Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
282

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

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.

Wonderful. As is the case in most arguments the person who knows the least always resorts to yelling and insults.

You mean like “creationists are not scientists?”

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.

But you do?

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.

Done it before. Won’t fetch for you.

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.

You swaggered into this thread swinging your mace and you now want to play the victim? Grow up, state employee.[/quote]

Swinging my mace by linking to the kind of article that counts as the proof you claim I won’t provide? That’s some mace. I am such an ass. I apologize for not believing all the well founded data you claim to have but refuse to show. That girl you kissed in Niagara Falls over the summer probably has it.

I’m not playing victim. I’m just pointing out dickishness where it has no place. Either you’d like to have an informed discussion, or you’d like to be rude and refuse to offer any serious rebuttal other than insults. If there was an internet in the 16th century I have no doubt you’d be lambasting the heliocentrists with incredibly well thought out arguments like they have small dicks.

283

And since its so offensive for people to refer to their credentials unsolicited, perhaps you’d like to tell us what esteemed branch of science you are an expert in.

284

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
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).[/quote]

Single celled organism to human being. Well fuck me dead that is impressive. Except you did it in nine months.

You thought wrong.

285

[quote]pushharder wrote:
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.[/quote]

No you haven’t. You linked the names of quacks who don’t understand what the fuck they are talking about.

286

It’s been great reading this from the sidelines and watching the creationist guy make a mockery of himself and his ‘science.’ Sorry dude, that isn’t how science is done!

287

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Single celled organism to human being. Well fuck me dead that is impressive. Except you did it in nine months.[/quote]

i will shamelessly steal this quote.

288

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
So for the creationists out there, let’s place the burden of proof on your ideas.

If the theory/hypothesis/daydream/whatever of evolution is not well supported enough to be taught in our public schools…then what about the creationist perspective? Show us some real evidence.

I think I’ve shown some evidence so far. Again, I’d go back to the amount of knowledge in the Bible that far predates a the ability of human science to “discover” it. The initial example I gave was the section of Job referencing springs on the ocean floor. Another example from Job would be God asking Job to look at something called a “behemoth.” The text then goes on to describe a creature very much like a Brachiosaur (I freely admit to misspelling that word). If evolution is true, and dinosaurs died out millions of years (or more) before man, how does a man write a description of something he’s never seen that hasn’t been dug up yet? More to that point, how do pieces of Navajo clothing have pictures of a similar animal woven into them? These things, and others, are at the very least irrefutable proof that the evolution time line is grossly incorrect. From that point I’d work from other Biblical events that would fit a more appropriate time line. An example would be a global flood, rather than an ice age. Rushing floodwater can do just as much to the earth’s surface as slowly creeping ice.

Have their been any repeated tests of the creationist theory/hypothesis/daydream/whatever or is the evidence entirely circumstantial and impossible to replicate?

The evidence, again, is what is found at archeological dig sites everywhere. I personally find it amusing that the Bible is regarded by archeologists as the single most accurate tool for locating places to dig, but beyond that, it’s all made up.

Do you believe that the creationist perspective is more valid than the evolutionary perspective?

I believe the evidence should be allowed to speak for itself.

Do the requisite assumptions (read: faith) required to believe that the creationist perspective is more valid also lead to even more assumptions in order to reconcile the rest of the natural world and human history with the literalistic interpretation of the Bible upon which Creationism relies?

Nope.

For instance, the Bible says that when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt when she turned to gaze upon the burning cities. Do you believe that this happened? It is a fairly improbable event and has (to our knowledge) ever repeated itself in the millennia since it supposedly happened in the Old Testament. Of course, people take it on faith and believe that the story is true. However, the leap to assume that somehow living, organic tissue instantaneously transformed into sodium chloride seems to me to be slightly larger than that required to believe that somehow in a sea of organic molecules over millions of years, amino acids formed.

Ever see the show “Digging for the Truth?” There was an interesting episode on Sodom and Gamorrah. They were trying to prove or disprove, based on evidence in the area alone, whether or not the events in the Bible were true. Funny thing is, in that location, you dig beyond about a foot or so and you begin to uncover balls of sulfur. Balls of sulfur that are so pure you can light them with a lighter straight out of the ground. Of course, flaming balls of sulfur are more commonly known as “brimstone.” Watch the episode for yourself, and then ask yourself, if the evidence supports the majority of the story, at what point do you draw a line to begin to say “not true.”

