Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: A retar..... I mean a fundamentalist.
Hello Anyways but you will not find a home here. Most of the people that come to these forums are realistic people.
Haha, hello back. Appreciate the warm and mature welcome.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope.
Just checking.
I'm itching to ask you how you think Noah fit all those animals in a boat, but I think that is deserving of a different thread, one that won't be started, I hope.
You can start that thread if you like. I can defend the Noah account fairly easily.
Never meant to be mature, It was a joke. Welcome to the forums you reta.... oh damn! I forgot I have to be politically correct! I almost did it again! Welcome to the forums fundi!
Quote:"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. " Martin Luther King, Jr.
(October 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.
And what "evidence" leads you to conclude that the universe and everything in it was created by a magical man in the sky?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm (This post was last modified: October 13, 2010 at 6:50 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 13, 2010 at 4:44 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well bigotry is wrong no matter who it is against, even Creationists.
It's not creationists I despise, It's creationism. I don't like creationists teaching sciences that creationism is conflicted against for the same reason the oil industry shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves. It's counter productive.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Evidence cannot be interpreted without presuppositions. Presuppostions come directly from Worldviews. Hence why you can show a first grade student all the radiometric evidence you want and they will not independently arrive at the same conclusions as you because they lack your presuppositions. Gather a group of Scientists together who all have the same presuppositions and show them evidence and they will arrive at the same conclusions. However, this does not mean this is necessarily the correct conclusion.
Evidence can certainly be interpreted without presuppositions. Just ask any criminal investigator. An investigator doesn't walk into a crime scene expecting to find anything other than evidence and not even necessarily for a crime because just because they call it a crime scence doesn't mean a crime was even committed.
The exact same thing is true for scientists - they haven't arrived to the conclusion that the earth is 4.54 billion years old because they had the worldview first and the evience came in later to support it - the evidence pointed in that direction and the scientists followed.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The Dinosaur example was a bad oen considering they were first discovered by Owen who was a Creationist and a staunch opponent of Darwin.
... and how does that make it a bad example? He was clearly wrong, falsifying or purposefully misinterpreting data because it was opposed to his own beliefs, and was later proven to be a fraud because of those actions as more and more evidence piled up against his suppositions.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There are plenty of reputable Biologists, Geologists, and Astronomers who are Y-E, it's pretty much an urban legend to think otherwise. You don't think they have models and theories to explain Dinosaurs and Distant Starlight? They do.
Considering I am fully aware of the statistics of the prominance of Y-E creationism in scientific fields, I don't think I am when I say that the concept among scientists who hold to that belief is virtually non-existant.
There is a greater perponderance of scientists who have religion but they are not in the majority compared to atheists and agnostics in the field.
I'm also fully aware of the Y-E theories of why things look the way they are and they have the problem of violating the laws of physics to the point to where the universe could not exist in their "theories" were true or the universe wouldn't exist as they expect it would (for example, faster light in the past actually results in a universe older than the one we currently have.)
Lol, not expecting to find anything other than evidence is what?....a presupposition! Yay! if evidence does not require interpretation then why don't we allow just anyone to work in Forensics? Oh yeah, they have to first go through schooling so they can learn to collect and....wait for it....interpret the evidence! Yay!! In your world they would walk in and the evidence would be sitting there and would physically tell them, "so and so did this and this is how he did it" lol. If evidence doesn't require interpretation then why are innocent people sent to prison? Possibly a misinterpretation of the evidence against them? Pretty simple stuff really.
Owen is actually considered one of the greatest Scientists of the 19th Century. So to call him a "fraud" is kind of silly. He did discover your beloved Dinosaurs you know?
I like how you try and appeal to majority as if that is no longer a Logical Fallacy. Consensus is not Scientific Fact so you wasted your time on that one.
Most Creationists do not believe in the Tired Light Hypothesis or C-decay so talking about that was also a bit of a waste.
I ask for Science and you give me youtube? Pulllease.
(October 13, 2010 at 5:15 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: A retar..... I mean a fundamentalist.
Hello Anyways but you will not find a home here. Most of the people that come to these forums are realistic people.
Haha, hello back. Appreciate the warm and mature welcome.
(October 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope.
Just checking.
I'm itching to ask you how you think Noah fit all those animals in a boat, but I think that is deserving of a different thread, one that won't be started, I hope.
You can start that thread if you like. I can defend the Noah account fairly easily.
Never meant to be mature, It was a joke. Welcome to the forums you reta.... oh damn! I forgot I have to be politically correct! I almost did it again! Welcome to the forums fundi!
Yeah that's why I used this new thing we like to call sarcasm when I called you mature.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:02 pm)Thor Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.
