Continuing Challenge to Creationists

a reply to: Astyanax

If evidence is unable to be falsified, how does one refute it?

a reply to: TzarChasm

If evidence is unable to be falsified, how does one refute it?

You can't. You do your best to cast doubt on it, based on whatever evidence you have, whatever arguments you can think up. You also try to support your own premise in the same way. It's up to the audience to choose which side they favour.

That is what a debate is all about. Do you seriously believe there's a right and true answer to every question?

Debates are for questions to which there is no verifiable answer. Such as whether the world was created or just 'emerged'. Or the question of whether Creationism is a vaild model of the origins of life, or not.

*

Frankly, I'm disappointed in my own side here.

I thought supporters of science and evolutionary theory would be sensible, rational people, who would be willing to apply logic and intelligence to all questions without fear or favour. My actions on this thread have caused the scales to fall from my eyes (as the religious would say). I am discovering that some members of this constituency are just as narrowminded, fanatical and ignorant as the aggressive Creationists they oppose.

Never had I thought to see the day when someone claiming to be a scientist refused to debate the validity of the scientific method and its epistemological foundations, shutting their eyes tight and sticking their fingers in their ears. I have learnt an important lesson.

Are you going to be one of those pitiable people, or will you allow me to continue having respect for you?

originally posted by: Barcs
Creationists don't do challenges. They like easy. It's easier to blindly believe something because it is comforting to them, than to actually do research and learn about science and the natural world. They won't go the extra mile to research anything, so any debate with them is pretty much futile. Any formal debate with them would make them a laughing stock because they can't stay on topic, they can't address evidence, and they can't address counterpoints. Their tactics of logical fallacies like straw mans, red herrings, appeals to ignorance etc would be discounted and they'd have no argument left at the end of the day. I admit that It would be mildly amusing watching them break the debating rules over and over again, but I don't think any of them has the guts to enter a formal debate about evolution or creationism.

Isn't that EXACTLY, what you're doing? Last i checked, science is a belief. You blindly believe what "educated" people tell you, no matter how ridiculous their theories sound.

You can't magically create an entire solar system, including life, by exploding a gigantic ball of dirt. lmfao Their theories sound a lot like the Federal Reserve.

a reply to: Astyanax

Today's "top scientists" work for the government. What more needs to be said? Of course, they believe in evolution, the big bang theory, etc, etc. If they don't teach their indoctrinations, they'll be shown the unemployment line.

I thought this video was very enlightening. Makes you really question things. Especially the things we've been TAUGHT!

a reply to: JuJuBee

Today's "top scientists" work for the government.

They do? All of them?

I thought this video was very enlightening.

You think the world is flat? What a surprise.

a reply to: Astyanax

Might I remind you that the topic is not the participants? no one is keeping you here, no need for the theatrics. Moving on, your points seem to suggest that science itself cannot be debated because science is falsifiable evidence. Without falsifiable evidence, science is pointless, as is this thread. a methodology which cannot be trusted is nothing more than the illusion of method, which i thought was the whole point of this exchange - to shatter the illusion once and for all.

but if we are just debating that which cannot be concluded, then it seems to be futility all across the board. and once again: that which cannot be proven wrong also cannot be proven right. which leaves us where we started. futile indeed.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
Isn't that EXACTLY, what you're doing? Last i checked, science is a belief.

Where on earth did you check? Science is not a belief, it's a method.

You blindly believe what "educated" people tell you, no matter how ridiculous their theories sound.

Yeah, it's silly believing professional experts that have worked in the field for decades. I guess you don't blindly believe your doctor or auto mechanic either, right? You are way better off getting your info from propaganda sites, forget the experts. Next time you go to the dentist, just make sure you tell him you don't blindly believe in his expertise and you think that instead of filling a cavity it is healthier to let it go.

You can't magically create an entire solar system, including life, by exploding a gigantic ball of dirt. lmfao

Sounds like a straw man! You just gave the religious account. There is no magic necessary. Just because your ignorance on a topic doesn't allow you to understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong. All scientific experiments are public knowledge. If you don't agree you are welcome to become a scientist and run the tests yourself.

originally posted by: TheLamb
Sorry. Not been round for a couple of days. I'm still up for the challenge. I didn't realise the God supporters could pick the topic. Here you go:

"The end of the line? Homosexuality and its persistence is better explained by evolution or God's intervention?"

If the evolution argument wants to rely on science, so be it. I'll probably be using some as well. I appreciate its a tough topic for both sides but it's relevant at the moment in society and it might attract a wider audience.

I'll take that as a NO then. How rude not to respond.

I guess the evolutionists/Phantom only want to debate favourable aspects of the theory feeling confident with hundreds of thousands of man years of research behind them that they can use to bamboozle those of faith. It's all posturing and bullying tactics really, isn't it? "I've got the big guns behind me and I'm going to squash the God out of them or at least embarrass them in the process."

I guess the topic of homosexuality is a chink in evolution's armour. It's quite a chink too considering it accounts for 3.2% of the population according to the Bible. (Evolution has failed to come up with a number yet. Point to God.)

Evolution forfeits - another point to God. You're two-nil down boys.

a reply to: TheLamb

uhm... say what?

a reply to: Akragon

Is he saying the bible tell us what percentage of people are gay? And sayibg science doesn't know?.
Wrong of course but come on now these folk believe anything told to them...blindly.

a reply to: TheLamb

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the debate about evolution. Your proposition is ludicrous and can't be logically argued one way or the other. I also don't see how a red herring about evolution = points for god. Phantom is asking you to defend creationist "science," not speculate on social issues.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I am discovering that some members of this constituency are just as narrowminded, fanatical and ignorant as the aggressive Creationists they oppose.

Wait, you're only discovering this now?

:/

a reply to: PhotonEffect

you're only discovering this now?

I have to say most of those actively opposed to Creationism on these boards seem to me to be pretty smart, and knowledgeable too. There are exceptions, of course. But there's still a difference: science supporters tend not to be wilfully ignorant, and they do not — as far as I can see — cling to false beliefs once disabused of them.

What's more important, I don't think I have ever come across a science supporter being deliberately deceitful. Whereas with Creationism supporters, it's quite common.

a reply to: Astyanax

Really
Type in, lies that evolution scientists taught, into your search engine

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: TheLamb

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the debate about evolution. Your proposition is ludicrous and can't be logically argued one way or the other. I also don't see how a red herring about evolution = points for god. Phantom is asking you to defend creationist "science," not speculate on social issues.

Er, hang on. There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is genetic and therefore falls under the umbrella of evolution. Creationist 'science''? The Creation came long before science. Science was the result of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From flint knives to cut wood and then kill each other to nuclear energy and atomic bombs, that can't be mixed with the purity of God creating the heavens and earth which we know were 'good' at the end of each day. Homosexuality is a human condition that requires defining. Evolution should have the answers, no? Religion does. Therefore religion has the high ground. Evolution fails. Point to God.

You're 3-0 down. Keep going.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Astyanax

Really
Type in, lies that evolution scientists taught, into your search engine

I did this and got a list of creationist websites making fallacious claims about evolution and a few news sites reporting that Republican congressman Paul Broun claiming that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Par for the course with creationists....

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Akragon

Is he saying the bible tell us what percentage of people are gay? And sayibg science doesn't know?.
Wrong of course but come on now these folk believe anything told to them...blindly.

Where does science give us a number for gays in the population? In the UK we don't know because the census doesn't include a question about sexuality. Has science stepped in? No. There are approximations from 0.1% to 10%. The Bible gives an accurate number to one decimal place: 3.2%. Read Revelation and contemplate the 144000 divided by the number of Jews in the world at the time in 99AD which was 4500000.

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Akragon

Is he saying the bible tell us what percentage of people are gay? And sayibg science doesn't know?.
Wrong of course but come on now these folk believe anything told to them...blindly.

Where does science give us a number for gays in the population? In the UK we don't know because the census doesn't include a question about sexuality. Has science stepped in? No. There are approximations from 0.1% to 10%. The Bible gives an accurate number to one decimal place: 3.2%. Read Revelation and contemplate the 144000 divided by the number of Jews in the world at the time in 99AD which was 4500000.

How do you know that the figure you've posted is correct?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Akragon

Is he saying the bible tell us what percentage of people are gay? And sayibg science doesn't know?.
Wrong of course but come on now these folk believe anything told to them...blindly.

Where does science give us a number for gays in the population? In the UK we don't know because the census doesn't include a question about sexuality. Has science stepped in? No. There are approximations from 0.1% to 10%. The Bible gives an accurate number to one decimal place: 3.2%. Read Revelation and contemplate the 144000 divided by the number of Jews in the world at the time in 99AD which was 4500000.

How do you know that the figure you've posted is correct?

2000 years and nothing to refute it yet. Come on evolution. Prove me wrong. No? 4-0 down. It ain't going well, is it?

originally posted by: TheLamb
2000 years and nothing to refute it yet. Come on evolution. Prove me wrong. No? 4-0 down. It ain't going well, is it?

That's not how it works, nobody has to prove you wrong until you can demonstrate why your claim would be true....

Is this also how you're keeping score?