Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:52 PM
374 online now:
jar, JonF (2 members, 372 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,478 Year: 19,084/21,208 Month: 1,843/3,111 Week: 64/574 Day: 64/38 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
18192021
22
23Next
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5903
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 316 of 336 (637960)
10-18-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:58 PM


Re: Genesis is wrong (again)
To make your point, you have to establish a time frame for sexual reproduction vs. asexual reproduction.

Have at it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:58 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:21 PM Coyote has responded

Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 317 of 336 (637961)
10-18-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 10:07 PM


The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living.

Does this sentence make sense to you?

Give us a break. Even you can't believe this bullshit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:07 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:37 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1138 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 318 of 336 (637962)
10-18-2011 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Coyote
10-18-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Genesis is wrong (again)
Time forms cannot apply because they vary, thus of no impact; the duality emulating asexual can be repeated in a lab in an instant. Rather, the fact there can be no action without an interaction [affirming the duality premise] is the fulcrum impacting factor here. The asexual premise contradicts this duality factor, which is seen throughout the universe and in all science viewed workings.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 10:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 10:38 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3810
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 319 of 336 (637963)
10-18-2011 10:35 PM


Past 300 messages - 1 SUMMATION MESSAGE PER MEMBER ONLY
Per discussion with Admin, the closure previously scheduled for later tonight (US time) has been delayed.

The new plan is a 48 hour period during which any member who chooses to, can post ONE final summary message. These messages should not be replies to previous messages.

I repeat, ONE message per member (or suffer the consequences)!

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1138 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 320 of 336 (637965)
10-18-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 10:18 PM


If one reads V14 in Genesis, it does not refer to the sun; only the sun's luminosity is referred to here, which many have eronously read as the sun appearing after the vegetation:

quote:
1/14: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years

This says the luminosity was critically focused to cater to the sustainence of the life already made [vegetation] and those that were to follow. Now, when read carefully, it becomes a most intelligent premise, in fact one which cannot be otherwise. This says the reason our planet has life is because the light and darkness were made to support life, while this was not the case with other planets. Everything found on earth can be seen elsewhere, which contradicts the absense of life elsewhere. H20 [water] is abundantly available on other planets; the critical fcusing of light and other elements however did not occur elsewhere as it did on earth; obviosly!

Thus vegetation preceded photosynthesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 10:18 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5903
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 321 of 336 (637966)
10-18-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 10:21 PM


Re: Genesis is wrong (again)
Time forms cannot apply because they vary, thus of no impact; the duality emulating asexual can be repeated in a lab in an instant. Rather, the fact there can be no action without an interaction [affirming the duality premise] is the fulcrum impacting factor here. The asexual premise contradicts this duality factor, which is seen throughout the universe and in all science viewed workings.

This may make sense to you, but I'd guess it doesn't make sense to more than a handful of people worldwide.

Your faith in the bible has crossed into the certifiable range, and you have totally lost touch with reality.

Per parental advice from long ago, I won't be picking on you further in this thread.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:21 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1138 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 322 of 336 (637967)
10-18-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Coyote
10-18-2011 10:38 PM


CHECK MATE - AGAIN.
The question remains:

Can an action occur without an interaction, namely with one singular, indivisible and irreducible entity - namely with a ONE only?

If not, than Genesis wins. There is no alternative to the duality factor.

QED.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 10:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 323 of 336 (637972)
10-18-2011 11:21 PM


Creationist thinking or lack there of
In summary, anyone looking through IamJoseph's posts will see exactly what we are talking about.

Creationists are incapable of honest discussion. They have to bend over backwards to try and force their fantasy view of the world into the reality around them that they end up making up words and definitions to do so.

Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.

Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.

They should simply be laughed at and denied access to public education.


  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 324 of 336 (637994)
10-19-2011 1:07 AM


Summary: Religion is like a penis.
I see that the "HUGE problem with creationist thinking" in the opening post of this thread was that there is no way to determine which creation story to teach. The thread evolved to showcase each poster's main difficulty with creationist thought.

My main problem with creationism is the compulsion that creationists both suffer and seek to impose: that their story of origins is literally correct and must be taught to children in public schools. I don't really care about it otherwise. I don't care about the difficulties presented by debate with creationists because there is no debate with creationists.

