Liekiller:


No it's not relevant. It doesn't even disturb me IF he actually believed in a creator. What disturbs me is that you insinuate that if ONE big thinker believed in a creator there must be a creator. That's no valid point.
You shouldn't refer to modern scientists to "validate yourself as a creationist". But you should definitely do so when you attempt to discuss (or more likely refute) scientific theories. If you have a deep knowledge of any science as you claim you should actually know that you cannot disprove a scientific theory established with scientific methods by stomping on the floor and exclaiming furiously that it's a lie. Neither can you disprove it with so-called creationist science, because that does NOT use scientific methods. So, if you argue against science, then use science to do so. Everything else makes no sense and -sorry to say again - makes you look dumb.

when did I insinuate that one big thinker believing in a creator proves there is a creator? Please go back and read the point of this thread and the reason I argue against davien. My only point is that my believing in a creator does not make me any less a scientist. Simple. You call me dumb and yet you cannot even comprehend the simple point that so many here have tried to make. You rudely and arrogantly made nonsense conclusions on matters you think are just beginning here. Please park well. I have no issue with you. I have my own interests. And I did not come to have a scientific debate or disprove any scientific method.

davien:
And he also believed in alchemy,does that make him correct on all counts?
Stephen Hawking even with his discovery of "Hawkin radiation" about black-holes,would be laughed to scorn if he believed the earth was flat.
Doesn't it strike you as odd,that as scientists that they were..... they only made relevant contributions following empirical methods?
No contribution whatsoever was made in the alleged "creation science" because it isn't a scientific proposition whatsoever.
And why do you keep using the term "evolutionist"? when evolution is not an "ism"?
This is another dishonest tactic...


Okay,did you succeed? or did you as usual give no coherent answer?



Is ken ham a scientist? and would it even matter?....I could also list scientists who also believe the earth is flat and 9/11 was a conspiracy, does that make it true?


"ardent follower" you say? since when does one become an ardent follower in science?

You didn't even know the basics of Newton's principles and you're claiming to be an "ardent follower"(which is a ridiculous and fallacious term by the way)

Well how do you know he didn't?
In an age of "thought police", where you could be killed for not believing what you were told...burning at the stake was the scare tactic christians used then, now it's hell...

One becomes an ardent follower in "science" once the concept is the of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. It cannot be proved. It cannot be observed. It is an interpretation of the timelines. An opinion of history, not science.

My lack of belief in that particular interpretation would not invalidate my position as a scientist. If stephen Hawking refuses to believe in the common ancestor concept it wouldn't make him any less a scientist.

Please try to make your points quick and precise. Instead of leading in different directions.

Liekiller:


No it's not relevant. It doesn't even disturb me IF he actually believed in a creator. What disturbs me is that you insinuate that if ONE big thinker believed in a creator there must be a creator. That's no valid point.

to make things short I did not and have never insinuated this. So be quiet and get off my back. You call me dumb get you've been attacking me for a point I never even made. Quite dumb of you if you ask me.

I wonder where these guys come from who just jump into things without thinking Smh

davien:
joshthefirst we don't create things we use "starting materials" to make things, we're familiar with that.
What we're not familiar with is a hocus pocus "creation" where anything can be led into existence ex nihilo(from nothing)...

Although this is a straw man, since you put it up as the owner of the thread I will address it. Note that before this I did not bring up anything about the fundamentals of creation and existence, you did.

Now, the general informed theist's POV is not that everything came up out of nothing. Please go and educate yourself and stop misyarning here. We believe that since something always has an origin and a cause then the universe had an origin. And minus the universe, this origin is timeless, spaceless, unchangeable and infinite. As this origin is infinite, then it is extremely powerful. This is basically the God-definition.

Joshthefirst:
One becomes an ardent follower in "science" once the concept is the of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. It cannot be proved. It cannot be observed. It is an interpretation of the timelines. An opinion of history, not science.

My lack of belief in that particular interpretation would not invalidate my position as a scientist. If stephen Hawking refuses to believe in the common ancestor concept it wouldn't make him any less a scientist.

Please try to make your points quick and precise. Instead of leading in different directions.

THIS is what I was referring to in my own responses to you. You seem to think that this all is about "belief". It isn't. A scientific approach doesn't CARE what the outcome will be. As opposed to your so-called "creation science" that manipulates observed facts in order to fit into a preconceived idea. Just like you attempted to do above. And yes, this makes you less of a scientist or more precisely a non-scientist. Your only argument in "refuting" a scientific theory that has been confirmed a million times with a million different sources by a million different people is to state that you "don't believe in it". While I personally don't care one bit what you believe or don't believe, you should at least understand that this approach is NOT scientific. That is the opposite of science. I doubt that you know even 0,01% of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology etc. etc., and still you are arrogant enough to claim that it's all based on nothing. And then you go on to call me arrogant? WHO is arrogant here? haha
Just as a side note: as far as I'm concerned one CAN believe in a creator AND evolution etc. The only people who seeem to have problems with bringing the two together are Christian fanatics of the very antiquated type who take their books all too literally. How about questioning your "holy book" as much as you question everything else??

smh.

Liekiller:


THIS is what I was referring to in my own responses to you. You seem to think that this all is about "belief". It isn't.

It is, as shown even explicitly by you who simply argues from a position of dogmatic belief and appeal to authority on things you do not know about.

Liekiller: A scientific approach doesn't CARE what the outcome will be. As opposed to your so-called "creation science" that manipulates observed facts in order to fit into a preconceived idea.

