Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,836 Year: 18,872/19,786 Month: 1,292/1,705 Week: 98/446 Day: 98/64 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artifical life
Huntard
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 61 of 71 (561767)
05-23-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IchiBan
05-23-2010 2:22 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Do you have anything of value to say ever? All you ever do is come in to threads, accuse "evolutionists" of being dishonest and doing exactly what the creationists are doing (nice projection by the way), never show that to be the case (you just assert it), and then bugger off again.

Is there anything you hope to achieve with his, except laughter from or part?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 05-23-2010 2:22 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2119 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 62 of 71 (561768)
05-23-2010 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IchiBan
05-23-2010 2:22 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
I've always wondered why creationnists, when they criticize evolution, they are likening it to religion but when they are trying to bolster their own religion, they try to liken it to science? Is being religious such a flaw in order to find out about reality? Could it be that inside, you really know your fundamentalist religion is wrong so you try to justify it with science? Or are you just trying to usurp the credit scientists have worked so hard for with lazy propaganda?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 05-23-2010 2:22 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-23-2010 9:31 AM Son has responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 63 of 71 (561775)
05-23-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Son
05-23-2010 4:19 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
I've always wondered why creationnists, when they criticize evolution, they are likening it to religion but when they are trying to bolster their own religion, they try to liken it to science? Is being religious such a flaw in order to find out about reality? Could it be that inside, you really know your fundamentalist religion is wrong so you try to justify it with science? Or are you just trying to usurp the credit scientists have worked so hard for with lazy propaganda?

This probably goes on to a certain extent in every circle Son. This board is a little unique in the fact that most who post here at least have a little bit of a clue, some more then others, myself being on the lacking end, as to what they are actually talking about. I consider some of the atheists here to be "professional" atheists in the sense that they have their ducks in a row when it comes to their arguments.

However, go out on the street and talk to an atheist or a creationist and you'll find more times then not they neither have any clue as to how to back up their arguments.

As far as myself. I have no fear that I am wrong in my belief and am trying to "justify it with science" as you say ( I know you weren't referring directly to me in your post). If zero science discoveries were around, I'd still believe my bible. It makes logical sense to me as we've discussed here before.

But this goes both ways imo. There are a few creationists and evolutionists out there who did not arrive to their conclusions without a presupposition or worldview being there FIRST. Most creationists, and if you read the literature can admit this, but I've seen very few evolutionists ever admit this. It's almost as if an evolutionist admits this, they are afraid they are admitting a religion.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Son, posted 05-23-2010 4:19 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2010 10:35 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Son, posted 05-23-2010 4:23 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 64 of 71 (561778)
05-23-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IchiBan
05-23-2010 2:22 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
They are doing religion, their religion, and they are evangelists for their religion on a crusade.

Science in no way is religion. To be a religion it would need unchanging dogma which does not occur in science. Science changes as new evidence is found. That is the key, evidence not bronze age imagination.


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 60 by IchiBan, posted 05-23-2010 2:22 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4653
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 65 of 71 (561779)
05-23-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-23-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
There are a few creationists and evolutionists out there who did not arrive to their conclusions without a presupposition or worldview being there FIRST.

In the case of most scientists, as well as most on this forum, this is not correct. Until this last generation most all children in western societies were brought up in a religious culture. Overcoming this acculturated world view through critical thinking and observation is difficult and a lot of people never make it. Those of us that do make it form our world view as a result of the preponderance of the evidence not before.

I understand this is a difficult concept for the religiously inclined person. They cannot seem to fathom a mind void of blind faith. It's as if the religious believe that there is blind faith and veneration in all minds just the object of such is different.

Trying to relay the reality that such is not the case is difficult at best and a fruitless exercise with most.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-23-2010 9:31 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 2119 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 66 of 71 (561800)
05-23-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-23-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
My beef wasn't really that he was "wrong", but that he likened science to religion while he's himself religious. I think it's way strange and a bit hypocrytical of him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-23-2010 9:31 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3226 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 67 of 71 (562026)
05-25-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
05-22-2010 5:22 PM


You guys use talkorigins as your comprehensive resource?? what a joke!!

They mostly put forth their ideas, and set up their own straw men arguments to knock down as though they were serious arguments as all that any creationist has.

Seems rather weak, since most of those arguments are about philosophy, rather than science.

The problems seem to arise when dime-store philosophers claim to be scientists.

Evolutionist--dime-store philosophers, yeah the shoe fits well.

No science in there though. Thats one thing the evolutionist can never be honest about.

Deception, the name of the game when it comes to the evolutionist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 05-22-2010 5:22 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 9:40 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2010 10:42 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 71 (562030)
05-25-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
05-25-2010 9:23 AM


IchiBan writes:

You guys use talkorigins as your comprehensive resource??


No. we're not creationists that stick to just one source, no matter what, we have more sources. Most prominent of all the actual scientific reports that show what utter bollocks creationism is.

They mostly put forth their ideas, and set up their own straw men arguments to knock down as though they were serious arguments as all that any creationist has.

Actually, they source all their claims with links to the actual scientific articles that show what utter bollocks creationism is.

Seems rather weak, since most of those arguments are about philosophy, rather than science.

You haven't actually read Talkorigns, have you?

The problems seem to arise when dime-store philosophers claim to be scientists.

Indeed, one wonders why creationists keep doing that.

Evolutionist--dime-store philosophers, yeah the shoe fits well.

Not really, an evolutionist is probably not a creationist.

No science in there though. Thats one thing the evolutionist can never be honest about.

Right, Talkorigins doesn't provide any source to their claims, just like creationists. Oh wait they do! I wonder why? Oh yes, of course, they're honest and not creationists.

Deception, the name of the game when it comes to the creationist.

There, fixed it for you.

Of course (as usual), you provide not a single shred of evidence for your assertions. You just rant and rave against evolutionists, showing how utterly stupid you really are.

Glad you wanted to show us that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 05-25-2010 9:23 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6683
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 69 of 71 (562039)
05-25-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
05-25-2010 9:23 AM


You guys use talkorigins as your comprehensive resource?? what a joke!!

They mostly put forth their ideas, and set up their own straw men arguments to knock down as though they were serious arguments as all that any creationist has.

And here folks lies the rub. Creationists are unable to think critically. You sound like the wingnuts that claim Snopes.com is a liberal front group. What both of these sites have is sourcing.

Look at every article on talkorigins. Do you notice that they all cite a source. This would allow anyone, yes anyone even an anti-science creationist, to look at the original source material and confirm it is correct. Do you know any creationist sites that cite original scientific material? There aren't any.

You might want to consider some critical thinking. The science types here and the "evolutionists" here tend to have good critical thinking skills. They do not accept things at face value. The make sure that statements and assertions on sites like talkorigins are based on good science. Talkorigins has a reputation as a site that uses strong scientific sources. That is why it is used a as a resource.

You question talkorigins? Then provide evidence that something posted there is wrong. I am sure you can't.

Seems rather weak, since most of those arguments are about philosophy, rather than science.

Do you have an example for this line of crap you are positing?

No science in there though. Thats one thing the evolutionist can never be honest about.

Have you even actually read anything on the site? If so, did you understand anything? Because all this statement from you does is expose your extreme ignorance. Tell you what; look at sources on the creationist websites. The only thing they source is a bible, and depending on which bible different sites may come to totally different conclusions.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 05-25-2010 9:23 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2010 4:41 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 70 of 71 (562081)
05-25-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric
05-25-2010 10:42 AM


Do you know any creationist sites that cite original scientific material? There aren't any.

I disagree, there are such sites, it's just that when you check what they say against the original scientific material they cite in support it usually fails to support their contentions in any way, and often they seem not to have understood it in the first place.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2010 10:42 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2010 5:10 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6683
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 71 of 71 (562084)
05-25-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Wounded King
05-25-2010 4:41 PM


You are correct
I should have said "correctly" cite scientific material that supports their premise.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2010 4:41 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019