Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always a laugh
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 75 (3564)
02-06-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 6:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah you just twisted facts to your benefit anyway, claiming that creationists lie. you need to cite proof for those kinds of accusations.

Are you claiming that Creationists do not lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 6:22 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:50 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 75 (3569)
02-06-2002 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:46 AM


[b] [QUOTE] Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science.[/b][/QUOTE]
Because he's right, at least for the most part. Quotes followed by source URLs.
"On the same diagram, he [Gish] says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils." That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
Bad Credentials.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
"One new tactic I introduced to this debate was to gig Gish with tape recordings of his statements in previous debates. When the NCSE met in Los Angeles in 1985, Fred Edwords debated Gish on a KABC radio talk show. A caller asked Gish about the quest for Noah's ark, and while Gish denied that any evidence of the ark had been found, he also denied that the ICR sponsors expeditions to look for it. The next evening Karl Fezer and I visited the ICR and were entrusted by a secretary to roam their creationist museum after hours alone. (She asked us to lock up the ICR when we left! See our report of this foray in C/E N 5(3):16-17.) We listened to a sound-slide program on Noah's ark which proudly affirmed that the ICR does sponsor these expeditions. In 1986, Gish debated David Schwimmer at the University of Georgia, and in the Q/A period I confronted Gish with this contradiction. He sarcastically accused me of fabricating it and again denied ICR involvement.
So I entered our debate this year prepared to repay him for his sarcasm, armed with a microcassette onto which I had dubbed the seminal portions of the Gish-Edwords and Gish-Schwimmer debates. I played Gish's twofold denial over the PA system, then showed slides of several Acts & Facts accounts of these expeditions, culminating with an unequivocal affirmation of sponsorship in the November 1986 issue. In his rebuttal, Gish seemed a bit flustered and claimed he couldn't hear the tape I played, but notwithstanding the slides I had just shown, he stood up and denied sponsorship once again. Auburn is a university with a conspicuous contingent of faculty creationists, but perhaps because of statements like this, Gish seemed to enjoy little credibility or support that evening. I was told several of his supporters got up and walked out during his presentation, and with statements like this it was little wonder why."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
However he should not use absolutes in his posts. I also want to point out that Gish's degree is valid, he just never put it to respectable use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:46 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-06-2002 8:07 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:19 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 75 (3615)
02-06-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:19 PM


[b] [QUOTE]As all creation science is, is science. [/b][/QUOTE]
When did the Statement of Faith become a part of the Scientific Method?
Creation science isn't science, it's the polar opposite: trying to make evidence fit a prior conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 12:00 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 75 (3621)
02-07-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 12:00 AM


[QUOTE][b]--Thats just it, there is no faith in the workings of creation science. Its the conclusions by interperetation in creationism that includes any type of faith to some degree or another. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I have to disagree completely. Creation "Science" is based entirely upon faith, and the interpretation of evidence is based upon the prior conclusion. Also Creationism, such as is common here in the US, includes only one type of faith, that is Fundamentalist Christianity.
This is painfully obvious in their own Statements of Faith.
Evidence is twisted until it agrees with the Bible. Evidence that does not agree with the Bible is discarded.
"F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Aig Statement of Faith Part F.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
I've quoted the ICR Tenets of Creationism elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 12:00 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-07-2002 10:25 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:03 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 15 of 75 (3640)
02-07-2002 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by toff
02-07-2002 3:31 AM


[QUOTE][b]It does not use the scientific method, nor are its conclusions either testable or falsifiable. It takes a conclusion (creationism) and then looks for evidence to support it. That is not science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
And I think it should be pointed out that "research" is not even the ultimate purpose of Creationism. The purpose of what they do is to spread a literal interpretation of the Bible. Their ultimate goal is to proselytize and "Creation Science" is simply an attempt to justify the theological position of it's practitioners. These theological points have nothing to do with evidence but are the core of the Creationist belief, and more importantly, motivation. I don't have a problem with belief in these points, but I find the misleading claims, manipulation of evidence, and claim of "science" to support a religious position extremely dishonorable.
"A. The scientific aspects of Creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."
AiG Statement of Faith, Priority A.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
"The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and etemal [SIC] life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
ICR Tenets of Creationism
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
"We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
History and Aims of CRS
http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 3:31 AM toff has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 75 (3713)
02-07-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cobra_snake
02-07-2002 3:28 PM


[QUOTE][b]The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No, but they look for facts to test it. Note also that the theory of evolution was the result of 20 years of observation on behalf of Darwin and Wallace. They didn't make up the theory and then spend 20 years trying to shoehorn evidence.
Also you cannot simply ignore evidence you don't like, because evidence does not go away when you ignore it. AiG, however, comes right out and states that any evidence they don't like they throw out (Part F of their Statement of Faith). ICR and others strongly imply it by stating that the Bible is infallible. We also know that the Creation Research Society Quarterly requires members to adhere to their statement of faith and that their journal has a policy of rejecting all papers that do not adhere to the Creationist view.
How many scientific journals can you find that do that?
[QUOTE][b]If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
We can't agree on a definition of proof, remember? Because it does not exist outside of mathematics.
[QUOTE][b]Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Why do Creationists need a Statement of Faith? Because so much evidence is piled against them it is impossible to be a Creationist without rejecting any and all evidence that contradicts the Bible. That is not science, it fits no definition of science, and to even call it a science is offensive to real scientists.
[QUOTE][b]they still are subject to the act of bias.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'd be surprised if you can back that up. Are you familiar with the peer-review system?
[QUOTE][b]And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm sure that if an ornithologist examines enough ravins, he'll find an albino bird. Does that mean that as a general rule, ravins are not black? Does one "Creation Scientist" a rule make? No. Do Statements of Faith from the leading groups show a general trend that applies to most all Creationists? Probably. Is "Creation Science" science? No.
[QUOTE][b]Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts![/QUOTE]
[/b]
An evolutionist became a creationist. What does that show? What about the Creationists who became evolutionists?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:28 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 22 of 75 (3779)
02-07-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 11:03 PM


