What is sad is to see another creationist ignore reality and follow the same path of all those creationists before him and wipe his butt with the very book he professes to be the source of his theology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
And I am not wrong about evidence not being proof either, but you know that. Just following through to the proper end.
Isn't it funny how no matter how much a person stays on point, creationists always take the argument to the mud and start slinging it.
It is almost like it is a rule that they are compelled to follow when all other tactics have been exhausted.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The point of my analogy was that you can explain how something functions without knowing from whence it came. We could just as easily explain how an airplane flies, and do it without any mention of where air and gravity come from.
You do realize that you are usurping God and putting your own judgement in His place. You want to talk about sad, you should focus on that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it can disprove, but it cannot prove.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is one of my favorite sources and it says nothing about proving.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not seem to understand what a strawman is either.
There is no reasonable explanation for why he twisted your analogy to mean what he asserted except that he did it on purpose.
He should understand. He was seeding his responses with them.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yup. He's got maybe three more posts before I put him on ignore.
I meant to ask you earlier about what you mentioned regarding the testing of some of the hypotheses of abiogenesis. When you have time, I would be interested in a more detailed explanation. If you know something I am unaware of, I would surely be interested.
It is sad that we have to do that to some people, but it happens. I am considering it too.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's only sad when people continue to waste time with them and allow themselves to get caught up in an endless feedback loop that is utterly unproductive.
You, Audie and Kangaroo Feathers are very wise for your years.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just minor parts, such as the natural formation of cell walls from existing lipids: Nothing that would come close to (to misuse a term) "prove" abiogenesis. An interesting site is that of Nobel Prize winning biologist Jack Szostak:
Szostak Lab: Home
If you explore it you can find what has been done and also links to at least the papers he has been involved with. The science has a way to go, but since we are still learning some of the finer points of how modern cells work it is no wonder that we are still learning how life may have formed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do so more for my own education at times. Arguing a topic can force one to learn more about it. I remember debating AGW on another site with a straight out loon. He even denied the Greenhouse Effect and yet swore by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That is rather strange since the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without the Greenhouse effect tells us that the Earth should be subzero temperatures. At any rate I got a very clear concept of how the Greenhouse Effect works, much better than the simple pictures that one sees and was pleased when I saw a video in the last few years where a more detailed explanation was given and they gave the same one that I used. It did not good with the science deniers but at least I profited by it.
OK. That much I am familiar with those demonstrations and they would be basic support to the existing hypotheses. I was thinking in terms of being able to fully test any of the existing hypotheses. Thanks for the link.
Agreed.
Edit. I must have started a response to Shadow Wolf, and it was caught in the initial response. I have removed it now.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
You feel the need to defend yourself, why? I obviously don't care what you do with your own time. But Creationist points are very overused, over done, and you could fill volumes with all that has been written about debunking them. They've not changed at all in the ~16 years since I left.
That is a good point. It does learning and helps focus and refine arguments. It also gives insight into the objections, though I am finding more and more that they are largely the same debunked objections repeated over again for decades.