Creationists are so Kooky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Ash

We are in a computer program, your arguments are irrelevant.

---

I like that theory. Pretty wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Ash

Thats just what an Agent Smith would say.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shellysummers

SO let me get this straight. You address one line of my post without addressing the main points of my original post and i am the one that needs to bone up on debating?! You didn't ruin my proof. You proved it. They sell "creationist books" and web sites. They do not make creationist medicines or creationist cosmological models that explain large portions of our sky. They look at unique portions of it and then make an explanation from limited observations. That is the problem with creationist science. They do not make leaps of logic.

Also you didn't even address the evidence i presented on the dinosaur article.

---

How old are you again? Geez you are quite the projector. Selective reader. Lack of comprehension. Let's try this again. There are many different branches of science. The ones that involve origins, whether big bang or creation, are their own branch. The only products that they sell are books and information. So you were proved wrong. Evolution theorists don't sell evolution machines or evolution medicines. Your argument that real science makes money is full blown ignorant. The pet rock made money. What evolutionist science went into that? If you're completely unwilling to see how wrong you are, I give up. There's no hope for you. Please don't ever go into any field that involves critical thinking. You will be an inadvertent sabotage to everything. You have a total inability to look at evidence objectively. Try actually watching the videos. If you can properly refute the points without going all "google, copy, paste" then I'll believe you understand the matter. But I know that's not the case just from the little you've said.

I skip the thread because my lunch hour ended and I didn't have time to respond to it, I come back a day later and Dave rips the roof off the forum, and everyone is smoking weed while pissing on Bill Nye... I'm leaving.

Sorry bruh. Cats wanna have a civil discussion, I'm down. I love civil discussion. You wanna throw ether? I'm gonna dump ether.

When I get involved in a discussion where someone points out my errors, I'll come back as a student. Where did I go wrong? I feel like I'm right, but you said I'm wrong. Show me. I'm ok with being wrong. I wanna hear your side.

But when you're all "blah blah, horse crap, you're dumb, this is wrong," well I'm a sling that right back and show how blank your slate is. You can't regurgitate what someone said and consider yourself a free thinker or an expert on the subject. I don't get into debates with muslims because I haven't read the Q'uran. Evolutionists shouldn't jump into debates until they know what creationism actually entails. They just assume it's all Christians with young earth models. It's like, dog, don't even enter this discussion if you don't even know what you're debating against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI&t=14m47s

You know I feel bad for christians who arent young earth believers but still believe in creationism when Im sure theres probly some better representatives of creationists , but ken ham is not one of them and from Ive been reading alot of christians take offense to alot of ken hams views . Ken even saying himself nothing will ever chage his view cause the bible is the word of god and and god is right (not exact words but pretty much his point). Even scientist dont like to change their view (like how the world was flat and a male doctors hands never get dirty etc etc.) but after some time even those views change after substantial evidence, but as for the explanation of our origins people like ken ham just arent good for arguing their point cause to the majority of people creationist are exactly like ken ham (which is not true) alot of christians do not believe in the young earth model. Wish it couldve been someone else cause Im sure Ken is a very nice person but seems to just have an agenda to prove the bible is law.

The guy in the first video does a much better job of explaining creationism. I'm not even an expert and I feel like I could've done better than Ken Ham. There are two approaches, evidential and presuppositional. Ken Ham's evidential apologetics are weak. He did a poor job. I can't imagine that his presuppositional apologetics would be any better. And Ken's young earth model is not representative of many creationists. I still don't get why people have trouble with accepting that the 6 days account doesn't have to be a literal 6 earth days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angel"EL DIABLO"Diaz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI&t=14m47s

You know I feel bad for christians who arent young earth believers but still believe in creationism when Im sure theres probly some better representatives of creationists , but ken ham is not one of them and from Ive been reading alot of christians take offense to alot of ken hams views . Ken even saying himself nothing will ever chage his view cause the bible is the word of god and and god is right (not exact words but pretty much his point). Even scientist dont like to change their view (like how the world was flat and a male doctors hands never get dirty etc etc.) but after some time even those views change after substantial evidence, but as for the explanation of our origins people like ken ham just arent good for arguing their point cause to the majority of people creationist are exactly like ken ham (which is not true) alot of christians do not believe in the young earth model. Wish it couldve been someone else cause Im sure Ken is a very nice person but seems to just have an agenda to prove the bible is law.

---

Thanks for posting the link. I was a little disappointed with Ken Ham's ability to debate and actually felt that Bill Nye won the debate. Here's is another great debate with Kent Hovind (creationist) vs Michael Shermer (Skeptic Magazine). If someone could post the link I would be much abliged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GJmFVcfys

If I'm understanding Diablo correctly, because the "majority" (as stated in Bill's piece), don't believe in "Ken's" young earth model (literal biblical account of creation), we should set it to the side? Presupposition was the entire basis for this debate. There was an answer here (whether or not Nye thinks it has been translated thousands of times), and Ham, as well as many that believe God is sovereign think it's the correct answer, it was way more important to get that point out there, than to get any other scientific evidence for something even Bill Nye couldn't explain.

Dave, brace yourself for my run-on sentences; I was all about hearing both pieces of material in the debate up to the part where Bill said something troubled him. He was discomforted and troubled about several biblical things (made me laugh a little).

