For Creationists.....

[Aron-Ra]

We know that didn't happen as certainly as we know that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around. But since you're a geocentrist, then I'm sure what I just said will have little or no impact on you.

First of all, why do professionals disagree with you?

They don't. Some of the loonies disagree with me, but the experts are all in consensus against you.

You don't believe in the stork too, do you?

Why even bother to ask this question?

Because what you believe is that silly. Its so dumb even YECs are embarrassed to be associated with you!

I never said that the sun "orbited" the earth, this is a fundamental straw man that even Creationists make.

That thread has been deleted now, but I remember you saying exactly that, and me having show you comparisons of the volume of the sun vs that of the earth to try and show you how impossible that was. But if that is not your position anymore, then do please clarify.

 

[MarcusHill]

Why is it that when I read my posts, for some reason I get the impression that you read it as if I were just some kid? My voice is really deep and I'm almost an adult.

I'm not entirely sure whom you're addressing. I don't make any judgements specifically because you're less than half my age or because you're not yet an adult. I do make judgements because your posts show signs that you are either not as well informed as you could be (which is certainly curable with time) or that you wilfully ignore information you do have (which can be a failing of anyone regardless of age). And it's not just because you're a Creationist either - there are some Creationists around here (OnceDeceived springs to mind) who are clearly much better informed and more open to rational debate than you are.

 

[Valkhorn]

Why is it that creationists accuse scientists of believing in things without evidence (when they don't) yet at the same time believe in things without evidence?

 

[RichardT]

They don't. Some of the loonies disagree with me, but the experts are all in consensus against you.

You're calling Ernst Mach a loony?

Because what you believe is that silly. Its so dumb even YECs are embarrassed to be associated with you!

Actually, I've spoken to quite a few YECs who either agree with me, or who don't know enough about it either way. Although it is true that there are quite a number of YECs who don't want to be associated with it.

That thread has been deleted now, but I remember you saying exactly that, and me having show you comparisons of the volume of the sun vs that of the earth to try and show you how impossible that was. But if that is not your position anymore, then do please clarify.

The earth is supposed to seem like it is orbiting the sun when looking at the sun as a reference frame in order to fulfill the laws of gravitation and relativity.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Heliocentrcity. I do not know of any creationists who oppose this... Do you?

I do.

Thank you, Richard.

Now seriously, how do you explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw

Or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

 

[RichardT]

Now seriously, how do you explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw

This video is very emotionally packed.

Or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Rofl. They have the numa numa guy go off randomly.

What is there to explain though, I knew the universe was big.

Although I do not believe that life is possible anywhere else because Abiogenesis is still nothing more than a hypothesis within the philosophical naturalist framework.

 

[Tomk80]

You're calling Ernst Mach a loony?

I would not call him a loony. I would call him dead for almost a hundred years now, making him quite unable to make relevant statements on the evidence we have accumulated since his death.

 

[RichardT]

I would not call him a loony. I would call him dead for almost a hundred years now, making him quite unable to make relevant statements on the evidence we have accumulated since his death.

Please get into details, because nothing that I know of is a problem for Geocentricity. (Foucault's Pendulum, the Coriolis effect, the constant speed of light, etc...)

 

[TheOutsider]

Please get into details, because nothing that I know of is a problem for Geocentricity. (Foucault's Pendulum, the Coriolis effect, the constant speed of light, etc...)

I'll repeat what I said earlier: It's impossible to reason with someone who believes that the universe revolves around himself. They will rationalize away or ignore any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

[FoeHammer]

Honestly, Foehammer, the belief that because some things aren't changing, others can't as well is deserving of any ridicule it gets.

I have stated that truth does not change, where have I stated that other things, by this I take it you mean things that aren't true, can't?
Next thing you'll be telling me that there are absolutely no absolutes.

And don't give me that truth doesn't change either. Because again, I can do the same thing. So, worms fall during rain, right? Flies are magically spawned from leaving meat out? There are MORE than enough instances of things that we believed to be true changing drastically to what they are now. If we came across evidence for a theory other than evolution that explains biodiversity as we see it and it held up to review, I'd drop evolution without a second thought. Nothing, in science, is seen as directly and purely true. Gravity? Yeah, we're pretty sure we've got it figured right, but if we observed evidence that baffled us, we'd really have to take a second look.

Regardless of whether or not these things were believed to be true, by you or anyone else, were they true? Truth is truth, it does not, cannot change.

That was a silly and ridiculous argument you posted, and it should be seen as such. Yes, I was being obtuse. What's your point? So are you.

A misunderstanding of the point of the post. An admission to being deliberately obtuse keep it up you're looking more silly with every post you make.

FoeHammer.

 

[RichardT]

I have stated that truth does not change, where have I stated that other things, by this I take it you mean things that aren't true, can't?
Next thing you'll be telling me that there are absolutely no absolutes.

I sort of agree with you here, I hate the great uncertainty that science offers. I feel a lot more secure when my beliefs are fixed and absolutely sure from an infallible revelation.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I sort of agree with you here, I hate the great uncertainty that science offers. I feel a lot more secure when my beliefs are fixed and absolutely sure.

....and can therefore never improve. Which is especially since first assumptions are almost always wrong, and almost certainly wrong about something somewhere.

I like the uncertainty because that is honest where this pretense of "absolute truth" is not, and cannot be.

 

[FoeHammer]

I do.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_%28response_2%29

Well now I know of one.
Thanks for the link Richard, I'll take a good look at it and let you know what I think... If you're interested in what I think that is.

FoeHammer.

 

[RichardT]

Well now I know of one.
Thanks for the link Richard, I'll take a good look at it and let you know what I think... If you're interested in what I think that is.

FoeHammer.

Yes, I am interested in what you think. I've shared this with quite a few other of my Creationist friends and surprisingly they were very open to the idea.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This video is very emotionally packed.

Irrelevant. What about the apparent obscurity of our tiny world amidst the rest of the universe? Obviously it cannot be either the center or the beginning of the rest of the universe in any respect.

Although I do not believe that life is possible anywhere else because Abiogenesis is still nothing more than a hypothesis within the philosophical naturalist framework.

And "goddidit" doesn't qualify as an hypothesis in any framework, and is in fact only another attempt to use magic as an excuse to avoid finding out the real answer.

 

[RichardT]

Irrelevant. What about the apparent obscurity of our tiny world amidst the rest of the universe? Obviously it cannot be either the center or the beginning of the rest of the universe in any respect.

But it could, I don't see why not, the fact that the universe is huge doesn't stop the ether. If the ether were to stop moving it would collapse on itself.

And "goddidit" doesn't qualify as an hypothesis in any framework, and is in fact only another attempt to use magic as an excuse to avoid finding out the real answer.

You're correct that when studying science within the naturalist framework or philosophical presupposition, that one will need to figure out how life started, and if all else fails, you must keep formulating hypothesis.

There are many frameworks where one can work the empirical data, ranging from atheistic naturalism (philosophical/methodological naturalism) to gap theory / day age creationism / progressive creationism to straight out Young Earth Creationism.

 

[UnknownUsername]

What evidence do you have of the ether? I want to know what exactly you think it is.

 

[TheOutsider]

More of the "Science is Atheistic" lie. Don't you guys ever get any new material?

 

[Aron-Ra]

But it could, I don't see why not, the fact that the universe is huge doesn't stop the ether.

The fact that there is no ether stops the ether. But even if there was ether, this tiny spec we live on still cannot be the center of ....anything beyond our own perspective.
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=16835245&postcount=1

 

[Edx]

So where is theistic evolution in this diagram?