Whatever line of approach a reasoning person takes, the reply remains essentially the same--God showed me the way and told me to spread the word by any means necessary. Creationists are the jihadists of discourse, and I just don't care.

The creationist approach to debate is repetition. Creationists reject science, and reason won't persuade them to do otherwise: the irony of rejecting science's methodology while enjoying its benisons is matched only by possessing an evolved brain that they refuse to use for anything other than superstition.

But I don't care about that, either. My problem is not with creationist thought, but creationist action.

I can sum up my HUGE problem with creationist action by paraphrasing the roadside sign I saw in a recent photo on Facebook:

"Religion is like a penis.

It's fine to be happy to have one, and it's okay to take it out and wave it around.

But don't try to shove it down my kid's throat."


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 336 (637995)
10-19-2011 1:35 AM


Summation
As one member puts it:

Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.

And yet, that member has on this forum a total of 2,912 posts. 53 of them on this one thread alone.

Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.

So, in summation, it seems we Creationists ARE worthy of debate after all, and looks like we aren't the only ones misrepresenting.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 326 of 336 (637996)
10-19-2011 3:15 AM


Summary
Well, we've seen precious little in the way of any creationist trying to come up with an answer to the question in the OP.

The guy who came nearest to even attempting to answer the question was Mazzy, although as his answer involved the Buddha being overweight it combined the inaccurate with the ad hominem.

He soon reverted to form, though, with mere whining about evolution and statements such as: "For me it does not matter which creation model is correct, as long as none of my ancestors were apes."

I suppose credit should be given to IamJoseph, who produced the foolowing staggering monstrous falsehood as a reason for his partiality to Genesis: "Genesis, unlike other ancient writings, includes names, places, dates, numbers, rivers, mountains, geneologies ..." OK, it's a load of cobblers, nor would it be a convincing argument even if it was true, but it is a reason. Credit where credit is due.

---

The difficulty of answering the question stems directly from the nature of creationist apologetics. 99% of creationism is not, nor ever has been, an attempt to validate creationism. No-one's out there trying to find evidence that snakes could once talk, or that fish were created four days after light. Creationism goes: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic!" And even if this line of reasoning was correct, there would be no reason to infer any particular brand of magic, nor even that the magician should be of the order of being that we would classify as a god.

This explains why some people have given up on creationism in general and advocated ID. ID might be defined as that subset of creationism which consists only of saying: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic! Oh, or maybe space aliens if a judge is listening." (Making ID the only idea in the history of ever which has tried to gain intellectual respectability by invoking space aliens.)

Even so, ID is still partial in a way that would be unwarranted by the IDists own (overt) premises: for example, when did you ever see an IDist use the phrase "designer or designers"? Arguably, then, their rhetoric still discriminates without scientific basis in favor of monotheists over polytheists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 327 of 336 (638001)
10-19-2011 4:23 AM


It would seem that while the creos' honestly believe they are correct their ability to articulate and avoid mischaraterising both facts and posters hampers them somewhat.

Or, the impacting aligning pov of the anti crowd conforms with a negative impact re: initial conditions initiated in the openning aligning to an initial perception of reality as it confirms to the seed factor i.e. the first record of science.

Abe: yeah, I know the seed factor bit makes the rest of the sentence harder to undserstand but I love the phrase.

Edited by Larni, : seed factor addmission.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : spellink


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 328 of 336 (638021)
10-19-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:34 PM


Algae is a plant.

But not an herb. Algae are thallophytes whereas herbs and other land based plants are tracheophytes. They are about a closely related as humans are to earthworms.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:34 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Openmindedlogicaldebater
Junior Member (Idle past 2013 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-18-2011


Message 329 of 336 (638122)
10-19-2011 11:23 PM


What should be taught in schools is what all Christian and Catholic beliefs are based on; the Bible. This is pretty much throughout every denomination of Christianity and in every type of Creationistic approaches.
Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by DrJones*, posted 10-19-2011 11:26 PM Openmindedlogicaldebater has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1663
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 330 of 336 (638123)
10-19-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Openmindedlogicaldebater
10-19-2011 11:23 PM


What should be taught in schools is what all Christian and Catholic beliefs are based on; the Bible.

If we're going to mix religion into science we should at least use the right religion.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Openmindedlogicaldebater, posted 10-19-2011 11:23 PM Openmindedlogicaldebater has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
18192021
22
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017