[QUOTE][b]any faith is not included in creation science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm sorry, but please go back and read those Statements of Faith, the ones that they require their members to adhere to.
How you can deny something made obvious is far beyond me. You might as well be saying that the Earth is flat or that things fall up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:03 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 31 of 75 (3921)
02-09-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:14 PM


[QUOTE][b]Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Can you logically justify that dichotomy? "Creation science" is a product of Creationism, so similar that the terms can be used interchangebly. What discredits creationism discredits "creation science". Also notice that the court cases do not make a distinction between "creationism" and "creation science".
The terms "Creationism", "Scientific Creationism", and "Creation Science" are interchangeable.
Legal definitions as declared by US courts
McLean v. Arkansas, United States District Court
"The terms ``creation science'' and ``scientific creationism'' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man. Perhaps the leading creationist organization is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)...."
II. Definition by the Scientific Community
Edward v. Aguillard Amicus Curiae Brief by 72 Nobel Laureates
"The District Court held that, beneath the labels, the terms "creation" and "creation-science" embody the principles of a particular religious sect or group of sects."
A Creationist is a person that believes in "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", which are synonyms.
Also, since you believe there is some kind of dichotomy, will you concede that Creationism is not scientifically valid and is therefore not a scientific alternative to evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:04 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 35 of 75 (3954)
02-09-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:04 PM


Are you retiring from the debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:04 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:31 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 48 of 75 (3999)
02-10-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 12:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
You have quite a lot to read about regarding impact geology, but there are many layman's books on the market right now.
(1) Erosion does not widen craters, it fills them up. We know craters have not grown by erosion because the edges are compose of uplifted strated, not broken horizontal strata.
(2) At the velocity of the impactor, water might as well be rock anyway.
(3) There usually is no lava fill in craters, therefore the possibility volcanic activity playing a major role in widening the craters is greatly diminished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 49 of 75 (4000)
02-10-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 1:03 AM


[QUOTE][b]--Personally, I would expect a hit by my 'Caldera impact theory'. As possible remnants of the reservoir[/QUOTE]
[/b]
And where is the evidence of the existance of that reservoir?
And why is there a general lack of volcanic products around known impact craters?
This theory is contradicted by the evidence.
[QUOTE][b]which would intern trigger the cause of this collapse, caused either by Meteor impact or was itself a cause on its own without celestial devestation[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The presence of coesite, along with other forms of shocked mineralization, at impact sites (and generally absent at volcanic sites) again helps us rule out your theory.
[QUOTE][b]Though I would also speculate that such a remnant would never had been considerd, thus examined the possibility.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually your "theory" was made obsolete years ago, by the impact hypothesis. It was once believed that impact craters were all volcanic, but there were holes throughout the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 50 of 75 (4001)
02-10-2002 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 1:19 PM


[QUOTE][b]--Actually, you don't have to have a 'volcano', that is, it does not have to have come to the point of eruption, but it must have had a resevoir that was once a holding tank of magma and have it drain by some mechenism, this mechenism is one I currently can't think of as of yet.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
You can't drain a reservoir without having a volcano. You can't even have a reservoir without metmorphosizing local rocks, and drilling of craters, magnetometry, gravimetrics, and seismic profilings should have detected those reservoirs. Again your theory is disproven by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 7:55 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 51 of 75 (4004)
02-10-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 1:13 AM


[QUOTE][b]is there anyway to confirm this by testing the craters for recent volcanic activity from now to before the flood?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The lack of volcanic products inside impact craters is conspicuous, and was often cited during the earlier part of the 20th century when the origin of craters was in debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:13 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 52 of 75 (4005)
02-10-2002 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 1:26 AM


----a lot. it can prove that dinosaurs existed during man's time and were possibly wiped out in the flood. it can prove that the flood actually occured. it can prove that "earth life destroying" comets have never hit the earth or at least not while man was in creation, which could be the first days of earth's creation, by God, or anytime before man in an evolution viewpoint.
Get to it, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:26 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 4:49 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 55 of 75 (4031)
02-10-2002 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 4:49 PM


A long response I wrote was devoured by the posting process.
The impact sites I have personally visited (Odessa, Barringer) contained no volcanics. The lack of volcanics inside craters was cited early in crater research (by D.M. Barringer) as evidence against volcanic origin.
I recommend the following simple introduction to impact craters.
http://www.barringercrater.com/science/
Also see the following for an incomplete list of craters, demonstrating how common they are on Earth:
http://www.meteorite.ch/crater.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 4:49 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 10:43 PM gene90 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024