The lies of creationists:

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

This is from the 1980's or so, they haven't changed a thing since then.

Creation is about the beginning of the universe created by God, there has never been
anything outside of the impossible everything from nothing put forward to replace it. There
are some theories about an eternal universe which are just a continuing process. Man
without God is very limited and pretty much that is the best man can come up with, this
has been going on forever, because on his own he has no real answer to the question
where did everything come from.

You don't even have a leg to stand on, yet you keep at it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://store.bibleworks.com/fullversion.html

Bibleworks 10, $389.00 US. 250 bible translations, 45 original languages, 30 lexical-grammatical references. Looks like the ultimate bible. I bet there is not much literalism in this work!

Thanks, sonhouse. That actually seems a very reasonable price, as I'm sure I paid $250+ nearly 20 years ago. There were no restrictions on how many computers I could put it on, so I have just kept chugging.

It's mostly intended for academics, clergy and graduate students, I think--consider the cost of textbooks.

There are functions I have seldom used, and morphological functions I have never used--easier, at my level, to just work with a Greek grammar.

Thanks gain.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is about the beginning of the universe created by God, there has never been
anything outside of the impossible everything from nothing put forward to replace it. There
are some theories about an eternal universe which are just a continuing process. Man
without God is very limited and pretty much that is the best man can come up with, this
has b ...[text shortened]... n
where did everything come from.

You don't even have a leg to stand on, yet you keep at it.

The link is about the errors of Creationists, not whether some sort of god may or may not exist as the ultimate prime mover or author of all existence.

I do believe, to paraphrase Ambrose Bierce*, that belief in god is natural, general, and comforting.


*Bierce said this about ghosts.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The link is about the errors of Creationists, not whether some sort of god may or may not exist as the ultimate prime mover or author of all existence.

I do believe, to paraphrase Ambrose Bierce*, that belief in god is natural, general, and comforting.


*Bierce said this about ghosts.

I typically don't look at many of the links here even those for creation. I'll take it that it is very
possible that creationists have errors in their beliefs, just as I know that every other human
on any side of any debate can have errors in what they bring forward so it would not be
news to me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I typically don't look at many of the links here even those for creation. I'll take it that it is very
possible that creationists have errors in their beliefs, just as I know that every other human
on any side of any debate can have errors in what they bring forward so it would not be
news to me.

Yes, KJ, you are right: all of us humans are prone to error.

The difference is that most reasonable and logical humans learn from their errors, and when pointed out and understood, they grow.

However, it is my experience, specifically with you and RJH, that if an error is clearly, emphatically and unambiguously pointed out, you just turn away (like you do now amd in the other Noah's flood thread) and say dismissively: "all of us have errors!"

Tell me, in a simple yes or know, are you prepared to learn from a mistake if the error of it is pointed out to you with abundant proof?

Wulebgr and vistesd, you are kindred spirits. I don't feel so lonely here anymore!

Originally posted by CalJust
Yes, KJ, you are right: all of us humans are prone to error.

The difference is that most reasonable and logical humans learn from their errors, and when pointed out and understood, they grow.

However, it is my experience, specifically with you and RJH, that if an error is clearly, emphatically and unambiguously pointed out, you just turn away (like you ...[text shortened]... u prepared to learn from a mistake if the error of it is pointed out to you with abundant proof?

If you want to enter into a discussion on topic fine lets do that, your personal insults I can
do without.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll take it that it is very possible that creationists have errors in their beliefs...

Catastrophic errors that stem from gross dishonesty.

There is no comparison between the errors made by honest scientists and science writers concerning evolution, on the one hand, and the errors made by those attacking evolution from a creationist perspective, on the other hand.

On second thought, comparison is possible in the same manner that one can compare the humanitarian work of Mother Teresa to the humanitarian work of Pol Pot.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Catastrophic errors that stem from gross dishonesty.

There is no comparison between the errors made by honest scientists and science writers concerning evolution, on the one hand, and the errors made by those attacking evolution from a creationist perspective, on the other hand.

On second thought, comparison is possible in the same manner that one can compare the humanitarian work of Mother Teresa to the humanitarian work of Pol Pot.

Or the push for the Nobel peace prize for Idi Amin....

The thing that gets me is the scientists with Phd's in say, biology or genetics, make DELIBERATE falsehoods which is doubly hypocritical.

If they had pursued their Phd's with the same agenda shown in later years, they never would have gotten the Phd in the first place.

You can imagine a Phd student talking to his adviser:

I KNOW the Earth is 6000 years old and I want to do experiments to prove it.

You can imagine how well that would fly.

