shepp 2,285 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 I wrote that last post this morning but didn't get a chance to post it, seems a bit untimely now. . Granted that I've answered every outstanding question that was directed at me, can I some myself?? Especially aimed at evolutionists the likes of shepp, the ridiculer From what and how did everything we have come to be? How do you establish morals, what's right and wrong, good and evil? If you believe in such that is. Explain conscience and consciousness And what has the theory of evolution done for the good of mankind? Especially in the science field. The questions are my own, so nothing complicated. Sorry but many feel as if we can not create a new reality so that even if evolution was not conducive to the bettering of mankind, it is still reality. Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,756 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave their home or town and shake the dust from your feet . I was talking to a friend about you Fraz and he told me to give you this message. Edited September 5, 2014 by marshman Link to post Share on other sites
bobcullen79 1,495 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 COME BACK BAW, All is forgiven.. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 mm what you implying Link to post Share on other sites
bobcullen79 1,495 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 mm what you implying Who, me? Simply that Baws wind up attempts were much more fun. I would say Marshman`s message simply means "Take that shit somewhere else" Whats with all this, "This is my calling, this means war.." Do you realise you sound like a jihad or some other religious nut intent on inciting a riot all across the globe. Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,756 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) mm what you implying it was a friend of mine that said to say that to you, it's a bible quote . basically what I take from it is when people won't listen let them be ! I know you don't care what people think but it's time to chill my friend . Edited September 5, 2014 by marshman Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 yes ok i meant war non violent war lol ik if you dont care about yor kids i do bye Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 How to deal with a creationist Check the speakers’ credentials. Almost no one who speaks as a Creationist or Intelligent Design proponent has credentials in the field he’s criticizing. I’m simply asking for speakers with doctorates in the field plus work credentials. That is, a biologist speaking about biology, a geologist about geology, a cosmologist about cosmology, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists. That this seems to be a lot to ask says a lot about Creationism and related dogmas. There are journalists without scientific degrees who popularize science, but they follow the consensus. They don’t try to apply their own agenda to overturn it. Creationists attempting to overturn the biological consensus from outside biology—that’s something different. Check dates of quotes or criticisms. Words can’t express how uninterested I am in what Darwin wrote or thought or did. Almost every Darwin quote that I’ve seen used by the Creationist/ID side has been taken out of context. Anyway, Darwin’s writings are not binding on evolutionary biologists today. And don’t get me started about Darwin’s personal life—whether Darwin ate babies with barbeque sauce or plain (actually, he lived a pretty laudable life) says nothing about the question at hand: whether evolution is the best explanation for why life is the way it is. Focus on the right bin. A popular complaint is to say that evolution led to eugenics, or that the teaching of evolution in public school correlates to the tragic downward spiral that society has made in the past 50 years, and it wasn’t like this when I grew up, and don’t get me started about the kids these days, and blah, blah, blah. Evolution is science. Eugenics is policy. The scientists give society the best approximation of the truth, and the politicians decide what to do with this information. Don’t blame science for policy. Watch for Hitler entering the conversation. Godwin’s Law states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Whether Hitler embraced evolution or not (unlikely, since Darwin was on the Nazi list of banned books—more at “Nazi Soldiers Indoctrinated with Darwin? Yeah right”), what Hitler liked has no bearing on the accuracy of evolution. Beware lists of Science’s errors. I’m thinking of lists such as the greatest hits of evolution’s mistakes—Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, “Flipperpithecus,” and so on. Or theories that have been discarded—ether, phlogiston, geocentrism, the steady-state universe. Yeah, science makes mistakes. Get over it. And what process discovered the errors? No, not Christianity or Creationism or divine revelation, but science! Science clearly delivers pretty good approximations of the truth. For one glaring example, consider the science underpinning all the technology by which I communicate to you right now. Watch for lots of quotes. Lots of quotes by scientists (often with missing or old dates) is another bad sign. Quotes simply invite counter-quotes, where I try to trump your science-y quote with one of my own, back and forth. For discussions between non-scientists, it’s better to stick with the consensus, which needs a reference but not a quote. Expect “We’ve seen that evolution is wrong, so Creationism must be right!” This is simply a false dichotomy. Evolution might be wrong (though the evidence is so overwhelming that this is hard to imagine), but even if we discarded it, that wouldn’t leave Creationism the victor. Did some Creator put life on earth? Wow—that’s an enormous claim. Provide the evidence. Beware the “Gish Gallop.” Duane Gish pioneered this