"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[ChristineM]

It is a liberal rag after all. It's nice to see you guys admit your news sources are "fake news"!

No .Not liberal but center right. You need to learn about british politics before you can comment on them. The guardian supports the (new) labour party which is just left of the tories and so far right of original labour that they bend at the ankles.

The British liberal movement is also right of centre, a long way removed from the American liberals so maligned by trumpeters

And it was you citing the guardian, dont try dumping your guilt on me

 

[Enoch07]

No .Not liberal but center right. You need to learn about british politics before you can comment on them. The guardian supports the (new) labour party which is just left of the tories and so far right of original labour that they bend at the ankles.

Considering Jeremy Corbyn supports communism, claiming the labour party is right leaning is a stretching a bit wouldn't you agree?

And it was you citing the guardian, dont try dumping your guilt on me

You said it was fake news, not me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you notice in 2 Peter 3:5-6, this can not possible be the flood of Noah's.

In the flood of Noah's, there were 8 people saved with animals,
But here in 2 Peter 3:6 Note the word
( Perished ) this means that nothing survived, everything perished.to be no more.
Note that in Genesis 1:2, that the earth was without form and void. This is in parallel to the book of Jeremiah 4:23-25--"I beheld the earth, and , lo, it was without form, and void: and the heavens , and they had no light.

Note that Verse 25 is in parallel to
2 Peter 3:6 that everything perished.
That there was no man to be found. Perished

Verse 25--"I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled"

Note there was no man, unlike the flood of Noah's there were 8 people survived. But here in Jeremiah there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled,
So this to can not be the flood of Noah's, there were birds with Noah, but here in Jeremiah all the birds fled, that is to be found.

So this points back to the first earth that all perished.nothing left over, except the bones that are left from that first earth age.
Such as the dinosaurs bones and many other bones.

Wow, the context is clear. The world perished. Noah and his family survived the flood in the myth. Of course you are wrong either way since at no time in man's history, nor during the history of the dinosaurs, in fact at no known time, was the entire Earth underwater.

You lose either way. You really should try to learn why and how we know this.

 

[ChristineM]

Considering Jeremy Corbyn supports communism, claiming the labour party is right leaning is a stretching a bit wouldn't you agree?

View attachment 20410



You said it was fake news, not me.

As i said. You need to understand British politics.

Corbyn is not typical new labour. He represents the old labour which is why he is loathed by not only the conservatives but by claimed neutral organisations and many in his own party.

Remember i provided a chart showing the orientation of British political parties. Want to argue that the internationally renowned political compass is wrong?

Yes and, i proved it was fake news you were citing. Then uou got all hoohar about my news sources. It was you who sourced the fake news. And its not my news source which incidentally is "sud ouest".


Edit i repeat. ..And it was you citing the guardian, dont try dumping your guilt on me

 

[Enoch07]

Actually it doesn't. And by hanging on to that source and not finding any others you make their claims your claims. Christine already explained to you the problem with that article. Now it appears that you have nothing except your unsupported claim about Dawkins.

You can have a different opinion. That is fine, but the article list him as sexist in it's title. If you have a problem with that, talk to the fine folks that created the article.

 

[Enoch07]

Corbyn is not typical new labour. He represents the old labour which is why he is loathed by not only the conservatives but by claimed neutral organisations and many in his own party.

Eh if you say so.

Yes and, i proved it was fake news you were citing. Then uou got all hoohar about my news sources. It was you who sourced the fake news.

You called it fake news, not I. I am not responsible for what other people publish. If you have a problem with the story them contact them and let them know.

 

[ChristineM]

You can have a different opinion. That is fine, but the article list him as sexist in it's title. If you have a problem with that, talk to the fine folks that created the article.

It says chanel #5 on the side of busses, does anyone talk to the driver about the smell of vomit?

You cited the article, you are responsible for citing the article without first verifying its accuracy

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can have a different opinion. That is fine, but the article list him as sexist in it's title. If you have a problem with that, talk to the fine folks that created the article.

If all you do is read the titles of articles you will be wrong an amazing percentage of the time. Reading and understanding is key.

 

[ChristineM]

Eh if you say so.



You called it fake news, not I. I am not responsible for what other people publish. If you have a problem with the story them contact them and let them know.

As i said, learn about what you want to discuss otherwise you look dumb

You are responsible for citing the article without first checking its accuracy. How pathetic that you feel the need to blame others for your sloppy debating methods

 

[Enoch07]

It says chanel #5 on the side of busses, does anyone talk to the driver about the smell of vomit?

?

You cited the article, you are responsible for citing the article without first verifying its accuracy

Nope, it is not my responsibility. It is the editors responsibility to do that, that is why they get paid. I receive no payment, therefore, it is not my job or responsibility.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Wow, the context is clear. The world perished. Noah and his family survived the flood in the myth. Of course you are wrong either way since at no time in man's history, nor during the history of the dinosaurs, in fact at no known time, was the entire Earth underwater.

You lose either way. You really should try to learn why and how we know this.

So you say, why and how we know this, but yet you can not explain where or how the dinosaurs came to be, and why the dinosaurs came to be destroyed.

So how do you explain that in the California desert, which is 300 hundred miles from the Pacific Ocean, how seashells got to be in the desert, having to cross over mountains to get to the desert.
So I suppose your going to say, the seashells crawled 300 hundred miles to the desert and buried themselves in the desert fossilized in rocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say, why and how we know this, but yet you can not explain where or how the dinosaurs came to be, and why the dinosaurs came to be destroyed.

Of course I can explain it. But you have to be willing to learn. Can you be honest? Can you accept reality? If you want to learn I can help you.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Of course I can explain it. But you have to be willing to learn. Can you be honest? Can you accept reality? If you want to learn I can help you.

As to why should I accept what you have, you know it's a two street and not a one way street, as you suppose it is.

Can you, yourself accept reality. Evidently you can't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evolution does not prove the story of Genesis wrong. So I don't know why people get all butt hurt over the discussion. Personally I think both are true. God created everything, evolution is his natural process for life. There is nothing preventing this from being true.

Nor does anything, ever discovered, prove that the story of Genesis is right. It's a story -- and can make no objective claim to any sort of veracity. (Weill, to be blunt, the actual history written into the rocks and stones, the evidence of sedimentation, glaciation, and any number of other rather well understood sciences actually bring a great deal to bear on the non-veracity, but we can't expect you to be aware of that, or care.)

They cannot, by the way "both be true." Not, for sure, as the Bible is written.

But more to the point, making entirely unsupportable things like "God created everything, evolution is his natural process for life" adds nothing of value whatever. That's a mere assertion of your own, for which (I suspect absent any relevant degrees) you could not provide a single particle of evidence. And it is judged accordingly -- worthless as "knowledge."

Just to show you what I mean, when you say "there is nothing preventing this from being true," I could with equal validity say to you that "there is nothing that prevents the Invisible Pink Unicorn from being true." And I would be right. You cannot, and will not, find an incontrovertible argument against Her Pinkness.

(And for the record, I'll say I don't think the IPU exists, either -- but I'd hate to have to prove it.)

 

[Enoch07]

Nor does anything, ever discovered, prove that the story of Genesis is right. It's a story -- and can make no objective claim to any sort of veracity.

I don't have to prove anything though. Not to you or anybody else.

They cannot, by the way "both be true." Not, for sure, as the Bible is written.

Sure they can, I just said as much. Although to be fair I said "Both can be true". Just to preemptively strike down a possible strawman by saying I already claimed it as fact.

But more to the point, making entirely unsupportable things like "God created everything, evolution is his natural process for life" adds nothing of value whatever. That's a mere assertion of your own, for which (I suspect absent any relevant degrees) you could not provide a single particle of evidence. And it is judged accordingly

See above. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else.

