Hoaxes

[bhsmte]

That is what the data would seem to indicate.

If I am not mistaken, this is only the United States correct?

In Europe and other advanced countries, the agreement with evolution is much higher.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Oh are you a Jehovah's witness?

Certainly not. They are just a cult. I sent the following questions to their Watchtower organisation, but I didn't get a reply:-

1. Why do you deny the deity of Christ and why have you changed the correct translation of the beginning of John that refers to Jesus as God, rather than “a god” as you claim? In John 1:1, "The Word (Christ) was God". Why does WT translate John 1:1 as "a god", when in John 1:6, 12, 13 18 where "theos" also has no definite Greek article, it is translated as "God" every time? Don't you want Christ to be God? Are you anti-Christ?

2. What was supposed to happen according to the WT prophecies on 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975? Did any of these prophecies fail? For example 1925 - "Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” In 1918, Rutherford exclaimed in a series of public lectures, "Millions now living will never die!" This was related to his prophecy that the resurrection would commence on earth in 1925, with the return of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to earth. This article provides quotes regarding this failed doctrine of Rutherford, and shows how in recent times the Watchtower dishonestly presents this historical episode. How do you answer challenges such as these (and other prophesy failures) in light of Deuteronomy 18:22 “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

3. Why does WT call God "Jehovah" when YHWH is nowhere used in the New Testament? Why did Jesus and Paul never call God "Jehovah"? Why did the early church writers around 100 AD never call God "Jehovah"?

4. Why does the New Testament always lift up Jesus Christ's name, never Jehovah's name? (see 1 Corinthians 1:2,10; 5:4-5, 6:11; Colossians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; Revelation 2:13; Matthew 18:20; Acts 1:8, 3:16, 4:10, 12, 17-18, 5:28, 41, 8:16, 9:15-16, 10:43, 16:18, 11:26).

5. Do you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" Jehovah God? Then you will die in your sins. "If you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)

6. Did not Jesus declare that His body had been literally raised from the dead in Luke 24:39? “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

7. Who is your mediator for you to get to God? (1 Timothy 2:5,6). Surely you don't have one, because you think Jesus is Michael the Archangel. An angel can't mediate between God and man. Only Jesus can do that (John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”) Hence, you are still in your sins.

8. Why do you deny that Jesus died on a cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended bodily to heaven? Why have you replaced the cross with a torture stake instead? Why are you peddling false doctrine?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

@Not_By_Chance , does this matter to you? Do you care that your source was really, really wrong?

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

Creationist scientist is a contradiction in terms as creation isnt science, its religion and therfore metaphysical and can never be part of science.

Its bad theology and bad science.

 

[sfs]

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

That would make sense if live TV debates were a good way to settle scientific questions. They're not: they're a good way to determine who's a better TV debater. Instead, how about we have a debate in the scientific literature, where scientific questions actually are settled. The problem, of course, is that debate took place long ago, and was overwhelmingly decided against creationism.

 

[crjmurray]

Certainly not. They are just a cult. I sent the following questions to their Watchtower organisation, but I didn't get a reply:-

1. Why do you deny the deity of Christ and why have you changed the correct translation of the beginning of John that refers to Jesus as God, rather than “a god” as you claim? In John 1:1, "The Word (Christ) was God". Why does WT translate John 1:1 as "a god", when in John 1:6, 12, 13 18 where "theos" also has no definite Greek article, it is translated as "God" every time? Don't you want Christ to be God? Are you anti-Christ?

2. What was supposed to happen according to the WT prophecies on 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975? Did any of these prophecies fail? For example 1925 - "Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” In 1918, Rutherford exclaimed in a series of public lectures, "Millions now living will never die!" This was related to his prophecy that the resurrection would commence on earth in 1925, with the return of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to earth. This article provides quotes regarding this failed doctrine of Rutherford, and shows how in recent times the Watchtower dishonestly presents this historical episode. How do you answer challenges such as these (and other prophesy failures) in light of Deuteronomy 18:22 “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

3. Why does WT call God "Jehovah" when YHWH is nowhere used in the New Testament? Why did Jesus and Paul never call God "Jehovah"? Why did the early church writers around 100 AD never call God "Jehovah"?

4. Why does the New Testament always lift up Jesus Christ's name, never Jehovah's name? (see 1 Corinthians 1:2,10; 5:4-5, 6:11; Colossians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; Revelation 2:13; Matthew 18:20; Acts 1:8, 3:16, 4:10, 12, 17-18, 5:28, 41, 8:16, 9:15-16, 10:43, 16:18, 11:26).

