Silly Creationist

[Minimalist]

So you guys are still that dumb.

Was that ever in doubt?

[Gawdzilla]

You see this just bugs me when this happens. People will bash on Creation, but then they don't even take the time to learn the current Creation theories. If I spent all my time bashing on ideas that Darwin put forth in his work you would no doubt tell me, "Well that's not the most current evolutionary model." So that's all I am telling you now, there is a current creation model that encompasses catastrophic plate tectonics. So if you are going to try and refute creation, at least try and refute what creationists believe.

I've read a lot of creationist theory. It's all shit.

[Genghis]

You see this just bugs me when this happens. People will bash on Creation, but then they don't even take the time to learn the current Creation theories. If I spent all my time bashing on ideas that Darwin put forth in his work you would no doubt tell me, "Well that's not the most current evolutionary model." So that's all I am telling you now, there is a current creation model that encompasses catastrophic plate tectonics. So if you are going to try and refute creation, at least try and refute what creationists believe.

I've read a lot of creationist theory. It's all shit.

Here is a creation hypothesis: + = , hock:, and , which cause me to do this

[Epimethean]

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

[Gawdzilla]

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

The problem with them is they refuse to see that a fatal flaw to their little system will render it moot. That flaw is the use of magic to start the whole thing. When I saw that scolding post a few spots back here I literally laughed out loud. You don't have scientific theories based of "Poof, the Universe was ordered to appear by a bearded get with a penchant for foreskins." So "reading up on creationist theories is horsehit. I've read Ray Comfort's books, I've dug through "creation science" websites for information, I even bought a used copy of Intelligent Design for Complete Idiots. (Admittedly, that was just because the title sounded so right, but I did plow through it.)

[Epimethean]

Yeah, I'm with you there. It's just nice to see one of the creatooners who doesn't want to fight a duel with his rubber sword. Not too many of those, but maybe they'll spread, and then maybe they'll take that final step to reason ...


Prolly not, eh?

[Anymouse]

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD, Geology, Harvard.

"Halfway" seems to be extending a bit too much to Dr. Wise.

[Epimethean]

Maybe so, but he's a helluva lot closer to the edge of sanity than most of his wackjob fellows in camp creatoon.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Intelligent design is just creationism lite. As far as the Dawkins/Lennox debate, that one was rather good and neither man came out of it decisively, but for further reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4crCoBj2tA

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047 (from 2009)

Here is Dawkins telling you just what I have been telling you:

Deleted because someone beat me to it.

What sorts of serious scientific academic journals do you consider vetted worldwide, Statler? Let's look at that as a means to proceed.

---

Allister and John are certainly not young earth creationists. I love them both and think they are solid debaters but I believe even Dawkins says that he does not view Allister as a creationist. I actually thought that Dawkins got beat up pretty good by Lennox in that debate, the whole "Richard, you don't have faith in your wife?" quip was awesome.

I don't put stock in one particular journal over the others; I try to examine the articles by themselves. The peer review system as a whole has some merit, but it has become rather corrupt and has missed the boat on some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in the last century and has published some of the biggest hoaxes in the last century. So I don't put much faith in it anymore.
.

---

I've read a lot of creationist theory. It's all shit.

Like what have you read?

---

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

Way to misrepresent Dr. Wise there. He is a presuppositionalist, so that is what he was referring to, not who has all the evidence. Have you read his book "Something From Nothing"?

---

---

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

The problem with them is they refuse to see that a fatal flaw to their little system will render it moot. That flaw is the use of magic to start the whole thing. When I saw that scolding post a few spots back here I literally laughed out loud. You don't have scientific theories based of "Poof, the Universe was ordered to appear by a bearded get with a penchant for foreskins." So "reading up on creationist theories is horsehit. I've read Ray Comfort's books, I've dug through "creation science" websites for information, I even bought a used copy of Intelligent Design for Complete Idiots. (Admittedly, that was just because the title sounded so right, but I did plow through it.)

---

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. Circularity at its finest. I should start using this,
Me: “The only explanation I will accept for the Universe is a supernatural one.”
Atheist: “How do you know that this is the correct hypothesis?”
Me: “Oh, well all the evidence supports it.”
Atheist: “What about the evidence that infers a naturalistic explanation?”
Me: “Oh, I already said I don’t allow naturalistic explanations, that’s not science!”
Just plain silly.

[Epimethean]

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.