As Tom was saying, to most people on the evolution side, this isn’t about whose theory is definitively right or wrong, but rather which is more probable given our current evidence (and no, the Bible does not count as evidence). The same cannot be said for the creationist side, whose entire argument relies on proving the creationist perspective by discrediting evolution without any evidence to support their own position beyond “yeah, well that other guy could be wrong!”

I think the article about the six things you need to know about protein summed this whole thing up best. In the article, it was said that the problem with most research professors is that their research is decades old. What I’m seeing here, is evolutionists doing what they’ve been taught and told, which is repeating rhetoric. Everyone’s got age old evidence that’s in some cases just flat out discredited at this point. But unlike with the protein “facts,” they’ll be inflexible in their belief because the research isn’t being set in front of them. You want to have proof based on current evidence, but don’t use the Bible. Again, the Bible is widely considered to be the highest standard of reliability by archeologists, who specialize in finding facts about the past, but is for some reason not good enough now. That is followed by your flat denial that creation can have any validity because it discredits your position. This is akin to asking someone “Prove the sky is blue and not red. The sky and a color palette can’t be used, and do it without arguing against the position that the sky is, in fact, red.”
[/quote]

289

[quote]S.o.M wrote:
he talks about how nothing can form everything and everything has a creator. well then what created God? [/quote]

Actually, a creation in and of itself proves a creator. If you have a Rolex, disassemble it, put it in a box, and shake the pieces up and then dump them out, how many times do you think it would take to have a functioning Rolex come out? Never mind where the pieces came from in the first place.

290

I saw a lot of comments on the first page I kinda wanted to speak to, so I jumped to the last page to see how things had turned. I shouldn’t have been surprised at how rude things got about a hot-button issue when, on the internet, things can get heated over total body vs body part splits. Here are some of my comments that pertain to basically the last page because I don’t have a great idea of what is going on in this thread.

I actually like Kirk Cameron; he seems like an incredibly genuine guy. I am sure I don’t agree on a lot of his beliefs, and that forward to the OOS seems to have a lot of logical fallacies. He is out there, and I have to respect him for it because he HAS to know how much he will be ridiculed. I am more or less a fundamentalist Christian (although I’m not 100% on classifications here), and I know from personal experience and from the fact that the Bible tells us that will happen.

I think both sides are extremely defensive because NO MATTER WHAT, this boils down to a faith issue. Either you have faith in the Bible, or faith in science on this issue. When you recognize that, it is easier to discuss things because both sides will pretty much acknowledge that they cannot “win” a faith issue. Neither side can prove beyond ANY doubt that their beliefs are correct. I don’t like how the science side presents the issue as fact vs faith because that closes the issue, and the faith side can obviously close their end as well.

Most of the ideas from the Origin of Species have been completely debunked, but that isn’t what science relies on any more. They took the ideas of a pretty false book and ran with it until the theory made sense. For instance, Darwin stated that all genetic mutations had to be advantageous in order to spread throughout the gene pool, so arose the issue of irreducible complexity.

There are some biological systems that would have required multiple mutations before becoming useful in any way. Well now scientists have coined the term “neutral evolution” and in two words have their argument against irreducible complexities.

ANYway those were just some things I wanted to say…sorry that it’s extremely unorganized

291

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Some of those questions will never be answered without some kind of faith. The question is this, which do you find more plausible:

A) God created a dogs, all dogs today are descendants for those first dogs.

B) Billions of years ago it rained a bunch on the rock of the earths surface. Elements formed in those puddles, slowly came together and formed something that eventually became alive, found something to eat and some other similar thing to reproduce with and those two single-celled organisms that didn’t starve or die alone are the fore bearers of everything alive today.

I personally believe dogs came from dogs and not rocks.

293

[quote]ecoetter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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, I�¢??d say they were related. But I�¢??m curious why you didn�¢??t chastise the anti-bible guys when they bring up stories like Lott when criticizing the biblical creation story?

“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

[/quote]

Considering the big bang resulted in the governing laws of the universe and everything from chemistry to planetary motion is dependent on them, yes. All science is physics, physics started at the big bang.

Evolution is also entirely dependent on quantum theory. Quantum is the basis of chemistry, chemistry to biology, biology to evolution. See I connected dots even though my quantum mechanics professor never lectured on it.

But in a deeper context of the whole discussion they are also closely related because the creation idea covers both areas so discussing both is entirely on topic.

But thanks for answering my question, oh wait you didn’t. Did they teach you to wipe your ass in astrophysics, or do you not know about that either? The connections I’m making are called independent thought, you might figure that out once you graduate and have to think for yourself.

