I've seen each of these arguments here, top 10! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : I've seen each of these arguments here, top 10!


High-Gear
07-30-2012, 14:28
Top Ten Creationist Arguments - YouTube

Geko45
07-30-2012, 15:40
#5 will be a big hit here.

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 15:52
#5 will be a big hit here.

For one person at least. :cool:

JBnTX
07-30-2012, 16:05
Once again the atheists totally miss the point.

chickenwing
07-30-2012, 16:06
Once again the atheists totally miss the point.

And what's the point JB that atheist missed?

Lone Wolf8634
07-30-2012, 16:14
And what's the point JB that atheist missed?

Don't bother, JB posts like he's committing a drive by, all you hear is gunfire and the roar of an engine as he speeds off.

JBnTX
07-30-2012, 16:25
And what's the point JB that atheist missed?


All of that in the video is taken out of context and presents a half truth that only intends to make fun of religion.

I know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but (modern) man has only been around for about 10-15 thousand years.

I believe in evolution, for animals, not humans.

All the rest can be characterized as a lie by omission.

Animal Mother
07-30-2012, 16:50
All of that in the video is taken out of context and presents a half truth that only intends to make fun of religion.

I know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but (modern) man has only been around for about 10-15 thousand years. You're off by a factor of around 20.
I believe in evolution, for animals, not humans. What biological difference exists between humans and what you classify animals that would allow for evolution in one case and not in the other?
All the rest can be characterized as a lie by omission.Could you perhaps expand on this a bit?

GreenDrake
07-30-2012, 17:30
There it is. Plain and simple. This should be a great thread.

Schabesbert
07-30-2012, 18:25
There it is. Plain and simple. This should be a great thread.
Yeah, it is simple. Although I believe in many of the statements (dates, etc.) given (although I also believe that the progressions are far too astronomically improbable if not impossible to happen without intelligent guidance), I was kind of embarassed for athiests by that video.

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 18:39
Yeah, it is simple. Although I believe in many of the statements (dates, etc.) given (although I also believe that the progressions are far too astronomically improbable if not impossible to happen without intelligent guidance), I was kind of embarassed for athiests by that video.

In what way?

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:57
Don't bother, JB posts like he's committing a drive by, all you hear is gunfire and the roar of an engine as he speeds off.

Only took him 20 minutes to respond, looks like you owe him an apology for the BS charge at least.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 19:00
#5 will be a big hit here.



Yep, those superficial arguments have been debunked.

Altaris
07-30-2012, 19:12
I was kind of embarassed for athiests by that video.

What was embarrassing about it?

Lone Wolf8634
07-31-2012, 09:58
Only took him 20 minutes to respond, looks like you owe him an apology for the BS charge at least.

Hmm, seems in this case, you are correct.

My apologies to JB.

Schabesbert
07-31-2012, 11:06
In what way?
The arguments were facile and non-sensical, arguing against caricatures, and in many cases wrong.

Take the first claim, which pitted Carbon-dating against radiometric dating. Carbon-dating IS a form of radiometric dating.

Many of their quotes were mere appeals to authority, and the comebacks were pure assertion (claim 2, for instance).

I could go on, but I don't need to waste my time.

In poking fun at the anti-evolutionists, they did no better. There are far better arguments for evolutionary theories (although nothing I would term a proof) that I've seen. This was simplistic populist nonsense.

cowboywannabe
07-31-2012, 11:25
in love, religeon, and politics this is a good motto.

fgutie35
07-31-2012, 11:53
Atheists constantly critique creationinsts blind faith on God. Yet they equally blindly believe in Carbon dating as the ultimate truth!:rofl:

GreenDrake
07-31-2012, 11:58
Atheists constantly critique creationinsts blind faith on God. Yet they equally blindly believe in Carbon dating as the ultimate truth!:rofl:


Try radiometric dating. Rib woman and talking snakes makes more sense to you, I take it?

fgutie35
07-31-2012, 12:03
Try radiometric dating. Rib woman and talking snakes makes more sense to you, I take it?

