An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

Those who know, know. But he's an old member who was banned. Keeps creating socks, sometimes posing as a Christian, or a woman, or a Christian who's a woman.

Thank you. I will have to try to recognize him/her.

 

[lasthero]

I've only been here, like, two weeks, and I'm pretty sure I've seen him three times in one form or another.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wow, really? Sheesh. I knew he made money, but I didn't know he rolled like that. And he's an idiot; imagine how much cheese you could squeeze if you actually had some expertise to back up your assertions.

It's a small wonder biologists aren't jumping ship left and right; there's money to be made.

Yep, there's money to be made as a professional Creationist.

"Living Water's Finances 2006
For 2006 Living Waters Publications sold 4.5 million dollars worth of merchandise that only cost the organization 1.9 million (a 137% markup). Living waters also took in $736,472 in donations. This gave the org a net revenue of 3.3 million to be added to the 1.4 million it had in the bank at the beginning of the year.
The expenditures for 2006 list fund raising receiving 1.2%, program services receiving 24.5%, and managerial and general receiving 74.1% of the 3 million spent. IMHO, if you are running a nonprofit and only 24% of your expenditures are going to the programs and services the org was created to address, and 74% are going to Managerial and General expenses, you're doin' it wrong."

The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: The Piety of Ray - A Little Web Sleuthing

 

[Skaloop]

Yeah, Comfort's Living Waters takes in several million per year.

It would be quite the career plan. Study hard in biology, get a PhD. from some highly regarded accredited university, then go be a shill on the Creationist circuit.

Charge, say, $5K per speaking engagement (plus expenses). Bill Clinton can get half a million for a single engagement; I'm sure a PhD biologist speaking against evolution could get 1% of that from several mega-churches and Creationist groups. Go to major cities and give talks at multiple places. Do that a couple of times a month. That right there could be a good two hundred grand. But then also sell your books and DVDs and CDs (series of them) at those events and online. And of course, instead of having one four-hour DVD at $10, sell four one-hour DVDs at $15 apiece. On your website, have a donations page to support your "organization", and don't forget the paid ads!

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, there's money to be made as a professional Creationist.

"Living Water's Finances 2006
For 2006 Living Waters Publications sold 4.5 million dollars worth of merchandise that only cost the organization 1.9 million (a 137% markup). Living waters also took in $736,472 in donations. This gave the org a net revenue of 3.3 million to be added to the 1.4 million it had in the bank at the beginning of the year.
The expenditures for 2006 list fund raising receiving 1.2%, program services receiving 24.5%, and managerial and general receiving 74.1% of the 3 million spent. IMHO, if you are running a nonprofit and only 24% of your expenditures are going to the programs and services the org was created to address, and 74% are going to Managerial and General expenses, you're doin' it wrong."

The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: The Piety of Ray - A Little Web Sleuthing

he's actually a book seller and an evangelist primarily, selling curriculum and tracts for evangelism at rock bottom prices.

I would say creationism is the third or fourth thing on His list of to does.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is an error. You are provably wrong. Your problem, and most creationists problem is that you do not know what evidence is.

Now I can prove to you that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. A fact that all honest creationists that understand the nature of evidence agree to.

go ahead

 

[HitchSlap]

he's actually a book seller and an evangelist primarily, selling curriculum and tracts for evangelism at rock bottom prices.

I would say creationism is the third or fourth thing on His list of to does.

You're right. I'd put being a turd on top of the list.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/ray_comfort.htm

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I was saved, and I left.

ray comfort mentions false conversion.

not sure if He was thinking of Hebrews 6 and 10 falling away from the faith or what.

But those are good passages to read in a situation like this.

HEbrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
A Better Estimate

9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. 10 For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of[c] love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end,


Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[e] says the Lord.[f] And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”[g] 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

go ahead

No problem.

You should realize that most of what creationists do is simply denial. They deny evidence when it is shown to them.

Science used to have the same problem. Scientists who did not believe other scientists would deny the others evidence. This quickly leads to squabbling and no advances. So science came up with a very effective definition of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis:
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Since the evidence presented by scientists supports their theories it is by definition scientific evidence. It cannot be denied.

There can be evidence against evolution, though I know of none. If you can find evidence that cannot be fit into the theory that is evidence against evolution. For example the much vaunted "Cambrian rabbit". Evolution would have no explanation of such a fossil and would be evidence against the idea.

The reason there is no scientific evidence for creation is that creationists will not devise a testable hypothesis that describes why we observe the world or aspects of the world as we do. For example they have no explanation for the fossil record that is not easily debunked. Without a hypothesis you cannot have evidence by definition.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you are now spamming the boards with deceit. That might be against the rules here. Once again that verse does not apply in this debate. You can't use the Bible to defend the Bible especially since it is a flawed book.

who told you is was one book? It's many books, many authors, many languages and cultures. It's just abridged. You can quote one book to support another without being a circular argument, most forget that.

