|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 11:57:46 [Permalink]
|
| Please, spare us your righteousness, Bill has harassed us with willful ignorance for ages and deserves far more insults than we dish out. So I wonder whos IP adress matches the great one post defender. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:01:45 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I don't see anyone listed who's made contributions to creation science. |
This was not what I was asked to provide. We have the very creation itself, which infinity contributes to the theory of creation science, so who needs a scientist's opinion on the matter of creation when we have the entire creation itself as evidence for a creator
| Nobody's disputing that scientists can be Christians, Bill. Few people will dispute the idea that scientists can be creationists. But the "creation science" that we've seen to date is nothing more than denial of evolution, |
Yet we have the very creation itself to observe. And wouldn't creationism be much more of a slap in the face to abiogenesis then it is to macro. Heck, there are even creationist who subscribe to marco as God's plan. Or I suppose you could word it to say that some macro-evolutionists subscribe to a creation account.
| most often based upon serious ignorance of evolution. |
Or maybe macro evolution is based upon serious ignorance of the creation itself and it's creator.
| Kil's "actual science of their own" would refer to that: science that supports creationism. |
Anyone who subscribes to cause and effect would fall under this category.
A few examples from the big list:
Sylvia Baker denies evolution. But she believes <http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/evolution.htm> that the mere existence of recessive genes disproves evolution, she uses the "half an eye" argument, she misunderstands the Cambrian era's fossils, she thinks that fossil "graveyards" are evidence for a global flood, she goofs up both gradualism and uniformitarianism, etc. I see no evidence that she is doing science that supports creationism.
Behe, of course, denies "macroevolution," but he hasn't done a lick of research that supports Intelligent Design at all. He is 100% evolution denial, except for the one experiment he did which he admitted (under oath) probably would have supported evolutionary theory had it been larger. Plus, he's a damned Catholic.
Jerry R. Bergman denies evolution, too. But he believes <http://www.rae.org/natsel.html> that natural selection is a tautology, that there is an "evolutionary scale," that climates and environments "have been fairly stable for eons," and other anti-evolution nonsense. |
I offer you the very creation itself. What else could be offered to top that as evidence for a creator?
I was asked to provide examples of where creationists made a worth while contribution to science, and I did.
If we are talking creationism shouldn't this include abiogenesis? Abiogenesis, if there is such a thing, would come before we even get to the warm little pond or primordial soup and then on to macro.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Boy, you atheist/materialist/humanists really get your feathers ruffled when someone takes your ramblings literal.
|
The best thing to do is just smile and back away slowly.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:14:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Boy, you atheist/materialist/humanists really get your feathers ruffled when someone takes your ramblings literal.
|
The best thing to do is just smile and back away slowly.
|
With out turning your back on the foe. |
"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 - 07/24/2007 : 12:17:10 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Bill is a proponent of the dumbing-down of the planet through arrogance, |
This from the guy who is all proud of himself just because a like mined clone told him that, "he rocks." This, and the 11 million posts, have puffed Dave up just a tad.
| ignorance and anti-science. |
Simply for not subscripting to Dave's version of ToE
| It is most certainly not a simple matter of finding him unacceptable. |
That's what the insults and sarcasm are for.
| You're giving Bill far too much power. |
Exactly. I simple offer up the creation itself as evidence for the creator. This takes little power on my part |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:22:21 [Permalink]
|
Bill Scott: How would you even know? You, admittedly, refuse to even look at the list of over 1600 scientist I provided. Let me guess, someone told you that no creationist is qualified? *sigh* Nor has evolution ever been proven true. It's just a theory, and a shaky theory at that
|
How many times have we refutted that tired, crappy old "just a theory" piece of a horseshit-stained straw man? I seem to recall that it's been explained to Bill , with reference, upon occasion.
So ok, it didn't penetrate and at this late date, it seems unlikely ever to do. Therefore, I must ask: Bill, as you do not accept the ToE, what exactly do you have in place of it that explains the biological diversity of the planet better? Please give reference.
Re: notorous list of 1600: I didn't go through the whole thing (and neither did you), but you must discount those who were active before about the mid-1800s, when the ToE was first being seriously studied. Back then they knew little else because almost all people believed the same, and those who didn't kept their gobs shut about it, wisely, the Church being the vicious semi-mafia it was.
Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It does not either promote it or does it discount it. Indeed, as far as the theroy and science in general is concerned, religion is simply irrelevant and unworthy of study because by it's very nature it be neither tested nor falsified.
The thought occures: Would Sir Isacc still be a Christian Creationist if he were working today....?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ryri
Bill Scott is a brave man amongst those who simply find him unacceptable. |
Yes, incurable stupidity is such an admirable quality. 
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:23:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
This was not what I was asked to provide. |
Sure it was, you just choose to misinterpret the question.| We have the very creation itself, which infinity contributes to the theory of creation science, so who needs a scientist's opinion on the matter of creation when we have the entire creation itself as evidence for a creator |
Tautology.| Nobody's disputing that scientists can be Christians, Bill. Few people will dispute the idea that scientists can be creationists. But the "creation science" that we've seen to date is nothing more than denial of evolution, |
Yet we have the very creation itself to observe. |
Yeah, how odd is that - we have the creation to observe, but creation scientists haven't done any science supporting their own personal theories.| And wouldn't creationism be much more of a slap in the face to abiogenesis then it is to macro. Heck, there are even creationist who subscribe to marco as God's plan. Or I suppose you could word it to say that some macro-evolutionists subscribe to a creation account. |
I'm still waiting for you to tell us your definition of "macro-evolution."| most often based upon serious ignorance of evolution. |
Or maybe macro evolution is based upon serious ignorance of the creation itself and it's creator. |
Ah, I see: pure and unashamed denialism instead of an argument or counter.| Kil's "actual science of their own" would refer to that: science that supports creationism. |
Anyone who subscribes to cause and effect would fall under this category. |
So there can be no evidence against creationism, and so it isn't science. Thanks, Bill.| I offer you the very creation itself. What else could be offered to top that as evidence for a creator? |
I wasn't asking for evidence of a creator, but now I will. How does the mere existence of everything qualify as evidence of a creator?| I was asked to provide examples of where creationists made a worth while contribution to science, and I did. |
Yes, it was trivially true.| If we are talking creationism shouldn't this include abiogenesis? Abiogenesis, if there is such a thing, would come before we even get to the warm little pond or primordial soup and then on to macro. |
No, if we're talking about creationism, then you should present the evidence that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis, not arguments against mainstream science.
Because, of course, this is not a black-and-white issue. There exist more than two choices. Arguments against evolution aren't arguments in favor of Special Creation by default. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
This from the guy who is all proud of himself just because a like mined clone told him that, "he rocks." This, and the 11 million posts, have puffed Dave up just a tad. |
It's okay that you don't get the joke, Bill.| ignorance and anti-science. |
Simply for not subscripting to Dave's version of ToE |
Not at all. You're even in denial of your active denialism.| It is most certainly not a simple matter of finding him unacceptable. |
That's what the insults and sarcasm are for. |
Oh, is that why you employ them?| You're giving Bill far too much power. |
Exactly. I simple offer up the creation itself as evidence for the creator. This takes little power on my part |
You've yet to tell us how everything is evidence for a creator, Bill. |
- 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 - 07/24/2007 : 12:49:47 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| How many times have we refutted that tired, crappy old "just a theory" piece of a horseshit-stained straw man? I seem to recall that it's been explained to Bill , with reference, upon occasion. |
You can call it what ever your little heart desires, as long as it ain't "a fact".
| So ok, it didn't penetrate and at this late date, it seems unlikely ever to do. Therefore, I must ask: Bill, as you do not accept the ToE, what exactly do you have in place of it that explains the biological diversity of the planet better? Please give reference. |
Easy. We all did not come from a common ancestor. The creator created species. References? I give you the very creation itself as evidence for a creator. GODDIDIT will explain just fine the diversity you see in the species. Again, I offer you the very creation itself as evidence that the creator creates with diversity amongst the different species.
| Re: notorous list of 1600 <http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm>: I didn't go through the whole thing (and neither did you), but you must discount those who were active before about the mid-1800s, when the ToE was first being seriously studied. Back then they knew little else because almost all people believed the same, and those who didn't kept their gobs shut about it, wisely, the Church being the vicious semi-mafia it was. |
Nope. I was simply asked to provide creationists who made contributions to science. This list simply shows the absurdity of those who claim secularist have exclusive rights on "science".