You see all the BS in these video's attempting to refute hundreds of years of scientific work, in their vain attempt to 'prove' creationism right, but only dissing those scientific disciplines that run afoul of their built in agenda.

They don't want to admit the sciences involved in say, dentochronology or radiometric dating of rocks use the exact same scientific principles as any other science and so they come up with statements like 'we are not anti-science' when in fact they are attacking the fundamental tenants of science in such a way as to really be dissing ALL sciences.

They also can't see how this anti-science stance is making the US a laughing stock of the scientific world.

They also misrepresent the video's as 'proving' some point of creationism when in fact the video is doing no such thing. What it is really after is VOTES. The overall strategy of the YEC set is to force creationism to be taught in a science class as if it were a real science.

They have lost battle after battle in the courts and so now are turning to 'freedom of speech' kind of attacks.

If they ever were by some disaster or other, win the argument and force creationism to be taught, they would then further their goals to Iranize the US and their ultimate goal being to make Christianity the state religion, going back 1000 years to the time of the inquisitions and so forth. They are a scary bunch where rational thinking would not be allowed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Or the push for the Nobel peace prize for Idi Amin....

The thing that gets me is the scientists with Phd's in say, biology or genetics, make DELIBERATE falsehoods which is doubly hypocritical.

If they had pursued their Phd's with the same agenda shown in later years, they never would have gotten the Phd in the first place.

You can imagine a Phd ...[text shortened]... inquisitions and so forth. They are a scary bunch where rational thinking would not be allowed.

There are not hundreds of years of scientific work on determining the true age of the earth. All the work in the last hundred years has been in an attempt to provide some evidence that might fool the public into believing the age of the earth is old enough to allow for the evilution theory. That is the fact, Jack. 😏

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Catastrophic errors that stem from gross dishonesty.

There is no comparison between the errors made by honest scientists and science writers concerning evolution, on the one hand, and the errors made by those attacking evolution from a creationist perspective, on the other hand.

On second thought, comparison is possible in the same manner that one can compare the humanitarian work of Mother Teresa to the humanitarian work of Pol Pot.

As I believe as soon as you get people, money, and fame involved you will see such
things. That said, you'll see it on both sides of this or any other debate. To punch on one
side only as if that were the only one with people who can be grossly dishonest just
shows one's own prejudice. Seeing 'catastrophic errors even if was made by honest or
dishonest scientists does not mean their side is of the discussion is wrong. The points
need to be validated the people making them will be flawed they are human which does
not at all mean their side is wrong or right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are not hundreds of years of scientific work on determining the true age of the earth. All the work in the last hundred years has been in an attempt to provide some evidence that might fool the public into believing the age of the earth is old enough to allow for the evilution theory. That is the fact, Jack. 😏

I don't care how long the work takes it is still be done by people who all share the same
issues. Water will not rise above its source and we cannot shake our nature and short
comings. You can believe what you will, and voice you opinion strongly, doing it for 10
years doesn't make you any more right or wrong than someone who has been doing it
for 10 minutes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to enter into a discussion on topic fine lets do that, your personal insults I can
do without.

My, my, we are sensitive, aren't we?

Personal insults??

You are the one who keeps talking about how we all are fallible, but you won't answer a simple question.

On topic? For sure! We are talking about the lies of creationists, specifically those that keep accusing others of lying.

Originally posted by CalJust
My, my, we are sensitive, aren't we?

Personal insults??

You are the one who keeps talking about how we all are fallible, but you won't answer a simple question.

On topic? For sure! We are talking about the lies of creationists, specifically those that keep accusing others of lying.

Okay, you've run my name down in several places. I'm getting a little tired of your high
school mouth. If you cannot contain your rudeness we can stop. I have zero issues putting
you on my ignore list as I have a handful of others. Up to you! I'm not trying to make any
of our discussions about you, but you sure have been making me the topic in a few.

Originally posted by vistesd
Some years ago I read a book on the early (post-apostolic) theologians. One of the chapters was on the early Syrian Church—in which theology was only done as poetry, since it was assumed to be presumptuous to make propositional truth claims about, or descriptive prose statements about the (ultimately) ineffable divine. I liked that. Of course, there’s als ...[text shortened]... n (in addition to translation issues—such as theological bias—vis-à-vis the original languages.)

Intriguing. So, for example, how has the meaning of "belief" changed (dare I say evolved?) over the last few centuries? Has the same change occurred in Spanish, French, or German? The modern German word for belief, Glaube, as I understand it, has largely the same meaning as its English counterpart, and I have always gotten the sense that (standard) German has changed less over the centuries than English.