|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why?
I feel no need at all to explain what creationists believe and their evidence. If you want to be educated, take the time to educate yourself. But let me ask you a question. Let's just pretend for a minute that no such thing as creationism exists, Ok? Would the criticisms of ToE be acceptable to you, or is it a matter of faith with you that it is wrong to criticize ToE? Is it a matter of faith with you that unless someone accepts ToE, they are not reasonable and therefore their critiques are unacceptable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I have no problems with critisisms of ToE, when they are asked in a reasonable fasion, and when the explaination isn't countered with blind retoric.
If you have a question about a specific find (Piltdown Man), terrific. Let's discuss. But what you and the other creationists are saying is this: Out of 10,000,000 examples of evolution, I have a problem with these 3, so let's teach my religion to school kids (to the exclusion of ALL OTHER religions) even though I have 0 evidence for it. Evolutionary biologists are CONSTANTLY critisizing each other's work. It's the easiest way to make a name for yourself. It's called "peer review". Creationists have nothing like peer review. Why? First of all, it's impossible to peer review when they don't present any evidence. Second, they have a long history of burning people at the stake for questioning the allmighty power of their one true god. The problem with your debates is that they always work out like this: Thread -- Whale EvolutionRandman -- Pakicetus isn't a whale. Random Evo -- Actually it's an ancestor of the whale. Randman -- It's not a whale. Random Evo -- Right, it predates what we think of as whales, it's a terrestrial animal. Randman -- It's not a whale. To suggest it's a whale is silly. School kids shouldn't be taught this. Random Evo -- Well, they should be taught that the family tree which includes Pakicetus evolved into what we think of today as whales. Randman -- It's not a whale. Random Evo -- Hello, is this thing on? Randman -- People keep saying it's a whale, and it's not. Random Evo -- Rand, who are you talking to? I've answered your question, I've given you links. Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale! Admin -- Alright, time out for Randman, not responsive. Thread -- Jesus, Barefoot or Sandels?Theist -- Jesus definately wore sandels. Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale!!! Theist -- what is he talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have no problems with critisisms of ToE, when they are asked in a reasonable fasion That seems to suggest you believe criticisms of ToE should come in the form of "questions." Gimme a break.
But what you and the other creationists are saying is this: Out of 10,000,000 examples of evolution, I have a problem with these 3, so let's teach my religion to school kids (to the exclusion of ALL OTHER religions) even though I have 0 evidence for it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your's is less factual than most, it seems.
Evolutionary biologists are CONSTANTLY critisizing each other's work. It's the easiest way to make a name for yourself. It's called "peer review". Only if the claims are made within the evo paradigm. All others are essentially prohibited a priori because evos are not willing to consider ID or creationism as science, and anyone daring to publish an ID paper is hounded. We've gone over this before. Occasionally an evo will admit they don't believe any ID or creationist paper should be printed in peer-review literature, but mostly you guys deny what most of the rest of America sees plainly about what's going on. It's sort of pathetic you resort to lies but that's what I have come to expect. It'd be better if you would honestly listen to and discuss your critics' points, but like most evos I have run across, you'd rather lob false accusations.\ Btw, the following link contains some data that you claim does not exist. http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:43 AM This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:53 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
That seems to suggest you believe criticisms of ToE should come in the form of "questions." Gimme a break. This is the MOST TELLING post of Randman's I have ever read. From the above quote it is obvious what your point of view is. It reveals completely the reasons you can not/ will not listen to reason. You obviously want everything you post to be taken as a statement, accepted on it's face as fact (Truth). If you have a question, raise it. If all you have are "statements" about your all powerful spagetti monster and his magic wand, take them to your temple.
We've gone over this before. Yup, sure have, and once again, you haven't listened to a word of it. If IDrs want to be considered scientists, then PRESENT DATA. I am STILL waiting for you to present evidence FOR your case. You don't because you can't. There's no evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory. Hell, you haven't even suggested what would be evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory.
Your's is less factual than most, it seems. Randman, what country are you from? For a while, I assumed you spoke English as a 1st language, but now I'm not so sure. Which of the words here are you having trouble with? "Less"? "Factual"? "Most"? "Seems"? Can you show me how "most" other theories of creationism are MORE "factual"? Or, does it "seem" that that would force you to post evidence? As for your link, that's simply laughable. I can take a picture of a drawing on a sidewalk and claim it's from Mars, doesn't make it so. Where's the context? Show me the entire wall of art, not a close up on chalk lizard. Further, if "art" was considered proof, that kind of destroys your whole Whale argument doesn't it. Oh, wait, that's right, you didn't present an "argument" because everything you say is Truth straight from the oraface of the Spagetti Monster himself
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
For someone who claims to want to discuss data, you present and discuss none, nor respond to the data and link I have posted.
very telling...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Hi randman. Glad to see you back.
