• 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!

"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

Skwim

Veteran Member

(it's only 2:30 long)​
I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

.








 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?


Evolution does not prove the story of Genesis wrong. So I don't know why people get all butt hurt over the discussion. Personally I think both are true. God created everything, evolution is his natural process for life. There is nothing preventing this from being true.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
So, am I right or am I right?
Why the pressure for us to discard our beliefs!

If you pressured me to disbelieve that people exist with whom I exchange frequent communication, even get assistance from, - wouldn't I be an idiot to accept your statements that these or this person/s don't exist when I have daily exchanges with and from them?! While God doesn't speak to me, he surely answers our prayers and has told us what he wants from us.

This question is not just a question about an old revered book - which you seem to think it is. I and others have prayers answered frequently. If that is so, to take your word, and the word of unbelievers, the ungodly - who have nothing but empty arguments to present to us - that this God who answers our prayers doesn't exist - would be insane. The claims of the unbelievers are insane. But, you have the right to your beliefs, as we have to ours.

The thing is, we will all reap what we sow. We hope our harvest includes life, an entry into Paradise, the erasure of this evil world with so much killing.

And your video, I cannot look at the face of that devil and not see the smiling face of satan.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why the pressure for us to discard our beliefs!

If you pressured me to disbelieve that people exist with whom I exchange frequent communication, even get assistance from, - wouldn't I be an idiot to accept your statements that these or this person/s don't exist when I have daily exchanges with and from them?! While God doesn't speak to me, he surely answers our prayers and has told us what he wants from us.

This question is not just a question about an old revered book - which you seem to think it is. I and others have prayers answered frequently. If that is so, to take your word, and the word of unbelievers, the ungodly - who have nothing but empty arguments to present to us - that this God who answers our prayers doesn't exist - would be insane. The claims of the unbelievers are insane. But, you have the right to your beliefs, as we have to ours.

The thing is, we will all reap what we sow. We hope our harvest includes life, an entry into Paradise, the erasure of this evil world with so much killing.

And your video, I cannot look at the face of that devil and not see the smiling face of satan.


Because your beliefs tend to lead to actions that harm everyone. Denials of the sciences is directly tied to movements of the anti-vax type. Denying obvious facts for superstitious reasons and harming others as a result.
And please, even your myths warn you about making false claims about others. Smearing Dawkns as you did is a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Because your beliefs tend to lead to actions that harm everyone. Denials of the sciences is directly tied to movements of the anti-vax type. Denying obvious facts for superstitious reasons and harming others as a result.
And please, even your myths warn you about making false claims about others. Smearing Dawkns as you did is a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment.

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. :p Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
All that that article does is to show that Dawkins is not perfect, what a surprise! Not being perfect is no excuse to make false claims about someone.

Not being perfect is one thing. I am not perfect either.

But ignorant bigotry and hate is another matter entirely, and should not be tolerated let alone respected.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
(it's only 2:30 long)​
I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

.








I think sticking-finger-in-ear syndrome is found on both sides of the issue!

On that topic, here's someone - a paleontologist and former Stuttgart Museum of Natural History curator- who 'opened up his ears', so to speak....and promptly got blacklisted:


Here is an article about him, and more links:

Another Atheist Comes to Christ Because of Science – Proslogion

Wikipedia even removed their page on him!
 
.
.
Everything that you experience with your senses is not there
You were taught that at College
It all consists of atoms and atoms are just energy
Humans are life-forms living in a field of energy in space
That’s all that really exists
and nothing else is really there



The question is, why do we all experience the same illusion?
Why does a chair look and feel the same to everybody?
Dawkins has no credible answer
and nor do you

Because human science has no answer other than presumptions and guesswork



Religionists say that we all see the same illusion and it seems solid because God created this video game of life and put us in it
”Non-Creationists” say that we all see the same illusion and it seems solid because it’s all magic
They say ‘that’s how it is.’ It just appeared like that out of nowhere. Magic



Human science’s answer to why atoms seem solid is ‘because it’s magic’
They have spent way over $13,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers money on the Hadron Collider at Cern
in the hope it will give them some answer other than ‘because it’s magic’
9 years later, it hasn’t
They have attempted to mask this by giving the PR impression that the Higgs Boson is matter
It isn’t. It is still energy. They divide energy and divide energy and divide energy in the hope of finding matter, and all they end up with is more energy



And you have the brass neck to write “So, am I right or am I right?”
Humans are hilarious
.
.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I think sticking-finger-in-ear syndrome is found on both sides of the issue!

On that topic, here's someone - a paleontologist and former Stuttgart Museum of Natural History curator- who 'opened up his ears', so to speak....and promptly got blacklisted:


Here is an article about him, and more links:

Another Atheist Comes to Christ Because of Science – Proslogion

Wikipedia even removed their page on him!
If you do a little digging, you'd see that there are actually some valid reasons why his page was deleted off Wikipedia (although you can still find his page on the German wikipedia website: Günter Bechly – Wikipedia). The reasons given in the deletion log are:

- Little to no secondary sources discussing Bechly, and the article itself has been written mostly by the subject, a Conflict of interest.
- He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of our standards for academic notability. His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published.
- The sources given in the article are not WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Three citations are to a self-published e-book by Ernst Probst that transcribes an interview with the subject, six are to Bechly's various webpages, one is to a Discovery Institute front group, and the one remaining is to a conference announcement from 2008 that mentions Bechly in passing. The links Bechly offers above are to sources that are sometimes unverifiable (404 or other errors), and the verifiable ones are often in non-independent sources. The subject apparently has some expertise and has published in paleontology of insects, but their ability to qualify under WP:NPROF is doubtful as there is a lack of evidence that those papers have had "...a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

