Evolutionists saying categorically wrong things

[notto]

I'm sorry, this doesn't appear to be a properly structured sentence. I think the word you were looking for was "is", not "it". I also think that you probably intended to back this up with some evidence, but forgot to do so at the last minute. You may want to go back and fix those things, along with your improper capitalization of the "i" in "ironic".

I'm quite curious about how the statement is categorically wrong as well. We are all familiar with creationists claims of changing decay rates, speeds of light and unworkable models of geology that never deal with things like heat or mechanisms for sediment turning to solid rock. They aslo rely on rapidly changing 'kinds' and migration scenarios that don't fit the evidence whatsoever.

The statement seemed to be dead on. It certainly wasn't categorically wrong and for the most part is demonstratably true.

Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis

 

[jamesrwright3]

I'm quite curious about how the statement is categorically wrong as well. We are all familiar with creationists claims of changing decay rates, speeds of light and unworkable models of geology that never deal with things like heat or mechanisms for sediment turning to solid rock. They aslo rely on rapidly changing 'kinds' and migration scenarios that don't fit the evidence whatsoever.

He is wrong if he is saying all creationists believe in the things he lists.

The statement seemed to be dead on. It certainly wasn't categorically wrong and for the most part is demonstratably true.

For the most part is is demonstably false. I would hedge to say that most "creationists" are not YECers and hence he is wrong.

 

[Manakin]

The irony is that everytime you try to accuse me you are really only telling on yourself. It is good in that I would not know that you did not have a "shred of evidence", if you had not told me that you do not have any evidence. Yes indeed, the irony meter does indeed seem to be going off a lot lately over the evoes accusing others of the very thing that they are guilty of.

Where was the last time I saw something like this... oh I remember. Junior high school. "I'm rubber and you're glue! Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah!!"

Takes all kinds, I guess.

John, if there's some part of your meaning I'm missing, by all means point it out. But right now, I'm not seeing it.

 

[notto]

He is wrong if he is saying all creationists believe in the things he lists.

It doesn't appear that he was. It certainly is true of the 'scientific' sources that most creationists here use.

For the most part is is demonstably false. I would hedge to say that most "creationists" are not YECers and hence he is wrong.

No, creationists do all of those things. You seem to be adding to the argument. What he said is demonstratably true and certianly is not 'categorically' wrong. I could point to references that demonstrate it is true. How can it be categorically wrong?

 

[Garnett]

He is wrong if he is saying all creationists believe in the things he lists.

Where were the "if"s in your first post?

Like most intelligent people I would never suppose all Creationists believe the same thing. Since each one on this board has to radically change their beliefs each time one of them is pulled up on a flaw in their logic, I would hazard the guess Creationism is probably the most diverse "theory" to be given the name (albeit erroneously).

For the most part is is demonstably false. I would hedge to say that most "creationists" are not YECers and hence he is wrong.

And again. Another strongly asserted argument based on a false presumption. Don't worry I am not offended by your error. We see lots of Creationists posting these sorts of flawed arguments all the time. After all, flawed logic is a requirement in a belief in Creationism.

 

[jamesrwright3]

And again. Another strongly asserted argument based on a false presumption. Don't worry I am not offended by your error. We see lots of Creationists posting these sorts of flawed arguments all the time. After all, flawed logic is a requirement in a belief in Creationism.

It would help if you could read. I could recommend a good program called "Hooked on Phonics for Dummies".
The post I was referring to lumped ALL creationists into one group. It did not differentiate. So please read before you make yourself look any dumber, if that is even possible.

 

[Jet Black]

He is wrong if he is saying all creationists believe in the things he lists.

did you check?

 

[Garnett]

It would help if you could read. I could recommend a good program called "Hooked on Phonics for Dummies".
The post I was referring to lumped ALL creationists into one group. It did not differentiate. So please read before you make yourself look any dumber, if that is even possible.

LOL. Compare:

"Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis"

"Scientists are making new discoveries in Geology, Physics and Mathematics almost on a daily basis"

Now, slowly for the kid at the back: Do you think the second sentence is saying ALL scientists are making those discoveries every day?

 

[Jet Black]

The post I was referring to lumped ALL creationists into one group.

if it is the same post as the one I think you are referring to, it didn't at all. It merely said "creationists do these things on an almost daily basis" It didn't say all.