As a favor, can I ask you to avoid the kind of almost empty post to which I am replying (empty = little or no science in a science forum). I would prefer to not see you banned again. Hmm, and this is an almost empty post by me. Sorry about that everyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
just responding in kind...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I see you are back, and I see that the time off hasn't helped your reading skills.
Go back and re-read the post. You'll see that I actually looked at and responded to your link. Additionally, you seem to have missed the topic "Questions Creationists Never Answer". I'm not the creationist here, you are. You suggest I'm not posting data, but it's not on my shoulders to do so. The point I made, and I will make again - Creationists / Intelligent Designers have no methodology, no data, no evidence. What you do have are lies, distortions, and flat out fallacies. ***ALERT!!! I'm talking about your link *** A close up of a chalk drawing on sandstone without any context whatsoever is not proof of dinosaurs being alive with humans. It's at best evidence that a webdesigner has a 6 year old and a digital camera.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I'm sorry but i would not consider anything from this site as evidence for anything, the guy who publishs this site is wrong about everything he posts the junk about the stones has been proven wrong by a number of sources even by the people who found the stones for the collectoras for the anasazi art work, this has be shown to be a streach of credibility though he has some odd things the fact that he claims on another page, that natural nuclear fusion sites are man made, when the people that found them say they are natural, shows he doesn't bother to do research This message has been edited by demongoat, 10-18-2005 02:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Numerous accurate depictions of dinosaurs by people who should never have seen a dinosaur is dismissed by you with a waive of the hand, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I can show you "numerous accurate depictions" of lots of unverified stuff, randman. Where is the scholarly article that has been published by experts in a professional journal? Seriously, that site is clearly a crackpot source if it lists no outside verification from scholarly sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Well, scraf beat me to it on the response but...
If you really want, I can start posting links to all sorts of sites giving equal, if not better, evidence for Lock Ness, UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Chupacabra, etc. Not to mention the fact that the site you give seriously distorts reality, and simultaneously shows an amazing amount of imagination and a complete lack of it. First of all, the fact that we assign the word "Dragon" to several different creatures in different cultures does not mean that they are the same creature. Second, if you were living in inland China 3000 years ago and found a Meglodon tooth, where would you think it came from? Third, a chalk drawing on a sandstone rock is not evidence. I MIGHT be willing to give the site some thought if it were to show the petraglyph in context, but it does not. There are plenty of places in the southwest where you can see ancient rockart right next to "Led Zep Rulez". Now, while I completely agree that they rule, I don't think that the Anasazi knew that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You and Shraf have a different opinion on "scholarly sources" being willing within the evo camp to discuss evidence that severely contradicts evo paradigms.
As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them. Also, modern science often has a difficult time reconstructing dinosaurs accurately from fossils, and there are often quite a few mistakes. The argument that ancient people just accurately created reproductions based on old fossils and then let their imagination get carried away just doesn't hold water. It's a nice try, but doesn't work because it isn't logical. The question is why are there numerous reports, written accounts, drawings on pottery and elsewhere of quite specific anatomical details matching so precisely with what we know of many dinosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
matching so precisely You are seeing things. Go back and look at the site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them. I don't doubt they are real, but are they genuine? A lot of these pictures look stylistically different from their contempories. It would be nice to see a reliable source (an archaeologist as opposed to a creationist) discuss them to see what they have to say.
The question is why are there numerous reports, written accounts, drawings on pottery and elsewhere of quite specific anatomical details matching so precisely with what we know of many dinosaurs. The question is, if dinosaurs were contempory with humans, why are so many of the drawings, reports and written accounts blatantly unlike dinosaurs? Creatures with chimeric qualities, or hexapods such as winged dragons, or winged snake-like creatures? Why do we see so many of these monstrosities as compared to a couple of things which look like dinosaurs? The problem you face of course is even worse. It doesn't matter if dinosaurs lived contemporously with humans 6,000 years ago. It would be surprising, and unusual, but not impossible. Natural History would have it that they went extinct, but evolution doesn't require it at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024