Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And just as often you have been asked to provide evidence of factual inaccuracy in Talk.Origins refutations. We're not going to discard a valid, reputable and ultimately scholastically supported source just because you say it's wrong. You need to show that, and you have not. Talk.Origins stays.TexasSky said:Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.
It is scientifically wrong in several locations.
TexasSky said:The world will really and totally have reached the last age of Christianity when Chrisitans look to atheists or agnostics to teach us what our faith requires.
Hi there. That's my line you used above. I'd like to direct your attention to that nifty little faith icon sitting right under my name up there. Go ahead and place your mouse cursor over it. Notice how the word "Catholic" pops up? That would be one of the various Christian denominations. About ready to remove the foot from your mouth?TexasSky said:The world will really and totally have reached the last age of Christianity when Chrisitans look to atheists or agnostics to teach us what our faith requires.
But not a True Christian. You know, with all this "accepting reality" thing going on.TheInstant said:The person you quoted is a Christian.
So you only object to the idea of abiogenesis?Redwolf said:Evolution is not the problem. It's origin.
As in..........whence camest that firstest ingredient from which all sprangest?
When you talk about deception, you are not aware that you cannot put your finger on how it all began?Baggins said:To be taken in by such things one has to want to believe in them, you can't get someone with a skeptical mindset to believe in a photo of a pterodactyl.
He wants to be deceived, because in some way it sustains his christian faith.
This debate isn't about how the universe came to be. The answer to that question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.Redwolf said:When you talk about deception, you are not aware that you cannot put your finger on how it all began?
You do know how it all began?
Then why don't you tell us.
Just to clarify: You accept evolution, but deny the possibility of abiogenesis.Redwolf said:And?
Asking us to throw out an unrefuted source is not fair. It's debate sabotage.TexasSky said:I am being fair and I am asking for fairness.
AIG. We object because we've refuted everything on AIG and ICR's websites literally hundreds of times over. It's not that we don't feel they warrant refutations - it's just that they've already had refutations and it gets tiresome repeating it over and over. In fact, that's a lot of the reason we use Talk.Origins. It has a database of common creationist claims (what we call PRATTs) with attached refutations and referenced source documents (most of which are scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific articles).You object to places like AGI.
No, it's accurate. Just because something doesn't agree with your personal standpoint doesn't make it biased. We don't object to AIG or ICR because they are biased. That would be silly. We object because we've already shown them to be wrong, hundreds upon hundreds of times over.Talk Origins is biased.
Talk.Origins is a legitimate scientific website, referencing in plain sight the peer-reviewed articles used to support their refutations. You'd be hard-pressed to find something more scientific than that.There is nothing UNFAIR in asking that you sight legitimate science sites IF you demand that of others.
Any article that supports evolutionary theory or creationism is fighting "on one or the other side". Talk.Origins just compiles them for easy access. Again, we have no problem with AIG or ICR's affiliation. We have a problem with them being factually incorrect.Since I noticed an extreme bias against any site that is linked to a Christian site, I had tried to limit any science I discuss to things like "Science Daily" or other sites that are VERY clearly NOT trying to fight on one or the other side of an arguement.
We will continue to use scientifically accurate, scholastically-supported websites like Talk.Origins.I ask that YOU people do the same thing.
No, it's correct.Talk Origins is biased.
Seeing as how I said it is correct above, it being wrong at the same time would be at least marginally contradictory.It is wrong.
Yes, we do.You ask for examples.
Please provide both the Talk.Origins claim and the refutation for this. So far we have hearsay.The easiest example is when it discusses helium in the atmosphere. It touches on the fact that helium is lost. It totally ignores the fact that the rate it is lost is significantly lower than the rate at which is it produced.
I don't think so.Now, IF you happen to find someone that is honest enough to admit that. In discussions about problems with evolution these people will usually say, "Well, obviously there is some kind of massive loss that we don't know about yet." They will not carry that through to discuss the logical, and purely scientific, results that anything that catastrophic would have caused. They just try to avoid that part of the discussion.
Such as?There are similiar problems in many of the Talk Origins statements.
Many of them aren't, and most of them don't hold degrees in any relevant field (hydraulic engineers discussing biology, for instance).The simple fact is if Creation Scientists are sited, anti-creationists will mock them, claim they are not real scientists
This is often the case.delcare that they are not valid individuals to use. They often say, "Well, they are just quoting people they don't understand."
We do. In fact, we hold our own sources up to better standards than the creationist community will allow their sources to be held up to - the scientific peer-review process. Until you start referencing documents peer-reviewed by the field you have no right to tell us that we don't police our sources well enough. We do a darn sight better than creationists do.You have to hold your own sources up to the same standards you demand of others or your own arguements are bogus, biased and biggotted.
Thanks.Also, I just went back and saw that a statement I quoted, thinking it came from someone else, is actually from a Christian. I apologize to the Christian for that misunderstanding. I had not looked at the icon.
Well, that was a heck of thin apology. As a Christian, though, I forgive you and accept your apology all the same.I am astounded that people who ARE Christians are using such rude, mocking, taunting words against fellow Christians. It is shameful behavior.
You have no scientific evidence for God, nor any other origin.MrGoodBytes said:Just to clarify: You accept evolution, but deny the possibility of abiogenesis.
What is the scientific alternative to abiogenesis?
Correct. So?You have no scientific evidence for God
We can develop a hypothesis, and test some of it, like Miller and Urey did.nor any other origin.
And what do you have?You lack that first ingredient, that very first one.
I don't really know what you're getting to. Care to explain?Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)
Redwolf said:Hypotheses are like nooses on which science hangs itself.
Your point being?The citation on abiogenesis I used is an example of how hypotheses work. From one guess to the next.
It's fun, tho.
I don't get this. Abiogenesis researchers stake no claims to any overwhelmingly likely complete truths at this point. Why, then, do you think "gotcha" rhetoric is damaging to a field whose practitioners readily admit is partially speculative?Redwolf said:guesswork
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?