• 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!

You tube video on production not yet out

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Science draws upon observable facts to come to its conclusions regarding the nature of reality. Religion comes to a conclusion about the nature of reality then looks to science in hopes of finding evidence to support that conclusion. Either way, mankind is going to find that ultimate truth though science, not religion and not through God. Therefore, we should put our faith in science, not God.
 

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
You have more Faith as an Atheist Evolutionist based on Facts out there than I ever could as a Christian. Again, just logically answer my questions and use science too! But esp logic because to me based on my observation of this world Evolution is so illogical as I explained I don't see it. Explain it so I can see your logic by your science not just anti God atheism bias.
 

Slapstick

Active Member
And a book still in production that goes along with it. I just got informed of this 2 days ago. Video is 3 mins long. You can then browse to check on Scientist Creds etc. It gives brief overview of what is to be released pretty soon.


Evolution's Achilles' Heels
The guy is British. Questions 2 and 3 do not depend on the first one. I would like for you to give reasons as to why it does before I post my response.

3) Where are we going? ... Has nothing to do with 1) Where did we come from?
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
And a book still in production that goes along with it. I just got informed of this 2 days ago. Video is 3 mins long. You can then browse to check on Scientist Creds etc. It gives brief overview of what is to be released pretty soon.


Evolution's Achilles' Heels
Tell me, have you ever considered posting an argument against evolution in your own words? Giving us, as it were, the benefit of your own thinking on the subject?
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
The first words uttered in the trailer "Natural selection can't actually generate anything new. It can only operate on whatever is existing, and it can only operate to remove what is existing".

This is going to be really fun since that guy apparently lacks even fundamental understanding of what natural selection is supposed to do and how it works.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Yet another post-a-link and run thread.

There's no use to refute or argue anything on ttechsan's threads because you're only allowed to respond if you have a Nobel Prize and write the response as a complete scientific report.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Science draws upon observable facts to come to its conclusions regarding the nature of reality. Religion comes to a conclusion about the nature of reality then looks to science in hopes of finding evidence to support that conclusion. Either way, mankind is going to find that ultimate truth though science, not religion and not through God. Therefore, we should put our faith in science, not God.

So true.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I watched half of the preview video... AAaaargh!!! The stupidity burns!!! I can't understand how some of these have PhDs and make such utter false remarks about some things in science that we know for a fact. How can a chemist not know how C14 is produced? It's produced in the upper atmosphere. Here's a simple explanation from a university how C14 is created:
NSF-Arizona AMS Facility :: Education :: Principle of AMS Machine :: Production of C-14

Dr Jonatha Sarfati seems to make the claims that C14 would be gone in Earth's atmosphere after a million years, and also that C14 radiometric dating is used for dating millions of years old diamonds... uhm... .... I'm flabbergasted... shocked... did he get his degree from a cereal box?

---

Oh, and another thing, I picked one of the quotes from the "15 questions" list. The one from Kirschner. It's a complete misrepresentation of what he really said.

Here's a page about drive-by-anti-evolution posters and some of these questions: http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/anti-evolution-drive-by-posting.html

I don't understand why spreading false propaganda and blatantly lying is now okay by the 10 commandments... Jesus warned about misleading people. False teaching. Not okay.

---

This is also a good read about the 15 questions from CMI: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution

---

Here's an article from Berkley university about diamonds: http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/Lect6.html (Lecture handout)
Many are 3,200,000,000 years old (3.2 billion years)!!!
How do we know this?
Age: from Carbon dating? NO! C-dating only works for very young carbon. You need to use other radioactive decay schemes (e.g., uranium-lead) to date inclusions in diamonds.
So if the "liberal" (as someone stated a few weeks ago) Berkley U don't approve of carbon dating for diamonds... then why do Creationists use that as an argument to disprove the validity of C14 method?

---

Researching more, I know where this C14 and diamond claim comes from. It's not that it's used to date diamonds at all. The video makes it sound like it, but the issue there is that a creationist funded research RATE checked if they could find C14 in diamonds which are supposed to be billions of years old. They found a very small amount of trace of C14. This experiment was conducted 15 years ago, and the amount they found is below what was even considered the precision of the instruments, and the amount could have also come from contamination. There's a lower limit for these machines. They get better with time and precision increases, but their experiment is not conclusive. Others have done the same experiment to confirm... but to no avail. Other labs don't find C14 in them. (If I understand this whole debacle right). Article with more details: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
From the linked website.
"The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by nine Ph.D. scientists. Our hope is that this fact will cause evolutionists to sit up and listen. All of these authors received their doctorates from similar, secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in various fields relevant to the subjects on which they write, such as:"
Well, let's see. THE SUBJECT ON WHICH THEY WRITE and its relevancy to their field of expertise.
Dr Don Batten Don Batten NATURAL SELECTION
Don received both his B.Sc.Agr.(First Class Honours) and his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney. He worked for 20 years as a research horticulturalist with the NSW Department of Agriculture.
Nothing in his bio hinting at having done work in natural selection. Just a PhD guy working for the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati ORIGIN OF LIFE
Jonathan received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry)
No mention of anything to do with biology, Just a chemist with a PhD

Dr Tas Walker GEOLOGY
Tas holds a B.Sc. a B.Eng (hons) and a doctorate in mechanical engineering, all from the University of Queensland.
Think people in mechanical engineering have a good background in geology? Me neither.

