Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

The Discovery Institute is a Christian organization that routinely uses fraud to promote its agenda. But I guess creationists are too biased and dishonest to admit that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationists are buried in a cocoon of ignorance and science denial. They cannot bring themselves to accept science. They do not possess the ability to understand science. They go through life with blinders on. Thriving on projection and logical fallacies in place of evidence and understanding.

I am firmly convinced that they can neither be academically honest nor honest in general. It is just sad, considering they claim to be part of Christianity that prohibits dishonesty as one of its foundational principles.

 

[ecco]

I would love to see videos of Squatch.

is Squatch...

...related to Sasquatch?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yesterday, David Klinghoffer, a fellow at the creationist “think tank” the Discovery Institute and the author of the absurdly titled book How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative, forcefully demonstrated the ways in which he and the Discovery Institute engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty.

For those familiar with the tactics of the Discovery Institute, it’s probably unsurprising that Klinghoffer “quote-mined”

The Discovery Institute Is A Con-Profit Scam

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More creationist fraud.

Kent Hovind is facing another trial in the federal court in Pensacola on May 18th. In 2006 Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment - interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws, failure to pay payroll taxes on the employees, or as he refers to them "missionaries", working for Creation Science Evangelism and structuring, the systematic withdrawal of cash in amounts somewhat less than $10,000 in order to avoid currency reporting requirements. Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, three years of supervised release and forfeiture of over $400,000 in structured funds.

The Trials Of Kent Hovind - An American Tragedy

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are we supposed to respond directly to each other or just post open with no clear target for our responses?

Should I start with "Who am a talking to?" and go from there. What is the protocol of this radical new style of debating with people by not addressing them or listening to them?

Hard to say, it is a free for all. At this point the OP is pretty much spamming and trolling. Hmm, I wonder if it should be reported. Nah . . . the mods know what is going on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hard to say, it is a free for all. At this point the OP is pretty much spamming and trolling. Hmm, I wonder if it should be reported. Nah . . . the mods know what is going on.

I almost did not respond, because your post was directly to me and it confused me. LOL!

He has been pretty much spamming since he started here, but that is the New Creationism for you.

I think they know. Since, it is fairly benign and most people recognize it for what it is. Answering nonsense with some contrived nonsense seems appropriate, but I think I have made my point and continuing it would trend towards eliminating the implied humor and diminishing the point. Still, I see no need to respond to this other person directly as long as they are maintaining this same disrespectful and discourteous methodology.

 

[Milton Platt]

You need to answer the question for me to show you by steps. But I'll go ahead & show you by explanation. Esp because you have been exceedingly kind & helpful to me this my first day.

I'll do my best to make this clearly understandable.

If an evolutionist doesn't believe in eternal existence. They have a huge problem. They have to explain the origin of the original energy w/o using Faith or Supernatural & it coming into existence from nothing. See that takes both Faith & Supernatural. Science law says something can't come from nothing! Again that proves its using Faith & Supernatural.

Now if they believe in eternal existence. Then what is the difference between them & creationist & believing in an eternal God. Both are using Faith & Supernatural to explain eternal existence whether it be energy or God. So then the question becomes Why do they then have such a problem believing in an eternal existent God & their eternal existent energy or Faith or Supernatural that produced that energy from nothing.

They both come from the same place no matter how or where you cut it.

All of it comes from Faith & Supernatural ultimate Base from the start!

I hope I explained this well enough.

Again my deepest appreciation to you personally for your help today! Thanks!

Evolution explains the diversity of life and nothing more. It is not supposed to explain the origin of matter and energy, the origin of this universe, or the origin of life. You need to go back and read the theory and understand what it was meant to do. It is absurd for you to claim it should explain anything else than what it does. That's like complaining that the theory of gravity does not explain the speed of light.
Please educate yourself on the topic and then, if you can, explain how a theory explaining the diversity of life based upon genetics, paleontology, biology, and chemistry, to name a few, is in any way based upon belief in the supernatural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

is Squatch...

...related to Sasquatch?

Here is a video of alleged encounters with Sasquatch.

 

[Milton Platt]

Here is a video of alleged encounters with Sasquatch.

Well we know Sasquatch is real because he starred in his own movie. (Harry). LOL

 

[Astrophile]

I gave you the list earlier in this thread from Dr Well microbiologist who wrote the book Icons of Evolution & now has written a follow up to it. Sad how you so cut yourself off from anything that's negative about Evolution. I could give links but you won't read.

Perhaps you should read Icons of Evolution - Wikipedia, 'Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick - "Icons" Critique — pdf versions - and Icon of Obfuscation by Nick Matzke in www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html . Reading these websites would give you another view of Wells's book and might help you to understand why professional biologists reject his assertions.

 

[Patriottechsan]

You are really funny. Telling me I'm using fradulent material when it's quoted & other quotes from your own evolutionist esp Could admitting the fraud your side as down. Pot - Kettle

BTW for the one accusing Christianity of errors which is OT ( off topics ) from this thread. I've never made this thread about that. Just good vs bad & fraudulent science which despite admissions from key evolutionist you still won't admit what they've admitted. Truly Sad.

If you are truly interested in getting answers to what you think are contradictions etc in the Bible. I'll give just one source. Realize you have to go to this type source to get the answer. Like a trial you have to hear both sides.

This site also deals with many many topics

It's

www.apologeticpress.org

It's one of many but probably easiest to use.

I'm leaving with my wife so won't be back for awhile. Really its useless when you can't even admit to the actual words they say or write.

I hope one day you truly wake up & are truly open to hear other side which includes admitting what your side admits to which would be a great start.

 

[Astrophile]

How many of you are aware of the proven fraud still used in textbooks of Haekels drawings? Are you willing to honestly search to find out? Then admit it when you do? Admit they science establishment keeps allowing a well known fraud continue to be used to indoctrinate & mislead students. See its not accident its dishonest motives! Otherwise they'd remove it completely.

Haeckel's embryos are discussed in the links that I have already given - see https://ncse.com/creationism.analysisicon-4-haeckels-embryos and www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#haeckel-embryo . You should read these links; they would give you a less one-sided view of the issues.

 

[John53]

If you won't even admit to the fraud when Stephen Gould admit it is fraud then I can't help you. Plus when the science community continues to commit that fraud and never correct it for over 100 yrs and you still find it credible is beyond me. They sure wouldn't admit to the others. Did you even read his comments? I will post since you won't even click on the link

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote Darwinism was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

“ "Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]

Now if you can't acknowledge that as fraud when even Gould does then it proves you can't be helped. It proves there is an agenda not honest science driving this bus. It also shows why they won't admit many other frauds that others have found. I find that incredibly sad. You have a highly noted and esteemed evolutionist admitting it is fraud and embarrassed by it but you refuse to admit it. Wow just Wow!

Go ahead and stay in your cocoon as Gould calls it of misinformation.

I think for myself, I look at the evidence and form my own opinions. That you cut and paste something doesn't make me believe what you are posting. You being amazed that my opinion hasn't changed means nothing. I'd never heard of Haeckel until a few years ago when he came up in a debate on another forum, he had zero influence on my opinion of evolution. The fact that someone as clever as you claim to be can't work out how to use the forum and your poor spelling and grammar gives me zero confidence in whatever your agenda is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Another example is an incredibly biased science-denier who makes assertions without substantial support, refuses to listen, refuses to learn, routinely exercises logical fallacies, is dogmatic, closed-minded, behaves dishonestly, is discourteous, dehumanizes others and pretends understanding and expertise all while claiming his betters are that way.

You live it. You might as well learn the definition.

Guess who I am talking to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think for myself, I look at the evidence and form my own opinions. That you cut and paste something doesn't make me believe what you are posting. You being amazed that my opinion hasn't changed means nothing. I'd never heard of Haeckel until a few years ago when he came up in a debate on another forum, he had zero influence on my opinion of evolution. The fact that someone as clever as you claim to be can't work out how to use the forum and your poor spelling and grammar gives me zero confidence in whatever your agenda is.

I remember from my high school and college days, years ago, learning about his drawings in the honest context and not as examples supporting evolution.

Creationists routinely parade Haeckel out as an example for rejecting evolution, but what it really is an example of is Haeckel's arrogance and taking his understanding too far. The fact is, even if it were not recognized by science and educated people, it would do zero in leading a person to reject the theory. The theory is not based on what Haeckel did, good or bad or overzealous. That is the honest truth and if he were honest, he would admit that, but he cannot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Haeckel's embryos are discussed in the links that I have already given - see https://ncse.com/creationism.analysisicon-4-haeckels-embryos and www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#haeckel-embryo . You should read these links; they would give you a less one-sided view of the issues.

He will not read it or review it objectively. He has already made up his mind. He is just here to find people that do not reject science on a belief-basis, so that he can ridicule them and feel good about himself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you should read Icons of Evolution - Wikipedia, 'Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick - "Icons" Critique — pdf versions - and Icon of Obfuscation by Nick Matzke in www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html . Reading these websites would give you another view of Wells's book and might help you to understand why professional biologists reject his assertions.

With all his talk about seeing both sides, one would expect that his propaganda would include what critics of his belief or saying, along with his responses to those critics. Recognizing his work as the propaganda it is and recognizing his tactics, I have given answer to my own points as to why that approach is not seen.

 

[John53]

I remember from my high school and college days, years ago, learning about his drawings in the honest context and not as examples supporting evolution.

Creationists routinely parade Haeckel out as an example for rejecting evolution, but what it really is an example of is Haeckel's arrogance and taking his understanding too far. The fact is, even if it were not recognized by science and educated people, it would do zero in leading a person to reject the theory. The theory is not based on what Haeckel did, good or bad or overzealous. That is the honest truth and if he were honest, he would admit that, but he cannot.

I didn't finish high school, I was needed as cheap labour on the family dairy farm so I'm not sure if I didn't make it far enough to hear about Haeckel or perhaps he isn't in the Australian curriculum. Even so I'm unsurprised that someone who died in 1919 got something wrong. What does surprise me is that someone complains about evolutionists not being honest or owning their mistakes then uses an example of an evolutionist reporting an error to prove his point. If Gould was jumping up and down defending Haeckel then he might have a point....

 

[John53]

At least I've learnt what Bapticostal is, I'd never heard of it.

I'll see if some spontaneous shouting, clapping and hand raising might help me understand this thread.