 

[jamesrwright3]

LOL. Compare:

"Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis"

"Scientists are making new discoveries in Geology, Physics and Mathematics almost on a daily basis"

Now, slowly for the kid at the back: Do you think the second sentence is saying ALL scientists are making those discoveries every day?

Yes, and it says "Creationists" Hence, it lumps them into a single group LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Garnett]

LOL. Compare:

"Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis"

"Scientists are making new discoveries in Geology, Physics and Mathematics almost on a daily basis"

Now, slowly for the kid at the back: Do you think the second sentence is saying ALL scientists are making those discoveries every day?

Yes...

So you do think, every time you read a sentence like that in the news, that every scientist has made each discovery? And you've suggested I need work on my reading?

 

[jamesrwright3]

So you do think, every time you read a sentence like that in the news, that every scientist has made each discovery? And you've suggested I need work on my reading?

Yes, you do need help with your reading and maybe with logic, especially if you don't see the difference between the two statements.

 

[Garnett]

Yes, you do need help with your reading and maybe with logic, especially if you don't see the difference between the two statements.

Enlighten me.

 

[Norseman]

Yes, you do need help with your reading and maybe with logic, especially if you don't see the difference between the two statements.

I'm intrigued. Go on.

 

[Micaiah]

First of all, there is quite a difference between the point I was making in my thread, and the point you are trying to make here. catgegorically wrong referred to things that were trivially wrong, such as Shinbits' claim that there were bears in Australia, or TexasSky's assertation that Tiktaalik was an overgrown tadpole and there was only one fossil etc.

In this thread you have a good exampe of the type you describe.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2962861-a-practical-refutation-of-argument-from-improbability.html

 

[Split Rock]

Has anyone noticed how often the evos change their theory. At times it is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week, because in a few days it will be a all new theory.

In light of this statement, would you say that creationists are wrong to claim that evolutionary science is dogmatic and treated like a religion by its proponents? Afterall, dogma is dogma because it does not change in light of new evidence, etc.

 

[Micaiah]

In light of this statement, would you say that creationists are wrong to claim that evolutionary science is dogmatic and treated like a religion by its proponents? Afterall, dogma is dogma because it does not change in light of new evidence, etc.

The commitment to a naturalistic explanation of origins while excluding all others is evidence that evolution (chemical and biological) for many scientists is a dogma.

 

[caravelair]

The commitment to a naturalistic explanation of origins while excluding all others is evidence that evolution (chemical and biological) for many scientists is a dogma.

the exclusion of supernatural events in science is not dogma. it does not come by choice, but by necessity. the scientific method can NOT test supernatural claims, so scientists cannot possibly use them. what about this do you not understand?

 

[Split Rock]

The commitment to a naturalistic explanation of origins while excluding all others is evidence that evolution (chemical and biological) for many scientists is a dogma.

The commitment to naturalistic explanations of not just "origins," but everything in the physical world is a necessary methodology in science. It is not a dogma. Unless you can provide us a means of determining whose supernatural explanations are more accurate, we will have to continue to stick to explanations based on the natural.

 

[And-U-Say]

I noticed the other thread, so I thought we should have equal time here. Has anyone noticed how often the evos change their theory. At times it is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week, because in a few days it will be a all new theory. For example (people always ask for examples) For a long time they use to talk about the tree of life. But now they are saying evolution is not a tree, it is a bush. I guess they were wrong in saying it was a tree. But somehow the "bush of life" does not have the same ring of truth to it.

So you think that the evolution of ToE is a bad thing. Have you ever considered even for the briefest moment that every other field of Science does the same thing? This is the very strength of Science and its what makes it useful.

Let's just take heart disease as one example. The last few years have seen a dramatic change in the approach to heart disease. Inflamation and auto immune issues are now known to be critical aspects of the disease and completely different and more effective treatments are being designed to account for this. Using your moronic philosophy doctors would still be treating heart disease by proscribing massive amounts of butter (a popular treatment 100 years ago when it was believed that the butter would lubricate the coronary arteries).

Everything you own and your very health and life are owed to the fact that Science is ever changing and learning. And yet you have the sheer audacity to criticize that very essence that makes your quality of life possible. The very worst example of biting the hand that feeds you. I guess computers should be run on vacuum tubes and patch cords.