-
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.
To all athiests out there: bring it on
- Thread starter tacoman528
- Start date
If he really is 15, that's too bad. I think this debate was just a little too much for him.
You should have to be 18 before you can post in the science forums, IMO. Then we could finally have some intelligent discussions.
You should have to be 18 before you can post in the science forums, IMO. Then we could finally have some intelligent discussions.
Upvote
0
Smilin
Spirit of the Wolf
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 59
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I always liked "don't jump in the deep end until you know how to swim". Checking for sharks first is a good idea, too
another favorite of mine...NEVER drop your gun to hug a grizzly bear!
Upvote
0
I appreciate the thought on the minimal age thing, ocean, but I strongly disagree. I've known people under the age of 18 who were remarkably bright, mature, and well-read on various science subjects and could hold their own in a debate. I went to high school with a guy who was a freaking physics and upper mathematics whiz kid. He was also bright enough to know when he was in over his head.
If nothing else, tacokid's pathetic meltdown might prove to be a cautionary tale for other young people who haven't invested sufficient time to be conversant in science subjects, especially evolution which is usually poorly taught before the college level.
I like the suggestion that tacokid is really Hovind's sockpuppet. I don't believe it, but I like it. At least his refusal to engage in a serious written debate is consistent with Hovind's MO.
If nothing else, tacokid's pathetic meltdown might prove to be a cautionary tale for other young people who haven't invested sufficient time to be conversant in science subjects, especially evolution which is usually poorly taught before the college level.
I like the suggestion that tacokid is really Hovind's sockpuppet. I don't believe it, but I like it. At least his refusal to engage in a serious written debate is consistent with Hovind's MO.
Upvote
0
Evenm the title of this thread is a challenge to "atheists" (read non YEC's). Saying "bring it on" and threatning people who were "pushing evolution" to "decieve" new Christians was basically asking for trouble. I hope he learns from this.
Upvote
0
Even the title of this thread is a challenge to "atheists" (read non YEC's). Saying "bring it on" and threatning people who were "pushing evolution" to "decieve" new Christians was basically asking for trouble. I hope he learns from this.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Wow, twenty-nine pages of discussion, and I missed it.
But I will try to insert a voice of reason here, and give a basis for continued discussion.
Taco, if you want to discuss science, you have to know what science does, and how it does it.
When you make up a hypothesis, you have to look for evidence that would prove it, and evidence that would disprove it. You must try to explain both kinds, and adjust your hypothesis accordingly.
In your case, we now have a hypothesis of "There was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, which killed all life on earth, except what Noah took on his Ark."
Now you can look for evidence that might hint at a worldwide flood, how long ago it happened, what kinds of life existed, which were killed, which survived...
If you did that, you would see that there were some evidences that can be interpreted as proof for the Flood, but many more that raised doubt about it.
Those evidences against a worldwide recent flood are there - you cannot deny them away - you have to explain them.
And the only way you , or Hovind, can explain them is to claim that all of our carefully concieced methods of observation fail in this special regard.
What do you think about the famous archeological finds in the Middle East?
Do you think they found Jericho and the Stables of Salomon?
Do you thing they identified and correctly dated the places and events from the Bible?
Do you think they correctly reseached and identified the places and people from the Gospels - Herod the Great, Augustus, Pontius Pilatus...?
How do you think this was done?
How do you think this research was done, if not by the same ways and methods that you claim so utterly fail every time they find something that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible?
How do you think is it possible that each and every different dating method - and there are many - fail exactly in the same way?
Every time you start to claim "Earth cannot be older than 6000 years, because...", you rely on the accuracy of certain scientific observation methods.
And every time you start to deny claims that Earth is older than 6000 years, you deny the accurace of the same methods.
Don´t you see the logical fallacy in your argumentation?
But I will try to insert a voice of reason here, and give a basis for continued discussion.
Taco, if you want to discuss science, you have to know what science does, and how it does it.
When you make up a hypothesis, you have to look for evidence that would prove it, and evidence that would disprove it. You must try to explain both kinds, and adjust your hypothesis accordingly.
In your case, we now have a hypothesis of "There was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, which killed all life on earth, except what Noah took on his Ark."
Now you can look for evidence that might hint at a worldwide flood, how long ago it happened, what kinds of life existed, which were killed, which survived...
If you did that, you would see that there were some evidences that can be interpreted as proof for the Flood, but many more that raised doubt about it.
Those evidences against a worldwide recent flood are there - you cannot deny them away - you have to explain them.
And the only way you , or Hovind, can explain them is to claim that all of our carefully concieced methods of observation fail in this special regard.
What do you think about the famous archeological finds in the Middle East?
Do you think they found Jericho and the Stables of Salomon?
Do you thing they identified and correctly dated the places and events from the Bible?
Do you think they correctly reseached and identified the places and people from the Gospels - Herod the Great, Augustus, Pontius Pilatus...?
How do you think this was done?
How do you think this research was done, if not by the same ways and methods that you claim so utterly fail every time they find something that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible?
How do you think is it possible that each and every different dating method - and there are many - fail exactly in the same way?
Every time you start to claim "Earth cannot be older than 6000 years, because...", you rely on the accuracy of certain scientific observation methods.
And every time you start to deny claims that Earth is older than 6000 years, you deny the accurace of the same methods.
Don´t you see the logical fallacy in your argumentation?
Upvote
0
To smilin's message earlier and anyone else who asked,
The reason it's taking so long for tacoman to respond is simple like two plus two, he's FIFTEEN. Now if the obvious answer still hasn't come to you and your "highly intelligent" co-poster's, I'll just have to spell it out S - as in snake C - as in cat H - as in home O - as in obvious O - as in omnipotent and L - as in later!
The reason it's taking so long for tacoman to respond is simple like two plus two, he's FIFTEEN. Now if the obvious answer still hasn't come to you and your "highly intelligent" co-poster's, I'll just have to spell it out S - as in snake C - as in cat H - as in home O - as in obvious O - as in omnipotent and L - as in later!
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Then he should be aware of that handicap, and not try to take a bite to big for him to swallow.
It´s been a while since I was fifteen, but I surely can remember that I never told anyone that I could anwer any questions regarding a topic as controversial as that one.
Still I think it is a good exercise in reason and logic - and I will await Taco´s answer, if he deigns to notice me.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Being 15 gives you a few disadvantages; lack of experience, and not enough time to learn much about a subject. In my primary fields of interest, I've been studying things a few hours a week for a good fifteen years; that sure makes a difference.
I gotta admire the kid's guts, but I don't think he understands what science *is*.
I gotta admire the kid's guts, but I don't think he understands what science *is*.
Upvote
0
Thats probably why you didn't ask why he wasn't responding. I wasn't talking to you seesaw I was talking to the "highly intelligent people".
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Hey people, how do you expect Taco to make a sensible response to any meaningfull posts when they all get drowned in stupid bickering?
I think my post was meaningfull - and it was intented to be read and answered.
Take it to PM if you want to insult each other.
I think my post was meaningfull - and it was intented to be read and answered.
Take it to PM if you want to insult each other.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