294

[quote]
Considering the big bang resulted in the governing laws of the universe and everything from chemistry to planetary motion is dependent on them, yes. All science is physics, physics started at the big bang.

Evolution is also entirely dependent on quantum theory. Quantum is the basis of chemistry, chemistry to biology, biology to evolution. See I connected dots even though my quantum mechanics professor never lectured on it.

But in a deeper context of the whole discussion they are also closely related because the creation idea covers both areas so discussing both is entirely on topic.

But thanks for answering my question, oh wait you didn’t. Did they teach you to wipe your ass in astrophysics, or do you not know about that either? The connections I’m making are called independent thought, you might figure that out once you graduate and have to think for yourself.[/quote]

Chemistry existed long before quantum theory, as did biology and evolution…
Or are you implying that to have a decent conversation about evolution, one must discuss quantum theory and physics?

That being said, I think any discussion on creationism begs to talk about the big bang.

295

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

Considering the big bang resulted in the governing laws of the universe and everything from chemistry to planetary motion is dependent on them, yes. All science is physics, physics started at the big bang.

Evolution is also entirely dependent on quantum theory. Quantum is the basis of chemistry, chemistry to biology, biology to evolution. See I connected dots even though my quantum mechanics professor never lectured on it.

But in a deeper context of the whole discussion they are also closely related because the creation idea covers both areas so discussing both is entirely on topic.

But thanks for answering my question, oh wait you didn’t. Did they teach you to wipe your ass in astrophysics, or do you not know about that either? The connections I’m making are called independent thought, you might figure that out once you graduate and have to think for yourself.

Chemistry existed long before quantum theory, as did biology and evolution…
Or are you implying that to have a decent conversation about evolution, one must discuss quantum theory and physics?

That being said, I think any discussion on creationism begs to talk about the big bang.[/quote]

Medicine also existed before viruses and infections were known, but because of their discovery it really isn’t the same field anymore.

Science is built with piles of theories. Complex theories are still just as much built on the basic ones at the bottom of the pile. One new discovery at one of the more basic theories can indeed change everything. If our current model of the atom were discovered wrong, it could make us rethink chemistry and on down the line to evolution.

I would also argue chemistry was not before quantum, chemistry has always been the pursuit of knowledge about the physics of atoms, they just didn’t know it in the early days.

296

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Medicine also existed before viruses and infections were known, but because of their discovery it really isn’t the same field anymore.

Science is built with piles of theories. Complex theories are still just as much built on the basic ones at the bottom of the pile. One new discovery at one of the more basic theories can indeed change everything. If our current model of the atom were discovered wrong, it could make us rethink chemistry and on down the line to evolution.

I would also argue chemistry was not before quantum, chemistry has always been the pursuit of knowledge about the physics of atoms, they just didn’t know it in the early days.
[/quote]

Agreed about medicine–that’s why there’s the delineation between old medicine and modern medicine.

All of science in general is trying to find models that are simple enough to use and complex enough to work. So in chem for instance, you can have a discussion on combustion that doesn’t involve nuclear physics–in fact nuclear physics would make things too complicated. Newtonian physics can be used to describe all kinds of events on earth despite being a technically incomplete theory.

I think we actually agree on all that… I was just saying that to practice chem or some other science, you don’t have to know all of the related intricacies because there are a lot. Just like you could know a lot about evolutionary theory without knowing a lot about the big bang theory.

297

[quote]Fezzik wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Medicine also existed before viruses and infections were known, but because of their discovery it really isn’t the same field anymore.

Science is built with piles of theories. Complex theories are still just as much built on the basic ones at the bottom of the pile. One new discovery at one of the more basic theories can indeed change everything. If our current model of the atom were discovered wrong, it could make us rethink chemistry and on down the line to evolution.

I would also argue chemistry was not before quantum, chemistry has always been the pursuit of knowledge about the physics of atoms, they just didn’t know it in the early days.

Agreed about medicine–that’s why there’s the delineation between old medicine and modern medicine.

All of science in general is trying to find models that are simple enough to use and complex enough to work. So in chem for instance, you can have a discussion on combustion that doesn’t involve nuclear physics–in fact nuclear physics would make things too complicated. Newtonian physics can be used to describe all kinds of events on earth despite being a technically incomplete theory.

I think we actually agree on all that… I was just saying that to practice chem or some other science, you don’t have to know all of the related intricacies because there are a lot. Just like you could know a lot about evolutionary theory without knowing a lot about the big bang theory.[/quote]

But a discussion of combustion is nuclear physics, just in different terms and using larger generalizations rather than the exact physical calculations.

