Creationists

[InDoctriNation]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?

 

[Dragon]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid.

That is simply untrue. In fact, faith is not required for either your belief or mine. What is required for mine is an honest appraisal of the evidence, and what is required for yours is rigid adherence to dogma despite the evidence. Neither of those is faith.

Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

The first sentence is true only because you used an incorrect word, "intelligent." Irrational beliefs are not a sign of low intelligence; that's true. (In fact, if they're particularly creative, they may be a sign of high intelligence.)

Your second sentence, however, is false, because you used the correct word: ignorant. Yes, that makes you more ignorant. The evidence that the world is billions of years old is overwhelming. The evidence that it is only a few thousand years old is nonexistent. Belief that the world is billions of years old requires only a willingness to hold opinions provisionally, based on available evidence, knowing that more evidence may show them to be false (although in this case, what more evidence is likely to show is only that the date isn't EXACTLY right, but still in the ballpark).

To believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, however, requires setting aside all available scientific evidence and adhering to words written down by savages who knew nothing about the subject, interpreted much later by semi-savages to indicate something the original savages didn't even intend (since a genealogy is hardly meant as a history of the entire creation).

These beliefs are not equivalent. The first is solidly based on the best evidence available, and uncertain only to the degree that all reality-based opinions are uncertain no matter what. The second is based on nothing, must ignore mountains of evidence that it is not true, and is really completely without foundation.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

Then stop discussing it. But forget about making ME go away. You're stuck with me, unless you leave, which is of course always your right. Like I said, you can't dismiss me. You can only dismiss yourself -- if that's what you want to do.

 

[koshergrl]

I can and have dismissed you.

I think you're confused about what you can control and what you *know*.

You don't *know* what I think, any more than you *know* what Christ thinks, or thought.

You can't control whether or not I dismiss you. Of course, you can proclaim your relevance to the world ad nauseum..but it won't make you any more relevant, and it won't stop me from dismissing you.

Class is over for now, carry on.

 

[koshergrl]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?

Where did I say that?

Oh, right. I didn't.

 

[Dragon]

I can and have dismissed you.

Ya got serious delusions o' grandeur there, missy.

You don't *know* what I think, any more than you *know* what Christ thinks, or thought.

In the case of Christ, I must rely on recordings of oral traditions. In your case, I can rely on what you tell me yourself. So actually, I know what you think rather better than I do what he thought. The Gospels could have gotten it all wrong.

You can't control whether or not I dismiss you.

I can't control whether you flap your arms and fly like a birdie, either. I remain confident, however, that you aren't going to do it. And you aren't going to dismiss me for the same reason: you can't.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.

I can dismiss you, and have.

If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.

And you aren't astute enough to read my mind. You have trouble comprehending what I've written; if you can misunderstand and confuse what is actually written, in black and white, there is no way you can grasp the thought behind it.

 

[Montrovant]

koshergrl and Dragon, don't make me put you two in a time out!

 

[koshergrl]

You can't put me in a time out!

bwahahaha....

I hope you catch the nuance there...you can't PUT ME anywhere.

But I can DISMISS because that is my action, not dragon's...

 

[Dragon]

Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.

I can dismiss you, and have.

If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.

If the dismissed is still around, and you are standing their stomping your foot and looking foolish, what have you accomplished?

You can only dismiss what leaves on command. I don't. Thus, you can't.

Anyway, all of that is nothing but a face-saving way of admitting you can't answer the arguments I raised earlier, which you shouldn't be ashamed of as you are trying to defend the indefensible. It would be astonishing if you could manage to do it.

 

[InDoctriNation]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?

Where did I say that?

Oh, right. I didn't.

Let me rephrase the question then. Do you consider the scientific evidence (radiometric dating) that shows the earth to be four and a half billion years old pseudoscience? If you don't see it as pseudoscience, then why do you reject it?

 

[koshergrl]

I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.

The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat. That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.

 

[Montrovant]

I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.

The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat. That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.

Wouldn't it be more along the lines of when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something in line with god's word, they are correct, but when they show us something contrary, they are incorrect? You seem to be saying that not only is science wrong if it contradicts god's word, but that the methods used to reach those incorrect conclusions was different.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.

I can dismiss you, and have.

If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.

If the dismissed is still around, and you are standing their stomping your foot and looking foolish, what have you accomplished?

You can only dismiss what leaves on command. I don't. Thus, you can't.

Anyway, all of that is nothing but a face-saving way of admitting you can't answer the arguments I raised earlier, which you shouldn't be ashamed of as you are trying to defend the indefensible. It would be astonishing if you could manage to do it.

Your inability to grasp this simple concept explains why you have nothing but logical fallacies when it comes to discussion.

I dismiss. You don't have to leave. But I dismiss. If you don't leave, it doesn't mean I didn't dismiss.

Are you really this uneducated? How old are you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).

Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.

Umm . . . H. sapiens is OUR species. It is not an "apelike creature" -- well, actually I guess that's debatable. But anyway, it's us.

That's who Neanderthals are believed to have interbred with. Not chimps or monkeys.

I responded to the article I posted and the one drock posted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Belief requires faith.

Is this sinking in?

Belief is absent of proof,this is faith,not sure why they don't understand it. I guess they have different rules when they apply the term science to their belief.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?

The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutions make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.

So hominid fossils we have discovered that have a different placement of the foramen magnum in the skull are just deformed humans? Interesting that the deformity seems to follow a gradual trend in the fossil record of hominid species. I've never heard of such a deformity occurring naturally in humans, and at such incremental levels of severity. Can you explain that?

Why do you say that ? there are no transitional fossils. Gradualism does not show up in the fossil record and that is why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated eqilibrium.

You take a room full of fossils and you try to build a chain of who and what came first that is circular reasoning the very thing you guys complain about.

The only way to prove ancestry is DNA unfortunately for your side the DNA between a human and chimp are to far apart but yet they claim it is our cousin.

DNA similarity proves nothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Belief requires faith.

Is this sinking in?

I explained that already, KG. No, belief doesn't require "faith," it just requires uncertainty. I will continue to say "I believe that" or "it is believed that" when the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, or when I haven't personally studied it well enough for my own perfect satisfaction (which is the case here, with respect to Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans).

I may say "it is believed" when there is a great deal of evidence in favor of what I'm saying. In no way, shape or form does this imply, as it does with your own beliefs, that there is NO evidence in favor of what I'm saying.

Is THAT sinking in?

Your presuppositions are not figured in to the evidence ?

Can your presuppositions take you down the wrong path ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

Well said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.

So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?

Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?

Where did I say that?

Oh, right. I didn't.

Let me rephrase the question then. Do you consider the scientific evidence (radiometric dating) that shows the earth to be four and a half billion years old pseudoscience? If you don't see it as pseudoscience, then why do you reject it?

pseudoscience should be rejected and that is the category dating methods and macroevolution fall in.