The Creationist who Atheists cannot disprove !

[RealityCheck]

AW -

Now you see what I mean by "stacking the deck"?

 

[Angelwarrioress]

[/I][/FONT]

From the Cedarville Univ. Website:





From the Cedarville Univ. Website:



About Cedarville Univeristy in General:

[/LIST]

Thank you , for the info, like I said I had only heard of him and knew he was coming to our town. Glad you set the records straight !

 

[Angelwarrioress]

AW -

Now you see what I mean by "stacking the deck"?

Yes.

 

[RealityCheck]

Now, if this guy wants to have an honest, genuine debate with scientists, then by all means he ought to. I'm pretty sure, however, that most scientists will decline such an invite, if only because they will have already decided that debating this is not worthwhile. Creationism has no scientific merit and does not attempt to - creationism is entirely an effort to rewrite the definitions of what constitutes valid science, rather than actually contributing any valid research within the defined parameters of science. Therefore the general consensus is, what's the point of the debate?

 

[RecentConvert]

Now, if this guy wants to have an honest, genuine debate with scientists, then by all means he ought to. I'm pretty sure, however, that most scientists will decline such an invite, if only because they will have already decided that debating this is not worthwhile. Creationism has no scientific merit and does not attempt to - creationism is entirely an effort to rewrite the definitions of what constitutes valid science, rather than actually contributing any valid research within the defined parameters of science. Therefore the general consensus is, what's the point of the debate?

Generally, scientists decline verbal debates. The few verbal debates I've seen usually favour the the creationists, presumably because the scientists are not orators while the creationists are good orators rather than being scientists.

Interestingly enough, some scientists have invited creationists to published (written) debates of indeterminate (unlimited) length which the creationists then decline! I presume it's because the scientists will have all the time they need for a seriously reasoned response whereas the creationists can't take advantage of this medium since they have no real reasoning with which to respond!

 

[Morcova]

There are people from each side from the community that hold the debate for it to be fair. Everyone is given open floor time. Lol , he is not in jail, how funny : )

Nobody claimed he was in jail. He said he sounded like someone who is in jail right now.

Mainly for tax fraud.

 

[Beastt]

I rather doubt that he could put up any kind of credible argument against scientists since it seems many of his claims fell to the crowd here in fairly short order. Granted, there are some professional scientists here but I think the majority of science-savvy individuals here are fairly amateurish by comparison. (I hope to learn enough to qualify as amateurish some day.)

In any regard, if his arguments can't stand up to the people here, I'd think he'd be left red-faced in the first 10-minutes of any real debate against people well trained in their respective fields of science. It would appear his claims are more than a bit over-blown.

 

[Edx]

Sorry. Recent polls state more than half of Americans don't believe in Evolution

Not to mention less than 7% of the scientific community believes in a God.

America doesnt equal the entire world

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

From his bio:

Dr. Jackson has taught Creation Science courses over the Internet to home school groups and has done creation workshops for teacher groups in East Tennessee and Venezuela.

Is there a new state nobody told me about?

Seriously, he seems like a new Kent Hovind in training. At least he has a legit (if his bio is true) PhD. I think he must have kept most of his views silent at UVA, however; now probably most of his grad school profs are covering their eyes in shame.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Evo's wanna find liquid water on Mars, 'cuz they think it'll prove Mars life, and they think that'll prove evolution. At the American Astronomical Society, WA StU said the 1976 Mars Viking probe didn't find life ... 'cuz Mars life's not water-based, but water-peroxide based. So there really is Mars life (bacteria) and "evo's true." Can you say "pixie dust."

These "long, long periods of time" stories ... just ain't necessary.

How can a man with a PhD feel comfortable writing in this fashion. Granted, I'm an English teacher, but this is pathetic.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Angelwarriorress, it has already been pointed out, but read the following paragraph carefully - it's from the Points of Origins Ministries "Statement of Faith".

6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Do you understand the implications of such a claim? This man, regardless of his claims of scientific rigor, doesn't try to do research, or perform experiments or anything even remotely resembling science. Instead, he starts from where he should finish, so to speak - he assumes that young earth creationism is correct and tries to get reality to agree.

 

[Paulos23]

There are people from each side from the community that hold the debate for it to be fair. Everyone is given open floor time. Lol , he is not in jail, how funny : )

Maybe, but his debate tactics leave much to be desired. "Winning" such a debate means nothing, his position is still scientifically unsound.

 

[FishFace]

Sorry. Recent polls state more than half of Americans don't believe in Evolution

Not to mention less than 7% of the scientific community believes in a God.

I expect someone else has already told you this by now, but it's important. The Gallup Poll from 2006 revealed that about 36% of Americans believe in Theistic Evolution whereas only 13% believe in atheistic evolution. It is thus reasonable to conclude that most (American) believers of evolution are theists.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Re the OP title, "The Creationist atheists can't disprove."

In that cas, is it ok if we stand aside and let the scientifically knowledgeable Christians demolish him?