Try researching first before posting. Carbon dating IS a type of radiometric dating.:tongueout:

GreenDrake
07-31-2012, 12:05
Try researching first before posting. Carbon dating IS a type of radiometric dating.:tongueout:

I know that, your initial assumption was that simple carbon dating was inaccurate. Are you still sticking to the magic rib woman and talking snake as the basis of life?

eracer
07-31-2012, 12:08
I believe in evolution, for animals, not humans.

All the rest can be characterized as a lie by omission.There is no arguing with someone who believes this.

Geko45
07-31-2012, 13:52
Atheists constantly critique creationinsts blind faith on God. Yet they equally blindly believe in Carbon dating as the ultimate truth!:rofl:

There is a difference in having faith in something and actually knowing how something works. We know how radiometric dating works, no faith is required. The science behind it is mature. The same equations and theories that enabled us to build bombs and reactors enabled us to know what the measure of radioactive decay in an element means in regards to the age of the sample from which it came.

fgutie35
07-31-2012, 14:52
There is a difference in having faith in something and actually knowing how something works. We know how radiometric dating works, no faith is required. The science behind it is mature. The same equations and theories that enabled us to build bombs and reactors enabled us to know what the measure of radioactive decay in an element means in regards to the age of the sample from which it came.

Well, since you seem to be an emeritus in the subject, why don't you explain to us, why is it that coal has still traces of C-14 when according to your infallible radiometric theory, it shouldn't?
:dunno:

Animal Mother
07-31-2012, 15:20
Well, since you seem to be an emeritus in the subject, why don't you explain to us, why is it that coal has still traces of C-14 when according to your infallible radiometric theory, it shouldn't?
:dunno:
1. Emeritus is a title denoting someone who has retired, so it really doesn't make sense in this context.

2. You're pulling out a tired creationist tactic of trying to require infallibility or absolute certainty when science has never promised either.

3. The existence of C14 in coal is explained by the radioactive decay of surrounding mineral deposits, which also accounts for the wide variation of radiation levels found in coal from different areas. Other possible factors are also being considered, but the important point here is that the mechanism is understood and recognized not through divine revelation but through ongoing observation and research.

Animal Mother
07-31-2012, 15:26
The arguments were facile and non-sensical, arguing against caricatures, and in many cases wrong. It can be difficult not to make caricatures out of creationists.
Take the first claim, which pitted Carbon-dating against radiometric dating. Carbon-dating IS a form of radiometric dating. It didn't pit them against one another, it pointed out that the claim that C14 dating is used to date the age of the Earth is false and that other forms of radiometric dating can and do give us a reliable age for the planet.
Many of their quotes were mere appeals to authority, and the comebacks were pure assertion (claim 2, for instance). Claim 2 is neither an appeal to authority nor pure assertion. Evolution has been proven, it is observable, it has been observed. The video might not provide a comprehensive bibliography of evolutionary works, but that wasn't its purpose and such information is readily available.
I could go on, but I don't need to waste my time. Considering that neither of your two stated objections stand up to the simple expedient of watching the video, perhaps you should go on.
In poking fun at the anti-evolutionists, they did no better. There are far better arguments for evolutionary theories (although nothing I would term a proof) that I've seen. This was simplistic populist nonsense. Watching evolution happen doesn't qualify as proof in your mind? The observed commonality of genetic material among all life isn't compelling evidence for common descent?

muscogee
07-31-2012, 15:55
Once again the atheists totally miss the point.

Do not. Your turn. Isn't this stimulating?

Schabesbert
07-31-2012, 16:06
It can be difficult not to make caricatures out of creationists.
A mature person might give it a try.

Claim 2 is neither an appeal to authority nor pure assertion.
Your rebuttal is a pure assertion.

Evolution has been proven, it is observable, it has been observed.
While I'll admit to some compelling evidence, it has hardly been "proven." It has some holes in the theory which should have been filled by now.

The video might not provide a comprehensive bibliography of evolutionary works, but that wasn't its purpose and such information is readily available.
No, it's intent was obviously to caricature and poke fun. Hardly an intellectual pursuit.

Watching evolution happen doesn't qualify as proof in your mind?
Watching adaptation is not the same as "watching evolution."

