Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Youtube videos on Evolution vs Creation
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 1 of 11 (460943)
03-20-2008 3:05 PM


Part 1

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:05 PM teen4christ has replied
 Message 4 by kjsimons, posted 03-20-2008 3:38 PM teen4christ has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 2 of 11 (460944)
03-20-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by teen4christ
03-20-2008 3:05 PM


Part 2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:05 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:07 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 3 of 11 (460945)
03-20-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by teen4christ
03-20-2008 3:05 PM


Part 3
Anyway, you get the idea. It goes up to part 11. Have fun watching these.
Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:05 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 4 of 11 (460950)
03-20-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by teen4christ
03-20-2008 3:05 PM


Pure unadulterated garbage!
These videos aren't worth viewing. Just the same lies and misrepresenations we usually get from the creationist camp. By the way, bare links/videos with no accompaning input from the postee is against the forum guidelines. Please tell us how you feel about these videos and why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:05 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:58 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 5 of 11 (460956)
03-20-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kjsimons
03-20-2008 3:38 PM


Re: Pure unadulterated garbage!
Well, I guess the question I have, especially to creationists, is how many lies can you spot from these videos?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kjsimons, posted 03-20-2008 3:38 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 03-21-2008 1:27 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 6 of 11 (461038)
03-21-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by teen4christ
03-20-2008 3:58 PM


Re: Pure unadulterated garbage!
Homo erectus is a hoax?
I think they truly believe what they say, and are not intentionally lieing. I listened to the first three parts and they brought up some good points about the shortcomings of evolution. This however says nothing for AiG's own view.
If they say homo erectus is a hoax, I think it is worth investigating that claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 3:58 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 03-21-2008 2:45 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 03-21-2008 3:07 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 7 of 11 (461042)
03-21-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by graft2vine
03-21-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Pure unadulterated garbage!
This is the same video series that proposed the utterly retarded "peanut butter" argument against abiogenesis.
They have no credibility at all. You're right that they aren't typically lying - they really do believe the BS they're pushing. The problem is that they, like their target audience, does not posses enough knowledge about science in general or the Theory of Evolution in particular to be able to see where the strawman of evolution/abiogenesis they propose is different from the actual theory.
In other words, they are not sufficiently competent to realize their lack of competence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 03-21-2008 1:27 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 8 of 11 (461045)
03-21-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by graft2vine
03-21-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Pure unadulterated garbage!
If they say homo erectus is a hoax, I think it is worth investigating that claim.
Probably the same old PRATTs about Java Man and Peking Man.
From Wikipedia, "Java Man" (Java Man - Wikipedia):
quote:
As with many notable hominid fossil finds, some creationists have attempted to downplay the evolutionary significance of Java Man by arguing the specimen should be considered either fully human or fully ape. An example of the former argument is the claim that Java Man is "a true member of the Human family"[4]; an example of the latter is the erroneous claim that Dubois himself later decided that Java Man was really a large Gibbon[5].
4. Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, page 87
5. Was Java Man a gibbon?, Was Java Man a gibbon?
The talk.origins page further notes in Footnote 1:
quote:
Answers in Genesis has now abandoned the claim that Dubois dismissed Java Man as a gibbon, and now lists it in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.
Basically, from memory, the story of Peking Man is that the fossils were found in a cave near Peking. Casts were made and sent out of the country and then the fossils themselves were being evacuated but were lost when the Japanese invaded China. As a result, creationists have claimed that the fossils never actually existed and are a hoax. They even tried to claim that the cave didn't actually exist; a photo of that cave is in an NCSE article on the subject, taken by a much more recent expedition to the site. That expedition found further remains, including the other part of a skull that was lost to the war and which fit the cast perfectly.
NCSE has a page that discusses creationist claims about Peking Man at Science of Today
Most of what I know I learned about 20 years ago in a Creation-Evolution Journal article. All 27 issues are on-line at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=16, but I forget which one that article is in. And I'm sure that talk.origins has an article on the subject, but I didn't have time to look.
So, IOW, I'm sure that it's just SOS -- the same old silliness.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 03-21-2008 1:27 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Utopia
Junior Member (Idle past 5137 days)
Posts: 26
From: Boston, MA.
Joined: 09-19-2006