underhanded debate tactic. When interviewed with a biologist, he would say something like, “Well, what about X? And Y and Z? Evolution can’t explain these things.” The biologist probably has explanations for these puzzles and so begins a tedious (for the audience) explanation of why these are nicely handled by evolution. But when the biologist stops for a breath, Gish is back, piling on more examples. If your goal is winning the argument rather than engaging with the truth, these kinds of games can make an effective approach. What I find especially annoying is hearing an issue get properly rebutted but then used by the Creationist in the very next encounter. How many times has a biologist destroyed Ray Comfort’s “Where’s the crocoduck?” argument? And yet it pops back up like we’re playing Whac-a-Mole. Does he just value effectiveness over integrity? Beware lying. Okay, that sounds harsh, but I don’t know what else to make of nonsensical claims from people who should know better. In 2007, I attended a lecture by someone from the Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth Creationist organization. This lecture was remarkable because the topic was geology, and the speaker actually had a doctorate in geology. He described taking rock samples from an amphibolite layer in the Grand Canyon and getting various radioisotope dating results. Though the rocks were all from the same layer, the date estimates were all over the map. His unsurprising conclusion: this dating technique is flawed, and the Grand Canyon layers were laid down by Noah’s flood, thousands of years ago, not hundreds of millions. Only after the lecture, after I’d done some research, did I realize that amphibolite is a metamorphic rock, and radioisotope dating is typically used only to date igneous rocks. You’d think that a geologist would’ve made that clear in the lecture. Beware “Science backtracks all the time!” Science does find errors and correct itself, but don’t imagine that the next correction to evolution is as likely to be a small tweak as the overturning of the entire theory. Once a field is well understood, changes obey a power law, like with the magnitude of earthquakes, the frequency of word use, or the size of cities and towns. For every big earthquake we see thousands of tiny ones, and for every huge correction in a theory we see many small tweaks. The overturning of a well-established theory is very unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites
Kingkongsfinger 5 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 Well fraz to be fair to the english they're kids will be getting taught the teachings of the Quran before evo Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 peaceful war theres no way im letting this happen Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 watch this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ Link to post Share on other sites
*The*Field*Marshall* 674 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 "How to deal with a creationist" disappointed with that post paulus sir, "2. Don't do your own research, just take to others words for it" comes to mind. I am surprised how many times I've got to type the same thing. . Creationists have no issue with "science" what the scientific method has done for the good mankind is undeniable. . We use and celebrate it everyday. We do not accept the notion of Macro Evolution, we reject it by definition (look up the definition" so you'll see that it simply doesn't belong anywhere in the field of science, anywhere. . How do folk who are against the views of creationist expect creationists to present our ideas? I'm baffled. That last post by paulus, really unbelievable. Just go's to show how uninterested some folk are, not even checking what we are typing and presenting. . A creationist doesn't need to research evolution as much as an evolutionists need to research creationism, simply because most folk who believe in creationism use to believe in evolution! That's true of me and probably true of frazdog too. . Anyway back to the question, how would you expect us to present our beliefs? And using that post of paulus' point out to me where I've misquoted or made false statements according to that criteria. . I would say frazdogs too, but he's posted far more than me, I cant keep up with the amount of information he's posted! Link to post Share on other sites
shepp 2,285 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 How to deal with a creationist Check the speakers credentials. Almost no one who speaks as a Creationist or Intelligent Design proponent has credentials in the field hes criticizing. Im simply asking for speakers with doctorates in the field plus work credentials. That is, a biologist speaking about biology, a geologist about geology, a cosmologist about cosmology, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists. That this seems to be a lot to ask says a lot about Creationism and related dogmas. There are journalists without scientific degrees who popularize science, but they follow the consensus. They dont try to apply their own agenda to overturn it. Creationists attempting to overturn the biological consensus from outside biologythats something different. Check dates of quotes or criticisms. Words cant express how uninterested I am in what Darwin wrote or thought or did. Almost every Darwin quote that Ive seen used by the Creationist/ID side has been taken out of context. Anyway, Darwins writings are not binding on evolutionary biologists today. And dont get me started about Darwins personal lifewhether Darwin ate babies with barbeque sauce or plain (actually, he lived a pretty laudable life) says nothing about the question at hand: whether evolution is the best explanation for why life is the way it is. Focus on the right bin. A popular complaint is to say that evolution led to eugenics, or that the teaching of evolution in public school correlates to the