The result was delete. With a bunch of considerations:


    • I've opted to disregard a bunch of single-purpose IPs and accounts because of the canvassing concerns and because most of them are merely making assertions without offering evidence that WP: PROF or WP:GNG are met. I did factor in the opinion of the account that shares its name with the article topic, though. A neutral post on the fringe noticeboard does not per se constitute improper WP:CANVASSING.
    • It does not seem like "having a number of species named after one self" is considered a reason to keep, probably because while it does indicate "notability" it does not necessarily indicate "notability".
    • That the nominator of an AfD did not start a discussion first on the talk page or add maintenance tags does not demerit the AfD nomination; for one thing, there is a difference between the present state of the article and the amount of information available on a topic (which is what AfD ultimately adjudicates)
    • Accusations of anti-creationism bias are not germane to the purpose of AfD, and we don't consider the stances of an article subject on a contentious topic in judging notability.
    • All that said, it seems like the sources provided in the discussion are considered to be too tangential - they mention the article topic in passing rather than being specifically about the topic. Other sources have issues like being primary or unreliable or not independent.
On balance, it seems like the case that the sources do not establish GNG notability is more thoroughly argued than the case that they do (which is mostly assertions) and there is no indication that any other PROF notability criterium is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SOURCE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly - Wikipedia

In other words, it was deleted because the page didn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for citations, and because the page was mostly curated by the subject himself. He wasn't deleted because of some "anti creationism" conspiracy. The fact that many, even far more prominent, creationist articles remain on Wikipedia is proof of that.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am not claiming anything. Talk to the Guardian if you wish to dispute it. I don't think it's become a alt-right rag just yet.
You implied that he was. And used an article that did not support that claim to attempt to make the point. At least try to be honest when you make a false accusation against someone else. Don't try to blame another party. That only compounds the "sin".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you do a little digging, you'd see that there are actually some valid reasons why his page was deleted off Wikipedia (although you can still find his page on the German wikipedia website). The reasons given in the deletion log are:

- Little to no secondary sources discussing Bechly, and the article itself has been written mostly by the subject, a Conflict of interest.
- He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of our standards for academic notability. His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published.
- The sources given in the article are not WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Three citations are to a self-published e-book by Ernst Probst that transcribes an interview with the subject, six are to Bechly's various webpages, one is to a Discovery Institute front group, and the one remaining is to a conference announcement from 2008 that mentions Bechly in passing. The links Bechly offers above are to sources that are sometimes unverifiable (404 or other errors), and the verifiable ones are often in non-independent sources. The subject apparently has some expertise and has published in paleontology of insects, but their ability to qualify under WP:NPROF is doubtful as there is a lack of evidence that those papers have had "...a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
SOURCE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly - Wikipedia

In other words, it was deleted because the page didn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for citations, and because the page was mostly curated by the subject himself. He wasn't deleted because of some "anti creationism" conspiracy. The fact that many, even far more prominent, creationist articles remain on Wikipedia is proof of that.

Yet another case of an incompetent scientist blaming others for his own failures. When creationists can only cite this sort of support is it any wonder that no one takes them seriously?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You implied that he was. And used an article that did not support that claim to attempt to make the point. At least try to be honest when you make a false accusation against someone else. Don't try to blame another party. That only compounds the "sin".

LoLz ok whatevs everyone can read the article and make up their own mind. :shrug:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
LoLz ok whatevs everyone can read the article and make up their own mind. :shrug:

Please, honesty is supposedly a Christian value. The article only shows that he is not perfect and that even tried to make amends for past wrong doing. Just admit that you failed and we can move on. You were the one that claimed "bigotry and hatred" and none was shown in that article.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
.
.
Everything that you experience with your senses is not there
You were taught that at College
It all consists of atoms and atoms are just energy
Humans are life-forms living in a field of energy in space
That’s all that really exists
and nothing else is really there

Not really what we were taught at college. You were okay until your last two lines.

The question is, why do we all experience the same illusion?
Why does a chair look and feel the same to everybody?
Dawkins has no credible answer
and nor do you

Because human science has no answer other than presumptions and guesswork

Oh my, you jumped the shark way to early. First off we were never taught that this was an illusion. Your question that you claim has "no credible answer" is meaningless as a result. And science is not presumptions and guesswork. Did you even go to college?

Religionists say that we all see the same illusion and it seems solid because God created this video game of life and put us in it
”Non-Creationists” say that we all see the same illusion and it seems solid because it’s all magic
They say ‘that’s how it is.’ It just appeared like that out of nowhere. Magic

Again with the "illusion" assumption, but now aimed at creationists. If you want to claim that what we observe is an illusion the burden of proof is upon you. You are wrong if you attack either side of an argument with an unproved claim.

Human science’s answer to why atoms seem solid is ‘because it’s magic’
They have spent way over $13,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers money on the Hadron Collider at Cern
in the hope it will give them some answer other than ‘because it’s magic’
9 years later, it hasn’t
They have attempted to mask this by giving the PR impression that the Higgs Boson is matter
It isn’t. It is still energy. They divide energy and divide energy and divide energy in the hope of finding matter, and all they end up with is more energy

Ummm, I think the answer to this is:

No, Just no.

And you have the brass neck to write “So, am I right or am I right?”
Humans are hilarious
.
.

No, not all humans. Try to support your claims. Don't accuse others of making assumptions when yours are far wilder.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Please, honesty is supposedly a Christian value. The article only shows that he is not perfect and that even tried to make amends for past wrong doing. Just admit that you failed and we can move on. You were the one that claimed "bigotry and hatred" and none was shown in that article.

Whatever you say. The article speaks for itself.
 
Top