Just to show you what I mean, when you say "there is nothing preventing this from being true," I could with equal validity say to you that "there is nothing that prevents the Invisible Pink Unicorn from being true." And I would be right. You cannot, and will not, find an incontrovertible argument against Her Pinkness.

Sure I can.

A Pink and Invisible Unicorn is a paradox.

How do you know it's pink if it is invisible?

How do you know it's a unicorn if it is invisible?

How do you know it is a pink unicorn if it is invisible?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you do a little digging, you'd see that there are actually some valid reasons why his page was deleted off Wikipedia (although you can still find his page on the German wikipedia website: Günter Bechly – Wikipedia). The reasons given in the deletion log are:

- Little to no secondary sources discussing Bechly, and the article itself has been written mostly by the subject, a Conflict of interest.
- He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of our standards for academic notability. His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published.
- The sources given in the article are not WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Three citations are to a self-published e-book by Ernst Probst that transcribes an interview with the subject, six are to Bechly's various webpages, one is to a Discovery Institute front group, and the one remaining is to a conference announcement from 2008 that mentions Bechly in passing. The links Bechly offers above are to sources that are sometimes unverifiable (404 or other errors), and the verifiable ones are often in non-independent sources. The subject apparently has some expertise and has published in paleontology of insects, but their ability to qualify under WP:NPROF is doubtful as there is a lack of evidence that those papers have had "...a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

The result was delete. With a bunch of considerations:

• 
  
  • I've opted to disregard a bunch of single-purpose IPs and accounts because of the canvassing concerns and because most of them are merely making assertions without offering evidence that WP: PROF or WP:GNG are met. I did factor in the opinion of the account that shares its name with the article topic, though. A neutral post on the fringe noticeboard does not per se constitute improper WP:CANVASSING.
  • It does not seem like "having a number of species named after one self" is considered a reason to keep, probably because while it does indicate "notability" it does not necessarily indicate "notability".
  • That the nominator of an AfD did not start a discussion first on the talk page or add maintenance tags does not demerit the AfD nomination; for one thing, there is a difference between the present state of the article and the amount of information available on a topic (which is what AfD ultimately adjudicates)
  • Accusations of anti-creationism bias are not germane to the purpose of AfD, and we don't consider the stances of an article subject on a contentious topic in judging notability.
  • All that said, it seems like the sources provided in the discussion are considered to be too tangential - they mention the article topic in passing rather than being specifically about the topic. Other sources have issues like being primary or unreliable or not independent.

On balance, it seems like the case that the sources do not establish GNG notability is more thoroughly argued than the case that they do (which is mostly assertions) and there is no indication that any other PROF notability criterium is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SOURCE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly - Wikipedia

In other words, it was deleted because the page didn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for citations, and because the page was mostly curated by the subject himself. He wasn't deleted because of some "anti creationism" conspiracy. The fact that many, even far more prominent, creationist articles remain on Wikipedia is proof of that.

This is so much bias! But you believe it, don't you? People hide their bias all the time!

The following article, from pro-evolution Haarets, has a list of his credited achievements...it is impressive!

An excerpt from it states:

"Other defenders noted that Bechly had a number of species named after him and that his academic citation ranking (in what is called the h-index) was high and thus justified an article. But their true intentions were revealed with claims against Wikipedias evolution warriors and its anti-creationist bias."

A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page

BTW, some "remain" because they're just too well-known to be swept under the rug.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As to why should I accept what you have, you know it's a two street and not a one way street, as you suppose it is.

Can you, yourself accept reality. Evidently you can't.

Because you only have a book of myths that you misinterpret. My opinions are based upon the very sciences that you are using right now. By using a computer you tacitly admit that science is valid. At this time that only way to oppose the sciences without being a hypocrite is to give up the products of the sciences.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because you only have a book of myths that you misinterpret. My opinions are based upon the very sciences that you are using right now. By using a computer you tacitly admit that science is valid. At this time that only way to oppose the sciences without being a hypocrite is to give up the products of the sciences.

So you say, it's a book of myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no common sense, to know what is a myth,

So you rely on science for your source of information and I rely God's word for my source of information.

The only problem your having, is that I will not lay down my faith and belief in God, for your ideology of what you think, which are nothing more than myths, to me.

You say -->"Your opinion are based on upon the very sciences that I'm using right now"
Here again you are not making no common sense again.
The very science that you say, I'm going by, your denouncing, Now what kind of common sense does that make ?

First you praise science, then on the other hand, your denouncing science, you really need to make up your mind. Yeah What's up with all that.

Either science is right or science is wrong.

You can not have it both ways. But then again, you show yourself lack of understanding the very science your denouncing.

The very book that you call myths, supports science in ways that you have no clue or idea about.

The only reason science claims the flood of Noah's as being a myth, is all because science has no idea or clue about the first flood that was way before the flood of Noah's or anything about the first earth age.
Therefore science, run to the book of Genesis trying to build their case against creation.

And the young earth creationists runs to the book of Genesis trying to build their case for creation.

Unto which both of them are wrong, all because both of them has no knowledge about the first earth age.
As you showed yourself of having no knowledge about the first earth age either.

The flood that happened in the first earth age, is what caused the seashells to be in the desert fossilized in rocks, that is 300 hundred miles away from the Pacific Ocean. In California desert.

Even scientist claim at one time, the deserts in California were under water at one time, but had they any idea about the first earth age flood, they would be able to put together how the seashells got to be in the desert, 300 hundred miles from the Pacific Ocean.

But science and like yourself and the young earth creationists, can not see anything happening before the creation week in the book of Genesis.
That there was a time back millions to billions of years ago, when the dinosaurs lived upon the earth.
Which the bible you claim as a myth, supports the earth as being Million to Billion of years old.

 

[Faithofchristian]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

​

To best answer the Thread, "One Fact to Refute Creationism"

First a person has to start when Creationism first had it's start, When was that ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say, it's a book of myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no common sense, to know what is a myth,

So you rely on science for your source of information and I rely God's word for my source of information.

The only problem your having, is that I will not lay down my faith and belief in God, for your ideology of what you think, which are nothing more than myths, to me.

You say -->"Your opinion are based on upon the very sciences that I'm using right now"
Here again you are not making no common sense again.
The very science that you say, I'm going by, your denouncing, Now what kind of common sense does that make ?

First you praise science, then on the other hand, your denouncing science, you really need to make up your mind. Yeah What's up with all that.

Either science is right or science is wrong.

You can not have it both ways. But then again, you show yourself lack of understanding the very science your denouncing.

The very book that you call myths, supports science in ways that you have no clue or idea about.

The only reason science claims the flood of Noah's as being a myth, is all because science has no idea or clue about the first flood that was way before the flood of Noah's or anything about the first earth age.
Therefore science, run to the book of Genesis trying to build their case against creation.

And the young earth creationists runs to the book of Genesis trying to build their case for creation.

Unto which both of them are wrong, all because both of them has no knowledge about the first earth age.
As you showed yourself of having no knowledge about the first earth age either.

The flood that happened in the first earth age, is what caused the seashells to be in the desert fossilized in rocks, that is 300 hundred miles away from the Pacific Ocean. In California desert.

Even scientist claim at one time, the deserts in California were under water at one time, but had they any idea about the first earth age flood, they would be able to put together how the seashells got to be in the desert, 300 hundred miles from the Pacific Ocean.

But science and like yourself and the young earth creationists, can not see anything happening before the creation week in the book of Genesis.
That there was a time back millions to billions of years ago, when the dinosaurs lived upon the earth.
Which the bible you claim as a myth, supports the earth as being Million to Billion of years old.

Oh my, quite the failure on your part. I only asked you to put away your fear and ignorance. I guess that was too much for you.

Why are you so afraid of reality?