 

[HitchSlap]

ray comfort mentions false conversion.

Ok.

 

[createdtoworship]

No problem.

You should realize that most of what creationists do is simply denial. They deny evidence when it is shown to them.

Science used to have the same problem. Scientists who did not believe other scientists would deny the others evidence. This quickly leads to squabbling and no advances. So science came up with a very effective definition of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis:
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Since the evidence presented by scientists supports their theories it is by definition scientific evidence. It cannot be denied.

There can be evidence against evolution, though I know of none. If you can find evidence that cannot be fit into the theory that is evidence against evolution. For example the much vaunted "Cambrian rabbit". Evolution would have no explanation of such a fossil and would be evidence against the idea.

The reason there is no scientific evidence for creation is that creationists will not devise a testable hypothesis that describes why we observe the world or aspects of the world as we do. For example they have no explanation for the fossil record that is not easily debunked. Without a hypothesis you cannot have evidence by definition.

I am still waiting.

You know.....

for the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

who told you is was one book? It's many books, many authors, many languages and cultures. It's just abridged. You can quote one book to support another without being a circular argument, most forget that.

Please, at best it is a collection of myths. And if you can use it to support itself then I can use the over 400 self contradictions to debunk it.

The way that the Bible is used to support itself is a circular argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am still waiting.

You know.....

for the evidence?

First you must understand what evidence is.

I could show you individual pieces, or blocks of evidence. But if you do not understand what is and what is not evidence you will make the mistake of denying it.

For example to date all fossils found fit into the evolutionary paradigm. They are all evidence for evolution.

So I could show you Lucy's skeleton. Since it was found to be of an appropriate age it fits as evidence for evolution:

 

[createdtoworship]

First you must understand what evidence is.

I could show you individual pieces, or blocks of evidence. But if you do not understand what is and what is not evidence you will make the mistake of denying it.

For example to date all fossils found fit into the evolutionary paradigm. They are all evidence for evolution.

So I could show you Lucy's skeleton. Since it was found to be of an appropriate age it fits as evidence for evolution:

imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.

here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.

I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.

seems this is the case with you,

right?

 

[bhsmte]

imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.

here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.

I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.

seems this is the case with you,

right?

99% of science accept the evidence for evolution and science has a pretty strict guideline for what objective evidence is.

Do you agree that science has guidelines for what objective evidence is?
Are you willing to accept evidence that science deems to be objective?
Can you explain away why 99% of scientists strong support evolution?

If you have a better method of evaluating evidence than science does, please give us details of the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.

here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.

I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.

seems this is the case with you,

right?

I am not the one defining evidence. The definition is the accepted definition of scientific evidence. You are the one who is trying to change the definition.

And there is a reason that science goes by their definition of "scientific evidence". It works.

The computer or phone or pad you are using right now was developed from science that used the scientific definition of evidence. Even Einstein disagreed, at one time, with much of the science that your computer is based upon. He later accepted it partially because of the concept of scientific evidence.

We have the evidence. You don't. And it is not our fault, it is the fault of creation "scientists" who cannot think of a method to test their beliefs. No, let me rephrase that, they cannot think of a method to test their beliefs that do not show them to be in error.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am still waiting.

You know.....

for the evidence?

You've been shown ample evidence, yet demonstrated zero comprehension. What's the point, really?

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not the one defining evidence. The definition is the accepted definition of scientific evidence. You are the one who is trying to change the definition.

And there is a reason that science goes by their definition of "scientific evidence". It works.

The computer or phone or pad you are using right now was developed from science that used the scientific definition of evidence. Even Einstein disagreed, at one time, with much of the science that your computer is based upon. He later accepted it partially because of the concept of scientific evidence.

We have the evidence. You don't. And it is not our fault, it is the fault of creation "scientists" who cannot think of a method to test their beliefs. No, let me rephrase that, they cannot think of a method to test their beliefs that do not show them to be in error.

I am fairly sure science didn't create my computer I am using, or my phone, or my kindle. I think it was originally invented by various inventors and manufactured at a facility somewhere as a prototype. Engineers only use scientific method, what 10 % of the time at best? After all they are not scientists remember?


i mean they call it computer science, but how much science do they use for real?

Maybe you were thinking of something else?

Most of the time it's just rational and critical thinking engineers use....


which to you is only a multiple choice idea,

not a true and false idea.

which doesn't make sense either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And gradyll, you are welcome to try to post your own view of evidence. Since this is a scientific debate I feel the scientific definition of evidence is the correct one to use.

I did not post my definition as "filler". I am tired of creationists dishonestly or ignorantly claiming a lack of evidence from evolution. Once informed you can no longer deny that we do have evidence.