And day and night passed and that was the first (approx) 24 hour day paraphrased from Gen 1:5 in your ESV translated from Straight from Hebrew. If you believe part of the bible literally and another part not so literally, you aint ready for apologetics, which I think Ken was doing just fine. I can't agree that he did a bad job, even with evidence he agreed that darwins finches could be adaptable, just not that the birds became people at some point. Bill was a better speaker, but he also fell into the hands of a supernatural God all the way through to the point where he asked a salvation question like Nicodemus, I lost it.

How old are you again? Geez you are quite the projector. Selective reader. Lack of comprehension. Let's try this again. There are many different branches of science(True and creationism is not one of them). The ones that involve origins, whether big bang or creation, are their own branch( Wrong Big bang is cosmology and evolution would be more along the lines of biology, chemistry and even abiogenesis.) . The only products that they sell are books and information(Wrong, scientist use the biological evolutionary theory to follow the progression of diseases to determining your ancestry with nothing more than your DNA.) So you were proved wrong.(Not even close. What did you prove? you typed words, i use examples) Evolution theorists don't sell evolution machines or evolution medicines.(No such thing as evolution theorist, ow and it's not a world view either.) Your argument that real science makes money is full blown ignorant.(I will sort of give you this one. Corporations make things based off of science. So you are half right there.) The pet rock made money. What evolutionist science went into that? (While an ignorant question i will answer. The study of how our minds have developed over many generations would show that with the right model you can sell almost anything to us.) If you're completely unwilling to see how wrong you are, I give up. (Don't give up, stop being ignorant. Watch a documentary. I would suggest The Cosmos by Carl Sagan. It is some top shelf hooch) There's no hope for you. Please don't ever go into any field that involves critical thinking. You will be an inadvertent sabotage to everything. You have a total inability to look at evidence objectively. Try actually watching the videos. If you can properly refute the points without going all "google, copy, paste" then I'll believe you understand the matter. But I know that's not the case just from the little you've said.(That my friend is called projection. I give examples you gave nothing but words! Taking soap box and dropping the mike![/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shellysummers

How old are you again? Geez you are quite the projector. Selective reader. Lack of comprehension. Let's try this again. There are many different branches of science(True and creationism is not one of them). The ones that involve origins, whether big bang or creation, are their own branch( Wrong Big bang is cosmology and evolution would be more along the lines of biology, chemistry and even abiogenesis.) . The only products that they sell are books and information(Wrong, scientist use the biological evolutionary theory to follow the progression of diseases to determining your ancestry with nothing more than your DNA.) So you were proved wrong.(Not even close. What did you prove? you typed words, i use examples) Evolution theorists don't sell evolution machines or evolution medicines.(No such thing as evolution theorist, ow and it's not a world view either.) Your argument that real science makes money is full blown ignorant.(I will sort of give you this one. Corporations make things based off of science. So you are half right there.) The pet rock made money. What evolutionist science went into that? (While an ignorant question i will answer. The study of how our minds have developed over many generations would show that with the right model you can sell almost anything to us.) If you're completely unwilling to see how wrong you are, I give up. (Don't give up, stop being ignorant. Watch a documentary. I would suggest The Cosmos by Carl Sagan. It is some top shelf hooch) There's no hope for you. Please don't ever go into any field that involves critical thinking. You will be an inadvertent sabotage to everything. You have a total inability to look at evidence objectively. Try actually watching the videos. If you can properly refute the points without going all "google, copy, paste" then I'll believe you understand the matter. But I know that's not the case just from the little you've said.(That my friend is called projection. I give examples you gave nothing but words! Taking soap box and dropping the mike!

---

[/QUOTE]


shelly, from the couple of your posts ive read before this thread, you sound like a keen spring chicken, but more than belabouring a point, being a bit of a douche on the forum and getting defensive really doesnt go down well. im not saying you did or didnt have good points and the same goes for everyone else on the thread but honestly getting your knickers in a knot just because a guy on a jiu jitsu forum who you know practically nothing about, didnt categorize which specific science something belongs to, well it seems pretty silly.

dont you think it would be better to discuss the topic normally and not alienate everyone on the forum? youre arguements did sound generalised and vague, especially at the start.

and lastly, unless people start figuring out exactly what happened then none of this really changes anything for us at all so who cares. they say god has a beard, im sure he could create everything.

Your right Isiac i did start out very general. Reason for that was most people on this forum have been very general. I haven't tried to be cranky but when i am called basically immature by people that put don't forward any evidence other then generalities. I felt an intellectual obligation to put forward some observations with examples. When i posted observations and articles addressing certain points, no one actually addressed the subject matter i presented. They focused on one sentience, which did not actually have anything to do with the rest of the post or even the evidence i presented. It was just me being a bit snarky. If people had come at me with stuff i can research and intelligently counter. Well I would love to deal with that! Your right this is a BJJ site and not a debate site about creationism.

I think science and a desire to learn the true reasons for things are some of the greatest attributes of modern society. Here at 10th planet everyone is always trying to expand the world of BJJ through experimentation. If i offended anyone sorry that was not my intent. I was trying to be true to the source material.