1. 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!

Featured Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Hubert Farnsworth, May 29, 2018.

  1. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    I know isn't. There was this dude named John muir totally mentally ill and madness swept the country, because of him and it decided national parks were needed. Absurd I tell you.

    Why so much good land not being turned into developments... so sad.. I mean a nice trump golf Resort where yellowstone is would be awesomeness. Hot spring spas, wild life hunts, ski resort year round entertainment in luxury. What the hell were we thinking back then!!!! Muir was a mentally ill menace.
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Creationists try to claim that their beliefs are scientific. If that is the case the ideas are testable. If it is just a made up myth we won't be able to test it.

    And what do you mean by the "Word of God"? I was unaware that such a thing existed. Though of course you will probably be taking on a whole new burden of proof if you make that claim.

    You are back to calling your version of God psychotic. Isn't that a bit blasphemous on your part?

    You don't get my way of thinking. I do not assume that a God does not exist. I merely assume that if there is a God it is an honest and sane one.
     
  3. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    Christian

    If you mean 'goo to you via the zoo' evolution then I agee

    Microevolution like a wolf to a poodle... that's ok
    Bear to panda... that's ok
    Fisdh to blind cave fish.... that's ok
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Evolution, that you are an ape for example, has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". You either do not understand the science or you are being willfully ignorant or perhaps a combination of both.

    Here is a simple test to see if you understand the concept of evidence:

    Is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) scientific evidence for the descent of man from other apes?
     
  5. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    Christian

    No Lucy is a terrible example and doesn't make the point.
    Tree balancing pelvis... legs angled like a tightrope walked .... hands and feet like meet clearers curved for hanging.... wrist locking for walking on hands... and a spine entering the head angled like a slumped over canine.. no... doesn't make the case at all

    As explained the the person who won medical teacher of the year
     
  6. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And you just failed. This shows that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You are letting your prejudice guide you instead of your reason.

    Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. There is no doubt that Lucy supports the evolution of man. Creationists can only lie about it. All of your claims are incorrect and probably came from a lying creationist source.

    When it comes to the sciences, especially relatively recent findings, you need to find claims that are supported by professional well respected peer reviewed journals. You will not find opposition to Lucy in those.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I see you edited your post after I responded and added a bogus video.

    Please note that you can usually check out such videos by watching it on YouTube. This one edited out the comments that refuted the idiocy and lies in that video. A "teacher of the year" is not a valid source. You need to do much more than mention an aware that may have come from creationist sources. You do not seem to understand that one of the reasons that creationists are held in such contempt in the sciences is because they do openly lie about findings like Lucy.

    Once again you will not find valid sources that support the claims that you made.
     
  8. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    Christian

    bogus? sensing a trend.... anything you don't like you consider fake or bogus?
    so... the professor that won Medical Teacher of the year isn't good enough for you? my my my

    My personal favorite in the one on the miracle of birth
     
    #208 whirlingmerc, Jun 1, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,165
    Religion:
    None
    It is a bit of a human tendency to not accept info that they do not like.

    There is also the "celebrity endorsement".

    His being teacher of the year is not necessarily surprising, the
    man is clearly a showman.

    Skill at presenting other people's established work says nothing
    of course about the presenter's ability and accomplishment as
    a researcher.

    There is also the cross reference on someone-
    Does not look too good if Lancet comes out this strong
    against someone.

    The Lancelet: Dr. David Menton is a liar.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yes, you use idiots and liars to support your claims instead of reliable peer reviewed science. You have someone with a fake award talking about a subject that he either knows nothing about or is lying about. I have never heard of this moronic award. I cannot find it Instead of naming an award that has nothing to do with his abilities to do anthropology why did you not list his name, and credentials. My credentials are as good as his in this debate, I can support my claims with peer reviewed science. I am betting that he can't since he clearly lied.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Thanks, he did not even mention the loon's name and now we know that he works for a company that forces their employees to swear not to use the scientific method.

    I wonder how he will deal with the proven fact that Menton is a liar?
     
  12. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,165
    Religion:
    None
    I had to check and see who the guy is. Did not take long.

    The usual dodge is SEDI,* and, the WWCOSSTSSTTOTB**

    In the event, the way creationists do authority figures is that
    they are correct (but oft maligned) if they do creationism.

    One marginal character is worth ten thousand of the best from
    around the world, if he is a creationist.

    Now, personally, I would not bring up a person who was under
    such a cloud as an expert witness in anything for fear of-sure
    and certain knowledge of-the fact that he would simply discredit
    whatever he touched.

    We do of course recognize that the creos dont have anything, and
    dont know any better.

    * Same evidence, different interpretation

    **world wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to savagely suppress the truth of the bible
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,687
    Ratings:
    +11,217
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Wrong. Time is defined in terms of observations of nature. It is a part of the regularity of nature. It is fundamental to the geometry of the cosmos in terms of spacetime.

    Cyclic motion happens all over. That cyclic motion is the basis for measuring time.
     
  14. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    Christian

    As Ronald Regan famously said... 'there you go again'... idiots and liars?
    so... not the Med schooll Professor of the Year is an idiot and lier?

    tsk tsk tsk well I can help you with that... Washington University is like an IVY League school in the midwest

    • Given ‘Distinguished Service Teaching Award’ from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
    • Named ‘Teacher of the Year’ at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
    • Elected ‘Professor of the Year’ in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000

    But you already decided people who don't have your point of view are idiots and liars
     
  15. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    Christian

    using the phrase liar is a red flag... first someone demonizes a person who they disagree with... then they excuse themselves for treating them badly
     
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Did you not read the article supplied by @Audie? It went over where he was proven to be a liar.

    And yes, anyone at all in the sciences that supports creationism these days is a proven loon as well.

    Why are you so afraid that to learn for yourself?

    If Lucy had any of the traits that that nut claims she has where are the articles from well respected professional peer reviewed journals?
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,059
    Ratings:
    +14,392
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You forgot one important point. Your claim fails if the person is proven to be a liar, as he was in the linked article. Why didn't you read it? It was not hard to understand at all.
     
  18. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    25,225
    Ratings:
    +7,798
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    I have not read the whole book but on page 12 it says "...It shaped Bacons view of the connectedness of understanding; that like plants in a garden, senses needed to be trained up by study, speculations pruned by experience. He rejected the Aristotelian tradition of deductive logic as a 'hunt more after words than matter...' . "
     
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,165
    Religion:
    None
    You commented that you consider Luvy a poor choice. Your choice of
    AIG, and the individual are a good choice from your pov, as they reinforce
    your beliefs. A poor choice, though, if you hope to convince anyone
    that you have a valid point.

    It is not I who called him a liar. The Lancet is no chick tract or tabloid.
    They dont do more respectable / credible journals than Lancet.

    If they said that some cancer cure is quackery, it would be well to
    pay attention.

    The "red flag" you speak of can wave both ways. If people tell you
    that your new girlfriend is a liar, you can interpret as that they
    only want to demonize and treat badly. Or, you might consider the
    chance that there is something to it. If Lancet calls fraud,
    that is for sure a red flag.

    In the event, neither you nor yout professor are being ill used
    or demonized, so that is a false issue, false accusation.

    It is pointed out that he and AIG are without credibility.
    If such tainted sources are all you have to offer, and such
    inappropriate hand wave as you offered me is your idea of
    a discussion, I wont be part of it.

    I trust you will make a better effort.
     
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,165
    Religion:
    None
    So I was correct that you did not read the things you said,
    in bozosapiens.
     
Loading...