|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 5:38:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's clear that you are the one obsessed with evolution. You only want 'criticism' in the curriculum with respect to evolution. So don't pretend you're concerned about 'true science' and criticism. You don't care how physics and chemistry are taught, just biology.
I'm obsessed with nothing. I just find it disingenuous to science when an evolutionist cowards at the presence of any criticism by unjustly labeling said criticism. This is called social reinforcement by fellow tyrants. That's right, just plug your ears to any criticism, and then proclaim you are correct by claiming you have not heard any "serious, scientific debate."
If I were you, I'd live by my own quote...quote:
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
I wish evolutionists would take this to heart. If so, debate and criticism would be welcome. It's just too bad this isn't the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 5:45:26 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I'm obsessed with nothing. I just find it disingenuous to science when an evolutionist cowards at the presence of any criticism by unjustly labeling said criticism. This is called social reinforcement by fellow tyrants. That's right, just plug your ears to any criticism, and then proclaim you are correct by claiming you have not heard any "serious, scientific debate."
Words still fail me whenever a creationist says something along these lines, even though it happens regularly. As a result of your belief system, you will never accept evidence, no matter how compelling, no matter how solid, no matter it its right there in front of your eyes, no matter if it completely undeniable, if it contradicts your interpretation of scripture. And you want to lecture scientists about not being open minded or accepting of criticism? How could you ever expect a rational person to take that seriously?
PS: Note, that I did not say 'contradicts scripture'... I said 'contradicts 'your interpretation of scripture'. There is a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 5:57:33 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Oh nice, when a creationists attempts to provide evidence in his favor, and you deny all evidence he provides by calling it religious dogma, then what is the point for him staying? I don't get it. This is the "SCIENCE and Origins" folder, where the only thing accepted is SCIENCE, and if you want to debate with YEC's, should you not take his science seriously??? And when that YEC leaves the debate because his science is being labeled unfairly, you call them wimps. You are a very kind person... *cough cough*. Creationists welcome criticism, but the last time I checked, it is the evolutionists who whimper in the corner whenever a teacher asks to teach evidence of the Flood. Bettawrekonize nailed it on the head with this...
Re-read the thread. There are challenges to the evidence provided.. and good ones, but not much in the way of retorts. Not to mention, the age of the grand canyon doesn't really necessarily have anything to do with the age of the earth in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 6:07:25 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Words still fail me whenever a creationist says something along these lines, even though it happens regularly. As a result of your belief system, you will never accept evidence, no matter how compelling, no matter how solid, no matter it its right there in front of your eyes, no matter if it completely undeniable, if it contradicts your interpretation of scripture. And you want to lecture scientists about not being open minded or accepting of criticism? How could you ever expect a rational person to take that seriously?
If this is your belief, then why even create a thread asking a YEC to present evidence, if you won't even give it a second thought? This seems extremely mean and hateful towards others, as the only point of your thread is a trap. Thank you for finally admitting your threads are pointless, infested with hidden motives, most of which are mean-spirited. As kind as you may seem, you are a vulture who lies to people to get them to comment on your trap. Don't ask questions unless you truly want answers. This is called lying my friend. I hope people read this post of yours and ponder it the next time they think about commenting in your thread. At least I know now exactly where you're at.
quote:
As a result of your belief system, you will never accept evidence, no matter how compelling, no matter how solid, no matter it its right there in front of your eyes, no matter if it completely undeniable, if it contradicts your interpretation
This is an example of an evolutionist, like yourself drj11, as you have proven in your post and thread. You could care less about science, you only wish is to demean those who do not agree with your nonsense. Yup, that's true science.......
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 6:15:43 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 933
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
That's right, just plug your ears to any criticism, and then proclaim you are correct by claiming you have not heard any "serious, scientific debate."
Scientific debate takes place in the scientific journals and conferences. In those fora, there is no serious debate about whether evolution is, broadly speaking, correct. Even the ID'ers who have a place in this scientific debate essentially accept evolution; they just insert an additional unobservable mechanism.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 6:21:16 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 933
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
And you want to lecture scientists about not being open minded or accepting of criticism? How could you ever expect a rational person to take that seriously?
If this is your belief, then why even create a thread asking a YEC to present evidence, if you won't even give it a second thought?
