How 'bout them apples?

In fact, I’d be willing to wager a bazillion kilos of Biotest’s finest products that many if not all of the list of highly esteemed scientists who hold to the creation model have credentials that would humble yours.

If you think being an ardent Darwinist and/or uniformitarian inherently makes you a more distinguished scientist than you need some therapy for your hubris.

…Anyone who’s makes conclusions based solely on faith or adherence to a dogma is not a scientist.

Evolutionists do this with an unbridled flair.

Hence creationists are not scientists.

Hence you have no business decreeing who a scientist is or isn’t regardless that your employer is the State of Washington. Good grief, you’re quite the condescending little twit. Are you passionately stroking your diploma on the wall as we speak?

Find a CRS paper for me where they actually do scientific work

You find it. I told you and others I don’t fetch.

and I might change my mind…

Repeat my quote about the Hornet.

The beauty of science is that we know how much we don’t know and we’re searching for answers. The problem with creationists and Christians throughout history is that they claim to know all the answers and steadfastly refuse to recognize any evidence that disagrees with them.

What you know about creationists and Christians would fit on the head of a…well, let’s just say it would involve the mention of nanoscience.

[/quote]

Wonderful. As is the case in most arguments the person who knows the least always resorts to yelling and insults. Why make an informed argument when you can attack someone instead. Your post is the perfect example of all of creationism. You make statements but offer no proof. You have a list of perfectly credentialed scientists on your side and you have reams of papers with a solid foundation in the scientific method but you refuse to list any of them. You attack my knowledge of Christianity despite never finding out if I know anything. Typical of a creationist. You believe something, why bother to find out if is true.

I admire people of faith. It must be nice to have an unshakable belief, but they are impossible to talk to because their faith prevents them from objectively looking at anything that might not jive with their faith. There’s nothing about believing the overwhelming evidence that points to evolution that in anyway disproves the existence of god. The belief in a common ancestor doesn’t preclude the belief in the creation of that ancestor.

Since I obviously don’t know anything about anything I’ll go read the bible to see if there’s a part in there about not being a total dick to people. Or I’ll go back to the T-vixen thread.