tragic downward spiral that society has made in the past 50 years, and it wasnt like this when I grew up, and dont get me started about the kids these days, and blah, blah, blah. Evolution is science. Eugenics is policy. The scientists give society the best approximation of the truth, and the politicians decide what to do with this information. Dont blame science for policy. Watch for Hitler entering the conversation. Godwins Law states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Whether Hitler embraced evolution or not (unlikely, since Darwin was on the Nazi list of banned booksmore at Nazi Soldiers Indoctrinated with Darwin? Yeah right), what Hitler liked has no bearing on the accuracy of evolution. Beware lists of Sciences errors. Im thinking of lists such as the greatest hits of evolutions mistakesPiltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Flipperpithecus, and so on. Or theories that have been discardedether, phlogiston, geocentrism, the steady-state universe. Yeah, science makes mistakes. Get over it. And what process discovered the errors? No, not Christianity or Creationism or divine revelation, but science! Science clearly delivers pretty good approximations of the truth. For one glaring example, consider the science underpinning all the technology by which I communicate to you right now. Watch for lots of quotes. Lots of quotes by scientists (often with missing or old dates) is another bad sign. Quotes simply invite counter-quotes, where I try to trump your science-y quote with one of my own, back and forth. For discussions between non-scientists, its better to stick with the consensus, which needs a reference but not a quote. Expect Weve seen that evolution is wrong, so Creationism must be right! This is simply a false dichotomy. Evolution might be wrong (though the evidence is so overwhelming that this is hard to imagine), but even if we discarded it, that wouldnt leave Creationism the victor. Did some Creator put life on earth? Wowthats an enormous claim. Provide the evidence. Beware the Gish Gallop. Duane Gish pioneered this underhanded debate tactic. When interviewed with a biologist, he would say something like, Well, what about X? And Y and Z? Evolution cant explain these things. The biologist probably has explanations for these puzzles and so begins a tedious (for the audience) explanation of why these are nicely handled by evolution. But when the biologist stops for a breath, Gish is back, piling on more examples. If your goal is winning the argument rather than engaging with the truth, these kinds of games can make an effective approach. What I find especially annoying is hearing an issue get properly rebutted but then used by the Creationist in the very next encounter. How many times has a biologist destroyed Ray Comforts Wheres the crocoduck? argument? And yet it pops back up like were playing Whac-a-Mole. Does he just value effectiveness over integrity? Beware lying. Okay, that sounds harsh, but I dont know what else to make of nonsensical claims from people who should know better. In 2007, I attended a lecture by someone from the Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth Creationist organization. This lecture was remarkable because the topic was geology, and the speaker actually had a doctorate in geology. He described taking rock samples from an amphibolite layer in the Grand Canyon and getting various radioisotope dating results. Though the rocks were all from the same layer, the date estimates were all over the map. His unsurprising conclusion: this dating technique is flawed, and the Grand Canyon layers were laid down by Noahs flood, thousands of years ago, not hundreds of millions. Only after the lecture, after Id done some research, did I realize that amphibolite is a metamorphic rock, and radioisotope dating is typically used only to date igneous rocks. Youd think that a geologist wouldve made that clear in the lecture. Beware Science backtracks all the time! Science does find errors and correct itself, but dont imagine that the next correction to evolution is as likely to be a small tweak as the overturning of the entire theory. Once a field is well understood, changes obey a power law, like with the magnitude of earthquakes, the frequency of word use, or the size of cities and towns. For every big earthquake we see thousands of tiny ones, and for every huge correction in a theory we see many small tweaks. The overturning of a well-established theory is very unlikely. They won't like that, akin to holding up a mirror to them. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 just of the.phone to richie from the british.humanist evo association wha a joker he hung up on me when i asked him few q,s ive have it recorded.put it up soon Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 still trying to figure out how to upload this recording. well i phoned him up asking was it true that evoloution is being taught in primary schools he replyed yes so i asked him , why have you lobbied for this,your not in education your religon. an he said , children should learn from a young age there origins an i said il, is evoloution not a theory , so why teach children when its nit scientific he replyed with , you cant see gravity but yet we know its a fact an i said , yes its a fact which has been proven threw scientific observation , an evoloution hasn't he wasnt happy an started getting touchy so i asked him whats your best scientific evidence for it an he said im not.here to debate it an i said , well why are you pushing it.into childrens education if.you cant prove it happened he got angry an hung up on me so richie from british humanist association your trying to get rid of creatioism from schools yet push your own religous theory , you have not heard the last of me , infact this is just.the start , now answer yiur phone an be mature stop hiding away Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts