U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2010, 10:31 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,958,165 times
Reputation: 909

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
It started off as being mildly entertaining, and then rapidly descended into one of the scariest presentations that I have ever witnessed. Even in fear of sounding hyperbolic, it was akin to some Nazi propaganda film.
The guy definitely is a public speaker, but instantly he starts out with strawmen and misinformation. It gets scary around 3:30 where he starts talking about how "evolution means you're not worth anything."

I find it that he associations immediately "who am I" with "What am I worth," which are two separate questions answered in two entirely separate ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:18 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,693,560 times
Reputation: 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by methodmatriarch View Post
Unless people are afaid of truth, then i believe everyone should see these seminars Creation Science Evangelism | Browsing Media Categories (http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 - broken link)
"Creation Science"!! Well that made me a laugh before I even watched the video.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:23 AM
 
34,906 posts, read 9,021,289 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
DO tell. How exactly does ignoring and refusing to acknowledge or explain the source of control in the universe . . . all the while denying the existence of a source . . . constitute retaining an open and objective mind?
This has been explained to you already. That there is no reason to suppose that naturalism is not an adequate explanation. Your response has been little morethan 'it's obvious - except to those stupid unbelievers'. You have refusedto take the point. You have refused to accept that nobody really knows and where we don't know, we cannot say that we do. It is a waste of time talking to you and frankly I am disappointed about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
1,303 posts, read 1,808,905 times
Reputation: 710
A quick summary of what's to come:

Evolutionist: Evolution is a scientific fact; it's held up for well more than 100 years, despite many chances for it to be proven false

Creationist: Yeah, well where's your intermediates.

Evolutionist: Here's one: Tiktaalik

Creationist: What's that? It proves nothing. If evolution were true, how come my dog ain't ever turned into a cat. How come we never see monkeys giving birth to elephants. How come we never see any fronkeys

Evolutionist: That's not how it works

Creationist: Yeah, whatever.

Repeat this along with a little quote mining, walls of biblical text nobody's gonna read, claims of Noah's Ark being found, a few AiG links and you'll have a 500 page topic going around and around in circles that never ends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:27 AM
 
34,906 posts, read 9,021,289 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by methodmatriarch View Post
Unless people are afaid of truth, then i believe everyone should see these seminars Creation Science Evangelism | Browsing Media Categories (http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 - broken link)
It may be useful to see the questions posed in such efforts but then one should look in

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

or similar sites giving the counter -arguments, and they are much better science, trust me. It is neccessary to look at input from both sides of the debate - unless one is Really afraid of the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:36 AM
 
702 posts, read 813,273 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
When creationists claim that evolution is false, they often say that life is to complex to have arisen without divine intervention. This is a problematic argument though. Evolution has withstood 150 years of rigorous empirical testing and has always been proven to be true.
A question: If you're talking about macroevolution, how can that be empirically tested if you can't observe it happening or reproduce it?

Quote:
Flaw #1: When creationists claim design, they are never able to provide evidence for such a claim. What they're really saying is that they look at something such as the Grand Canyon and see how beautiful it is, and then are not able to understand how life could have arisen through natural(meaning nonsupernatural for those who want to claim I'm using the natural 'just is' argument) processes. They don't understand that evidence comes from scientific testing.
The realm of faith does not lie within the jurisdiction of science. That's the erroneous assumption you're making here. Science is not the measure of all things.

Also, you are incorrect in your take on the argument by design. I have heard the argument many times and in different ways but in all honesty have never heard it put the way you do here. Generally I don't try to prove God's existence because I don't feel I have to, but just for the record, an example of argument by design, as I see it, would be the human body: various systems working together to accomplish a purpose.

Quote:
Flaw #2: The Design argument is immune to disproof.
So is macroevolution, if that's what you are in support of.

Quote:
Creationists claim that the design argument is scientific, but their core concept(god) is undetectable by empirical testing.
Which of course does not mean that he does not exist. It just means that you personally don't recognize the revelation that points to his existence. But that's in the realm of faith, since I mentioned revelation. Back to science: The lack of perception does not in itself rule out the existence of something. If it did, then we would have to say that the planet Pluto had never existed prior to its discovery in 1930. If science can deal only with the observable, then it follows that that which it cannot perceive cannot be accepted or dismissed on its own grounds. The honest scientist should say, "God might exist, but I personally don't see any evidence for his existence."

Quote:
Flaw #3: Another flaw is that they compare two completely unrelated phenomena. The first is man made(usually a watch), the second is natural phenomena(the world). They assume that the two work the same, but they don't.
You might have a point there...

Quote:
Another problem with this argument is that you can go to see the watchmaker to learn how he/she makes the watch, but you can't go to God's magic universe factory.
That really doesn't destroy the argument. You don't have to observe the process of manufacturing to see that something has been intelligently designed. I never saw my computer actually being manufactured, yet I know beyond all doubt that it was designed by intelligent people. It has functioning parts that all work together as a system to accomplish some purpose(s). It would be ludicrous and insane to suppose that such an intricate device came about by chance. That is essentially the argument by design, as I understand it.