And what "evidence" leads you to conclude that the universe and everything in it was created by a magical man in the sky?
None, Christians do not believe the Universe nor the Earth for that matter was created by a magical man in the sky.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Lol, not expecting to find anything other than evidence is what?....a presupposition!
sigh... okay. So this is how things are going to be?
Very well...
I suppose you are right in the sense that even 'I'm not going to have a presupposition' is itself a presupposition given it's dictionary definition, however, you explicitly mentioned a specific presupposition - that scientists themselves have an idea about how the world is and is not and measure evidence to confirm this or not when that is largely a religious approach to evidence given that they have a worldview to prove or disprove.
Scientists work in the opposite manner - given evidence they already have, they may have a predisposition toward a particular worldview until evidence contradicts it, which is something that has happened frequently in the scientific community, particularly with the astrophysics community over the past few centuries with the ability to look further and further into space.
In contrast, young-earth creationists have been using physics in attempts to prove that young-earth creationism is true or not. They've already reached a conclusion and are attempting to use science to prove this to be the case.
That's the difference I'm attempting to highlight by bringing up that particular topic and I bring it up because this is how that particular discussion has been going over the past several centuries and why the scientific outlook on the universe has changed so much over the past few centuries and religion has only changed its 'interpretations' of the same material without actually changing it.
Bullhockey like intelligent design and their attempts to use science to justify young-earth creationism is another product of this.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: if evidence does not require interpretation then why don't we allow just anyone to work in Forensics? Oh yeah, they have to first go through schooling so they can learn to collect and....wait for it....interpret the evidence!
Evidence doesn't require interpretation by a worldview - it requires interpretation in the sense that because it requires an understanding of the science behind such 'interpretations.'
For example, in investigating why radio signals have a 2.7 second delay between transmissions between earth-based transcievers and moon-based transcievers is viewed not because scientists had that view of the world, but due to the observance that the radio signal takes 2.7 seconds to be transmitted from the earth to the moon. That isn't a world view - that's evidence.
Yay!
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: In your world they would walk in and the evidence would be sitting there and would physically tell them, "so and so did this and this is how he did it" lol. If evidence doesn't require interpretation then why are innocent people sent to prison? Possibly a misinterpretation of the evidence against them? Pretty simple stuff really.
You're changing the scope of the arguement you've presented against me. Scientists and investigators interpret the evidence they have based on the science and understanding of the scientific concepts behind that evidence which is not dependant on a particuilar world view (like what religion has) but instead they rely on determining what the evidence is evidence of and they use that evidence and the science that is understood to understand what that evidence is evidence for.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Owen is actually considered one of the greatest Scientists of the 19th Century. So to call him a "fraud" is kind of silly. He did discover your beloved Dinosaurs you know?
I'm sure he did a lot of great things. He also withheld evidence and lied about it to his peers in order to promote a worldview inconsistent with the data he collected. When this was discovered, this (in addition to generally being a douche among other issues) is why his reputation was trashed.
Which, in turn, is why I consider him a fraud. I'm still glad he helped discover dinosaurs and his work was important, but, speaking of fallacies, he's not the ultimate authority on dinosaurs and he was wrong on evolution.
It's things like that, being disreputable scientists, is why I don't much care for listening to individuals so much as scientific concepts that have been peer-reviewed.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I like how you try and appeal to majority as if that is no longer a Logical Fallacy. Consensus is not Scientific Fact so you wasted your time on that one.
I like how you attempt to appeal to authority as though it were no longer a fallacy. Really? A blatant creationist who calls himself an astrophysicist?
At least my youtube video used simple high school math and science to utterly disprove Y-E creationism.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Most Creationists do not believe in the Tired Light Hypothesis or C-decay so talking about that was also a bit of a waste.
Whatever. It was an older video and I highly doubt that whatever BS your creationist shat out is worth any more of my attention.
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: None, Christians do not believe the Universe nor the Earth for that matter was created by a magical man in the sky.
No? I thought that they believe god did it. That's completely different, I'm sure.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
(October 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.
Quote:And what "evidence" leads you to conclude that the universe and everything in it was created by a magical man in the sky?
Quote:None, Christians do not believe the Universe nor the Earth for that matter was created by a magical man in the sky. [/hide]
Really? Because pretty much every Christian I've ever encountered believes the universe and everything in it was created by an all-powerful deity. Not to mention that this IS the "Biblical view of creation". So what do you think created the Earth?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
It was a joke. Welcome to the forums you reta.... oh damn! I forgot I have to be politically correct! I almost did it again! Welcome to the forums fundi! 
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