Also, in terms of the universe or even something â??smallâ?? like our solar system, Newtonian physics doesnâ??t cut it.

Even in some tiny things like the orbit of man-made satellites, NASA has been making measurements they seem to suggest general relativity could be off.

298

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

I personally believe dogs came from dogs and not rocks.[/quote]

299

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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, I�??�??�?�¢??d say they were related. But I�??�??�?�¢??m curious why you didn�??�??�?�¢??t chastise the anti-bible guys when they bring up stories like Lott when criticizing the biblical creation story?

“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

Considering the big bang resulted in the governing laws of the universe and everything from chemistry to planetary motion is dependent on them, yes. All science is physics, physics started at the big bang.

Evolution is also entirely dependent on quantum theory. Quantum is the basis of chemistry, chemistry to biology, biology to evolution. See I connected dots even though my quantum mechanics professor never lectured on it.

But in a deeper context of the whole discussion they are also closely related because the creation idea covers both areas so discussing both is entirely on topic.

But thanks for answering my question, oh wait you didn’t. Did they teach you to wipe your ass in astrophysics, or do you not know about that either? The connections I’m making are called independent thought, you might figure that out once you graduate and have to think for yourself.[/quote]

Connecting the dots is a far different assertion from saying A is the scientific cause of B, as you stated earlier.

And I would argue that Dalton’s Atomic Theory is the basis of Chemistry - without the Atomic Theory, Quantum would be unable to describe the physical properties held at the atomic and subatomic levels. I wouldn’t go so far to say that Atomic Theory is the “scientific cause” of Quantum, though the understanding of one certainly lead to the understanding of the other.

I’m sorry, man, but I really disagree with you on all fronts of your argument here. Do you not know believers who feel God created all, but then set evolution in motion? They dismiss the Big Bang, yet believe in all things adaptation and mutation thereafter.

It’s this reason, among many others, that I feel the two must be argued separately. (Aside from the fact that this is the way science works.)

I get tired of hearing creationists claim that the reason they don’t believe in evolution is because “something can’t come from nothing”. Evolution never makes an argument about the origin of life, and truthfully neither does the Big Bang Theory - what they’re referring to is abiogenesis, yet most haven’t the foggiest of what it is.

Have you ever experienced something like this?

All science is related, yes, but I just don’t draw many, if any, consistencies between two entirely different theories. If you could flesh them out a bit, I would like to hear - and aside from the underlying Quantum within everything, as you already pointed out above.

I commend you on your independent thinking, and I hope that skill serves you well in life, but in this case it’s rather misguided. I’d love to type more, but I have to figure out how to wipe this ass of mine. (Damn, no-good astrophysics professor…)

-Eric

Edit: I seem to have avoided your question once again. Sorry :slight_smile:

I’m not sure if I know what you’re referring to about Lott - mind pointing me in a better direction?

300

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But a discussion of combustion is nuclear physics, just in different terms and using larger generalizations rather than the exact physical calculations.

Also, in terms of the universe or even something â??smallâ?? like our solar system, Newtonian physics doesnâ??t cut it.

Even in some tiny things like the orbit of man-made satellites, NASA has been making measurements they seem to suggest general relativity could be off.
[/quote]

The different terms and generalizations are what make different fields of science different. The science and math of nuclear physics don’t actually make anything happen; they are languages and models describing natural phenomena. Though the same natural laws govern everything, those languages are very different. The actual science of combustion has nothing to do with nuclear physics. The math isn’t based in nuclear physics in any way despite the fact that the laws of thermodynamics apply to both.

Are you saying that in order to do combustion calculations, you have to do nuclear physics calculations first? Because you don’t. You don’t even have to worry about them. In fact worrying about them is outside the scope of combustion itself.

Newtonian physics is sweet, esp on earth like I said. It can pretty much describe anything until ridiculous huge speeds and masses get involved. It’s even pretty dang good at modeling our solar system. I pretty much use it for everything…

301

For me this is the closing argument.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum10_2.html

There’s a paper in that journal that suggests there were 2000 animals on Noah’s ark and there and all evidence against a universal flood is inaccurate. So people on one side of the aisle claim that the worldwide diversity of life descends from 2000 animals 4500 years ago. Seems to me like the christians believe in hyper-evolution if they think that’s the case.

And how did these animals get from Mt. Ararat to remote islands? It must be true because its in a “peer-reviewed” journal.