5. Do you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" Jehovah God? Then you will die in your sins. "If you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)

6. Did not Jesus declare that His body had been literally raised from the dead in Luke 24:39? “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

7. Who is your mediator for you to get to God? (1 Timothy 2:5,6). Surely you don't have one, because you think Jesus is Michael the Archangel. An angel can't mediate between God and man. Only Jesus can do that (John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”) Hence, you are still in your sins.

8. Why do you deny that Jesus died on a cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended bodily to heaven? Why have you replaced the cross with a torture stake instead? Why are you peddling false doctrine?

I can't imagine why you didn't get a response.

 

[lasthero]

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

I note that you didn't answer Cadet's question.

Do you care that your source was wrong?

 

[Willtor]

That would make sense if live TV debates were a good way to settle scientific questions. They're not: they're a good way to determine who's a better TV debater. Instead, how about we have a debate in the scientific literature, where scientific questions actually are settled. The problem, of course, is that debate took place long ago, and was overwhelmingly decided against creationism.

This.

It's essential to recognize that people are swayed by irrational things. Even if ignoring rhetorical fallacies, people like a flashy presentation. A lot of scientists know how to make a presentation, but not like marketers. And if one side is dominated by marketing, that side will "win" the debate by persuading more people, whether their ideas actually have merit or not. The ideas, themselves, take a back seat in a popular debate.

 

[The Cadet]

Just for reference, here was my original question:

@Not_By_Chance , does this matter to you? Do you care that your source was really, really wrong?

And the response:

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

Swing and a miss.

This argument both fails to do its job (that job being ignoring my question but responding nonetheless) and has been addressed at length. Remember that thread? Anyone who thinks that a televised debate is a good way to resolve ideas in science should read it; countless very good reasons are given why that is simply not the case.

Here, let me quote a little excerpt for you, from right before you stopped responding:

Yeah, it is. See, here's the thing. We've given you numerous very good reasons why:

• The debate is a bad idea as a whole
• The format could hardly be more poorly chosen
• Creation Ministries International is not worth debating with even if we were to debate this topic
  
• The argument that "the man on the street could judge who is really presenting the most credible arguments" is terrible

And you've pretty much hand-waved them all away (or ignored them to reiterate the same bad point again) and acted as though we were "running scared". You're repeating points that were already rebutted. I wonder if this would have been so easy to spot in a live discussion. I also wonder why no-one really gets anywhere with these topics. Surely it couldn't be because one side just isn't listening?

Spoiler: More, for those interested

Or maybe it is. I mean, in your evolution/creation on trial thread, where after one poster repeatedly claimed "mutations cannot lead to new information", I dropped something like 50 peer-reviewed papers discussing exactly those mutations on him. What happened? A retraction, maybe moving forward from there without making the same mistake that nobody versed in the field of genetics would ever make? No. No retraction was issued, no apology made; he just left the thread and didn't come back. Or in that self-same thread, where another poster made a mistake with regards to the mutation of the peppered moth, and I pointed it out, citing the primary literature and pointing out that yes, it was in fact a novel mutation. Was an admission of mistake forthcoming? I don't know, maybe it was but he just never got around to it; the thread was locked because "general apologetics". [Update: in a follow-up thread, I asked him about it and he refused to acknowledge the research, even after I asked the scientist personally.]

Scientific debate does tend to move forward. Koonin, whose work is bastardized quite regularly on these forums, is probably not wrong when he says that we need a new evolutionary synthesis, and that new discoveries in horizontal gene transfer lead to some rather significant changes to the tree of life (this does not mean that we throw the whole thing out for eukaryotes!). The science has moved forward significantly in the last 50 years, thanks to honest researchers trying to learn more about the world. The core of the theory is still not wrong (just like the core of newtonian mechanics is still right, despite being supplanted by relativity, because the observations are still valid), but as our understanding increases, so does our ability to reframe and correct our knowledge.

By contrast, how has creationism done? Young earth creationism is no further along the path to legitimacy now than it was decades ago when the movement started. It has lost court case after court case, and all the while it has been completely incapable of providing anything even resembling positive evidence for creation. Instead, all it has done is try to poke holes in or deny the evidence of an old earth and evolution, and it hasn't even contributed anything of value in doing that, as the arguments presented are never particularly valid.

So I ask you - why do you think that the conversation keeps failing?

Oh, and while you're at it, when you write to CMI, maybe you should ask them why that embarrassment of an article on the Lost Squadron is still up on their web page.

Everything I said there? Every point I made? They hold up. You're still repeating the same arguments, despite having them rebutted at length. You reposted a creationist argument that is known to be wrong and has been known to be wrong for quite literally as long as I have been alive (a comprehensive rebuttal to that Niagara Falls argument was posted in 1994, the year I was born). And when called on it, you refuse to admit that you were wrong, that your source was wrong, or to indicate in any way that your claims and sources were anything other than completely correct.

