|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 06/20/2009 : 13:50:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And many will conclude that your version of creation is a delusion, for many reasons. And so on goes the debate…
|
The scientific debate has been over for a very long time, and as you can see, the public debate is nearing its end as well. Young Earth creationism is a public joke, on a par with flat Earthers. Creationists are universally viewed as ignorant, gullible and stupid by everyone who is not a creationist, including other Christians and religious individuals. You're part of a dying breed, Bill, one headed toward extinction.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2009 : 13:57:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
And many will conclude that your version of creation is a delusion, for many reasons. And so on goes the debate…
|
The scientific debate has been over for a very long time, and as you can see, the public debate is nearing its end as well. Young Earth creationism is a public joke, on a par with flat Earthers. Creationists are universally viewed as ignorant, gullible and stupid by everyone who is not a creationist, including other Christians and religious individuals. You're part of a dying breed, Bill, one headed toward extinction.
|
I believe Nero made the same prediction(s). |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2009 : 14:27:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
He never said that he thought my version of creation was a joke. He said that creationism was a joke. How odd when we have the very creation itself testifying on behalf of creationism. |
We do? The creation speaks in a courtroom under oath?
(Your latest semantic game is easy to play, Bill.)| Creationism is not the debate. We have the very creation itself testifying on its behalf. The debate is over who, or what, is responsible for the creation that we already know exists. We know the creation exists so the question remains, who did the creating? That's where we differ, on the who part. |
And since that is what the term "creationism" refers to, you're simply being disingenuous with the words. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2009 : 14:37:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I believe Nero made the same prediction(s).
|
No, no, no, Bill. I never said Christianity was doomed, just your splinter group, the cult of young Earth creationists you belong to. Christianity will evolve and persist, but creationism is dead. Creationism will just be practiced by small factions that will be viewed as an embarrassment by mainstream Christians, much like polygamists are seen today.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 08:41:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet you exist in that very creation in which you joke about. Creationism is not the debate as we exist in the very creation itself. The debate is over who or what did the creating? |
Yet you know exactly what is meant by the word "creationism," and how it refers specifically to when and how the creating was done and who did it. astropin isn't joking about "the creation," but the beliefs ("ism") of certain people within it, and you know that. You know very well that creationism is the debate.
|
Actually it's not, it's a delusion. It's based on nothing but old myths and is contradicted by millions (seriously) of independent evidences.
They are flat-earther but with a bigger PR budget and a meaner streak.
|
And many will conclude that your version of creation is a delusion, for many reasons. And so on goes the debate…
|
There is no debate, there are people that look at the evidence and accept their logical implications and there are people which are in denial about them. Hence, delusive.
Unfortunately; there are also the people that are misinformed and confused by the lies of the denialists but I wanted to keep it simple.
Plus, you have no such excuse, you were given plenty of opportunities to correct your ignorance on the subject and instead wilfully took the side of ignorance, presumably to protect your delusion. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 20:08:25 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
Yes, we do.
| The creation speaks in a courtroom under oath? |
Does it?
| (Your latest semantic game is easy to play, Bill.) |
What game?
| And since that is what the term "creationism" refers to, you're simply being disingenuous with the words. |
No, I am not. Nobody debates the creation. We exist in that creation. If there was creation then there was creationism. What we debate is the first cause of the creation(ism).
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 20:13:08 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by H. Humbert |
| No, no, no, Bill. I never said Christianity was doomed, |
I would agree.
| just your splinter group, |
What splinter group?
| the cult of young Earth creationists you belong to. |
I do?
| Christianity will evolve and persist |
I would agree.
Who's version?
| Creationism will just be practiced by small factions that will be viewed as an embarrassment by mainstream Christians, |
We already have the creation so creationism is not the debate. The debate is the who/what that did the creating.
| much like polygamists are seen today. |
OK now your just being silly.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 20:16:19 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Simon |
| There is no debate, there are people that look at the evidence and accept their logical implications and there are people which are in denial about them. Hence, delusive. |
So when will you come to grips with your delusion?
| Unfortunately; there are also the people that are misinformed and confused by the lies of the denialists |
Vary sad.
| but I wanted to keep it simple. |
You always do.
| Plus, you have no such excuse, |
I never said that I needed one.
| you were given plenty of opportunities to correct your ignorance on the subject |
I was?
| and instead wilfully took the side of ignorance, presumably to protect your delusion. |
Can you give me an example?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 21:09:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
but creationism is dead. |
Who's version? |
The version of the people who claims the earth is ~6000 years old.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2009 : 21:50:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
If there was creation then there was creationism. |
Since you state it's not a game, you must just be ignorant of what the "ism" part means. Of course, I am sure that you are simply playing at it, and so are being willfully ignorant - just toying with definitions to suit your own selfish ends.| What we debate is the first cause of the creation(ism). |
What's this "we" crap? I have never once debated the "first cause" of anything, since it's a philosophical position that was done away with centuries ago (a "first cause" is simply undisguised special pleading). Except for the new Christian Presuppositionalist nutjobs...
