The Delusions of Richard Dawkins

[PaxThroughX]

You're assuming creationists are real scientists working in their respective fields of expertise. They're not.

Prove it! I have yet to see how.

 

[PaxThroughX]

From an evolutionary biologist perspective, the creation versus evolution debate has nothing to do with power. The dispute simply comes from the fact that young earth creationists feel threatened by evolution.

I was refering to our default nature, dealing with power. Go figure, but tell me, what do you think of the "evidence," of say the oldest trees in the world?

Every creationist is different, the young earth ones are the ones that reject science the most and often lie about evolution (again simply because the evidence threatens their interpretation of the Bible so much). Most TE that I met are much more honest, but even some of them (especially the defenders of intelligent design) will be dishonest in debates.

Lie? Dishonest? How?

 

[PaxThroughX]

Buy a college level biology textbook. Study it till you actually understand it. Compare what it says to creationist texts. You'll have your answer.

The dispute arises because being ignorant on a topic does not withhold anyone from making a lot of noise about said topic.


I have not encountered a single one, whether professional or "amateur", who isn't.

I would describe them as not a creationist. While not every evolutionist (theistic or not) is completely knowledgable on how evolution actually works, many are. Some theistic evolutionists, including some that post on this forum, are much more knowledgable on the topic than I am.

Ok, so a Biology text book (college level) proves that Creationist are ignorant? Are we ignoring the study of Astronomy or even Geology if that is even relevant?

 

[PaxThroughX]

The theory that has 150 years of solid science and mountains of evidence backing it, and that is the theory of evolution.

Which is, in your own words?

 

[CabVet]

I was refering to our default nature, dealing with power. Go figure, but tell me, what do you think of the "evidence," of say the oldest trees in the world?

Welcome to the Science of Tree Rings!

Lie? Dishonest? How?

By telling lies. You want examples? This page is filled with them:

Evidence for a Young Earth | Creation Today

There is not one line of information on the page above that isn't either a straight lie or a distortion of the facts.

 

[CabVet]

Which is, in your own words?

Evolution is descent with modification, or the change in inherited characters of populations over time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

but tell me, what do you think of the "evidence," of say the oldest trees in the world?

You didn't ask me, but the oldest tree has to be younger than the earth, so I see no problem with the Pando Quaking Aspen being 80,000 years old, or that "Less well-studied Quaking Aspens in Utah may be 80 hectares in extent and one million years old."

Now, if the oldest tree in the world was 100 billion years old, that might pose a problem.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Lie? Dishonest? How?

Any prominent creationist who has claimed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution has been alerted to the fact that they are mistaken. Many of them continue to repeat this untruth, and even charitable people must conclude that they are either idiots who cannot comprehend their error, or flagrant liars.

 

[mark kennedy]

Any prominent creationist who has claimed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution has been alerted to the fact that they are mistaken. Many of them continue to repeat this untruth, and even charitable people must conclude that they are either idiots who cannot comprehend their error, or flagrant liars.

That particular argument has yet to be substantively addressed by the evolutionist community at large and certainly not by you. The fact of the matter is evolution is a living theory, about living things and how they develop and change over time. The argument may or may not have merit empirically but it's rather curious. Instead of addressing the substance of the argument you resort to an ad hominem fallacy, choosing to insult the person rather then addressing the actual issue.

Fact, Creationism is essential Christian theism:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. (The Nicene Creed)

Fact, this is a Christians only forum which means you must be a Creationist in order to post here.

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)​

(Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service, see Statement of Faith)

Fact, the Scriptures teach that God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and the soul of man (Gen. 1:27). That same power was expressed and exercised at the Incarnation, Resurrection and the new birth of every Christian who has heard the Gospel of our salvation, believed and received the Holy Spirit of promise.

The secular mind has a reason why it cannot accept the things of God, its because they are spiritually discerned. The Christian who attacks and insults another Christian for believing the Scriptures as written is simply revealing something about himself. I don't particularly like the argument based on the probability of life emerging from non-living matter, aka abiogenesis. My personal favorite is Natura non facit saltum, or nature does not make leaps. When I fail to make the naturalistic assumption that all life evolved by elusively naturalistic means that doesn't make me an 'idiot' or a 'liar'. It makes me a Creationist and all Christians, theistic evolutionist or otherwise are Creationists. If you don't get that then it is you who are grossly ignorant of the substance of the controversy at hand, resorting to fallacious inflammatory rhetoric betrays an ignorance of both science and Christianity.

Frankly, I'm appalled.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AECellini]

That particular argument has yet to be substantively addressed by the evolutionist community at large.

it has actually been beaten to death
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Fact, this is a Christians only forum which means you must be a Creationist in order to post here.

this forum allows christians and non christians alike to post in this subforum so your fact is fiction.

and the rest of your post seems completely irrelevant.

 

[mark kennedy]

Prove it! I have yet to see how.

He will never prove it because it's simply not true:

Can creationists be real scientists?

Many secular and atheist groups mock Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum for not being scientific. However, some of the most influential scientists past and present have been and are creationists (see below).​

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

That particular argument has yet to be substantively addressed by the evolutionist community at large and certainly not by you.

The 2nd Law only applies to closed thermodynamic systems. The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. Case closed.

I stand by my assessment of creationists who persist in using the 2nd law as an argument against evolution after they have been shown the error of their ways.

 

[mark kennedy]

it has actually been beaten to death
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

It's been argued in circles endlessly, that's about it.

this forum allows christians and non christians alike to post in this subforum so your fact is fiction.

Obviously you haven't read the rules, or you simply choose to ignore them:

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.​

Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

and the rest of your post seems completely irrelevant.

Which translated means you post a random link, make a statement based on a gross ignorance of the rules or reckless indifference to same. Then you conclude with a pedantic dismissal indicating you have not the slightest interest in the actual subject matter.

Rest assured, I've been posting here for quite some time. I know the rules and I know the difference between the genuine article of science and childish mockery. See you around.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

Obviously you haven't read the rules, or you simply choose to ignore them:

In the navigation bar above, if you click on Creation & Evolution, which is a parent folder of this topic, you will see "Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too."

Rest assured, I've been posting here for quite some time. I know the rules and I know the difference between the genuine article of science and childish mockery. See you around.

Maybe your confidence should be reassessed.

 

[USincognito]

For the new folks, I'd like to introduce Mark Kennedy. He's a decent guy who has been doing CF and America proud by serving his country all during OAF and OIF including several deployments and activations.

He does, however, have one character flaw - he can never be wrong. It doesn't matter if he's arguing genetics with a geneticist, physics with a physicist or fossils with a paleontologist, he can never be wrong. Note how, when corrected that this is an open forum, instead of taking 3 seconds to scroll up and check the nav bar, he immediatly launches into a condesnding lecture doubling down on his error.

Obviously you haven't read the rules, or you simply choose to ignore them:

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.​

Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

I don't know about his computer, but as I type this response, this is what I see on my screen.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, so a Biology text book (college level) proves that Creationist are ignorant? Are we ignoring the study of Astronomy or even Geology if that is even relevant?

Comparing what a college text book in biology, astronomy or geology says, with what a creationist states about the scientific consensus in biology, astronomy or geology proves that the claims the creationists make about those disciplines are wrong.

And this invariably holds for any scientific subject creationists talk about. Creationists generally have not the faintest clue about the subject they are critiquing. That is something you can easily check. There credibility falls down at that point.

 

[CabVet]

Obviously you haven't read the rules, or you simply choose to ignore them:

Obviously, you are the one who didn't read the rules or simply choose to ignore them. If the evidence provided by the others above is not enough, here is a direct quote from a moderator in another topic:

This forum is open to all members- regardless of faith and non-Christian members should not be flamed in this areas because they are not Christian.

But I do understand your need to attack the messenger when you don't have an argument against the message.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Obviously, you are the one who didn't read the rules or simply choose to ignore them. If the evidence provided by the others above is not enough, here is a direct quote from a moderator in another topic:



But I do understand your need to attack the messenger when you don't have an argument against the message.

Now, now -- let's give Mark a break... it might simply be that he has wandered into the wrong forum and doesn't know where he is.

 

[PaxThroughX]

Welcome to the Science of Tree Rings!



By telling lies. You want examples? This page is filled with them:

Evidence for a Young Earth | Creation Today

There is not one line of information on the page above that isn't either a straight lie or a distortion of the facts.

Then what is fact? Is it evidence that threatens a existence of something we can never prove, fully?

 

[CabVet]

Then what is fact? Is it evidence that threatens a existence of something we can never prove, fully?

No, it is fact. For example, it is a fact that planet earth has existed for more than 6,000 years.