| Evolution has nothing to do with religion. |
For many evolution is a religion.
| Indeed, as far as the theroy and science in general is concerned, religion is simply irrelevant and unworthy of study because by it's very nature it be neither tested nor falsified. |
Creationism is testable. We have the very creation itself. Christianity is testable. We have the historical event of the resurrection of JC.
| The thought occures: Would Sir Isacc still be a Christian Creationist if he were working today....? |
God only knows.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:50:15 [Permalink]
|
What? Did someone mention "half an eye?" Folks, there ain't no such a thing and anyone using that for a straw man an argument has not put much time into studying the topic. A pity,really, because the evolution of vision very interesting.
The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species. The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.[1][2][3] The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.[citation needed]
Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements. For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light. The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and mollusks are often cited as examples of parallel evolution. As far as the vertebrate/mollusk eye is concerned, intermediate, functioning stages have existed in nature, which is also an illustration of the many varieties and peculiarities of eye construction. In the monophyletic model, these variations are less illustrative of non-vertebrate types such as the arthropod (compound) eye, but as those eyes are simpler to begin with, there are fewer intermediate stages to find.
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 13:01:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Easy. We all did not come from a common ancestor. The creator created species. References? I give you the very creation itself as evidence for a creator. GODDIDIT will explain just fine the diversity you see in the species. Again, I offer you the very creation itself as evidence that the creator creates with diversity amongst the different species. |
GODDIDIT would explain zero diversity just as well as it explains the diversity we see - not at all.| Nope. I was simply asked to provide creationists who made contributions to science. This list simply shows the absurdity of those who claim secularist have exclusive rights on "science". |
Who claimed that?| For many evolution is a religion. |
Only for those who argue that GODDIDIT is a better explanation.Great! How would we falsify the idea that God created everything?| We have the very creation itself. |
That's not a test.| Christianity is testable. |
Great! How would we falsify the idea that Jesus came back from the dead?| We have the historical event of the resurrection of JC. |
Whoops, that's not a test, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 13:06:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
This was not what I was asked to provide. We have the very creation itself, which infinity contributes to the theory of creation science, so who needs a scientist's opinion on the matter of creation when we have the entire creation itself as evidence for a creator
|
In order to believe you must have faith, in order to have faith you must believe. In a word, tautology. Not very useful in regards to the scientific method. Which is still our best approach for determining the truth about reality. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 13:25:11 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Sure it was, you just choose to misinterpret the question. |
Or I choose to answer the question that I am asked.
| Yeah, how odd is that - we have the creation to observe, |
Since we have the creation to observe the only conclusion left is that the creation had a creator. Hence the term creation.
| but creation scientists haven't done any science supporting their own personal theories. |
Since the very creation itself will not convince you of a creator what would you like to see the creation scientists do, recreate and duplicate the creation process with accompanying notes and with matching end results?
| I'm still waiting for you to tell us your definition of "macro-evolution." |
We have already hashed that one out.
| Ah, I see: pure and unashamed denialism instead of an argument or counter. |
Really, because I was thinking the same thing of yourself.
| So there can be no evidence against creationism, and so it isn't science. Thanks, Bill. |
You can say that it is or is not science. You can call it whatever you want. But I enjoy watching those who reject creationism do so while inhabiting the very creation itself. What arrogance!
| I wasn't asking for evidence of a creator, but now I will. How does the mere existence of everything qualify as evidence of a creator? |
Cause and effect as evidence for a creator. The historical event of the death, burial, and resurrection of J.C. as the evidence on the "who" of this creator.
| Yes, it was trivially true. |
Truth is truth.
| No, if we're talking about creationism, then you should present the evidence that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis, |
I did. I offered you the very creation itself. You can observe it and you see that it is just as it was told, complete with the sin of man and all.
| not arguments against mainstream science. |
Why?
| Because, of course, this is not a black-and-white issue. There exist more than two choices. Arguments against evolution aren't arguments in favor of Special Creation by default. |
No, but observing and inhabiting the special creation is an argument in favor of creation and a creator. |
"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 - 07/24/2007 : 14:03:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You know what amuses me? The fact that the materialist and atheist have diluted themselves to the point where they actually believe that creationists cannot be scientists and scientist can not be creationists. |
Do you actually believe such lies? |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