But like I said, I don't try to prove the existence of God. The rules of science do not apply to the realm of faith, which is why, IMO, the very term "creation science" is an oxymoron. It's also worthwhile to point out that the Bible itself never mentions design as a proof for creation. In fact, the Bible offers no proof for creation: It assumes it.

Last edited by Jremy; 03-18-2010 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:46 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,688,641 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
When creationists claim that evolution is false, they often say that life is to complex to have arisen without divine intervention. This is a problematic argument though. Evolution has withstood 150 years of rigorous empirical testing and has always been proven to be true.

Flaw #1: When creationists claim design, they are never able to provide evidence for such a claim. What they're really saying is that they look at something such as the Grand Canyon and see how beautiful it is, and then are not able to understand how life could have arisen through natural(meaning nonsupernatural for those who want to claim I'm using the natural 'just is' argument) processes. They don't understand that evidence comes from scientific testing.

Flaw #2: The Design argument is immune to disproof. Creationists claim that the design argument is scientific, but their core concept(god) is undetectable by empirical testing.

Flaw #3: Another flaw is that they compare two completely unrelated phenomena. The first is man made(usually a watch), the second is natural phenomena(the world). They assume that the two work the same, but they don't. Another problem with this argument is that you can go to see the watchmaker to learn how he/she makes the watch, but you can't go to God's magic universe factory.

I'm sure others can think of more flaws, but here's a start.

Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when DNA was unknown. He believed that a cell was a homogeneous globule of protoplasm. Yet today, we know that a single cell is a highly complex process. We also know, that (chance)could never explain how all the various working systems of such a cell, came into existance. One human cell alone, has more information than 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

(THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS A SIMPLE CELL.)

And because of this, Biochemist Michael Behe states. That science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin, much less believable.

To believe that cells have slowly come into existance, pretty much defies logic. It's kind of like seeing an enternal combustion engine laying on your driveway. You observe pistons in place, yet no compression rings, fuel pumps, or even spark plugs. Yet you feel confident, that they too will appear in another 10 million years. You can't have half of an engine, and you really can't have half of a cell. How could such a process all appear in working order? And with such advanced chemically, and mechanical systems in place. A single human cell rivals any of our nations most advanced industrial systems. AND YET, YOU WOULD BELIEVE THAT A HUMAN CELL OCCURED JUST BY CHANCE?

http://www.jameswatkins.com/evolution.htm

Last edited by Campbell34; 03-18-2010 at 07:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 09:36 AM
 
1,838 posts, read 1,934,841 times
Reputation: 179
the evolution of species is based on mutation-their has never been 1 case in whichg a mutation has benefited the genes infact its the opposite the cells will always fight against a mutated gene-species have the ability to adapt but never to change into another species

life comes from life
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,072 posts, read 4,974,117 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when DNA was unknown. He believed that a cell was a homogeneous globule of protoplasm. Yet today, we know that a single cell is a highly complex process. We also know, that (chance)could never explain how all the various working systems of such a cell, came into existance. One human cell alone, has more information than 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

(THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS A SIMPLE CELL.)

And because of this, Biochemist Michael Behe states. That science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin, much less believable.

To believe that cells have slowly come into existance, pretty much defies logic. It's kind of like seeing an enternal combustion engine laying on your driveway. You observe pistons in place, yet no compression rings, fuel pumps, or even spark plugs. Yet you feel confident, that they too will appear in another 10 million years. You can't have half of an engine, and you really can't have half of a cell. How could such a process all appear in working order? And with such advanced chemically, and mechanical systems in place. A single human cell rivals any of our nations most advanced industrial systems. AND YET, YOU WOULD BELIEVE THAT A HUMAN CELL OCCURED JUST BY CHANCE?

James Watkins: Does DNA disprove evolution?
C34, Behe isn't a credible source. His claim have been disproven and he isn't in a field that studies evolution. Also, you keep using the word chance as if it means that something happened for no reason. This is an incorrect use of chance though. Chance is just a label for what we don't currently know. Also, your example of an eternal combustion engine is completely unrelated to evolution. You're comparing two completely different things which work in completely different ways. The first is a man made phenomena(the combustion engine), the second is natural(something run by chemical processes) phenomena(the world/universe).

Last edited by agnostic soldier; 03-18-2010 at 10:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 10:36 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,138,372 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post

And because of this, Biochemist Michael Behe states. That science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin, much less believable.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Intelligent Design? (ActionBioscience)

Sorry for the cut and paste but frankly, this argument over evolution has become rather tedious. We spend months and months presenting the evidence only to watch creationist whither away, only to be replaced by another a few months later whereby the presentation must begin again from scratch.

Perhaps the site should consider establishing an Evolution Forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top