...don't tell me you've gone over to them, Bill! Of course, that fits with the game-playing regarding the definitions of common words. The Presups have to do that, because otherwise their positions fall apart like wet tiolet paper. It's the worst of the Post-Modernist bullshit combined with the worst of Fundamentalist anti-intellectualism. A "perfect storm" of inanely circular arguments and wanton, reckless projection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2009 : 07:15:29 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Since you state it's not a game, you must just be ignorant of what the "ism" part means. Of course, I am sure that you are simply playing at it, and so are being willfully ignorant - just toying with definitions to suit your own selfish ends. |
You're the one playing games. We have the creation; therefore we have a point in time when the creation began to exist. So when ast said that he felt creationism was a joke, my immediate next thought was, “Who's version of creationism is he talking about?”
| What's this "we" crap? I have never once debated the "first cause" of anything, since it's a philosophical position that was done away with centuries ago (a "first cause" is simply undisguised special pleading). Except for the new Christian Presuppositionalist nutjobs... |
Sorry for the confusion. I was being general and referring more to the deist vs. naturalist debate, the one where the naturalist argues that all creation can be explained through natural causes. And a deist position that says something outside of the creation and not bound to it was the cause of creation.
| ...don't tell me you've gone over to them, Bill! |
I wont.
| Of course, that fits with the game-playing regarding the definitions of common words. |
I am not playing word games. I have already explained that.
| The Presups have to do that, because otherwise their positions fall apart like wet tiolet paper. |
Never heard of them.
| It's the worst of the Post-Modernist bullshit combined with the worst of Fundamentalist anti-intellectualism. A "perfect storm" of inanely circular arguments and wanton, reckless projection. |
I'll take your word for it.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2009 : 07:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
but creationism is dead. |
Who's version? |
The version of the people who claims the earth is ~6000 years old.
|
| The version of the people who claims the earth is ~6000 years old. |
I never claimed to have knowledge the earth is 6000 years old.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2009 : 08:10:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You're the one playing games. We have the creation; therefore we have a point in time when the creation began to exist. |
We do? According to current cosmological theory, we can't possibly agree with that conclusion.| So when ast said that he felt creationism was a joke, my immediate next thought was, “Who's version of creationism is he talking about?” |
And that's just you playing dumb. You know what the word means in context, Bill, and to whom it refers. Name another form of creationism which might suggest that Jesus rode a dinosaur.| Sorry for the confusion. I was being general and referring more to the deist vs. naturalist debate, the one where the naturalist argues that all creation can be explained through natural causes. And a deist position that says something outside of the creation and not bound to it was the cause of creation. |
And now you're redefining the word "deist," and ignoring the fact that "naturalists" aren't necessarily scientists. I (for another example) am neither, but I tend to agree with the scientists (and ignore the naturalists).| I am not playing word games. I have already explained that. |
Yet the rest of your words speak much more loudly than your denial. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2009 : 08:40:40 [Permalink]
|
You know what Creationism means in its common definition, that of Evolution denialism, which happens to be the one obviously relevant on a website devoting a section to the dichotomy 'Creation/Evolution'.
You are just being dishonest in addition for being a troll. Using personal insults to derail a thread about a funny T-shirt into a conversation about yourself is a trollish behaviour (Internet troll, I precise, because your most recent 'debating skill' seems to include being oblivious of common definition of word, a waste of time really, as you do not have to feint anything to appear ignorant)
Now since you disagree about being given the opportunity of educating yourself on the subject, you can start here. It is the Wikipedia entry on the subject.
And here is the Talk Origin page and here are a few neats example of Evolution in action selecting by the prestigious journal Nature.
If you like moving pictures, here is the first of the relevant videos from Potholer54 (the whole channel is worth watching though), and here is a funny video by Thunderfoot. Not nearly as instructive as others, but he does tackle a few of the creationists' lies and the results are amusing ('cause creationists are teh dumb!)
I could give you more but it should be enough to start. Come back here if you have any honest questions about this information.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2009 : 09:03:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, I am not. Nobody debates the creation. We exist in that creation. If there was creation then there was creationism. What we debate is the first cause of the creation(ism).
|
I debate "the creation". We DO NOT exist "in that creation" The Universe was not created. The Earth was not created and "we" were not created.
"Created" implies an intelligence behind it. You need a creator.
There is no creator....therefore there was no creation.
The Big Bang was an "occurrence". Our Universe is the result. Nothing "created" the Big Bang. How did the Big Bang occur? We don't know. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Great Shirt
