Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
143

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
There are a ton of things the Bible says that have later been confirmed by “modern science.” Some examples can be found in Job, when God is asking Job questions meant to put Job back in his place, as it were. Those questions reference the sun dictating wind patterns (it does) and springs on the ocean floor (which scientists “discovered” in 1976). Take those two things and think about how an ancient man could possibly have that knowledge. Observe the wind and sun patterns perhaps, and that’s a stretch at best. As for the ocean floor, I’ve yet to hear a good explanation from the opposing side. And in case you’re wondering, Job is included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, verified by “modern science” as being over 5,000 yrs. old at the time of discovery almost 40 yrs. ago.

Wind comes from the sky. The sun is part of the sky. Not a difficult connection to make.

Remember that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
[/quote]

Which I conceded would not be as difficult to answer to as the springs on the ocean floor. To that you say?

144

I have despised Cameron ever since I saw him bully and browbeat a woman with his religious fanatic views on a videoclip with his “man on the street” setup act. He is a pencil-necked punk that needs a good ass-kicking beat down…

145

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen.

Which scientists? Not biologists. You know, the ones who study that sort of thing.

Evolution via artificial selection can be seen in domesticated cattle/crops and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Evolution via natural(ish) selection has also occurred within the human population as recently as the last 10,000 years.[/quote]

Here’s the flaw in what you’re saying: Natural selection ISN’T evolution. Natural or even artificial selection do the exact opposite of evolution, they filter out less desirable traits in favor of more desirable ones. Evolution, from microscopic organism to fish to man inherently requires new genetic information to be added, and it isn’t. Darwin’s theory directly contradicted his observations, only he didn’t know it because the technology to observe the actual genetic material and encoding wasn’t around back then.

And yes, biologists and geneticists are moving away from Darwinism because they have a hard time justifying what evolution says when the genetic evidence points to selection by elimination, not addition. For example, when the canine genome was researched, it was concluded that all dogs probably shared a common ancestor. Any dog breeder knows all dogs came from wolves, just as any dog breeder will tell you the various types of dogs didn’t evolve into what they are now, but were bred DOWN to what they are now. Don’t like a long tail whipping about? The don’t breed to the longer of tail. Want a stocky barrel-chested animal? Then don’t breed to the tallest and lankiest. None of the information is new to those with real-world experience, but scientists usually have to re-invent the wheel to convince themselves.

146

[quote]SRT08 wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen.

Which scientists? Not biologists. You know, the ones who study that sort of thing.

Evolution via artificial selection can be seen in domesticated cattle/crops and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Evolution via natural(ish) selection has also occurred within the human population as recently as the last 10,000 years.

Here’s the flaw in what you’re saying: Natural selection ISN’T evolution. Natural or even artificial selection do the exact opposite of evolution, they filter out less desirable traits in favor of more desirable ones. Evolution, from microscopic organism to fish to man inherently requires new genetic information to be added, and it isn’t. Darwin’s theory directly contradicted his observations, only he didn’t know it because the technology to observe the actual genetic material and encoding wasn’t around back then.
And yes, biologists and geneticists are moving away from Darwinism because they have a hard time justifying what evolution says when the genetic evidence points to selection by elimination, not addition. For example, when the canine genome was researched, it was concluded that all dogs probably shared a common ancestor. Any dog breeder knows all dogs came from wolves, just as any dog breeder will tell you the various types of dogs didn’t evolve into what they are now, but were bred DOWN to what they are now. Don’t like a long tail whipping about? The don’t breed to the longer of tail. Want a stocky barrel-chested animal? Then don’t breed to the tallest and lankiest. None of the information is new to those with real-world experience, but scientists usually have to re-invent the wheel to convince themselves.
[/quote]

This is right on the money.
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution was mostly wrong, just like Copernicus’s model of a heliocentric universe was mostly wrong.
Though, this is not because their observations were unreasonable, but because hundreds of years of further scrutiny has repetitively refined and improved their MODELS. This is important to understand.
Believing in Darwinian Evolution is as much faith as believing Creationism.
Most important to consider is that BELIEVING in any current theory as PROVEN is faith.
The purpose of science is not to seek proof but to seek the best available model, and that work is never really finished.
To seek proof through science is the same as seeking faith.

147

[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen.

Which scientists? Not biologists. You know, the ones who study that sort of thing.

Evolution via artificial selection can be seen in domesticated cattle/crops and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Evolution via natural(ish) selection has also occurred within the human population as recently as the last 10,000 years.

Here’s the flaw in what you’re saying: Natural selection ISN’T evolution. Natural or even artificial selection do the exact opposite of evolution, they filter out less desirable traits in favor of more desirable ones. Evolution, from microscopic organism to fish to man inherently requires new genetic information to be added, and it isn’t. Darwin’s theory directly contradicted his observations, only he didn’t know it because the technology to observe the actual genetic material and encoding wasn’t around back then.
And yes, biologists and geneticists are moving away from Darwinism because they have a hard time justifying what evolution says when the genetic evidence points to selection by elimination, not addition. For example, when the canine genome was researched, it was concluded that all dogs probably shared a common ancestor. Any dog breeder knows all dogs came from wolves, just as any dog breeder will tell you the various types of dogs didn’t evolve into what they are now, but were bred DOWN to what they are now. Don’t like a long tail whipping about? The don’t breed to the longer of tail. Want a stocky barrel-chested animal? Then don’t breed to the tallest and lankiest. None of the information is new to those with real-world experience, but scientists usually have to re-invent the wheel to convince themselves.

This is right on the money.
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution was mostly wrong, just like Copernicus’s model of a heliocentric universe was mostly wrong.
Though, this is not because their observations were unreasonable, but because hundreds of years of further scrutiny has repetitively refined and improved their MODELS. This is important to understand.
Believing in Darwinian Evolution is as much faith as believing Creationism.
Most important to consider is that BELIEVING in any current theory as PROVEN is faith.
The purpose of science is not to seek proof but to seek the best available model, and that work is never really finished.
To seek proof through science is the same as seeking faith.[/quote]

I agree. If your goal is to seek absolute truth about the nature of our Universe, belief in science is faith.

Science is a tool that allows us to build better tools, nothing more.

149

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen.

Which scientists? Not biologists. You know, the ones who study that sort of thing.

Evolution via artificial selection can be seen in domesticated cattle/crops and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Evolution via natural(ish) selection has also occurred within the human population as recently as the last 10,000 years.

Here’s the flaw in what you’re saying: Natural selection ISN’T evolution. Natural or even artificial selection do the exact opposite of evolution, they filter out less desirable traits in favor of more desirable ones. Evolution, from microscopic organism to fish to man inherently requires new genetic information to be added, and it isn’t. Darwin’s theory directly contradicted his observations, only he didn’t know it because the technology to observe the actual genetic material and encoding wasn’t around back then.
And yes, biologists and geneticists are moving away from Darwinism because they have a hard time justifying what evolution says when the genetic evidence points to selection by elimination, not addition. For example, when the canine genome was researched, it was concluded that all dogs probably shared a common ancestor. Any dog breeder knows all dogs came from wolves, just as any dog breeder will tell you the various types of dogs didn’t evolve into what they are now, but were bred DOWN to what they are now. Don’t like a long tail whipping about? The don’t breed to the longer of tail. Want a stocky barrel-chested animal? Then don’t breed to the tallest and lankiest. None of the information is new to those with real-world experience, but scientists usually have to re-invent the wheel to convince themselves.

This is right on the money.
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution was mostly wrong, just like Copernicus’s model of a heliocentric universe was mostly wrong.
Though, this is not because their observations were unreasonable, but because hundreds of years of further scrutiny has repetitively refined and improved their MODELS. This is important to understand.
Believing in Darwinian Evolution is as much faith as believing Creationism.
Most important to consider is that BELIEVING in any current theory as PROVEN is faith.
The purpose of science is not to seek proof but to seek the best available model, and that work is never really finished.
To seek proof through science is the same as seeking faith.

I agree. If your goal is to seek absolute truth about the nature of our Universe, belief in science is faith.

Science is a tool that allows us to build better tools, nothing more.[/quote]

Tom you handled yourself so well through this whole thing.

I really enjoyed reading your posts and how YOU did not devolve into a patronizing tone and didn’t get personal.

It was nice to read.

150

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
I don’t understand. Ok I’ll admit that most of the theories and hypotheses proposed by science regarding the creation of the universe require leaps of faith, that could be said about any and all knowledge but I digress, but the leaps of faith required to believe these things are nothing compared to the astronomically large amount of faith it takes to believe in the creationists’ belief, requiring people to believe AND disregard many observations about the universe around us. It’s just ridiculous.[/quote]

So…none of the creationists are willing to admit to this ^^^ statement?

151

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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!”

153

No, there aren’t. Not even a little bit. Creationists have yet to provide a single piece of the most circumstantial of evidence in favour of their belief with many attempts seeming to rely on a less-than-tenuous grasp of elementary science. This is contrary to scientists being able to provide directly observable and testable evidence(like actual, honest-to-goodness evolution itself for example) in favour of evolution.

155

And now… back to the OP’s original thread starter.

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
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]

I generally agree. And even if evolution hasn’t been “proven”, to use PimpBot’s term (Note I’m not even going NEAR the discussion on whether evolution OR creationism is a hypotheses, a theory, or subject to falsification)… the conclusion still holds: it’s entirely possible that God or a “higher power” either established or works according to natural laws and, furthermore, that those “laws” could include evolution or, more particularly, natural selection.

I think of it this way: the Old Testament wasn’t written to be a scientific text–i.e., a “World and Species Creation for Dummies” how-to manual. It’s a religious text. It was written to bring the Hebrews, the Israelites, and later and more particular, the Jews to Yaweh, the one true God of Israel. Read it and learn from it with that context in mind.

The sad fact is that Kirk, and others like him who use wild claims and hyperbole to make their points (Darwin => Hitler anyone?), simply provide a convenient target for evolutionists. The stranger the arguments that Kirk lets spill out of his mouth, the easier it is for the rest of the world to lump Kirk and ALL Jewish-Christian adherents together, toss them out on account of their supposed incoherence, never stopping to really look into matters. For those not willing to dig deeper than a few sound bites, Kirk likely scares off more than he attracts.

For example, anyone see this eastern European chick on Youtube tear Kirk a new one?

She’s quite a hero in some atheist circles. In some threads I read, one can almost hear the masses chanting, “go girl”, never really stopping to think things through, explore the bridges between natural selection and Christianity, or consider other evidence in support of religiosity.

By the way… is it really a f&%ked-up world or am I just getting older?

156

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as axioms. There isn’t really a word for scientific ideas that covers this similar concept.

Saying evolution is “just a theory” is wildly misleading.

157

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ronsauce wrote:
There are reams and reams and reams of evidence.

No, there aren’t…

Yes, there are.

(How long do you wanna do this? I have my “copy and paste” all ready and rarin’ to go)[/quote]

No, there isn’t. Cut the shit, you have no idea what evolution is, never mind singlehandedly refuting it on this humble internet board. All your evidence relies on the accuracy of “the Bible” which is a collection of fairy tales (pretty bad ones at that).

158

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

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!”

[/quote]

Roughly, yes.

This is not about judging the value of faith, it is about physical evidence. The predictions made by literal creation are not supported by the evidence.

You are free to postulate that, for example, the first DNA molecules were plopped down in the primordial ooze by God, or that God/Satan put all the fossils in place to support evolution in order to test/trick us, but those hypotheses first require concrete evidence of the existence of God. Even if such evidence were presented, it would still be a theory of God, supporting a theory of literal creation. We cannot honestly proclaim that any scientific knowledge is absolute.

The scientific method simply does not account for the supernatural, because it is more pragmatic to assume that it does not exist until we see evidence that it does. Allow me to repeat: this is not a judgment of value, science is just a tool.

Only a bigot looks down on someone for their faith, but that does not mean that a tool which was consciously constructed to eschew faith should be forced to consider it. If you know, because of faith, how life was created, then you are a step ahead of science, which, at it’s most basic level, can never be absolutely sure of anything.

159

Look, this is the way I see it. I see creation and evolution as pretty unrelated. Creation deals with the philosophy of existence. Evolution deals with the essentially extrapolating blood lines.

As I mentioned before either you believe existence was caused by something, or you think its “just always been” (as I said before, this isn’t even an answer to the question).

If you accept that existence has a cause, it is no more probable that cause came in the form of a singularity that became the big bang, or if that cause came 4,000 or however many years ago. This is a huge point I think most people miss. Can anyone please explain why existence starting 4000 years ago is laughable while 14 billion years ago is not? It isn’t. If you accept a cause, that cause being yesterday or a trillion years ago is semantics.

Even if the cause is 14 billion years ago, that cause still created everything on this planet.

It’s like a baker baking a cake and one group is arguing that the baker made the cake and the other is arguing that the scientific process of heat and chemicals in the oven did. In all obviousness YES the oven “caused” the cake, but why the hell was the batter there in the first place? You are really debating the answers to different questions.

I guess I’m trying to say I accept evolution in general, and very much believe in creation. The main fight over created or not seems to be when the laws of the universe were broken to spawn existence, not if (as I’ve pointed out already, the big bang theory violates general relativity at the bare minimum, and doesn’t even explain existence anyway).

I really just don’t see the point of arguing when. It is such a pointless debate.

160

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

This has been done frequently on this site when this discussion comes up. Why not tack with a novel approach and place the burden on Darwinism?

[/quote]

This entire thread has been a “let’s disprove evolution” circle jerk and has degenerated into an argument over the meanings of “theory” and “hypothesis”.

Did you conveniently skip over the links that were posted with details about modern day speciation events taking place?

Now, for some questions.

If the world really is only ~8,000 years old, as required by the literal creationist view, then why is there evidence of events and life existing millions of years prior to that?

If speciation did not occur in the development (creation, whatever) of man, then why is there evidence of hominids existing for thousands of years before any human remains appear in the fossil record?

If you subscribe to the literal creationist view, then how do you explain the existence of modern humans in Africa for roughly 40,000 years before biblical history begins?