An atheists world

[Subduction Zone]

Are you implying that Ken Ham and AIG are dishonest???!! <GASP>


More on the story here:

The sudden suspicious silence of answersingenesis &#187; Ace of Clades

 

[biggles53]

Post solid evidence please that the books were not written within the life time of the followers of Christ and those that were with Christ.

"Authorship is an area of longstanding and current research and debate, with different works posing different problems for identification. While the various works have traditional ascriptions of authorship, these ascriptions are in some cases defended by scholars, and in other cases disputed or rejected. None of the Gospel authors is thought to be an eyewitness, and none claims to be. There is a broad consensus that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them.
The Gospels were originally anonymous, and names were not ascribed to them until around 185 CE. None of them was written in Palestine."

Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (Harper Collins, 2009) pages 102-104.

Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context (Continuum, 2004), page 290.

 

[biggles53]

ok so back the real questions I have asked of you guys,

why is it that not one evolutionist will debate any one of the high profile creationists out there?

secondly, how is it the nothing exploded? In the Big bang?

What fueled it?

nothing can't fuel nothing correct?

Also explain how macro evolution is possible?

also how is it that That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

Grady,

Can I suggest that, before you try asking questions like this, you actually do some research into the subject you're criticising.....?

You come off looking very, very silly with these questions expressed as they are......in fact, all you do is to provide further ammunition for those of us who would claim that creationists generally don't have a clue about evolutionary biology and are prepared to lie in a desperate attempt to prop up their discredited belief structures.....

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady,

Can I suggest that, before you try asking questions like this, you actually do some research into the subject you're criticising.....?

You come off looking very, very silly with these questions expressed as they are......in fact, all you do is to provide further ammunition for those of us who would claim that creationists generally don't have a clue about evolutionary biology and are prepared to lie in a desperate attempt to prop up their discredited belief structures.....

again no answer sir,

so this would be a strawman fallacy.

and a red herring.

so please just answer the questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

again no answer sir,

so this would be a strawman fallacy.

and a red herring.

so please just answer the questions.

It is creationists that are running away from debates, as we have already shown you. It is creationists who refuse to engage scientists. They refuse to go to scientific conferences and present data. They refuse to do any research, or publish any peer reviewed papers. They avoid the science arena altogether.

Added by edit:

Conferences like the one below would be perfect for creationists who want to engage scientists on the topic of evolution. Somehow, I doubt any of them would go if told about it. In fact, they would make sure to avoid it.

http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2013&program=devbio

 

[Lethe]

Technically speaking it's a weak ad hominem which also happens to be true: You demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about evolution regularly.

And your complete lack of knowledge regarding logical fallacies too.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, since Ken agreed to do it initially with certain conditions (having a PhD in the debate), and then once those conditions were met (by PZ Myers joining in) he bailed.

I have debated phd's before, no biggy

 

[biggles53]

again no answer sir,

so this would be a strawman fallacy.

and a red herring.

so please just answer the questions.

Answer what....!??

Questions that just don't make sense...??

As has been explained patiently by others, evolutionary theory makes NONE of the claims that you want it to explain......... and, in an UNRELATED field, the Big Bang wasn't claimed to be an 'explosion'.....

And you're pointing the finger at OTHERS creating straw men....??

Sheesh....!

I'll credit you with one reasonable question.......how is macro evolution possible?
In the same way that micro evolution is......through very small changes taking place over TIME.......the usual analogy that is employed is to ask you this - if I can take a certain number of small steps to walk to my front gate, why could I not keep taking those small steps and eventually get to the other side of town....?

 

[Skaloop]

I have debated phd's before, no biggy

Then why did Ken back down as soon as his unnecessary conditions were met?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

And there are Bibles in those places. What's your point?

Not legally.

 

[RedRover]

I have debated phd's before, no biggy

I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.

How is that different from here, where ... scientists think they can override our faith with ... well ... science?

 

[createdtoworship]

I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.

fallacy can fill a debate room. I have seen it many times. (I personally have never debated verbally just in chat rooms- so you got one on me there).

 

[createdtoworship]

Then why did Ken back down as soon as his unnecessary conditions were met?

I am not sure, I never heard about that story. Usually people are scared to debate creationists. There is a creationist on you tube, that has never ever lost a debate. Look it up .

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a creationist on you tube, that has never ever lost a debate. Look it up .

dad?

If so:

 

[createdtoworship]

Answer what....!??

Questions that just don't make sense...??

As has been explained patiently by others, evolutionary theory makes NONE of the claims that you want it to explain......... and, in an UNRELATED field, the Big Bang wasn't claimed to be an 'explosion'.....

And you're pointing the finger at OTHERS creating straw men....??

Sheesh....!

I'll credit you with one reasonable question.......how is macro evolution possible?
In the same way that micro evolution is......through very small changes taking place over TIME.......the usual analogy that is employed is to ask you this - if I can take a certain number of small steps to walk to my front gate, why could I not keep taking those small steps and eventually get to the other side of town....?

sno explanation for the Big Bang huh? Good enough, thanks for trying to answer the other questions.

 

[createdtoworship]

dad?

If so:

who is that is that another one?

I was thinking of lawrence tisdale, but I haven't heard him in over a year so I would have to double check.

1 Evolution Creation The Truth Lawrence Tisdall - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

who is that is that another one?

Dad is another poster here: dad

He believes in what is called a Different State Past, couple with a Split/Merge model of the universe.

If I understand him correctly, he believes that the universe ran under a different (and purer) set of laws prior to some "split" that began at the Fall and culminated during the time of Peleg.

For instance:

1. levitation surrendered to gravity
2. telepathy surrendered to voice communication
3. the speed of light was slowed down
4. immortality (of the body) surrendered to death
5. knowledge surrendered to ignorance
6. teleportation surrendered to travel
7. communication between man and animals was severed
8. communication between animals surrendered to zoosemiotics

In the future, these traits will be merged back to the way they were before the Fall.

Dad is currently "on vacation" from CF.

 

[RedRover]

How is that different from here, where ... scientists think they can override our faith with ... well ... science?

The debate is usually won by whoever puts the most work into research. The Bible itself does not change, even if over time we gain a better understanding of the Bible. The problem with science is their actual "facts" have a half life, so over time their facts change. Look at their Biology book. Campbell is on their 9th edition. Usually the instructor will allow you to use one edition back. So you could use the 8th but they highly recommend getting the most current edition. Because their facts are fluid and in a constant state of change. They cling to their theory. But right now DNA evidence has falsified a lot of their theory that was based on the fossil record. So they are doing what they can to cover that up and salvage what they can. Some evolutionists still teach the old model based on the fossil record and they have not even learned the new model based on the DNA. So when you have a theory that is so unstable from change that puts them on very shaky ground. Where the Bible has remained steadfast and true for over 3700 years. Science works as hard as they can to make science dull and boring. There are a few people like Brian Cox and Neil Tyson De grasses that can make science interesting. But most people work hard to make it is as dull and boring as they can.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dad is another poster here: dad

He believes in what is called a Distant* State Past, couple with a Split/Merge model of the universe.

If I understand him correctly, he believes that the universe ran under a different (and purer) set of laws prior to some "split" that began at the Fall and culminated during the time of Peleg.

For instance:

1. levitation surrendered to gravity
2. telepathy surrendered to voice communication
3. the speed of light was slowed down
4. immortality (of the body) surrendered to death
5. knowledge surrendered to ignorance
6. teleportation surrendered to travel
7. communication between man and animals was severed
8. communication between animals surrendered to zoosemiotics

In the future, these traits will be merged back to the way they were before the Fall.

Dad is currently on vacation.

*Different