You are misreading his statement. The only thing he says he's not taking seriously is your protestation that scientists are closed-minded.
To the contrary, scientists are very open-minded when it comes to evidence. And this is why drj11 opened a sincere thread for presenting scientific evidence.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 6:21:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
If this is your belief, then why even create a thread asking a YEC to present evidence, if you won't even give it a second thought? This seems extremely mean and hateful towards others, as the only point of your thread is a trap.
As a response to your previous statement, I said most creationists will not consider any evidence that contradicts genesis (as a historical account), not that I won't consider any evidence. Trap? No, just a reaction to repeated assertions that there is scientific evidence for a young earth.
quote:
Thank you for finally admitting your threads are pointless, infested with hidden motives, most of which are mean-spirited. As kind as you may seem, you are a vulture who lies to people to get them to comment on your trap. Don't ask questions unless you truly want answers. This is called lying my friend. I hope people read this post of yours and ponder it the next time they think about commenting in your thread. At least I know now exactly where you're at.
Now your really going off into left-field.
quote:
quote:
As a result of your belief system, you will never accept evidence, no matter how compelling, no matter how solid, no matter it its right there in front of your eyes, no matter if it completely undeniable, if it contradicts your interpretation
This is an example of an evolutionist, like yourself drj11, as you have proven in your post and thread. You could care less about science, you only wish is to demean those who do not agree with your nonsense. Yup, that's true science.......
I wish to see what evidence leads the creationists to believe the earth is young, as many here claim. If you want my prediction based on my personal bias, it is this: There is no compelling or reasonable evidence to conclude the earth is 6k years old, and that the thread will clearly show this, either by lack of response, or simply by misdirection (ie. the earth is young because the grand canyon could be young, etc).
< Message edited by drj11 -- 6/26/2008 6:28:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars - 6/26/2008 6:40:06 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
No, I'm saying individuals should be protected from biased attacks on their knowledge when one claims it's religion, not science. What is the point of debating in a SCIENCE folder when the debate turns to religion, not science.
The only bias I have is towards evidence. I do not accept unevidenced and poorly thought out arguments. Again, what is wrong with that?
Time and time again creationists have shown that their rejection of modern scientific theories is not based on evidence. It is based on theology. There is no scientific reason to conclude that the Earth is young, and none is being given in the very thread focusing on that very topic.
quote:
Let me ask you a question. If one starts a thread, targeting a certain group, asking them to present evidence for a certain topic, then attack that science when one presents it, would you continue???
I wouldn't. I would step back and think to myself, "Hmmf, maybe I have this all wrong. The other side has all of this evidence I am left putting forth miracles as mechanisms. Maybe I should rethink this."
But we all know that this is not what you will do. You will plunge forward, eyes closed, and keep putting forth the strangest of arguments that are not supported in the least by any evidence.
quote:
I doubt it. If you did, you would be a fool, because you continued in a trap set for you.
I find it interesting that a thread asking for evidence of a young earth is considered a trap.
quote:
I didn't see the point in continuing, so I left. That is called wisdom.
It is called a lack of evidence.
quote:
If a group of Christians attack an Atheist for his beliefs, he is under no obligation to continue. If you got a problem with that, take it up with someone who cares, but enough of the childishness. If you want to debate a YEC, debate their science, not their religion. Keep the debates in their respective folders.
Their religion is all they put forward.
quote:
Oh nice, when a creationists attempts to provide evidence in his favor, and you deny all evidence he provides by calling it religious dogma, then what is the point for him staying?
Why else, except for religious dogma, would anyone ever conclude that the Earth is young? Prove us wrong. Present evidence, not magical "what ifs".
quote:
I have to pay good money for my kids to go to high school and hear their biology teacher preach evolution, without ANY criticism.
The high school classroom is not the place for challenging theories. The place for that is in peer reviewed literature and scientific conferences, two arenas that creationists avoid like the plague.
quote:
Now you tell me...how is this true science? I thought science involves criticism of piers? Piers who agree with each other is hardly criticism.
Only lifeguards criticize piers. In science it is peer review. And where are creationists doing research that is sent in for peer review? Nowhere. They avoid it. Instead, that put up internet propoganda and books that never see peer review. How is this true science?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