Message 9 of 11 (462781)
04-09-2008 10:46 AM


LOL! I stopped when she basically said "Don't take my word for it. Verify these facts yourself... in the Bible" LOL
That's too idiotic a premise for me to take seriously so I stopped watching.
Greg P.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2008 2:45 PM Utopia has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 10 of 11 (462811)
04-09-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Utopia
04-09-2008 10:46 AM


I knew exactly where she was coming from when she advised against taking the word of scientists.
Which immediately reminded me of something that evangelical Christian and then PhD candidate in Physical Geology, Steven Schimmrich, had written (from "What is a Creationist?" reposted at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/creationism.html):
quote:
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?
Or, to quote from memory a past governor of Mississippi in support of his campaign for education reform:
quote:
We've already tried ignorance, so we know that doesn't work.
Of course, creationists will choose to believe the science-illiterate evangelist, because they still haven't learned that ignorance doesn't work.
Edited by dwise1, :

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Utopia, posted 04-09-2008 10:46 AM Utopia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by teen4christ, posted 04-09-2008 8:16 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 11 of 11 (462838)
04-09-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dwise1
04-09-2008 2:45 PM


The Wise One writes
quote:
Of course, creationists will choose to believe the science-illiterate evangelist, because they still haven't learned that ignorance doesn't work.
Having grown up in a very religious household, I'm pretty sure I have an explanation for this.
As far as the religious mindset is concern, science have one very significant disadvantage when compared to religion. When was the last time you heard a scientist or a scientific organization claiming to know "truth" or have a monopoly on "truth"?
I was raised in a setting where "truth," whatever it may be, is valued above all else. If I haven't had the education and encouragement to investigate these matters, I would have said that religion is superior to science simply because religion knows the truth while science stumbles in the dark and changes all the time. In fact, when it was made public that Hawkings lost the bet to his colleague regarding black hole physics a few years back, I remember my father coming home all excited because he finally had the evidence that scientists really didn't know what they were talking about and that the unchanging nature of religion clearly made it superior to science. I also remember several telegangelists using this as proof that science was inferior to religion because religion knew what "truth" was while science did not.
I know what I just explained doesn't make much sense to the non-religious since one of the strongest elements of science is its ability to change in the face of new evidence. But you really have to try to understand it from the perspective of one that grew up in a setting that valued "truth" above uncertainty. And frankly, science essentially boils down to uncertainty, whether the uncertainty itself is small or large, while religion is about being 100% sure and right ALL the time.
quote:
I knew exactly where she was coming from when she advised against taking the word of scientists.
Again, there is no deceit or malice here.
Christianity, like all other religions... like all other entities, has the instinct to survive. I am reminded of an episode in stargate sg-1 where our galaxy is invaded by replicators. At this time, lord baal has dominated much of the goauld domain. Instead of treating the replicators like what they are, which are non-thinking machines that will react more violently if provoked, the goauld treats them like other goaulds. As the tokra explained, baal is treating the replicators as simply another goauld competitor so he's using the same strategy he normally would use against other goaulds, which is be agressive and attack constantly. Baal doesn't realize that the more he attacks the faster his forces will fall to the replicators.
The point is Christianity, or at least the conservative elements of it, is treating science like another religious competitor even though science is a completely different beast. No matter how much grounds they lose from one generation to the next, these Christian conservatives continue to treat science as just another religion trying to invade its territory. They don't realize that the more agressive they get with the same old strategy they used to win over other religions in the past the more grounds they will lose. Personally, I don't know if this is a good thing or bad thing.
quote:
quote:
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?

Ah, but you see, the Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites does not know truth while the evangelist who reads creationist literature does.
Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2008 2:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024