...Mind if I ask why? What's so bad about admitting that you were wrong? It's not gonna hurt your reputation any - everyone makes mistakes, but so long as you cop to them and strive to do better, there's no reason to hold them against you. Indeed, admitting when you're wrong is way better than denying it. Imagine if one of your close friends said "I have a Lamborghini in my garage", and then you guys go to his garage and find just a beat-up old Delorean. Then, when you ask where the Lambo is, he responds, "Well if you're so sure I don't have one, why not debate me on TV about it". Seems a little silly, right?

Look, your source was comically wrong in at least a few of the points made. This is obvious to everyone here. We don't need a televised debate to rehash bad ideas that were proven wrong in the 90s. Would you please admit that your source was wrong and that you were wrong to quote it so that we can move on?

I note that you didn't answer Cadet's question.

I heard an answer, I just hope I'm hard of hearing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

Are these the same people that ran away from an online debate with me on the subject of genetics?

Also, if the creationists lost the debate as badly as the last debate between Nye and Ham, would you finally conclude that creationism is hokum? How many times does creationism have to lose?

 

[Armoured]

Well, if you're so sure that creation scientists have got it completely wrong, go ahead and arrange a live TV debate with them, with equivalent scientists pitted against each other.

*sigh* how many times does this need to be done before YECs will stop pretending that it's never happened and evolutionists are scared of the challeng?

 

[Willtor]

*sigh* how many times does this need to be done before YECs will stop pretending that it's never happened and evolutionists are scared of the challeng?

Unfortunately, I _have_ seen it, and it isn't pretty. I saw Hovind debate a professor who gave a well-reasoned, fact-based argument, while Hovind gave an irrational, leading... but beautiful... presentation. Hovind wrote off the professor's arguments like they weren't worth addressing. Anybody who had a tiny bit of formal education in methods of reasoning would have said the professor dominated Hovind. But reading the comments, it was clear that virtually nobody had a tiny bit of formal education in methods of reasoning.

 

[whois]

Anybody who had a tiny bit of formal education in methods of reasoning would have said the professor dominated Hovind.

do you think that there are some things that are beyond reason?
contrary to what you might believe, the riddle of life has not been solved.
yes, it's reasonable to assume a natural origin, but there isn't any evidence of it.

 

[Willtor]

do you think that there are some things that are beyond reason?
contrary to what you might believe, the riddle of life has not been solved.
yes, it's reasonable to assume a natural origin, but there isn't any evidence of it.

You quoted a post of mine, but this has no relation to what I wrote.

 

[whois]

You quoted a post of mine, but this has no relation to what I wrote.

you mentioned "methods of reasoning", and i responded with do you think there are some things go beyond reason.
i was merely pointing out that reason doesn't always work.
yes, i believe like everyone else, life almost certainly is of natural origins, after all it IS reasonable.
the fact remains that science has failed in its quest at a solution.
this isn't because of a lack of research or resources, it's because of the problem itself.
every single hypothesis in regards to this matter has an insurmountable problem associated with it.

 

[Willtor]

you mentioned "methods of reasoning", and i responded with do you think there are some things go beyond reason.
i was merely pointing out that reason doesn't always work.
yes, i believe like everyone else, life almost certainly is of natural origins, after all it IS reasonable.
the fact remains that science has failed in its quest at a solution.
this isn't because of a lack of research or resources, it's because of the problem itself.
every single hypothesis in regards to this matter has an insurmountable problem associated with it.

I don't see what this has to do with the debate between a professor and Kent Hovind.

 

[whois]

I don't see what this has to do with the debate between a professor and Kent Hovind.

okay.
carry on.

 

[Armoured]

Unfortunately, I _have_ seen it, and it isn't pretty. I saw Hovind debate a professor who gave a well-reasoned, fact-based argument, while Hovind gave an irrational, leading... but beautiful... presentation. Hovind wrote off the professor's arguments like they weren't worth addressing. Anybody who had a tiny bit of formal education in methods of reasoning would have said the professor dominated Hovind. But reading the comments, it was clear that virtually nobody had a tiny bit of formal education in methods of reasoning.

Bill Nye, too.

 

[Willtor]

Bill Nye, too.

Och, I still haven't watched that one.

BTW, unrelated note, your sig is amazing!

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Creationist scientist is a contradiction in terms as creation isnt science, its religion and therfore metaphysical and can never be part of science.

Its bad theology and bad science.

Funny - creation scientists say more or less the same about evolution - it's [evolution] a belief system masquerading as science and leads to bad theology/atheism.