Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

greavsie1971

solomons path

MrConspiracy

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy

 

i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.

So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?

edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?

Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.

Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?

Yes the mind wonders . . . but, without empirical evidence to support the "wondering" there is nothing to study scientifically. You seem to want to blur the lines between philosophy and science, or not understand where that line is drawn.

To borrow a quote from Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) and replacing "archeology" with the word "science" . . .
"Science is the search for facts, not "truth" . . . If you are looking for "truth", philosophy and theology are down the hall."

Somethings science cannot prove at its current state. Creationism is one of them. Science is not able to prove everything. doesnt mean it cannot be true. We are not that knowlegable. Science itself has no answers for how it all started so why is creationism ruled out. It's still theory. They even suggest the big bang may not be the answer. Science does not know everything, therefore cannot rule out anything of this nature.

Until there is empirical evidence to support the claim, then yes . . . we can rule it out.

And creationism is not a "theory" where science is concerned. It's not even a hypothesis. No empirical evidence means it's simply conjecture.

You do understand the difference between science and philosophy, right?

At the end of the day, we do not know. Which is why we all believe what we feel sits right in our hearts. We shouldn't argue about it and accuse each other of this and that. Discussing it is ok. We all have to admit, none of us can prove our beliefs as science cannot prove some things. Why is that not ok with some people?

As for lying to get a point across. This happens in all walks of life so picking on ID believers is not really a fair thing to do.

Lest agree that we cannot prove our beliefs and we ALL have a little faith whether it is in science or any other belief.

solomons path

MrConspiracy

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy

 

i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.

So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?

edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?

Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.

Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?

Yes the mind wonders . . . but, without empirical evidence to support the "wondering" there is nothing to study scientifically. You seem to want to blur the lines between philosophy and science, or not understand where that line is drawn.

To borrow a quote from Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) and replacing "archeology" with the word "science" . . .
"Science is the search for facts, not "truth" . . . If you are looking for "truth", philosophy and theology are down the hall."

That's a nice quote! I likey.

Now.. if the mind wonders on to something that can't be proven by today's science.. is that any reason to not give it a chance? Current science can't prove everything.... so why do people hang on to it's every word so tightly? if..

1) Sceince can't prove everything
2) What it does prove is subject to change as science progresses.

Like i've said in a previous post. Science's growth is fascinating and exciting. But just because, as you rightly said, it "doesn't know" everything.. how can you blame people for filling in the blanks? And yes... i think it is necessary! As a species we have an instinct to discover and learn... it's where our mind naturally goes.

If science itself can't disprove creation/design then why does the theory of evolution hold such a strong position in the debate? Science can't even conclusively prove evolution.

I think both ID and Evo are completely different. And like i've said from the start.. evolution in many ways is a great and logical idea. But i just don't believe it's EVERYTHING.

All the best.. thanks for being civil!!

reply to post by MrConspiracy


Well put.

What created the universe is a question we will be discussing for many years to come. We all have the same goal here....truth. We have different ideas, but we are searching for the same answer whatever that is. Hopefully someday we will find out.

Good debate.



Oh no, it's 2am here. Need to go to bed.

Goodnight.

reply to post by flyingfish


This is just another pointless tirade. You are never going to convince "creationist that they are wrong. You appear to be completely unable to understand the "creationists" view point. What's the purpose of raising this topic again... and again... and again???
Move on sweetheart.

solomons path

greavsie1971

solomons path

MrConspiracy

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy

 

i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.

So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?

edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?

Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.

Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?

Yes the mind wonders . . . but, without empirical evidence to support the "wondering" there is nothing to study scientifically. You seem to want to blur the lines between philosophy and science, or not understand where that line is drawn.

To borrow a quote from Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) and replacing "archeology" with the word "science" . . .
"Science is the search for facts, not "truth" . . . If you are looking for "truth", philosophy and theology are down the hall."

Somethings science cannot prove at its current state. Creationism is one of them. Science is not able to prove everything. doesnt mean it cannot be true. We are not that knowlegable. Science itself has no answers for how it all started so why is creationism ruled out. It's still theory. They even suggest the big bang may not be the answer. Science does not know everything, therefore cannot rule out anything of this nature.

Until there is empirical evidence to support the claim, then yes . . . we can rule it out.

And creationism is not a "theory" where science is concerned. It's not even a hypothesis. No empirical evidence means it's simply conjecture.

You do understand the difference between science and philosophy, right?

But there is no evidence at all as to what created the big bang. There may be evidence for it but not for what created it. So we just rule out creation anyway? Without any evidence for or against?

Im tired. Good night.

OP - you also forgot the dishonest tactic of the echo chamber.

When multiple creationists get together, they echo the same disinformation back and forth, patting each other on the back, and claim that the good feelings they give each other makes their opinion more credible than science in a scientific debate.

As is already brewing in this thread.

reply to post by MrConspiracy

Now.. if the mind wonders on to something that can't be proven by today's science.. is that any reason to not give it a chance? Current science can't prove everything.... so why do people hang on to it's every word so tightly? if..

Science is more than words, it requires physical evidence or measurements to confirm any conjecture. The observations come first and then the logic is applied to those observations. Crationist/ IDists never confirm their conjectures, they never link hypothesis to substance.

1) Sceince can't prove everything 2) What it does prove is subject to change as science progresses. Like i've said in a previous post. Science's growth is fascinating and exciting. But just because, as you rightly said, it "doesn't know" everything.. how can you blame people for filling in the blanks? And yes... i think it is necessary! As a species we have an instinct to discover and learn... it's where our mind naturally goes.

Science doesn't do philosophy. It studies the natural world. I don't think anyone is saying it's NOT okay to imagine how things work. The problem comes when you try to convince others without objective evidence or worse, intentionally twist, lie or ignore real evidence to do so.

If science itself can't disprove creation/design then why does the theory of evolution hold such a strong position in the debate? Science can't even conclusively prove evolution.

Science is not trying to disprove design, there is simply no evidence for it. However if such proof ever shows up you can bet a Nobel Prize will be waiting for the discovery.
And yes, science can conclusively prove evolution, it's one of the strongest theory's in science.

I think both ID and Evo are completely different. And like i've said from the start.. evolution in many ways is a great and logical idea. But i just don't believe it's EVERYTHING.

They are different... one has objective evidence the other has none.

hudsonhawk69
reply to post by flyingfish

 

This is just another pointless tirade. You are never going to convince "creationist that they are wrong. You appear to be completely unable to understand the "creationists" view point. What's the purpose of raising this topic again... and again... and again???
Move on sweetheart.

You've completely missed the point of the OP.
Please review the OP and get back to me.
Thanks.

solomons path
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

First off . . . it's not the "2nd Law of Physics", it's "Thermodynamics".

Feel free to read about your misunderstandings regarding this principle here:
Creationist claims agains Thermodynamics

Please explain the Cambrian explosion.
Quote from richard dawkins:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is
as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of
a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. How does an eye apear in perfect state of operation without any evolution?

Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

The amazing thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it.

guitarplayer
Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

There's already a thread about that.
Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Why not just stick to the topic of this thread?

daskakik

guitarplayer
Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

There's already a thread about that.
Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Why not just stick to the topic of this thread?

To begin with the op stated that everthing that creationist have said has been refuted and that is just plain BS. Creationist have brought up the Camberian explosion and evoltutionist have not refuted the fact that life forms apeared without any prior evolutionary lifeforms to evolve from. Life form apreared fully devloped. So saying that evolutions have refuted evderthing that creationist have brought up is pure BS.

iwilliam

Klassified
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't evolution address origins of species? It has nothing to do with the origins of life. That's a totally different topic. Now abiogenesis vs. creationism would make more sense.

There are plenty of creationists who believe evolution is the process god used to create life.

edit on 9/15/2013 by Klassified because: spelling

edit on 9/15/2013 by Klassified because: clarity

Exactly this. I was going to comment that I do not believe "creationism" and evolution are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.

Believing in some kind of higher power, or guiding/driving intelligence, myself, I can easily see how evolution could be a tool of god. It's a shame that not every religious-minded person can see this as easily as myself.


I think much of the argument, and what the OP is talking about arises from the practice of biblical literalism. It is biblical literalists who try to claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and the concept of evolution is an affront to god. And IMHO those interested in debating creation should learn to recognize and distinguish this group.

Nailed it...Good post ☆ for you!

guitarplayer

daskakik

guitarplayer
Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

There's already a thread about that.
Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Why not just stick to the topic of this thread?

To begin with the op stated that everthing that creationist have said has been refuted and that is just plain BS. Creationist have brought up the Camberian explosion and evoltutionist have not refuted the fact that life forms apeared without any prior evolutionary lifeforms to evolve from. Life form apreared fully devloped. So saying that evolutions have refuted evderthing that creationist have brought up is pure BS.

edit on 16-9-2013 by guitarplayer because: (no reason given)

If you wish to have a debate about the Cambrian explosion I will be glad to show you the latest scientific explanations in your new thread. I guarantee, I can prove you wrong on all your points and we will see who's full of BS.
Yes, this is a challenge.

reply to post by guitarplayer

I addressed a specific part of your post.

Why derail this thread with content better suited to that thread or, as flyingfish suggested, start one up.

let's keep an objective mindset here. This thread is about Creationist Dishonest Tactics, I'm not questioning anyone's faith.
If you want to believe something on faith, that's your business. You believe the Bible was written by God. Great, go ahead and believe that, I don't care.

In keeping with the OP here is a great indexed resource of creationist claims with some good explanations that include links, references, and sources for more information.

www.talkorigins.org...
creationwiki.org...

Enjoy!

daskakik

guitarplayer
Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

There's already a thread about that.
Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Why not just stick to the topic of this thread?

After reading the entire op's assertions there is no argument scientists do not lie they do not sh#t to close to the house and butter would not melt in their mouths. So how can one argue with the premise that scientist can walk on water and creationist are God's blight on mankind.

guitarplayer

daskakik

guitarplayer
Do you want me to list all the hoxas of evoultionist who faked data to make evolution apear legit?

There's already a thread about that.
Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Why not just stick to the topic of this thread?

After reading the entire op's assertions there is no argument scientists do not lie they do not sh#t to close to the house and butter would not melt in their mouths. So how can one argue with the premise that scientist can walk on water and creationist are God's blight on mankind.

Nothing you just wrote was in the OP or any response to the OP.

It's all from your mind, as one hyperbole filled strawman.

Obviously, you have no refutation for any of the ID communities dishonest tactics, then? The Wedge document, the lie-filled propaganda films (like Expelled), the Discovery Institute, their running from participating in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the misstating and misrepresenting of scientific principles to feign criticism on accepted theory?

I guess this means you won't be taking the OP's challenge on your Cambrian Explosion claim?