The observed commonality of genetic material among all life isn't compelling evidence for common descent?
Not really. But there IS compelling evidence.

Animal Mother
07-31-2012, 18:06
A mature person might give it a try. Don't doubt that I haven't. Many, many times.
Your rebuttal is a pure assertion. Completely false as you tacitly admit in your further response. My rebuttal is based on evidence which is readily available and
has been offered here a number of times in previous discussions.
While I'll admit to some compelling evidence, it has hardly been "proven." It has some holes in the theory which should have been filled by now. Compelling evidence contradicts your claim of pure assertion. On the other hand, your claim of holes which should have been filled is itself nothing other than unfounded assertion.
No, it's intent was obviously to caricature and poke fun. Hardly an intellectual pursuit. When you're responding to people who believe the Flintstones is a documentary, the caricature already exists.
Watching adaptation is not the same as "watching evolution." As adaptation is an aspect of evolution, yes, it is.
Not really. But there IS compelling evidence. Please, do share.

fgutie35
07-31-2012, 19:32
1. Emeritus is a title denoting someone who has retired, so it really doesn't make sense in this context.

2. You're pulling out a tired creationist tactic of trying to require infallibility or absolute certainty when science has never promised either.

3. The existence of C14 in coal is explained by the radioactive decay of surrounding mineral deposits, which also accounts for the wide variation of radiation levels found in coal from different areas. Other possible factors are also being considered, but the important point here is that the mechanism is understood and recognized not through divine revelation but through ongoing observation and research.

1.- apparentally your sense of humor is different than mine, so you didn't get the joke.

2.- really? So now your so called "Compelling Evidence"don't have to be accurate? Just as long is between the ball park according to the status quo of the science circles?

3.- Yes, it could be anything contaminating the data. It could be big foot who farted on that piece of coal that registered C-14 which by the way should be non-existant within the thousands of years and not "millions" like science wants you to believe.

Animal Mother
07-31-2012, 19:44
1.- apparentally your sense of humor is different than mine, so you didn't get the joke.
Apparently.
2.- really? So now your so called "Compelling Evidence"don't have to be accurate? Just as long is between the ball park according to the status quo of the science circles? Not what I said at all. I simply acknowledged that science neither offers nor promises absolute certainty. This doesn't damage the reality of evolution any more than it does the reality of fusion or the reality of gravity.
3.- Yes, it could be anything contaminating the data. It could be big foot who farted on that piece of coal that registered C-14 which by the way should be non-existant within the thousands of years and not "millions" like science wants you to believe.[/COLOR]No, it couldn't be "anything", it would have to be something radioactive, but again that doesn't alter the fact that C14 can be used for accurate dating nor that the mechanisms of radioactive decay are understood through investigation, not through divine revelation.

Tilley
08-01-2012, 02:45
I know that, your initial assumption was that simple carbon dating was inaccurate. Are you still sticking to the magic rib woman and talking snake as the basis of life?

Are you using yourself as living proof that "Intelligent Design" is a myth?




:tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 18:04
Hmm, seems in this case, you are correct.

My apologies to JB.

:wavey: Good show.

You're a pretty cool dude after all. Just opinionated, which isn't such a bad thing since I am too.

Altaris
08-01-2012, 18:37
Are you using yourself as living proof that "Intelligent Design" is a myth?


:tongueout:

Absolutely.


If I were designed by even a slightly intelligent being I wouldn't have all of these defects, and our human bodies would be constructed in a much better and more logical manner.

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 18:52
Absolutely.


If I were designed by even a slightly intelligent being I wouldn't have all of these defects, and our human bodies would be constructed in a much better and more logical manner.

You have to have the right questions. If we were designed, were we designed to be perfect? Was the design perfect? Does the presence of a designer necessitate a perfect designer.

I've been studying the human body for a few years, and while I might design a few things differently, it is an amazing and complex machine.

http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl

http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl?2

It's possible. :dunno:

GreenDrake
08-01-2012, 19:38
Are you using yourself as living proof that "Intelligent Design" is a myth?




:tongueout:

You out of ammo already?