Creationists: Here's your chance

[Danmac]

What does that have to do with anything?

Will you answer the question?

 

[McBell]

Will you answer the question?

Yes.
I dislike being cut off.
Now what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Danmac]

Yes.
I dislike being cut off.
Now what does that have to do with anything?

Mestemia
What?
You want to try and twist the extremely subjective phrase "that's not fair" to mean that there is some sort of objective standard?

Talk about a stretch...

OASN:
My daughter all the time says "that's not fair."
But gets dead silent when I ask: "what is your basis for comparison?"

Are you angry because people cutting in front of you isn't fair? If so, what is your basis for comparison? That is your daughters comparison.

 

[McBell]

Are you angry because people cutting in front of you isn't fair? If so, what is your basis for comparison? That is your daughters comparison.

I have come to understand that "Fair" is based solely upon the perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, experience, prejudice, bias, etc. of the person uttering the word.

Which means it is not based upon some objective standard.

 

[painted wolf]

We need millions of years to prove that their is a God. In the mean time we will call it a theory.

Actually you call it a religion....

A theory in science is something backed up by experimental evidence. Not something you can't prove... that is just something you pull out your arse.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you agree with science on everything or just some things?

I personally agree with most sciences that I have an understanding of. Most creationist reap the benefit of science and its methods but don't understand it nor care to and spit in its "face" when it disagrees with its dogmatic claims (i.e. Creation, Exodus, Noah's Ark). Even in the face of hard evidence creationist stand firm in their literal interpretation of their book of folklore.

Here is a news flash. Science believes the universe had a beginning. It's called the big bang theory.

You do know what a theory is don't you? In the science community a theory is fact. The big bang adheres to the scientific method to be called a theory. That's because it's a fact. Just as the Theory Of Evolution is called a "theory"...because it is considered fact. It is observable and testable.

That is a scientific conclusion

You are now *required* to go and learn what a theory is because you seem to be ill-informed. Science makes NO conclusions.

You can't even agree with science if it doesn't agree with your position. That is amazing.

Why is that amazing? Just because a person disagrees does not make the theory any less fact.......

 

[Danmac]

I have come to understand that "Fair" is based solely upon the perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, experience, prejudice, bias, etc. of the person uttering the word.

Which means it is not based upon some objective standard.

well then maybe the person cutting you off is in the right, and you have no right to complain.

 

[Danmac]

Actually you call it a religion....

A theory in science is something backed up by experimental evidence. Not something you can't prove... that is just something you pull out your arse.

wa:do

Give us a visual demonstration of a species evolving into a different species and then tell me evolution is a testable theory. I do not mean a gradual change within a species, I mean a new species.

 

[McBell]

well then maybe the person cutting you off is in the right, and you have no right to complain.

Perhaps they are at that.

Now how does that make for some objective standard?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Give us a visual demonstration of a species evolving into a different species and then tell me evolution is a testable theory. I do not mean a gradual change within a species, I mean a new species.

Where does Evolution say one species into a totally different species....?

Evolution (Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com)
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

 

[Danmac]

You do know what a theory is don't you? In the science community a theory is fact. The big bang adheres to the scientific method to be called a theory. That's because it's a fact. Just as the Theory Of Evolution is called a "theory"...because it is considered fact. It is observable and testable.

A theory is a way to say fact when indeed it is a guess. It's science mumbo jumbo. Theory: We cant show you, but here is why you need to believe it.

You are now *required* to go and learn what a theory is because you seem to be ill-informed. Science makes NO conclusions.

It seems to have made one about God. Of course I dont know how they can conclude that there is no God when they don't yet have all the facts. Unless of course they know everything there is to know.

 

[Danmac]

Perhaps they are at that.

Now how does that make for some objective standard?

Because you really don't mean what you just said.

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

I see, the church's own propaganda ministers, who observed absolutely nothing. O.K. is there a single non-Christian source that attests to the resurrection?

That is your assumption that the church made up propaganda. Plus again, the mass persecution the church underwent, why would they make up propaganda and die for things they made up?

Also the church fathers did not observe Jesus rise from the dead, apparently you were not listening. The church fathers KNEW the apostolic witnesses WHO DID observe the resurrection. And the church fathers wrote that they died for Christ’s cause. They did not mention HOW they died, but that they died for Christ’s cause.

Ok?

Also yes there are NON-Christian ancient sources that imply that Jesus and the apostles existed. Although of course they are not going to say he rose from the dead, but they realized that this is what the Christians believed in and that the apostles claimed.

Here is a good source that puts all the non Christian source quotes together and shows the historicity of Jesus and his apostles. Corroboration from Non-Christian Sources

btw, you seem to be unaware that the gospels were not written by witnesses either.

They were written by those who knew witnesses. But it is the account FROM the witnesses written down by those who were not witnesses.

We don't even know if they existed or what their names were.

Yes, we know they existed and what their names were. It is recorded. And the record is corroborated by other records.

The Church fathers said a lot of silly things about which they knew nothing.

They knew the witnesses who knew Christ and his resurrection. And they knew the witnesses died for his cause. The church fathers also died martyrs.

There is church tradition that the apostles were martyred, but that is all. Most of them, assuming they existed, we have no idea how they died.

Forget church tradition for a moment, we have early accounts from the church fathers who KNEW the witnesses and they said they died for the cause of Christ, they just did not say in detail the WAY they died. But, we don’t need to how the WAY they died, all we need to know is that they died and WHY they died. We have that. How do you deal with it?

Really? How do you know?

I know because it’s recorded as history. And how do I know the recorder is not lying? Other early accounts complement it. How do I know there not conspiring? Because the witnesses died and the church fathers also died for Christ’s cause and massive amounts of Christians in the church also died under Nero.

There is no conspiracy. Now, explain how they could be mistaken that Jesus rose from death?

So basically what you're saying is that if the Bible is true, then the Bible is true? See any problem there?

*hint* you can't use the Bible to show that the Bible is true.

This is pathetic, we have accounts telling a story of a man named Jesus, who died for sin and rose from the dead and was seen by witnesses. We have not just one account, but 4 eye witness accounts and then an account witnessing the birthing of the church at the day of Pentecost. And then we have the letters of Paul who was acquainted with the witnesses. All of these accounts are independent from each other, they are not one book (the bible) they are many independent sources, compiled into one book. If there independent sources, that is the hall mark of historic evidence. Now we have other accounts that did not make it into the compilation of the bible, those are the church fathers writings. They also complement the stories in the accounts of the witnesses. Both the witnesses, the church fathers AND the church suffered persecution and martyrdom. Now, explain how they could be mistaken?

Your saying they lied basically, ok, what was there motive for lying?

Why would they die for a KNOWN lie? They were mistaken? Ok, explain how they could have mistaken it?

Because nonsense rarely is.

So that means this statement you just said is not true, since it’s a nonsense statement.

I asked you a question and I expect an answer, not this stupid “because nonsense rarely is” crap. My question was

“Why does it not make it true?” First you said you agree it does not make sense that they would die for a known lie, but that does not make it true. Then I asked you, why does it not make it true? To which you said “because nonsense rarely is” true.

That is not an answer, answer the question or move along because I got no time for that crap.

Why does it not make it true? Or answer the other question, how could they have been mistaken?

Or answer the other question, why would they lie and then suffer for it and die for it?

I mean, take your pick, but at least answer one of them for goodness sakes.

 

[Jollybear]

Because it doesn't make sense. Try again.

Wow, and you’re a lawyer? I would be terrified if I got you to defend me in court. Answer the question. The question was

“why is it gibberish”? I had said “Ok, let me put this more simple. My God is not contained IN space (finite), he is infinitely big in space (infinite). Baal on the other hand is contained in space (finite). Therefore my God is bigger then baal, therefore baal cannot be the true God. And why? Because he is finite, he is contained in space, while the true God would be bigger then that, he would be the creator of space (different forms of it that is).” And you said this was gibberish, I asked you why is it gibberish, and then you say because it doesn’t make sense”. Well it obviously makes sense to me and I told you why it does. Now give me a fair exchange and tell me WHY it don’t make sense to you, don’t just tell me it don’t’ make sense. That is not how you would argue in a court of law, so don’t do it on here either!

You’re a lawyer it says, if you used a tactic like that before the judge to make a argument or case, I’m sure he would either be insulted, laugh at you, or tell you to say why it don’t make sense to you. But if you stuck with that tactic, that it doesn’t make sense, you would LOSE the case.

I feel sorry for the client you represent. Please, for his or her sake, show them THIS forum, so they know your way of debating and building a case.

Before you can get anywhere with this argument, your first job is to establish that the universe had a beginning. Get back to me once you do that.

This is a philosophical argument I am making. Address the argument or move along. If mindless energy is eternal, or if the universe in it’s present form was eternal, that means either 1, it took eternity for all events to take place, which means they would not take place since it would take eternity for them to take place. Or 2, all events are taking place at the same moment in time, which means there would be no motion. So, this philosophical argument says why a BEGINNING has to happen. Now, either address the argument or move along. But don’t make such BAD arguments for a lawyer by saying to me “establish that the universe had a beginning” I just did philosophically. Now address it or move along.

Sorry, you're wrong. Science is the opposite of assumptions. It's conclusions based on the evidence.

No you’re wrong and DELUSIONAL on top of it. Conclusions mean assumptions based on data. I have a different conclusion based on the data and I see the evidence pointing away from macro evolution and pointing to my God.

But science is not assumptions, science is facts and data. Philosophy is explaining that data or those facts.

You really don't know anything about science, do you?

Yes, I do know stuff about science. But, let me ask you the same question

‘you really don’t know anything about science, do you?’

Why not address some stuff, being that you’re a lawyer, you should be really good at it, or you should be at least ABLE to do it anyway.

Are you an amateur lawyer by the way?

Nope, it's not. ID proponents, when pressed, have admitted under oath that they are not studying the "mechanism," the how, that's not part of their hypothesis, and they don't intend to. You're wrong.

No, you’re wrong, AND delusional. If however you have heard SOME ID proponents say that, well, that is them, that’s not ME and it’s not ALL ID proponents. Get my position represented correctly before you attack it.

Also Stephen C Meyer one of the biggest intelligent design proponents and advocates out there and who also is a scientist he said that he is NOT against finding OUT HOW something works in nature. I remember him saying it in one of his speeches. If you want the source, I can DIG for it FOR you.

So, YOUR WRONG, AND delusional.

 

[Jollybear]

Nope, it isn't. Behe himself as admitted, when pressed, that his only mechanism is "magic poofing."

Yes it is, it is my position, if it’s not Behe’s position, well that is Behe, but Behe is not me. Also it’s not Stephen Meyer’s position.

And personally I think your twisting some stuff. I would like to see his actual quote of him saying that “magic poofing”. Also a true intelligent design position will not say it’s magic poofing, but that an intelligence is the mechanism for how this complex thing in nature got made. Now how long it took to make it by this intelligence is a different question. Whether the intelligence made a few parts go poof into being and then compiled the parts together, or whether he went poof and all the parts were together instantly, that is another question. But, a true intelligent design position states that HOW this got here is by intelligence. But intelligence is not HOW IT WORKS, to find out how it works, we must STUDY IT and see. But studying it is not going to tell you that it got made by chance, it’s just going to tell you how it works. LOOKING at it without studying it, tells you it was designed and has the hallmarks of design, STUDYING IT shows you all the more that it has the hallmarks of design, but it brings the added bonus in telling you how it also works.

That is the true position of intelligent design, it’s my position and it’s the position of Stephen C Meyer. I know this, because I heard him a lot.

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

Um...
Actually they still used the Bible as their source.
So quoting them is still actually using the Bible for his source, just not directly.

The apostles who were in the position to KNOW whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and the church fathers who knew the apostles, they were in the position to know if they were insane or not. Both the apostles and church fathers died martyrs. NOW, WHY would they do that?

Are you seriously saying that everything has to have a cause except god, which you rename "first cause"?

Yes, I am saying it seriously. Apparently you disagree, WHY?

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_Fly

I'll ask you the same question as everyone else: How do you know?

Wrong, HOW DO THEY KNOW that macro evolution and cosmic evolution is a fact and not assumption? You’re NOT turning the tables, no you’re not.

But, for the record, I’ll answer your question. How do I know? I read stuff from atheistic and evolutionary scientists. So that is how I know about what they say.

When was the last time you were in a science library perusing the biology journals?

I don’t go to the library (although I plan on doing so in the future) I mostly go to the book store and buy a book and read it and then finish it and put it on my shelf. And I read tons of stuff on the internet as well. Knowledge is the same everywhere. There is many ways of getting that same knowledge. Get off that trip man, I don’t have time for this nonsense, why don’t you agnostics and atheists start addressing some stuff and stop with this nonsense, waste of time, OFF THE ISSUES tactic you like to PUMP all the darn time. I’m sick of it.

What conferences on evolutionary biology have you attended?

None, nor do I need to. But I have listened to scientists debate on youtube. As I said there is many ways to getting the same knowledge or information.

Which specific evolutionary biologists have you discussed their work with?

I have not discussed evolutionary biology with a biologist, I have discussed the age of the earth with a geologist though. That is my history there. But, I don’t NEED (although I am not AGAINST talking with a biologist these issues) to discuss or talk with one, I can discuss on here with those who believe in their views. And I can READ about the views of these biologists in their books or articles they write.

Also as a side question, have you discussed the work of ID scientists with them?

 

[McBell]

Because you really don't mean what you just said.

Nice try.
I figured you would refuse to support your own claims.

Congratulations!!
Your intentional dishonesty and willful ignorance has earned you a spot on my ignore list right next to Jollybear.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A theory is a way to say fact when indeed it is a guess. It's science mumbo jumbo. Theory: We cant show you, but here is why you need to believe it.

I see. So basically you have no idea what a theory is nor do you know what the scientific method is. Again, theory is fact. The scientific method is used to formulate a theory. It would help if you had even a micron of a clue in order to hold a decent debate.

It seems to have made one about God. Of course I dont know how they can conclude that there is no God when they don't yet have all the facts. Unless of course they know everything there is to know.

What are you talking about now? I've never heard a scientist in any field of science state there is no "God". Scientist normally stays clear of religion. You will normally find "skeptics" saying ('there's no evidence that gods exist') or something along those lines.

Your position is that the god we read about in your book is the creator but research has shown that this god is not the only one written about that is considered (The Creator). What evidence can you present that invalidates the claim of another's religion that also makes a similar claim?

 

[Autodidact]

Do you agree with science on everything or just some things?

When I don't have a Ph.d. level of expertise, I provisionally accept the consensus mainstream view in any discipline.

Here is a news flash. Science believes the universe had a beginning. It's called the big bang theory. That is a scientific conclusion, not a religious one. You can't even agree with science if it doesn't agree with your position. That is amazing.

Sorry, you're mistaken. The Big Bang theory does not necessarily entail that the universe had a beginning, and the direction of tentative current thinking is that it did not.