1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    23 May '14 12:56
    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.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    23 May '14 21:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    Atheists and evolutionists also quote out of context. So what?
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 May '14 06:31
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Atheists and evolutionists also quote out of context. So what?
    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)
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148421
    24 May '14 07:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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)
    LOL, like people who say, "this could have happen", or "it may have
    occured like this" you know just making stuff up?
    Kelly
  5. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    24 May '14 07:481 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    LOL, like people who say, "this could have happen", or "it may have
    occured like this" you know just making stuff up?
    Kelly
    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 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}
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    24 May '14 14:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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)
    I have never seen such a bible.
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148421
    24 May '14 14:401 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    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}
    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 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
  8. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    24 May '14 15:45
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I've never called anyone Satan's lying little minions, please stick to those
    things I do say.
    Hence the edit: {This reply is aimed both at you and RJ}
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    24 May '14 16:04
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Hence the edit: {This reply is aimed both at you and RJ}
    YouTube
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 May '14 16:18
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    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
    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.
  11. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    24 May '14 17:32
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I don't care if a model is plausible...
    I do. It's the whole difference between believable and not.
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148421
    24 May '14 23:02
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Hence the edit: {This reply is aimed both at you and RJ}
    I don't see how or why an edit that points right at me is meaningful if
    I never made, then claim and you are pointing the post at me.
    Kelly
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148421
    24 May '14 23:06
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I do. It's the whole difference between believable and not.
    Like I said, a model is meaningless if what you are modeling can not be
    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
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 May '14 23:252 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    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
    Then there should be no effort by Christians to quash evolution and old Earth time scales.

    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.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 May '14 01:201 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Without a doubt, the scientific evidence favors a supernatural creation model for the origin of the universe, of life, and of species.

    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

    YouTube
Back to Top