Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 9 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 214

Thread: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

  1. -81
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,240
    vCash:
    22225
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by volk View Post
    So you agree that evolutionary theory is still evolving, but believe it is degrading to state so because the origin of such claims is frequently religious in nature? The source should be irrelevant to the investigation of the facts for a true naturalist, which is really what makes Bill Nye's claim so tragic.




    Perhaps now would be a beneficial time for you to clarify what you mean by evolution? While you should be able to make a valid case for micro-evolution, macro-evolution as an origin of the species has far more than a few "gaps" to fill to be anywhere near being definitively correct. Cambrian explosion, punctuated equilibrium, incomplete and contrary fossil evidence and a limited amount of time to complete such massive amounts of speciation are hardly small issues to overcome. This does not even begin to address the direct contradictions raised by what is seen in nature and society with regard to societal benevolence, beneficial mutation and the world's tendency toward decay.



    You are seriously overreaching here. Darwinian evolution is not the hinge upon which all medicine and technology turn. The claim itself is laughable given the amazing achievements prior to the concept of evolution even existing. Furthermore, a very strong argument can be made for religion being every bit as critical to societal health and evolution. Without religion to guide us morally and attach meaning to life and the most difficult issues of self and society, we might still be exterminating entire races in an attempt to create the super race Darwin's philosophy ultimately imagined.



    This is merely opinion and not fact. Since we are discussing science as it primarily leads to health and life sciences, perhaps you might consider the most significant scientific advancement of it in our age, the human genome project and it's head, Dr. Francis Collins. Collins is a devout Christian and sees no problems with science and faith integration. Also, the scientific community is not so nearly as atheistic as you may believe. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24



    Stating opinion as fact does not make it so. Since you appear to be fixated on Christianity, any honest investigation of the Christian Bible will show that it makes several scientific claims and encourages investigation. It applauds a skeptical perspective and the testing of ideas to see what is true. As an aside, the Bible is full of examples of people questioning God and being met not with judgement, but with compassion. Not to be rude, but perhaps a deeper reading of the source material may provide a more factual understanding.



    I find it ironic that you demand more evidence from religion than you do from science. It isn't surprising, really, since at this level they both require faith. It is humorous to me that those who put all their eggs in the basket of science do so on what is not and cannot ever truly be 100% scientifically proven. It is faith in the evidence of only that which can be conclusively proven when it cannot be conclusively proven.

    Lastly, you say you don't fear the religious but contradict yourself by enumerating the fears you have of the religious. I will not pretend that bad things have not been done in the name of religion, but they pale in comparison to those done in the name of advancing purely naturalistic philosophies. This is not an argument that a naturalist really wants to hang their hat on...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    I am answering without having read your post.

    Just one question: are you Statler?

    This breaking apart of quotes is getting really on my nerves.

    Until you actually learn to keep everything in context I will not respond to your posts.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -82
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,351
    vCash:
    7687
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    in everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "i have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

    the formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.


    http://www.nationalacademies.org/evo...oryOrFact.html
    .
    Quote Quote  

  3. -83
    volk's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2004
    Posts:
    1,110
    vCash:
    2356
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    I am answering without having read your post.

    Just one question: are you Statler?

    This breaking apart of quotes is getting really on my nerves.

    Until you actually learn to keep everything in context I will not respond to your posts.
    I am most definitely not Statler. I have been a member on this forum for several years but have only recently discovered this part of the forums.

    Given the length of your previous post, it seemed far more coherent and expedient to break down the major points for rebuttal. This is no different than creating an outline or actually making a point-by-point argument. I'm not sure why this bothers you unless you are uncomfortable with the language you are using in your post and do not wish to defend your posts as written?

    If you refuse to review and consider my responses based on post format, there is simply no point continuing.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    "Therefore, understand the matter, and consider the vision." Dan 9:23

    Why must this team always underachieve???
    Quote Quote  

  4. -84
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,825
    vCash:
    5030
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by volk View Post
    I am most definitely not Statler. I have been a member on this forum for several years but have only recently discovered this part of the forums.

    Given the length of your previous post, it seemed far more coherent and expedient to break down the major points for rebuttal. This is no different than creating an outline or actually making a point-by-point argument. I'm not sure why this bothers you unless you are uncomfortable with the language you are using in your post and do not wish to defend your posts as written?

    If you refuse to review and consider my responses based on post format, there is simply no point continuing.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    You should answer paragraph by paragraph then. When you take out a single sentence, you remove it's given context, which allows you to assign it any context you want. It's a form of a strawman...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  5. -85
    volk's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2004
    Posts:
    1,110
    vCash:
    2356
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    You should answer paragraph by paragraph then. When you take out a single sentence, you remove it's given context, which allows you to assign it any context you want. It's a form of a strawman...
    I have taken nothing out of context for my replies, as I have changed no meaning to serve my purposes. Isolating text is not always the same as removing context, either. FWIW, some statements are so bombastic that they clearly provide their own context and are fully worthy of rebuttal on their own merits, especially when they define the context of all that follows. These statements are actual points. One thing is sure, though, refusing to address points is a great way to prevent appropriate discussion and having to concede inaccuracies. Bury enough inaccurate points in excessive verbage and they shall never all be properly rebutted, leading to a feeling of having proved those points.

    I won't carry on a text reliant debate if the words used in the debate are not up for analysis.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Quote Quote  

  6. -86
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,825
    vCash:
    5030
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by volk View Post
    I have taken nothing out of context for my replies, as I have changed no meaning to serve my purposes. Isolating text is not always the same as removing context, either. FWIW, some statements are so bombastic that they clearly provide their own context and are fully worthy of rebuttal on their own merits, especially when they define the context of all that follows. These statements are actual points. One thing is sure, though, refusing to address points is a great way to prevent appropriate discussion and having to concede inaccuracies. Bury enough inaccurate points in excessive verbage and they shall never all be properly rebutted, leading to a feeling of having proved those points.

    I won't carry on a text reliant debate if the words used in the debate are not up for analysis.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Well I'm convinced you're not Statler. That guy could never respond the way you just did.

    But who decides which statements are "bombtastic"? You? That's another way of removing their context. If you want to debate a single sentence, post the entire paragraph and highlight the appropriate part. This way the original context is in place, and you can still point out exactly what it is you're taking issue with. Or do it your way if you want, but don't expect much discussion. After Statler's obnoxiously long posts that responded to a sentence one by one, I think everyone is just about done with them...
    Quote Quote  

  7. -87
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,240
    vCash:
    22225
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by volk View Post
    I have taken nothing out of context for my replies, as I have changed no meaning to serve my purposes. Isolating text is not always the same as removing context, either. FWIW, some statements are so bombastic that they clearly provide their own context and are fully worthy of rebuttal on their own merits, especially when they define the context of all that follows. These statements are actual points. One thing is sure, though, refusing to address points is a great way to prevent appropriate discussion and having to concede inaccuracies. Bury enough inaccurate points in excessive verbage and they shall never all be properly rebutted, leading to a feeling of having proved those points.

    I won't carry on a text reliant debate if the words used in the debate are not up for analysis.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Not really. When someone is in the habit to shorten paragraphs into sentences or fragments of sentences and the debate continues on then at the end nothing is left of the original context. The reason for a paragraph is to have one context. Now if you want to address one sentence then simply highlight it but leave the paragraph together. You do not make the decision how to read other people's single sentences inside paragraphs. I just glanced at your post and you ripped my entire first paragraph into two quotes which each by itself have a totally different meaning than when read in the entire paragraph.
    Your decision to selectively single out sentences because they are, in your opinion, bombastic (whatever that means), is not the glory of debating, though you like to see it this way.

    If I want to make a single sentence statement then I will do so.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -88
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1278
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    lol, Locke said "I work with the American Psychological Association weekly as part of my dissertation" before you "guessed". The fact that you think psychology isn't a real science shows me how much you really know about science. But hey, your physics professor said psychology isn't a real science, so you must be right.
    I actually hadn’t read that post before I made my guess, but I did recall him saying he works with mental patients or something like that a few weeks ago. I actually know quite a bit about science considering it’s part of my profession, but oh well. You really consider psychology to be as much of a science as Physics, Biology, and Chemistry? That’s absurd, it’s long on conjecture and theory and short on empiricism.


    This is the last thing I'm responding to, because you're a joke and a waste of time.


    You’ll be back, you can’t help yourself; hopefully a bit more well-read and informed on the facts, but doubtful.

    You didn't give me links to the articles, you just linked to the magazine pages. I asked for articles, you sent me some bull**** hyperlinks to some journals. That's not what I asked for, you know it, and you use it to pretend like you satisfied the request. It's pathetic.


    First of all, I never said I could link to studies, I simply said the rates are empirically verifiable which they are, so your request was a complete red herring. Additionally, what makes you think for a second I am somehow obligated to “fulfill your requests”? You have not asked for links from anyone else on here, so to do so now is nothing more than logically fallacious special pleading. I have asked for studies demonstrating radiometric dating works on rocks of known age, have I received any to date? Nope, and yet you seem completely fine with still believing radiometric dating works, you’re nothing but a hack who likes to play by two sets of rules because you know you can’t win the debate if the playing field is level. Cheers!



    The last thing I'm going to say to you is that I know for a fact you didn't graduate from college. And you sure as hell didn't take any physics classes.


    How could you know that for a fact? Are you stalking me? Lol. I have my diploma at home and I took plenty of Physics courses, all science majors have to.

    Saying this as a professor, your story doesn't even make sense. No professor would ever go into a colleague's classroom, disrupt their class and ask them to "write on the chalkboard more quietly", and then disrespect the professor and entire class by saying it isn't real science. No one does. Period.


    Well that’s what Dr. Linebarger did, and nope he never got fired for it. You could always just email him and ask him if you’d like, I am sure he’d love to hear about how “Science” and “Nature” apparently aren’t “real” scientific journals in your opinion lol.

    You're a liar, period. Everything you've said has lost credibility. I'm done talking to you. I'll spend my time talking with people who have honor and integrity, not some fake who makes no sense and has to lie to keep his facade going...


    All of this coming from the guy who lied about being a PhD candidate? Cute. You know you can’t hack it in this debate so now you are conveniently running away from it for fictitious reasons. I’ve seen this move dozens of times before, it’s nothing new. You’d rather live in Oz believing that soft tissue can survive for millions of years (where are your links proving this? Lol) rather than face the facts.

    Guaranteed this guy never took that physics class. He is just making junk up. A so-called Christian who lies like a pastor molests kids, who would have thought? People like him make me worry about the future of the human race...
    Took it, passed it. I thought you were done commenting on this thread?


    To say it in someone's words:

    Boom! Roasted!

    But wait now for the line-by-line quotations.
    So making a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations about someone’s education and then running away from the debate is your idea of “roasting” someone? You guys sure have pretty lax debating standards.

    am I the only one who hates the fact that Waldorf can't just quote and comment on your post in its entirety? He has to break it down 1 sentence at a time, which totally takes away the context and the tone of your post.


    Yes, you are the only one.

    As for the physics story. You guys give him more credit than I do. I don't believe he's ever stood on a college campus, the story sounds like a something that was made up by someone who knows nothing about college.


    Yeah because Lord knows colleges don’t actually have classrooms and professors teaching in them! You guys crack me up, if I was going to make up a story I’d make up a far better one than that. I wouldn’t have been able to compete in collegiate track and cross country if I didn’t go to college, I wouldn’t have the job I have today if I didn’t graduate from college. You guys really seem to overestimate what it takes to get a degree, it’s tough, but not THAT tough. Apparently you don’t even have to know what Scientific Journals even look like in order to be a PhD candidate these days, so come on fellas give it a rest.

    He has to do that, because a sentence that isn't in the context of the paragraph is easier to argue.


    Nope, I have to do it because if I did it after the paragraph you’d have no idea which point I was referring to. So I keep things simple, trust me, it’s for your own benefit.


    He'll keep saying I've never seen a scientific journal because he thinks if he does, eventually people will believe it.

    People should believe it! You didn’t know what the two most popular scientific journals in the world even looked like, how else do you explain that blunder other than you’d never actually seen them before? It’s a pretty simple explanation really. I would have let it slide if you were just some average Joe, but you’re somebody who claims to be a PhD candidate; someone who is really that educated has no excuse for not knowing what “SCIENCE” and “NATURE” look like, I am sorry.

    We professors may jab at each other around campus, or on our own time, but never ever in front of students.


    So now you’re claiming to be a Professor? At my University you couldn’t be a professor without actually having your PhD, so if I were playing your game I could just call you a liar now and say how I know for a fact you’re not a professor…but I’ll be the adult and refrain from doing so :-P

    It is a sad reflection of the American education system if this guy got into college.
    So if you don’t think the guy who has schooled you in debate after debate the last month should be allowed into University where does that leave you? :-P

    Never mind the 15000 or 200000 years, we will go with your assumption of 6000 years. Since all of these dinasour fossils are found in layers of rock from a certain time in the past and you are stating that dinasours and man existed in the same period, please show me some evidence that human remains have been found in the same layers of rock as dinasour fossils in any of these dinasour excavation areas.


    That’s your assumption that the layers of rocks represent a very vast period of time, not mine. So I don’t need to provide evidence that supports your assumption. We know that the Coelacanth and the modern Whale coexist together and yet they have never been found in the same fossil layers. You’re asking for data that doesn’t prove anything. People wouldn’t live around Dinosaurs, they were large and dangerous, and so I wouldn’t expect them to get buried together.

    Hell the new mars probe went to a crater so it could look at different layers of mars history by climbing the crater rim so it is not like it's an unscientific method. In any case, please provide some evidence as requested above.


    Huh? How does the fact that just because the Mars probe did something it therefore magically makes that thing scientific? I think we are operating under completely different definitions of science here.

    I mentioned that in my last post to him. It is the debate tactic of the ignorant and incompetent.


    Actually using personal attacks is, but you’d never do that now would you? :-P

    Are you asking me to refute God? It can't be done. It's impossible to disprove God for the very same reason it's impossible to prove God.


    No, I am asking you to refute my syllogism that proves God, there’s a difference. If the syllogism is invalid or unsound you should be able to point out why, you have not done so, and I want to know why.


    Your syllogism isn't valid because the existence of a God isn't verifiable. Syllogisms need verifiable premises in order to be valid.


    This is completely untrue; both premises of the syllogism are very much verifiable.

    Nor is your connection between knowledge being possible and the existence of God. You claim God to be necessary for knowledge to exist but you have no proof of that assertion.


    Have you been paying attention? I have plenty of proof for that premise, the fact that my worldview can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility whereas no other worldview can, done deal. You may not like that fact, but it doesn’t change it.


    We know that knowledge exists, we don't know that a God exists. There is no way to prove that God is necessary for knowledge to exist, it is an un-testable, un-demonstrable, assertion. It is YOUR opinion.


    It’s ironic that you claiming my proof is merely an un-provable assertion is just that, an assertion. There actually is a way you can prove that God is necessary for knowledge to exist, by using the form of indirect proof I provided, many logicians have used the very same form before; it is considered to be a completely valid manner of proof.

    Just because God can't be refuted doesn't make it true.


    I didn’t ask you to refute God, I asked you to refute my syllogism proving God exists, if a syllogism is valid in form and cannot be refuted it is considered to be sound, and therefore would prove God exists. You can either demonstrate it is invalid in form, which you cannot do because that form is used all the time in logical proofs, or you can demonstrate it is unsound. You have done neither to date. Using the traditional definition of “atheism”, you are right, you’re not an atheist. However, using the more contemporary definition of atheism that atheists have proposed you still would be an atheist because you simply lack a belief in God or gods. I prefer the traditional form myself so I will refer to you as an agnostic from here on out Rob.


    Oh man, I don't even know where to start with this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bible say that the creation of the Earth/Universe is concurrent with the Creation of Adam?


    No, Adam was created after the first two.

    You yourself claim the creation of Adam as "fact" at 6,000 to 6,400 years ago. That means the Earth/Universe couldn't be any older than Adam, making the Earth about 6,000 years old as you claim. Then, when backed into a corner about Dinosaurs you say they lived 15,000 years ago? So which is it? 6,000 or 15,000? You're contradicting yourself, & you're contradicting your scripture. What a joke.


    You need to pay attention better, I clearly stated that even given your timeline dinosaurs couldn’t have lived longer than 15,000 years ago because that’s the maximum age given to soft tissue. However, that doesn’t mean that they lived that long ago, it merely means they couldn’t have lived farther back than that even given your old earth timescales, they very easily could have lived and died much sooner than that which would make finding soft tissue in their bones still amazing but not impossible.

    Furthermore, I'm glad you brought up Adam & Eve. How did they populate the Earth? Incest?


    Their kids would have had kids, and their kids would have had kids, genetically this wouldn’t have been an issue because their genomes would have had virtually zero mutations at that point in time. Evolutionists would have to believe the same thing, something that was not fully human would have given birth to two or more humans who would have bred to have more humans, unless of course you believed that a male human and a female human just happened to evolve from different lines of primates at the exact same point in time and within close enough proximity to actually meet up and have offspring….which is nothing short of ridiculous.

    The daughters and sons banging each other?


    I hope you use a bit more respectful terminology in the future, but I doubt it will happen. Cain’s wife would have been a sibling and Seth’s wife would have been a sibling. Given your subjective view of morality this wouldn’t have been wrong and God didn’t deem this sort of thing wrong until the time of Moses so there’s no issue here. You’re just trying to take the discussion off down rabbit holes.

    Were Adam & Eve white? Where did all the black people come from? Asians? Indians? Did Eve magically spit out multi-cultural babies? You also want to try and rationalize Adam living for 930 years? (Or 1/6th the Earths age according to you, or 1/15th the Earth's age, I can't be sure, you keep changing your mind).


    Adam and Eve would have been neither black nor white, but sort of a brown since you can get all of the different skin tones from that. As the different people groups moved into different parts of the world you’d see an emerging of “races” do to the different climates. I never said that earth was 15,000 years old; I clearly said that was according to your timeline, not mine. I see no problem with Adam living that long, the guy’s genetics would have been nearly perfect, and the earth’s climate far more conducive to long life spans before the flood. In fact, that right there disproves a lot of atheists conjecture that scripture was merely created to control people. If you were going to make up stories you wanted people to believe why would you throw something like that in there? It’s not necessary at all, and would only make your story harder for people to believe. I believe it’s in there because it was just a fact of man’s early history.

    One more thing, so everything the Bible says is fact now? Is this fact?


    Yes, when it is using literal prose style rather than figurative, poetic, or apocalyptic speech which are pretty easy to recognize. Now I am sure you’re going to pull a bunch of figurative verses from the poetic books like Job and Psalms and try to make some ridiculous point, but it’s not going to prove anything other than your ignorance when it comes to what Biblical Literalism means.

    Will I really be happy if I dasheth my children against the stones?


    I don’t know what sorts of things make you happy. Psalms is a poetic book and I see nothing wrong with Israel talking a little smack like that, they were a tough nation.


    I hope you were trying to be cute here. Hinduism states that the separation between all things is illusory. The reason they make this claim is because they contest that Brahma the Creator IS everything in the universe. Every rock, every animal, plant, and human being, experiencing their joys and sorrows all at once, completely plunging himself into the adventure of forgetting who he is. All things, all other Hindu Gods, are merely expressions of the one, Brahma.


    Of course, this precisely means that 1+1 equaling the distinctive number 2 is merely illusion. What I said was absolutely true according to Hinduism.

    So by Hindu assertion, everyone and everything is God. Nothing is not God. & Doesn't that make sense? If there was a God would it really be an omnipotent God if he wasn't everything? Let me ask you this; are you God, Statler? If not, how can your God truly be omnipotent if he can't be you?


    You are confusing ability with reality, I am not God, but that doesn’t logically mean God couldn’t be me or anyone else for that matter if He wanted to, it just proves he hasn’t chosen to do things that way. So why would somebody convert to Hinduism?

    P2 For knowledge to be possible, Brahma must exist

    Ok, now we are getting somewhere, so now explain how Brahma can account for all of the preconditions of intelligibility as I did for Yahweh. If you can’t do this then your premise is nothing like mine because it doesn’t have any demonstration to back it up.

    Not my fault you don't understand how half-life's work. Here is a Christian's (with some sense) perspective on Radiometric dating.


    I do understand how they theoretically work, I want you to prove that they actually work. Point to an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of known age; if your method is so great then it should be able to date rocks of known age right?


    [QUOTE} Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.[/QUOTE]

    So radiometric dating works because this guy says it does? That makes me feel a whole lot better! How does counting tree rings prove a rock is millions or even billions of years old by the way? The guy is just tossing out fluff. Can you provide me an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of empirically known age? You need to empirically demonstrate the method even works rather than just asserting it does!



    I see no example in that paper where the method was used to date a rock of observed known age, why not? So would you admit that if different dating methods gave different ages it would prove they didn’t work?

    Your argument is laughable,

    Someone asking for empirical evidence verifying a dating method actually works is laughable to you? I guess you really don’t put much merit in the empirical sciences then do you?

    but I want you to tell everyone you know that you think that, see how that works out for you.


    Well that’s not exactly how we discern truth my friend, even though my beliefs have worked out fine for me so far.

    Christians themselves aren't the problem. As long as you're harmless and don’t have a superiority complex about your particular religion, I don’t have a problem with religious folk. People with nutjob ideas and beliefs are the problem.


    Is your belief that nobody should have a “superiority complex” superior to someone who believes differently than you?

    Only further speaks to your delsion. Look around, it’s probably clear to everyone but yourself that this thread has turned into 10 rational people trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.


    Or is it 10 irrational people trying to debate with one rational person? Irrational people tend to side with other irrational people on the issues. That seems to be the more likely explanation since the majority of people are indeed irrational creatures and the fact that I have been the one pointing out every time you use logically fallacious reasoning and I am the only one who has provided logical syllogisms to actually back up my beliefs. I bet you can’t point to one single instance where I have used a logical fallacy to support my position, and yet you call me irrational? Well calling me irrational without actually being able to back it up is, you guessed it, irrational :-P I know you were all enjoying your time in here, everyone being non-believers posting youtube videos, laughing at one another’s jokes, and stroking one another’s egos, but I couldn’t just sit on the sidelines and watch such utter irrationality go unchallenged, I am sorry for raining on your picnic but I simply had to do so.


    So you say this with the intent to try and hurt Locke’s feelings? You also derive pleasure from a professor and a class full of students having their feelings hurt? Not very Christian of you.


    Why would it hurt his feelings? If I told a lawyer he wasn’t a real scientist I doubt it’d hurt his feelings so why would it hurt a psychology major’s feelings? I don’t get that one bit, I have a science degree, not a MD, so if a doctor told me I wasn’t a real doctor I’d be completely cool with that, I am not a doctor.

    Does being a Christian merely mean believing in Christ, or actually trying to be Christ-like? If it’s the latter, you’re no more a Christian than any of the rest of us.


    Why not? Christ used tough language when it was called for, as do I. I have treated you all better than you have treated me, which is very much in line with Christ. There’s nothing wrong with using a bit of sarcasm now and then, after all some of the Prophets even resorted to sarcasm and the Apostle Paul had a very quick tongue. There’s nothing wrong with knowing your position is right and pointing out the folly in other’s positions.

    One last thing, I believe your beliefs not only give Christians a bad name, I think your beliefs give religious folk in general a bad name.


    Christ said the world would hate Christians, or do you now not care what Christ taught even though you pretended to a few lines above?

    Your beliefs are precisely the type of thing most Christians are trying to not have associated with their religion.


    That is precisely why Christianity is losing power these days, most Christians care more about being popular with unbelievers than being right in what they believe, it’s a shame. Truth will always win out over lies for the sake of being popular.


    Your beliefs are some of the most insane, delusional, demented, & lunatical assertions I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.


    This is always the move unbelievers make when they know they are beaten. Even though you have not pointed out one single logically fallacious argument I have used, and I have pointed out dozens that have been appealed to by you and others, I am the one who is “insane” and “delusional”; what saddens me is that you’re only card is to resort to such personal attacks rather than actually backing up your position with verified evidence and logical arguments. I guess shame on me for expecting an utterly irrational individual to bid farewell with anything other than irrationality. Cheers.



    It's like he just read some of Statler's posts and he is responding to them. Everything he said is relevant. Classic...
    I guess when you can’t back up your beliefs in the arena of logic and reason you have to resort to these sorts of fallacious appeals to ridicule, pretty small time for someone claiming to be well educated.

    It appears to me to be thoroughly anti-scientific to close the door to all religious possibilities because you feel comfortable in an unproven scientific worldview. Why the fear of religious thought? Why the fear of skepticism? Isn't it skepticism that drives science? Bill Nye isn't advancing scientific thought here, he is rather stamping out wonder, mystery and the possibility that the world may be more than what we think we already know.


    Precisely, we should let all ideas be expressed and allowed to fall or stand upon their merits. Unfortunately those who know their ideas will fall are never very eager to allow this to happen.

    There's a marked difference betwixt keeping an open mind, & asserting things as factual which are indeed opinion based.
    Unfortunately, the latter is exactly what Mr. Nye did in his video.


    Well, there is a reason the two have been separated. That's because it does you no good to suppose or not suppose God in an experiment. Whether or not God exists does you no good in understanding gravity, black holes, nuclear fission, or quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter.


    God’s existence justifies are use of science itself, that’s the whole point.
    Science is for the empirically verifiable. In other words, things that can actually be proven. They leave the ethereal to the Theologians, & Philosophers.


    1. So radiometric dating is unscientific since you cannot provide one example where it has been empirically verified to work?
    2. Science doesn’t deal with proof but rather validated fact, logic and mathematics deal with proof, I hope you already knew that though since I am the “crazy” and “ignorant” one around these parts :-P


    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    I am answering without having read your post.
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post

    Just one question: are you Statler?

    This breaking apart of quotes is getting really on my nerves.

    Until you actually learn to keep everything in context I will not respond to your posts.
    All too convenient, you all really are the kings of running from the opposition’s arguments aren’t you? I am sure Volk has no problem with his arguments standing un-addressed and therefore un-refuted, but sometimes you hope to at least mix it up a little bit with differing viewpoints, maybe this isn’t the forum for that though.

    You should answer paragraph by paragraph then. When you take out a single sentence, you remove it's given context, which allows you to assign it any context you want. It's a form of a strawman...


    If any of you actually knew how to form paragraphs Volk and I would have no problem responding to each one in its entirety. However, many of your paragraphs contain very different points and even points addressing different arguments we have used so they must be broken down. Articulate your ideas better and we wouldn’t have this problem. Right now though, it merely looks like a convenient way to not have to address arguments that you have no response to.
    Last edited by Statler Waldorf; 09-10-2012 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Corrected format
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  9. -89
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,351
    vCash:
    7687
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Ok, now we are getting somewhere, so now explain how Brahma can account for all of the preconditions of intelligibility as I did for Yahweh. If you can’t do this then your premise is nothing like mine because it doesn’t have any demonstration to back it up.


    He's omnipotent, he can do whatever he wants. Isn't that basically your argument? You know, the whole "& then God said 'Let there be light'" thing.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -90
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1221
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    I actually hadn’t read that post before I made my guess, but I did recall him saying he works with mental patients or something like that a few weeks ago. I actually know quite a bit about science considering it’s part of my profession, but oh well. You really consider psychology to be as much of a science as Physics, Biology, and Chemistry? That’s absurd, it’s long on conjecture and theory and short on empiricism.




    You’ll be back, you can’t help yourself; hopefully a bit more well-read and informed on the facts, but doubtful.



    First of all, I never said I could link to studies, I simply said the rates are empirically verifiable which they are, so your request was a complete red herring. Additionally, what makes you think for a second I am somehow obligated to “fulfill your requests”? You have not asked for links from anyone else on here, so to do so now is nothing more than logically fallacious special pleading. I have asked for studies demonstrating radiometric dating works on rocks of known age, have I received any to date? Nope, and yet you seem completely fine with still believing radiometric dating works, you’re nothing but a hack who likes to play by two sets of rules because you know you can’t win the debate if the playing field is level. Cheers!





    How could you know that for a fact? Are you stalking me? Lol. I have my diploma at home and I took plenty of Physics courses, all science majors have to.



    Well that’s what Dr. Linebarger did, and nope he never got fired for it. You could always just email him and ask him if you’d like, I am sure he’d love to hear about how “Science” and “Nature” apparently aren’t “real” scientific journals in your opinion lol.



    All of this coming from the guy who lied about being a PhD candidate? Cute. You know you can’t hack it in this debate so now you are conveniently running away from it for fictitious reasons. I’ve seen this move dozens of times before, it’s nothing new. You’d rather live in Oz believing that soft tissue can survive for millions of years (where are your links proving this? Lol) rather than face the facts.



    Took it, passed it. I thought you were done commenting on this thread?




    So making a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations about someone’s education and then running away from the debate is your idea of “roasting” someone? You guys sure have pretty lax debating standards.



    Yes, you are the only one.



    Yeah because Lord knows colleges don’t actually have classrooms and professors teaching in them! You guys crack me up, if I was going to make up a story I’d make up a far better one than that. I wouldn’t have been able to compete in collegiate track and cross country if I didn’t go to college, I wouldn’t have the job I have today if I didn’t graduate from college. You guys really seem to overestimate what it takes to get a degree, it’s tough, but not THAT tough. Apparently you don’t even have to know what Scientific Journals even look like in order to be a PhD candidate these days, so come on fellas give it a rest.



    Nope, I have to do it because if I did it after the paragraph you’d have no idea which point I was referring to. So I keep things simple, trust me, it’s for your own benefit.



    People should believe it! You didn’t know what the two most popular scientific journals in the world even looked like, how else do you explain that blunder other than you’d never actually seen them before? It’s a pretty simple explanation really. I would have let it slide if you were just some average Joe, but you’re somebody who claims to be a PhD candidate; someone who is really that educated has no excuse for not knowing what “SCIENCE” and “NATURE” look like, I am sorry.



    So now you’re claiming to be a Professor? At my University you couldn’t be a professor without actually having your PhD, so if I were playing your game I could just call you a liar now and say how I know for a fact you’re not a professor…but I’ll be the adult and refrain from doing so :-P



    So if you don’t think the guy who has schooled you in debate after debate the last month should be allowed into University where does that leave you? :-P



    That’s your assumption that the layers of rocks represent a very vast period of time, not mine. So I don’t need to provide evidence that supports your assumption. We know that the Coelacanth and the modern Whale coexist together and yet they have never been found in the same fossil layers. You’re asking for data that doesn’t prove anything. People wouldn’t live around Dinosaurs, they were large and dangerous, and so I wouldn’t expect them to get buried together.



    Huh? How does the fact that just because the Mars probe did something it therefore magically makes that thing scientific? I think we are operating under completely different definitions of science here.



    Actually using personal attacks is, but you’d never do that now would you? :-P



    No, I am asking you to refute my syllogism that proves God, there’s a difference. If the syllogism is invalid or unsound you should be able to point out why, you have not done so, and I want to know why.




    This is completely untrue; both premises of the syllogism are very much verifiable.



    Have you been paying attention? I have plenty of proof for that premise, the fact that my worldview can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility whereas no other worldview can, done deal. You may not like that fact, but it doesn’t change it.




    It’s ironic that you claiming my proof is merely an un-provable assertion is just that, an assertion. There actually is a way you can prove that God is necessary for knowledge to exist, by using the form of indirect proof I provided, many logicians have used the very same form before; it is considered to be a completely valid manner of proof.



    I didn’t ask you to refute God, I asked you to refute my syllogism proving God exists, if a syllogism is valid in form and cannot be refuted it is considered to be sound, and therefore would prove God exists. You can either demonstrate it is invalid in form, which you cannot do because that form is used all the time in logical proofs, or you can demonstrate it is unsound. You have done neither to date. Using the traditional definition of “atheism”, you are right, you’re not an atheist. However, using the more contemporary definition of atheism that atheists have proposed you still would be an atheist because you simply lack a belief in God or gods. I prefer the traditional form myself so I will refer to you as an agnostic from here on out Rob.




    No, Adam was created after the first two.



    You need to pay attention better, I clearly stated that even given your timeline dinosaurs couldn’t have lived longer than 15,000 years ago because that’s the maximum age given to soft tissue. However, that doesn’t mean that they lived that long ago, it merely means they couldn’t have lived farther back than that even given your old earth timescales, they very easily could have lived and died much sooner than that which would make finding soft tissue in their bones still amazing but not impossible.



    Their kids would have had kids, and their kids would have had kids, genetically this wouldn’t have been an issue because their genomes would have had virtually zero mutations at that point in time. Evolutionists would have to believe the same thing, something that was not fully human would have given birth to two or more humans who would have bred to have more humans, unless of course you believed that a male human and a female human just happened to evolve from different lines of primates at the exact same point in time and within close enough proximity to actually meet up and have offspring….which is nothing short of ridiculous.



    I hope you use a bit more respectful terminology in the future, but I doubt it will happen. Cain’s wife would have been a sibling and Seth’s wife would have been a sibling. Given your subjective view of morality this wouldn’t have been wrong and God didn’t deem this sort of thing wrong until the time of Moses so there’s no issue here. You’re just trying to take the discussion off down rabbit holes.



    Adam and Eve would have been neither black nor white, but sort of a brown since you can get all of the different skin tones from that. As the different people groups moved into different parts of the world you’d see an emerging of “races” do to the different climates. I never said that earth was 15,000 years old; I clearly said that was according to your timeline, not mine. I see no problem with Adam living that long, the guy’s genetics would have been nearly perfect, and the earth’s climate far more conducive to long life spans before the flood. In fact, that right there disproves a lot of atheists conjecture that scripture was merely created to control people. If you were going to make up stories you wanted people to believe why would you throw something like that in there? It’s not necessary at all, and would only make your story harder for people to believe. I believe it’s in there because it was just a fact of man’s early history.



    Yes, when it is using literal prose style rather than figurative, poetic, or apocalyptic speech which are pretty easy to recognize. Now I am sure you’re going to pull a bunch of figurative verses from the poetic books like Job and Psalms and try to make some ridiculous point, but it’s not going to prove anything other than your ignorance when it comes to what Biblical Literalism means.



    I don’t know what sorts of things make you happy. Psalms is a poetic book and I see nothing wrong with Israel talking a little smack like that, they were a tough nation.




    Of course, this precisely means that 1+1 equaling the distinctive number 2 is merely illusion. What I said was absolutely true according to Hinduism.



    You are confusing ability with reality, I am not God, but that doesn’t logically mean God couldn’t be me or anyone else for that matter if He wanted to, it just proves he hasn’t chosen to do things that way. So why would somebody convert to Hinduism?


    Ok, now we are getting somewhere, so now explain how Brahma can account for all of the preconditions of intelligibility as I did for Yahweh. If you can’t do this then your premise is nothing like mine because it doesn’t have any demonstration to back it up.



    I do understand how they theoretically work, I want you to prove that they actually work. Point to an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of known age; if your method is so great then it should be able to date rocks of known age right?


    [QUOTE} Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.


    So radiometric dating works because this guy says it does? That makes me feel a whole lot better! How does counting tree rings prove a rock is millions or even billions of years old by the way? The guy is just tossing out fluff. Can you provide me an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of empirically known age? You need to empirically demonstrate the method even works rather than just asserting it does!



    I see no example in that paper where the method was used to date a rock of observed known age, why not? So would you admit that if different dating methods gave different ages it would prove they didn’t work?


    Someone asking for empirical evidence verifying a dating method actually works is laughable to you? I guess you really don’t put much merit in the empirical sciences then do you?



    Well that’s not exactly how we discern truth my friend, even though my beliefs have worked out fine for me so far.



    Is your belief that nobody should have a “superiority complex” superior to someone who believes differently than you?



    Or is it 10 irrational people trying to debate with one rational person? Irrational people tend to side with other irrational people on the issues. That seems to be the more likely explanation since the majority of people are indeed irrational creatures and the fact that I have been the one pointing out every time you use logically fallacious reasoning and I am the only one who has provided logical syllogisms to actually back up my beliefs. I bet you can’t point to one single instance where I have used a logical fallacy to support my position, and yet you call me irrational? Well calling me irrational without actually being able to back it up is, you guessed it, irrational :-P I know you were all enjoying your time in here, everyone being non-believers posting youtube videos, laughing at one another’s jokes, and stroking one another’s egos, but I couldn’t just sit on the sidelines and watch such utter irrationality go unchallenged, I am sorry for raining on your picnic but I simply had to do so.




    Why would it hurt his feelings? If I told a lawyer he wasn’t a real scientist I doubt it’d hurt his feelings so why would it hurt a psychology major’s feelings? I don’t get that one bit, I have a science degree, not a MD, so if a doctor told me I wasn’t a real doctor I’d be completely cool with that, I am not a doctor.



    Why not? Christ used tough language when it was called for, as do I. I have treated you all better than you have treated me, which is very much in line with Christ. There’s nothing wrong with using a bit of sarcasm now and then, after all some of the Prophets even resorted to sarcasm and the Apostle Paul had a very quick tongue. There’s nothing wrong with knowing your position is right and pointing out the folly in other’s positions.



    Christ said the world would hate Christians, or do you now not care what Christ taught even though you pretended to a few lines above?



    That is precisely why Christianity is losing power these days, most Christians care more about being popular with unbelievers than being right in what they believe, it’s a shame. Truth will always win out over lies for the sake of being popular.




    This is always the move unbelievers make when they know they are beaten. Even though you have not pointed out one single logically fallacious argument I have used, and I have pointed out dozens that have been appealed to by you and others, I am the one who is “insane” and “delusional”; what saddens me is that you’re only card is to resort to such personal attacks rather than actually backing up your position with verified evidence and logical arguments. I guess shame on me for expecting an utterly irrational individual to bid farewell with anything other than irrationality. Cheers.



    I guess when you can’t back up your beliefs in the arena of logic and reason you have to resort to these sorts of fallacious appeals to ridicule, pretty small time for someone claiming to be well educated.



    Precisely, we should let all ideas be expressed and allowed to fall or stand upon their merits. Unfortunately those who know their ideas will fall are never very eager to allow this to happen.



    Unfortunately, the latter is exactly what Mr. Nye did in his video.




    God’s existence justifies are use of science itself, that’s the whole point.


    1. So radiometric dating is unscientific since you cannot provide one example where it has been empirically verified to work?
    2. Science doesn’t deal with proof but rather validated fact, logic and mathematics deal with proof, I hope you already knew that though since I am the “crazy” and “ignorant” one around these parts :-P




    All too convenient, you all really are the kings of running from the opposition’s arguments aren’t you? I am sure Volk has no problem with his arguments standing un-addressed and therefore un-refuted, but sometimes you hope to at least mix it up a little bit with differing viewpoints, maybe this isn’t the forum for that though.



    If any of you actually knew how to form paragraphs Volk and I would have no problem responding to each one in its entirety. However, many of your paragraphs contain very different points and even points addressing different arguments we have used so they must be broken down. Articulate your ideas better and we wouldn’t have this problem. Right now though, it merely looks like a convenient way to not have to address arguments that you have no response to. [/QUOTE]

    Dinasours and men wouldnt be near each other because dinasours were dangerous. When I read that I spent 10 minutes rolling on the floor laughing. Oh, my rib cage is going to crack. Did you ever think of taking up comedy, that one was great. Oh shi$ I just reread your post and that's it for my ribs, the joke never gets old.

    Now I know your a comedian just trying to piss people off. Nice one, you had me going there for a while. My faith in human brain power has been restored. I thought I was dealing with someone with a brain of a dinasour for a while. Once again, great joke.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill to allow women use of deadly force to save unborn children
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Calif Bill Would Ban Spanking Young Children
    By Celtkin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 04:15 AM
  3. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  4. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •