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

[AdamjEdgar]

This is an old canard.

Piltdown was a fraud carried out by an ametuer. It was not fully accepted and was eventually determined to be a fraud by scientists. You know, the people you make fun of.

The fraud was believed to be fact by the mainstream science view for almost 50 years...that is the point amigo. You need to understand the news flash as you clearly dont get the significance of the issue it presents!

BTW it is no the only one i have a few others.

Honestly, please dont respond without some references...im not interested in listening to an individuals own assumptions that are not referenced.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

subduction, I am really sorry that you lost your faith and have gone down this pathway. However, there are a lot of PHD qualified individuals in the Creation camp who research and write extensively about this topic.

Name them.

Id suggesat that you are claiming none of those PHD qualified individuals are credible because they disagree with your view. All of their evidence that supports their claims must be false simply because Christopher Hitchens said so! Let me remind you, Christopher Hitchens entire world view has a very significant flaw...

If they are not presenting science and merely their opinions outside of their scientific expertise, then they are not publishing anything remotely relative to this subject.

There is a very large percentage of the population in the US who play Lotto...57% (181 milion people) they do so in the hope that they will win!

So what. There are a very large percentage of the population that play the anti-science lottery without a clue, hoping they will win. They don't even bother to find out and often just fly back to the group to declare a win regardless.

So whether or not you accept this fact, philosophically Pascals Wager applies and peole are willing to take chances with leaps of faith...and they will regularly throw good money at such endeavours. If Christopher Hitchens wakes up alongside Christians, he is going to regret not having "played lotto"!

Pascal's Wager is incomplete and does not examine all the possibilities.

If one doesnt take a chance on God, one is condeming oneself against any possibility that Christianity might be right.

The problem with that is that there is a wealth of historical evidence that supports the consistency of the Bible narrative (this even Hitchen could not deny). Given that historical support, its not much of a leap of faith to take the next step and believe that Christ really did raise Himself from the dead as prophesied in John 2:19!

18On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?”​

​

19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”​

​

20“This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?”​

​

21But Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body. 22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.​

If one tosses out the mind that I believe God gave them in favor of group think, are they really taking a chance on God or on the group?

 

[Pogo]

what?

Let me get this straight...you will only believe evidence based on peer review and non christian references?

You have heard of Piltown man right? The orangutan/neanderthal lie that went on in secular circles for 5 decades!

My point is, i do not claim no error on either side. What i do claim is which story best answers my Epistomological questions.

If one is only going to answer those questions on peer reviewed in secular circles, one will never find any support for God. For an atheist that doesnt matter, but for any Christian (even a Theistic one i would suggest) it most certainly does matter.

I follow the lead of the likes of Stephen Myer, Michael Behee and others not because i agree with everything they claim, but there are elements of what they claim i do agree with because it makes sense to me given my theological knowledge of the Bible.

It really has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with discussing and persuading others of the reasonableness of your position.
It appears that when pressed, you default to " I have my interpretation of the Bible and if something doesn't agree with that, it is wrong because I said so"
Curiously I remember Subduction Zone as a knowledgeable Christian from earlier postings, apparently defending his beliefs from people like you has converted him to an atheist. Well done Adam.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fraud was believed to be fact by the mainstream science view for almost 50 years...that is the point amigo. You need to understand the news flash as you clearly dont get the significance of the issue it presents!

No it wasn't.

BTW it is no the only one i have a few others.

What? Not comprehensible.

Honestly, please dont respond without some references...im not interested in listening to an individuals own assumptions that are not referenced.

Both the facts of the history of this "discovery" and creationist claims about it are widely known. I'm surprised it is even still resurrected. You must be especially out of touch.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Now you are totally off of your other failed claim and using Pascal's wager. Another terribly failed argument that is based upon a false dichotomy.

The actual result is that Pascals Wager is applicable because it compares the Christian world view with Atheism. Since you are atheist and I am Christian, we are not arguing eastern religion, Mormonism, or the like!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fraud was believed to be fact by the mainstream science view for almost 50 years...that is the point amigo. You need to understand the news flash as you clearly dont get the significance of the issue it presents!

BTW it is no the only one i have a few others.

Honestly, please dont respond without some references...im not interested in listening to an individuals own assumptions that are not referenced.

By the way, I will respond to whatever I choose however I choose. If you don't like it. Tough!

It is not my fault that your arguments are wet tissue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what?

Let me get this straight...you will only believe evidence based on peer review and non christian references?

You have heard of Piltown man right? The orangutan/neanderthal lie that went on in secular circles for 5 decades!

My point is, i do not claim no error on either side. What i do claim is which story best answers my Epistomological questions.

If one is only going to answer those questions on peer reviewed in secular circles, one will never find any support for God. For an atheist that doesnt matter, but for any Christian (even a Theistic one i would suggest) it most certainly does matter.

I follow the lead of the likes of Stephen Myer, Michael Behee and others not because i agree with everything they claim, but there are elements of what they claim i do agree with because it makes sense to me given my theological knowledge of the Bible.

Stephen Myer is not a scientist, he is just a liar for Jesus. And Behe (only one "e") came out with Irreducible Complexity and actually put it into a proper testable scientific hypothetical form. It was quickly refuted. Sadly he then abandoned the scientific method. When he rebranded IC it was no longer testable. That means it was no longer scientific. And also sadly it means that Behe is no longer a scientist. To be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method.

And do not conflate "Christian" and "creationist". Every creationist site that I know of is a pseudoscience site since they requite their members to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. But there is at least one Christian scientific site. Biologos is such a site. They also accept evolution. And they pretty much no that the Ark story is a myth as well. But it does show you that people can be scientific and still be Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The actual result is that Pascals Wager is applicable because it compares the Christian world view with Atheism. Since you are atheist and I am Christian, we are not arguing eastern religion, Mormonism, or the like!

You cannot site Pascal's Wager and ignore all of the other religions in the world since they refute that foolishness. It also assumes that one can fool God. It is really a stupid argument all around.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The actual result is that Pascals Wager is applicable because it compares the Christian world view with Atheism. Since you are atheist and I am Christian, we are not arguing eastern religion, Mormonism, or the like!

I've never understood why some Christians close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears metaphorically to deny reality and think that is how business is carried out.

The other possibility that is significant and missing from the Wager is the existence of an entirely unknown god that does not care if it is worshiped or not, but does care if some other is getting the credit.

The Wager is interesting, but incomplete. As a logical argument in favor of a particular position of theism, it falls short.

 

[McBell]

The Wager is interesting, but incomplete. As a logical argument in favor of a particular position of theism, it falls short.

i disagree.
With calling it an "argument" in the first place.

 

[Pogo]

I have responded to the relevant complaints in your response with DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!

if you are going to respond to direct references with your interpretation, then you are ignorant of what the article authors actually state in their own words.

A person who continues to respond in the manner that you do is timewasting and it reminds me of a statement from the movie Forest Gump "stupid is stupid does sir"

That quote was that you misinterpreted was from Wikipedia and not from the article from Geophysical Research Letters? No wonder it made no sense in context of the GPL article.
It appears that the time waster here is you in that you cannot or will not defend anything you say.

As for Forest Gump, I will save the other posters the trouble and say that it is irony before they do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i disagree.
With calling it an "argument" in the first place.

If someone is foolish enough to bring it up I like to use it as an argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is my new and improved Pascal's Wager.

 

[Pogo]

BTW it is no the only one i have a few others.

I'm sure you do, I will save you the trouble of posting PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times.

Talk Origins Archive

An Index to Creationist Claims​

If you have something not discussed in these, we will be curious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Today, the sermon was about being a citizen of Heaven in our daily lives. I'm never surprised to see how that isn't a common trait among those defending literalism and creation. It should be, but the examples I'm continually presented with don't show that there is much ability to do that and just seems to be about lip service to belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

Name them.

If they are not presenting science and merely their opinions outside of their scientific expertise, then they are not publishing anything remotely relative to this subject.

So what. There are a very large percentage of the population that play the anti-science lottery without a clue, hoping they will win. They don't even bother to find out and often just fly back to the group to declare a win regardless.

Pascal's Wager is incomplete and does not examine all the possibilities.

If one tosses out the mind that I believe God gave them in favor of group think, are they really taking a chance on God or on the group?

Thanks for saying that because it appears (evidence?) that you believe God gives minds. How do you figure that if you believe in evolution, can you please say? Please try not to evade, thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sure you do, I will save you the trouble of posting PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times.

Talk Origins Archive

An Index to Creationist Claims​

If you have something not discussed in these, we will be curious.

Not everything who believes that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning believes the same thing.

 

[McBell]

Not everything who believes that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning believes the same thing.

I havenot seen any one make a claim otherwise.

The website linked is a list of arguments used by religionists that have been refuted so much it has become standard practice to just link to that site instead of wasting time typing it all out yet again.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Stephen Myer is not a scientist, he is just a liar for Jesus. And Behe (only one "e") came out with Irreducible Complexity and actually put it into a proper testable scientific hypothetical form. It was quickly refuted. Sadly he then abandoned the scientific method. When he rebranded IC it was no longer testable. That means it was no longer scientific. And also sadly it means that Behe is no longer a scientist. To be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method.

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.​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I'm sure you do, I will save you the trouble of posting PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times.

right so:

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


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????

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.​

That someone, regardless of credentials, supports pseudoscience and scientists practicing it, is not evidence of the validity of the pseudoscience.