|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2004 : 08:00:32
|
A vast majority of posters and lurkers at this site will be well aware of the absurdity of relying upon the ICR in a debate, but the fundies had better stop NOW.
If they expect us to swallow any of the nonsense that they're gullible enough to do so, then they had better start citing findings and/or information from a proper scientific resource! http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp
quote:
In a review of the ICR graduate school, a visitng committee of scientists concluded that "no member of the resdient faculty of the ICR has continued an active and published research program since arrival at the ICR. The Institute for Creation Research can therefore not be considered to be a scientific institution" (Wills et al 1990, p. 22).
emphasis mine, otherwise exactly as posted on supplied link
Having said that, they rarely cite anything, preferring instead to make endless assertions, followed up by insults and "I'll pray for you". Ergo; they win???
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 08:27:31 [Permalink]
|
Hey there WD. Where've you been so long?
Yeh, ICR is a spent cartridge; all brass and no bang. Always has been. How they managed to get accredation for awarding Masters is beyond my ken. I put it down to more CA quirkiness. Best I can do.
I love ICR references. They're so easy to pick apart. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 17:27:15 [Permalink]
|
I get bored with creationists -- brains have been disconnected, possibly for their entire lives. I would never get into a discussion. They win because they take the science out of it and turn it into cant.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 19:11:57 [Permalink]
|
Ok if creationists can not use the bible than you can't use Darwins book either.
Many digs have been done and have proven the bible true on that side. King David has been found outside the bible as have King Solomon and Jesus. Sodom and Gommorh have been found as have other cities described in the bible.
Until we see missing links evolving in the billions of fossil records your theories are garbage also. (What came first the 'chicken' or the 'egg'.) |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 19:27:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Ok if creationists can not use the bible than you can't use Darwins book either.
What Darwin wrote are just some small pieces of the knowledge we have gathered about evolution. His work has been rended almost obsolete, because of all new evidence and findings. We could easily throw away Darwin's books, and use all other research we have gathered, and there will still be no doubt about evolution.
quote:
Many digs have been done and have proven the bible true on that side.
Really? I don't call you a liar, but you will have show some evidence of this before I believe you. Can you get some evidence?
quote:
King David has been found outside the bible as have King Solomon and Jesus. Sodom and Gommorh have been found as have other cities described in the bible.
Where? Show us a map where!
quote:
Until we see missing links evolving in the billions of fossil records your theories are garbage also. (What came first the 'chicken' or the 'egg'.)
What are you talking about? There are no missing links. And just because a link is missing doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been found. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:51:21 [Permalink]
|
| Can we get verlch to keep his assertions to the thread set up for them? /sigh.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:56:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Ok if creationists can not use the bible than you can't use Darwins book either.
Many digs have been done and have proven the bible true on that side. King David has been found outside the bible as have King Solomon and Jesus. Sodom and Gommorh have been found as have other cities described in the bible.
Until we see missing links evolving in the billions of fossil records your theories are garbage also. (What came first the 'chicken' or the 'egg'.)
I disagree with you on one simple assertion from my part. If I read the ICR's articles, they claim to have scientific arguments for their position. IMHO, the bible is not a scientific argument, but at best a theological one. Scientific arguments would be arguments stemming from observations of nature (in this case), not quotes from the bible. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 00:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Many digs have been done and have proven the bible true on that side. King David has been found outside the bible as have King Solomon and Jesus. Sodom and Gommorh have been found as have other cities described in the bible.
Interesting !
If you can provide references, that is. |
|
|
|
gm137
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 00:13:57 [Permalink]
|
| Spot on, IMO. I think that's the whole problem in this debate: comparing a belief based on personal opinion with a belief based on the scientific method means that we're dealing with two different 'definitions' of logic. The creationist argues that his/her beliefs, supported by biblical references, are fundamentally true and right, and as such, any deviation from said beliefs is impossible. The scientist uses reproducible observations of a process, coupled with prior knowledge and experience, to form a conclusion that is accepted as fact, but that can be developed and refined as more data is collected. This means that the scientist, presented with a piece of rock that is 620,000 years old, uses it to develop an understanding of the process by which it was formed, and thence to improve theories about the developing earth. The creationist, meanwhile, must deny the evidence and plough on regardless, which I see as an untenable position. It is, however, vital that debate between the two groups continues: a belief (whatever it is based on) that cannot stand up to a rival opinion is not worth holding. |
The name's Bond; Ionic bond. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 01:10:29 [Permalink]
|
http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap18.htm
This is one of the sites...
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/arch.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/resource/ff_mesha.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_shaking.asp
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 02:13:37 [Permalink]
|
I'm famliar with the Tel Dan Stele. There are a few problems with it. Plus, even if the 'House of David' actually existed, which it certainly may have, it was most probably an inconsequential little kingdom. Three questionable archeological findings, (the Tel Dan Stele, the Moabite Stone and a possible, though uncertain, mention as a conquered state in Egyptian heiroglyphics), does not serve as evidence for a great Biblical empire with all of Solomon's wealth and power.
In any case, most of the research into these objects comes from obviously biased sources. But, for further reading on the Tel Dan Stele here are a couple of links;
http://thirdwoe.com/tel_dan.htm
http://essenes.net/m44.htm |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
gm137
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 02:36:31 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by verlch
"What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well done: those are exactly the sort of questions that Darwin considered when proposing evolution. The idea is not that chickens, eggs, plants or bacteria arrived on the earth as 'ready to play' entities as we know them today - they developed over a long period of time from simple organisms, which were themselves the result of interactions between elements and compounds present on the early earth. Obviously it's a heck of a lot more complicated than that, and I don't claim to be able to tell for certain exactly what went on, or even to understand fully the science behind our present theories - but I thought I'd share my views with you.
I don't quite understand your last sentence though: I don't think any theory of 'bat self-evolution' has yet been proposed. Please explain.
Bacteria without oxgyen? Anaerobic bacteria, responsible in part for the formation of fossil fuels.
Finally, and most importantly: The chicken came first: the egg failed a narcotics test, and so wasn't allowed to run.
|
The name's Bond; Ionic bond. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:14:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gm137
Finally, and most importantly: The chicken came first: the egg failed a narcotics test, and so wasn't allowed to run.
Drinking coffee while reading this is not a recommended activity. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:21:42 [Permalink]
|
Bats
GAP: One of the least understood groups of modern mammals -- there are no known bat fossils from the entire Paleocene. The first known fossil bat, Icaronycteris, is from the (later) Eocene, and it was already a fully flying animal very similar to modern bats. It did still have a few "primitive" features, though (unfused & unkeeled sternum, several teeth that modern bats have lost, etc.)
Fruit bats and horseshoe bats first appear in the Oligocene. Modern little vespertiliontids (like the little brown bat) first appear in the Miocene.
How does something appear fully formed in the fossil record. Did God create a bat 450 million years ago missing with more teeth and a unkeeled sternum, and it took another 400 million years to get that straightend out!!! Just another fine example of how weak and imperfect God is!!! He is fully capable of creating life, just not perfect, so we need Darwin and his team of geniuses to step in and straighten out the facts from fiction!!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
