23 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseAtheists and evolutionists also quote out of context. So what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Scroll down and you will see the excerpt about creationists.
They actually have a bible of their own, a BOOK of ready made mis-quotes specifically designed to influence people and destroy evolution.
24 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is the creationist quote mining bible, a training ground for pseudoscientific nonsense, part of the weaponisation of science you and your buddies (who actually make up stuff, whereas you just blindly follow)
Atheists and evolutionists also quote out of context. So what?
24 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseLOL, like people who say, "this could have happen", or "it may have
This is the creationist quote mining bible, a training ground for pseudoscientific nonsense, part of the weaponisation of science you and your buddies (who actually make up stuff, whereas you just blindly follow)
occured like this" you know just making stuff up?
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
24 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe difference lies in the ability to demonstrate how a model is physically plausible.
LOL, like people who say, "this could have happen", or "it may have
occured like this" you know just making stuff up?
Kelly
Where's the evidence some omnipotent intelligence poofed everything into existence just
6000 years ago? Where's your powerful friend now? In your head? Yeah, that's what I
thought.
You know, when you have to twist and quote mine scientists to try and belittle their hard
earned achievements (calling them satan's lying little minions), that's when it's time to take
a step back and question your own convictions, for you've entered lala-land with a degree
in reality disconnect, my friend.
{This reply is aimed both at you and RJ}
24 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessI've never called anyone Satan's lying little minions, please stick to those
The difference lies in the ability to demonstrate how a model is physically plausible.
Where's the evidence some omnipotent intelligence poofed everything into existence just
6000 years ago? Where's your powerful friend now? In your head? Yeah, that's what I
thought.
You know, when you have to twist and quote mine scientists to try and belittle their ...[text shortened]... a degree
in reality disconnect, my friend.
{This reply is aimed both at you and RJ}
things I do say.
I don't care if a model is plausible, the point wasn't that a model could be
brought forth, but that things are just made up!
A supernatural event cannot be proved with science, never claimed it
could be. An non-factual event can be made up and modeled just as easy
as a factual one, and if neither can be shown to be wrong then you have
no reason to accept or reject either other than you want to believe
in one and not another.
Kelly
24 May 14
Originally posted by KellyJayActually there are very good reasons to believe one model over another: and this is exactly what science is all about, its about testing models to see if they work. It is true that a model, however good it may be, can never be shown to be 100% correct, however our confidence in a model can be, and should be, very high if it passes all the tests. On the other hand, models that do not pass the tests, should rightly be discarded.
An non-factual event can be made up and modeled just as easy
as a factual one, and if neither can be shown to be wrong then you have
no reason to accept or reject either other than you want to believe
in one and not another.
Kelly
24 May 14
Originally posted by C HessLike I said, a model is meaningless if what you are modeling can not be
I do. It's the whole difference between believable and not.
shown wrong or false. Modeling something that was being made up was
my point. You can complain about people making stories up, but when you
do the same thing, oh well.
Kelly
24 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThen there should be no effort by Christians to quash evolution and old Earth time scales.
I've never called anyone Satan's lying little minions, please stick to those
things I do say.
I don't care if a model is plausible, the point wasn't that a model could be
brought forth, but that things are just made up!
A supernatural event cannot be proved with science, never claimed it
could be. An non-factual event can be made up and modeled jus ...[text shortened]... reason to accept or reject either other than you want to believe
in one and not another.
Kelly
But they continue their misbegotten agenda anyway. THAT is the point, not that we believe this and you believe that.
It is the USES fundamentalists put to those beliefs, which makes it a political struggle having nothing to do with religion, but with political power pure and simple to try to muster the votes or buy off the senators to force creationism to be taught in a science class as if it were science which you know and have said already, is not even CLOSE to being a science.
THAT is my problem with all this BS.
THAT I will fight to my dying day, which should be a long ways off.
25 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWithout a doubt, the scientific evidence favors a supernatural creation model for the origin of the universe, of life, and of species.
Actually there are very good reasons to believe one model over another: and this is exactly what science is all about, its about testing models to see if they work. It is true that a model, however good it may be, can never be shown to be 100% correct, however our confidence in a model can be, and should be, very high if it passes all the tests. On the other hand, models that do not pass the tests, should rightly be discarded.
Though there are many creation models differing in specifics of sequence and time of events, some fundamental evidences are convincing many scientists that creation models are more credible than evolution models.
http://www.gospelweb.net/brineycreation.htm
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Evidence against Evolution and for Creation