Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8993 total)
60 online now:
14174dm, Diomedes, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,158 Year: 10,906/23,288 Month: 158/1,763 Week: 125/390 Day: 14/32 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 336 (619925)
06-13-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mazzy
06-12-2011 11:52 PM


There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools. Rather all that needs to be done is the truth, warts and all, of the current contradictions and debate within evolutionary theory to be taught and how this relates to the outdatedness of Darwins simplistic ideas.

And you will provide this TRVTH from ancient tribal myths and superstitions?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mazzy, posted 06-12-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 131 of 336 (637330)
10-14-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hawkins
10-14-2011 10:46 PM


If by chance what you mean is that how ID should be taught. ID just doesn't assume that "God doesn't exist". It assumes that a deity may or may not exist, what should be done is to study the design itself instead of who should be the true God. "Who should be the true God" belongs to how religions should be handled.

A minor correction:

ID was "created" after creationism, then creation "science", were disallowed by the courts.

Here is part of the evidence for that:

Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”

In fact, creation "science" and ID are the exact opposites of real science. Real science follows the evidence where it leads, while religion has to follow belief and dogma in spite of the evidence.

And religious apologetics is used to try to mask over the differences.

Sorry, you can't fool us that easily.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hawkins, posted 10-14-2011 10:46 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 215 of 336 (637578)
10-16-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 8:44 PM


Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
C14 is easilly doctored...

Do you actually know anything about C14 dating? Ever collected and submitted any samples? Ever written on the subject for peer-reviewed journals? (I have collected and submitted over 600 samples, and written several articles and one monograph on the subject; along with numerous lectures.)

Why don't you find one of the threads relating to C14 dating, or start a new thread, and we can explore your knowledge of the subject in more detail. I am familiar with sample collection and interpretation, while another poster here, kbertsch or some such, is expert in the laboratory aspects of the technique.

I'm guessing you won't accept this challenge because you know nothing more than you've read on creationist websites, and they are lying to you. Now you are caught out in their lies, so you'll duck and weave, or ignore this entirely.

For creationists, business as usual, eh?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:51 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 218 of 336 (637581)
10-16-2011 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 9:51 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
You challenged the method itself:

C14 is easilly doctored...

Now either put up or shut up.

Let's see what you actually know about C14 dating.

Do you want to retract your ill-informed statement? Or do you want me to start a new thread in your honor?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:51 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:49 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 221 of 336 (637585)
10-16-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 10:49 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
We have C14 datings for relics found in Israel, as an example. However, these relics, aside from C14, are also backed by a host of on the ground evidences which align themselves to the conclusion of C14, in their original dating and in a thread of graduated evidences since that time - with no vacuums.

So the C14 method works when it supports relics from Israel, but not when it supports other events in the past?

As I suspected, you know absolutely nothing about the C14 method. You're results oriented, not informed about the science behind C14 dating. I should have known.

You're caught out in your ignorance.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:49 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 1:35 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 257 of 336 (637774)
10-17-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
10-17-2011 9:27 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Nuggin and I have done a pretty fair job of explaining how you're misinterpreting swarm. You have to understand the meaning of English words before we can discuss the actual topic.

I don't see why explaining the definition of swarm again would have any better likelihood of success, so I guess I give up, but I suppose this does represent another good example of creationist thinking. You and Robert Byers and Dawn Bertot and others display a profound lack of comprehension skills, and an inability to understand could be considered a type of creationist thinking.

It looks like their unusual interpretation of this and other words is necessary to reinforce for their beliefs in the bible's accuracy.

If the words don't make sense the way everyone interprets them, why, just change the meaning of the words! Because of course the bible can't be in error.

We see this same nonsense in other threads as well. No matter what the evidence the bible can't be wrong, so they twist and manipulate words and concepts, and ignore what they have to, until everything works out the way they want.

This is the exact opposite of science, where we do our best to make our terms and concepts clear and to follow the data where it leads.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 9:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 289 of 336 (637863)
10-18-2011 10:49 AM


Summary
My HUGE problem with creationist thinking:

Creationists don't think per se, they believe! Everything else is apologetics in defense of that belief.

This is why words need to be twisted, facts ignored or misrepresented, and why evidence makes no difference to them.

And this is why debating them is so frustrating.


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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 312 of 336 (637951)
10-18-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:43 PM


Genesis is wrong (again)
All life forms, on their initiation, were dual-gendered. Namely, the first human was a dual-gendered male/female construct ['Male and female did He make them'].

Does anyone agree with this Genesis premise?

From Wiki:

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only, it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:43 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:58 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020