Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: Silly Creationist
June 22, 2011 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 22, 2011 at 4:00 am)Anymouse Wrote:
Dr. Wise's pre-commitment to scripture is no different than your side's pre-commitment to materialism...
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "
- Professor Richard Lewontin
You know very well that even if all the evidence pointed to a supernatural creation (which I believe it does) you would still be a materialist.
(June 22, 2011 at 8:10 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I didn't know we were specifically dealing with "young-earth" creationists. I thought we were talking merely of Dawkins debating creationists, which ID proponents are, even if in veiled fashion.
As for the serious scientific academic journals, what major hoaxes have they promoted? I'm curious.
Dawkins was saying he would not debate creationists even before he debated those ID guys.
I do not accept your assertion that ID is synonymous with creationism. I'd have more respect for the movement if it were. There are ID proponents that believe in panspermia, which is hardly creationism.
Some instances of fraud in secular journals include, the Piltdown man hoax, Hwang Woo-suk’s falsified data relating to embryonic stem cell/cloning research, “stone age” relics found by German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, and a series of papers on superconductivity by Jan Hendrik Schön published in Nature. Not too mention the loads of excellent research turned down by these journals. It’s a corrupt system.
Posts: 1817
Threads: 18
Joined: April 22, 2011
Reputation:
17
RE: Silly Creationist
June 22, 2011 at 10:30 pm
"Ahh! So now we are getting somewhere, so you disallow supernatural explanations for origins from the get-go, but then turn around and say the evidence supports naturalistic explanations. "
Terminal dumbass. Too bad for you Kevorkian's dead.
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Silly Creationist
June 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm
The whole idea of the supernatural offends me
It seems pretty clear to me that anything that invokes the term 'Supernatural' can be assumed to not exist.
Its the equlvalent of saying it was done by 'magic'.
It is not an answer to anything.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: Silly Creationist
June 27, 2011 at 4:53 pm
(June 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The whole idea of the supernatural offends me
It seems pretty clear to me that anything that invokes the term 'Supernatural' can be assumed to not exist.Its the equlvalent of saying it was done by 'magic'.
It is not an answer to anything.
Care to explain why?
Posts: 67592
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 9:50 pm
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2011 at 9:59 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Care to posit a supernatural explanation for why it rains? Will this model of supernatural rain more closely conform to reality than our current model? Care to suggest supernatural model of anything?
The weakness of your opponents position (real or imaginary) does not add up to the strength of your own. Everyone you disagree with could be wrong, and you still wouldn't be right.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 150
Threads: 7
Joined: June 26, 2011
Reputation:
4
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Can you link me to any peer reviewed articles on your position Waldorf. You have made some interesting arguments ?
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see.
Jimi Hendrix
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
Kurt Cobain
Posts: 1817
Threads: 18
Joined: April 22, 2011
Reputation:
17
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 10:38 pm
(June 27, 2011 at 4:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (June 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The whole idea of the supernatural offends me
It seems pretty clear to me that anything that invokes the term 'Supernatural' can be assumed to not exist.Its the equlvalent of saying it was done by 'magic'.
It is not an answer to anything.
Care to explain why?
First question: Got any proof that the supernatural exists?
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Recurring answer: We don't need no steenking proof. We got faith.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 150
Threads: 7
Joined: June 26, 2011
Reputation:
4
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 11:14 pm
(June 28, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Recurring answer: We don't need no steenking proof. We got faith.
Faith is irrelevant. Evidence is evidence no matter what its conclusion is. If there is no evidence there is no premise. 
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see.
Jimi Hendrix
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
Kurt Cobain
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Silly Creationist
June 28, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Yer preachin' to the choir here, laddie.
Trying to update my sig ...
|