Dr Robert W. Carter GENETICS
He obtained a BS in Applied Biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1992. He then spent four years teaching high school biology, chemistry, physics and electronics before going to the University of Miami to obtain his PhD in Marine Biology.
Well, at least here we have a PhD guy speaking on an issue that's within his field, but alas hardly one he works in, just with.

Dr Jim Mason RADIOMETRIC DATING
Jim has a B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada and a Ph.D. in experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
Holding "positions in software engineering, system engineering, program management and line management" is hardly working in radiometric dating.


Dr Emil Silvestru FOSSIL RECORD
Emil earned his Ph.D in geology at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania, (where he has worked as an associate professor) in karst sedimentology.
Trouble here is that fossilization embraces much more than karst formations. So while Silvestru may be familiar with some of the fossils coming from karst sedimentology, one can't assume he's any kind of expert on fossils, such as paleontologists.

Prof John Hartnett COSMOLOGY
John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) and his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He works as an ARC DORA research fellow in the Institute of Photonics and Advanced Sensing and the School of Chemistry and Physics at the University of Adelaide.
John’s research interests include the development of ultra-stable cryocooled microwave oscillators based on a sapphire crystal, ultra low-noise radar and ultra-stable optical cavities for advanced optical clocks
And this has what to do with cosmology? Nothing, of course.

Dr David Catchpoole ETHICS
David received his B.Ag.Sc. (Hons) from the University of Adelaide and a Ph.D. from the University of New England (New South Wales). His Ph.D. investigated nitrogen transfer between tree legumes, associated grass and ruminant animals (goats).
Ah yes the nitrogen transfer between tree legumes, associated grass and ruminant animals! What better qualifies a person to speak on ethics.

Dr Mark Harwood ETHICS
Mark Harwood completed his tertiary education at the University of Sydney where he received B.Sc., B.E. (Hons) and Ph.D. degrees. His postgraduate studies were focused on radiotelescopes and computer techniques for antenna design and measurement.
And another PhD guy who is just as ill equipped to speak on ethics as those who study the nitrogen transfer between tree legumes, associated grass and ruminant animals!


Of course, none of us familiar with creationist tactics find any of this surprising. Same old story: Trot out anyone with a degree in anything and pass them off as an expert on whatever they choose to talk about. Hmmmm. Seems that there's a name for such fallacious tactics.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Thanks Skwim, for the info.

You would think the "expert" on "Geology" who graduated from the University of Queensland, would know about plate tectonics and the fact his continent separated and even has its own unique life forms other continents don't have, what an example of evolution and plate tectonics affecting each other. Maybe that was all they could get to deceit and misrepresent the evidence to the general public was a mechanical engineer.

Some of the oldest rocks on earth have been found in Australia.


Oldest Known Rocks On Earth Discovered: 4.28 Billion Years Old

Oldest Known Rocks On Earth Discovered: 4.28 Billion Years Old -- ScienceDaily
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Why is it that meticulous hard work with lots of information to back it up with real world advantages and benefits can simply be cast aside as "faith" when someone simply doesn't like the fact that their own beliefs are not based upon the same rigorous hard work?

That is similar to saying that because I worked really really really really really really really hard to get my PhD in a subject and spent 20 years in the field making real life discoveries and hundreds of scientific papers that further the research of my field....is the exact same as some guy who has never taken a course in anything relevant but holds an opinion in a poorly written post on the internet.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Why is it that meticulous hard work with lots of information to back it up with real world advantages and benefits can simply be cast aside as "faith" when someone simply doesn't like the fact that their own beliefs are not based upon the same rigorous hard work?

That is similar to saying that because I worked really really really really really really really hard to get my PhD in a subject and spent 20 years in the field making real life discoveries and hundreds of scientific papers that further the research of my field....is the exact same as some guy who has never taken a course in anything relevant but holds an opinion in a poorly written post on the internet.
Expertise is no substitute for confirmation, no matter what the source.

"Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"
Versus
"Here's the conclusion. What can we find to support it?"
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
They have the peacocks on the website. Then claim peacocks didn't evolve.

Genesis has birds before land animals.

Second we know birds evolved from dinosaurs.


Not to mention


This peacock has both white and color mutation.

http://rebloggy.com/post/beautiful-...azing-colorful-bird-wildlife-phot/44654470140


"White peacocks are not albinos; they have a genetic mutation that is known as Leucism, which causes the lack of pigments in the plumage."



Birds Evolved from Dinosaurs. Birds were not put on earth before land animals.
 
Last edited:

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Expertise is no substitute for confirmation, no matter what the source.

"Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"
Versus
"Here's the conclusion. What can we find to support it?"

Knowledge and evidence gathered over thousands of years holds up better than something without any evidence. That is the point I'm making. Not an appeal to authority.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Knowledge and evidence gathered over thousands of years holds up better than something without any evidence. That is the point I'm making. Not an appeal to authority.

Yes, it was proven in the 1800's the earth isn't 6000 years old at that time they knew millions and now we know billions which also correlates to the age of the sun and solar system and moon at 5 billion.

Evolution is a proven fact and a working theory.

Creationism does not have one fact to support it. If they could supply one that would help.

The argument for Irreducible Complexity has already been debunked.

They have an agenda to discredit somehow and it seems anyway they can even by lying or misrepresentation or sometimes blatant ignorance the billions of facts that support evolution not only of life but the entire universe and replace it with bible teachings as science.
 
Top