There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[Dan From Smithville]

right so:

Piltown man was a creationist fabrication and it was not found to be a fake by non christian science?

if that is your position then indeed you have significant cognitive issues!

In all of this, you have completely missed my original point...so i will write it in capital letters so its not missed again

BOTH SIDES HAVE ERRORS

comprende amigo????

Are you just here to insult people and post nonsense or do you have something more to offer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

right so:

Piltown man was a creationist fabrication and it was not found to be a fake by non christian science?

View attachment 87851
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Pi...
Piltdown Man

​

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.​

In all of this, you have completely missed my original point...so i will write it in capital letters so its not missed again

BOTH SIDES HAVE ERRORS

comprende amigo????

The pseudoscience of intelligent design has nothing but errors. There is no reasonable comparison to science.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The pseudoscience of intelligent design has nothing but errors. There is no reasonable comparison to science.

Look I accept that may be your position, however, assigning the term Pseudoscience as defense is absurd. I could make the claim "Behe wears glasses" to also deny his research and conclusions.

The point is, your statement above is nothing more than personal bias, and its a bias you insert from wives tails of others before you.

EDIT

I should also add, there is a lot of the theology and doctrines of Myer, Lennox, Behe, Creation Ministries, and Answers in Genesis that i fundamentally do not align or agree with. They have some woeful doctrines, however, just because i disagree with them on many things does not mean i cannot understand and agree with their logic in some areas of Christian faith and even their scientific interpretations.

Do i pick the eyes out of science interpretation? Absolutely i do and i make no apology for that. I also have good reason why as well...my world view is based on more than just observations, its based on the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

right so:

Piltown man was a creationist fabrication and it was not found to be a fake by non christian science?

View attachment 87851
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Pi...
Piltdown Man

​

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.​

In all of this, you have completely missed my original point...so i will write it in capital letters so its not missed again

BOTH SIDES HAVE ERRORS

comprende amigo????

So you really don't have anything of any value to support your case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look I accept that may be your position, however, assigning the term Pseudoscience as defense is absurd. I could make the claim "Behe wears glasses" to also deny his research and conclusions.

The point is, your statement above is nothing more than personal bias, and its a bias you insert from wives tails of others before you.

IC is pseudoscience. Religion dressed up to look like science, but it isn't. If you think it is, then you need to consider some sort of education to learn what science is.

There is no personal bias from me. It is objectively not science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look I accept that may be your position, however, assigning the term Pseudoscience as defense is absurd. I could make the claim "Behe wears glasses" to also deny his research and conclusions.

The point is, your statement above is nothing more than personal bias, and its a bias you insert from wives tails of others before you.

EDIT

I should also add, there is a lot of the theology and doctrines of Myer, Lennox, Behe, Creation Ministries, and Answers in Genesis that i fundamentally do not align or agree with. They have some woeful doctrines, however, just because i disagree with them on many things does not mean i cannot understand and agree with their logic in some areas of Christian faith and even their scientific interpretations.

Do i pick the eyes out of science interpretation? Absolutely i do and i make no apology for that. I also have good reason why as well...my world view is based on more than just observations, its based on the Bible.

I'm not aware of your qualifications to do much of anything. If what I have seen so far is representative of the sort of scholarship you employ, then my previous observation that you have nothing of value to support your claims, stands.

I'm not really impressed if any of this is supposed to be some sort of witness either. I'll have to look for the biblical sources of some the things you posted on here today. Since much of it was in the form of apparently venomous personal opinions and insults, I would conclude that the Bible is hardly the source.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

IC is pseudoscience. Religion dressed up to look like science, but it isn't. If you think it is, then you need to consider some sort of education to learn what science is.

There is no personal bias from me. It is objectively not science.

You know Dan, we would both do well to not start bar fights...we never know who we are dealing with.

In terms of education, i think im fine...4 years and a Bachelor degree in Education and having been raised by a theologian are more then enough education for me to appropriately conclude atheism does not adequitely answer the Epistomological questions in life.

To be honest, i really dont care if you want to maintain your position...i really dont. I dissagree with it simply because your arguments ignore the very reason why you are interested in science in the first place. For some ignorance is bliss, however, not me!

I am also happy to wager a bet...if I am wrong and there is no God, neither of us will be alive to receive the reward for victory. However, if I am right...then you wont ever know either! So either way why should it matter to you eh?

All that i can do is outline why i believe what i believe Epistomologically, Theologically, and then Observationally. These three will not always align in every aspect fundamentally, however, the order of truth or authority starts with the Bible if one is to claim one is a follower of Christ.

So above all else, i put the Bible first...nothing exceeds biblical authority. If you were to take me up on that and say "Adam, you are a ****ty Christian", i would agree with you!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know Dan, you would do well to not start bar fights...you never know who you are dealing with.

I know who I'm dealing with. I've seen what you have to offer.

In terms of education, i think im fine...4 years and a Bachelor degree in Education and having been raised by a theologian are more then enough education for me to appropriately conclude atheism does not adequitely answer the Epistomological questions in life.

I am aware that you claim to have a degree. It doesn't impress me at all given the content you post.

To be honest, i really dont care if you want to maintain your position...i really dont.

Yes you do or you wouldn't be responding or writing some of the things that you do.

I dissagree with it simply because your arguments ignore the very reason why you are interested in science in the first place. For some ignorance is bliss, however, not me!

I can defend my position and have. I'm still waiting to see anything resembling a valid defense of your claims. Still waiting. Nothing yet.

I am also happy to wager a bet...if I am wrong and there is no God, neither of us will be alive to recieve the reward for victory. However, if I am right...then you wont ever know either! So either way why should it matter to you eh?

I don't have any idea if you will know, but I do wonder about the behavior I have witnessed here and am fully aware it doesn't follow hand in hand with the claim of spiritual superiority that is being attempted.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Yes you do or you wouldn't be responding or writing some of the things that you do.

ah see now that is what i was expecting you would say...you confuse my caring for your beliefs and my caring that others may be influenced by your side of the story. That is why i respond.

Surely you of all people agree that individuals who argue over fences are not really interested in the other persons point of view? This is for the onlookers not either of us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know Dan, we would both do well to not start bar fights...we never know who we are dealing with.

In terms of education, i think im fine...4 years and a Bachelor degree in Education and having been raised by a theologian are more then enough education for me to appropriately conclude atheism does not adequitely answer the Epistomological questions in life.

To be honest, i really dont care if you want to maintain your position...i really dont. I dissagree with it simply because your arguments ignore the very reason why you are interested in science in the first place. For some ignorance is bliss, however, not me!

I am also happy to wager a bet...if I am wrong and there is no God, neither of us will be alive to receive the reward for victory. However, if I am right...then you wont ever know either! So either way why should it matter to you eh?

All that i can do is outline why i believe what i believe Epistomologically, Theologically, and then Observationally. These three will not always align in every aspect fundamentally, however, the order of truth or authority starts with the Bible if one is to claim one is a follower of Christ.

So above all else, i put the Bible first...nothing exceeds biblical authority. If you were to take me up on that and say "Adam, you are a ****ty Christian", i would agree with you!

I'm not an atheist by the way. You should learn who you are dealing with and shoot for a more mature style in my opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ah see now that is what i was expecting you would say...you confuse my caring for your beliefs and my caring that others may be influenced by your side of the story. That is why i respond.

No confusion on my part at all. I am aware of what is going on here. And this response follows what I would consider to be typical.

Surely you of all people agree that individuals who argue over fences are not really interested in the other persons point of view? This is for the onlookers not either of us.

I have no reason to think that you are interested in any view other than your own. I think the onlookers can figure that out for themselves. If there are any. I don't have the misplaced ego that some do to think that lurkers are hanging on my every post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ah see now that is what i was expecting you would say...you confuse my caring for your beliefs and my caring that others may be influenced by your side of the story. That is why i respond.

Surely you of all people agree that individuals who argue over fences are not really interested in the other persons point of view? This is for the onlookers not either of us.

Do you have an actual argument with evidence or is it just to be this. Frankly, I'm finding it boring and not at all atypical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ah see now that is what i was expecting you would say...you confuse my caring for your beliefs and my caring that others may be influenced by your side of the story. That is why i respond.

Surely you of all people agree that individuals who argue over fences are not really interested in the other persons point of view? This is for the onlookers not either of us.

I would expect much more from someone claiming the education level that you do. Where is it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far, you dug up the dead issue of Piltdown man that was buried a long time ago. Not only a flawed reference, but it doesn't bode well for your knowledge of the history of these arguments.

You've thrown your support behind pseudoscience that has already failed miserably.

Then you tried to make this into a irrelevant and irrational pissing contest. That hasn't worked out too well for you either.

Do you have anything that anyone might actually be able to debate and discuss?

So far, your posts have eroded at a rate far in excess of continental erosion. That seems to be the extent of it.

 

[blü 2]

ah see now that is what i was expecting you would say...you confuse my caring for your beliefs and my caring that others may be influenced by your side of the story. That is why i respond.

Surely you of all people agree that individuals who argue over fences are not really interested in the other persons point of view? This is for the onlookers not either of us.

Ah, there you are, Adam!

I'm still waiting with interest for your reply to this, my earlier post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, there you are, Adam!

I'm still waiting with interest for your reply to this, my earlier post.

I'd be interested in seeing the answers to your post as well.

Given what I've seen so far though, I don't hold out much hope for a reasonable response.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I have no reason to think that you are interested in any view other than your own. I think the onlookers can figure that out for themselves. If there are any. I don't have the misplaced ego that some do to think that lurkers are hanging on my every post.

sorry guys...,ive had some phone calls from the wife and also for work.

Dan...so tell me, why are people on these forums in your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im just trying to work out when apparently the evidence concludes Behe went rogue?
Below is what the current wikipedia profile on him states...

He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe advocates for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.​

The above would not appear to agree with your claim and that leaves me with a dilemma...do i follow your unreferenced personal claims, or Wikipedia? (which appears heavily referenced in the footer)

My understanding from listening to an interview between the two, Stephen Myer convinced/converted Behe...not the other way around. I think you might be misleading in the supposition that it was Behe's idea!

Finally, id suggest you should also study John Lennox...a world renowned mathematician and retired professor from Oxford. The guy is a genius clearly and yet supports Behe and Myer on the notion of ID.

He has written many books on religion, ethics, the relationship between science and God (like his books, Has Science Buried God and Can Science Explain Everything), and has had public debates with atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.​

​

retired from professorship where he specialised in group theory. He is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics[2] at the University of Oxford, an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University, and has worked as adjunct lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Saïd Business School and a Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum.​

I see that you do not understand academic life. Behe has tenure. That makes it very hard to fire him. And Meyer is a liar, so why do you trust him. Behe is not honest any longer either. How do I know this? Did you forget what happened after his irreducible complexity failed?

And do you think that I am ignorant of Lennox? Lennox is a mathematician. He has no more authority when it comes to the theory of evolution than I do. Which is why I will refer to experts in the field when necessary, though for the most part creationist arguments are so poor that there is no need for that.

That Lennox support Behe is a silly argument that can be refuted by a so what?

If you want to make an argument find actual experts that have not been refuted. As to Behe I can explain to you how he was refuted both here and I can refute him with experts in the field. Which would you prefer?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I see that you do not understand academic life. Behe has tenure. That makes it very hard to fire him. And Meyer is a liar, so why do you trust him. Behe is not honest any longer either. How do I know this? Did you forget what happened after his irreducible complexity failed?

And do you think that I am ignorant of Lennox? Lennox is a mathematician. He has no more authority when it comes to the theory of evolution than I do. Which is why I will refer to experts in the field when necessary, though for the most part creationist arguments are so poor that there is no need for that.

That Lennox support Behe is a silly argument that can be refuted by a so what?

If you want to make an argument find actual experts that have not been refuted. As to Behe I can explain to you how he was refuted both here and I can refute him with experts in the field. Which would you prefer?

Subduction, i cannot engage on that level...if that is the kind of argument you use in support of your beliefs than I am not at all suprised that you are not a Christian anymore.

It is rather saddening to hear you earbash one of the worlds foremost pure mathematics professors claiming he has not authority to discuss the theory of evolution. Such a claim is in all honestly ignorant and very very stupid. Oxford university is a very highly regarded institution...trying to claim its professors are deficient would be something few people in the academic world would take to very kindly.

BTW, you keep claiming "ID is refuted" "Myer is a liar" "Behe has tennure"...please reference those claims because unless you do, there is nothing more to discuss here and you are timewasting.

I have no intellectual interest in arguing with the kinds of of f the cuff claims you make. Either we discuss your references or there is nothing to discuss. I have no interest in dog barking up trees with you unless there is actually something in the tree to look at! (supporting references)

Now to address your statement about ID...

The claim you appear to be using is the following...

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

That does not refute anything. What it does do is complain that there is no defense against an argument that apparently cannot be tested! You may as well complain philisophy is false because it cannot be tested scientifically!

BTW...John Lennox actually discusses this claim in many of his lectures...id suggest you do some listening to him...he often talks about that defense!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction, i cannot engage on that level...if that is the kind of argument you use in support of your beliefs than I am not at all suprised that you are not a Christian anymore.

Then do not make such pathetic arguments.

It is rather saddening to hear you earbash one of the worlds foremost pure mathematics professors claiming he has not authority to discuss the theory of evolution. Such a claim is in all honestly ignorant and very very stupid. Oxford university is a very highly regarded institution...trying to claim its professors are deficient would be something few people in the academic world would take to very kindly.

Please, The man is a genius at math. I do not bash him for that. He is lost when it comes to the sciences. I did not "bash" him I was very honest. His religious beliefs make him a fool when he gets outside of mathematics. He has not respect for his antievolution views. People just laugh at him for that but still respect his mathematics capabilities.

BTW, you keep claiming "ID is refuted" "Myer is a liar" "Behe has tennure"...please reference those claims because unless you do, there is nothing more to discuss here and you are timewasting.

Ask one at a time. Do you even know what tenure is? You could have checked that out for yourself. Tenure is a very good thing to have. A professor has to earn it. So at one point Behe was well respected. He threw his career away for a myth.

I have no intellectual interest in arguing with the kinds of of f the cuff claims you make. Either we discuss your references or there is nothing to discuss. I have no interest in dog barking up trees with you unless there is actually something in the tree to look at! (supporting references)

Once again, if you do not understand something you only need to ask. But you are all over the place in ignorant claims. When you do that you cannot demand references for all of them at once. Ask one at a time and I will gladly give them to you.

Now to address your statement aboue ID...

The claim you appear to be using is the following...

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

That does not refute anything. What it does do is complain that there is no defense against an argument that apparently cannot be tested! You may as well complain philisophy is false because it cannot be tested scientifically!

Actually it refutes the claim that they are scientific. Do you understand that? If you do not we can go over the basics of science as well.

And philosophy does have its own tests within philosophy. So that complaint fails. That is far outside my area of knowledge, but I am pretty sure that I could Google the concept and see how they test their ideas. They do not test them scientifically because they never claimed that there were science. The liars that support ID do try to claim that their ideas are scientific. And as you showed, they are not.

BTW...John Lennox actually discusses this claim in many of his lectures...id suggest you do some listening to him...he often talks about that defense!

What claim does he discuss in "many of his lectures"? And do you have a link to that.

By the way, when quoting someone or siting an article a link is a must. For both you and me.