Unfortunately science is science. And it is the folk from your school of thought that manipulate their observed facts to fit into their preconceived notion that all organisms descended from a single ancestor. Even when they find discrepancies in the fossil record they simply manipulate their own timelines to justify their own worldview.

Liekiller: Just like you attempted to do above. And yes, this makes you less of a scientist or more precisely a non-scientist.

Babble. Tell this to your folk.

Liekiller: Your only argument in "refuting" a scientific theory that has been confirmed a million times with a million different sources by a million different people is to state that you "don't believe in it".

Please kindly show where it has been confirmed that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. Do you now realize the dogma filled crap you've been spouting here? Nothing about the notion that we all descended from a common ancestor has been confirmed. It cannot be observed, it cannot be proved. It is just an opinion of our history as living things, just like creation.

Liekiller: While I personally don't care one bit what you believe or don't believe, you should at least understand that this approach is NOT scientific. That is the opposite of science.

How can my approach be scientific when the notion I refuse to believe is not scienctific as it is not observable?

Liekiller: I doubt that you know even 0,01% of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology etc. etc., and still you are arrogant enough to claim that it's all based on nothing. And then you go on to call me arrogant? WHO is arrogant here? haha

And it is obvious you and every other person on this planet have no idea if we descended from a common ancestor or not. It is an opinion that you take. My refusal to take this pill simply because I find it ludicrous and idi.otic does nothing to my scientific credentials or negate my ideas.

Liekiller: Just as a side note: as far as I'm concerned one CAN believe in a creator AND evolution etc. The only people who seeem to have problems with bringing the two together are Christian fanatics of the very antiquated type who take their books all too literally. How about questioning your "holy book" as much as you question everything else??

I do not care. I must not take your opinion as fact. I consider you a fanatic who wants to force a point of view of the origin of living things that is as much a worldview as mine as fact (edit: the only difference is that in its effort to be naturalistic and godless it ends up being quite stupiid. One of the most stupiid and idioti.c things man has dared believe in) and teach it as truth to high school students. I consider it basal and quite unscientific.


And do well to note that my post was not addressed to you. You should start communicating from where you left off and first apologize for using dogma treated glasses to deliberately misunderstand my point before challenging me on why I don't take your common ancestor crap to be fact.

Pr0ton:
Okay. They still have an imperative way of getting around the problems and errors in Genesis; moon being a light, survival of plants before the creation of the sun, existence of the earth before the sun, occurrence of day and night without the sun etc

This same creationists accept speciation a process under evolution to explain the diverse species that arose after "their Noah flood", but they reject it when it is used to explain evolutionary processes (even when the term, speciation, originated from evolution).. How ridiculous!

They dont reject it... they simply ask for evidence that speciation is responsible for life as it is. Speciation explains away random variations in life forms, it does not explain how those life forms appeared in the first place, neither does it explain how a process that is highly random, highly flawed, goes against strict gene correcting mechanisms and highly specialized organ/tissue systems can appear within a relatively short period of time. That is not ridiculous if you ask me.

Liekiller:


THIS is what I was referring to in my own responses to you. You seem to think that this all is about "belief". It isn't. A scientific approach doesn't CARE what the outcome will be. As opposed to your so-called "creation science" that manipulates observed facts in order to fit into a preconceived idea. Just like you attempted to do above. And yes, this makes you less of a scientist or more precisely a non-scientist. Your only argument in "refuting" a scientific theory that has been confirmed a million times with a million different sources by a million different people is to state that you "don't believe in it". While I personally don't care one bit what you believe or don't believe, you should at least understand that this approach is NOT scientific. That is the opposite of science. I doubt that you know even 0,01% of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology etc. etc., and still you are arrogant enough to claim that it's all based on nothing. And then you go on to call me arrogant? WHO is arrogant here? haha
Just as a side note: as far as I'm concerned one CAN believe in a creator AND evolution etc. The only people who seeem to have problems with bringing the two together are Christian fanatics of the very antiquated type who take their books all too literally. How about questioning your "holy book" as much as you question everything else??

you obviously know nothing about science. Having worked on NIH/RO1 grants for years in the US, i know that science DOES absolutely care that results are identical to the proposals as outlined in your initial grant. But of course, keep on waffling about things you dont know.

plaetton:


You big mouth with your lilliputian minds.
You still don't get it, do you?
Think think.

i noticed Josh provided 3 links... you could not argue against any of them so you try to squirm out of the fact that you just embarrassed yourself? shame.

davidylan:


i noticed Josh provided 3 links... you could not argue against any of them so you try to squirm out of the fact that you just embarrassed yourself? shame.

I am actually trying to avoid embarrassing you blokes by giving you an opportunity to think.
Links do not think for you.

C ' mon davidylan. If yahweh, your sky pappy, gave you a mind to think, you owe him an obligation to use it.

plaetton:


I am actually trying to avoid embarrassing you blokes by giving you an opportunity to think.
Links do not think for you.

C ' mon davidylan. If yahweh, your sky pappy, gave you a mind to think, you owe him an obligation to use it.

yeah sure, 24 hrs later. What a ridiculous shame.

Next up is the son of the convicted criminal kent hovind...

"Eric hovind"


[b]
Eric Hovind attended Pensacola Christian Academy, a
kindergarten to grade twelve Christian school operated by
Arlin Horton that teaches young Earth creationism, finishing
in 1997.

Hovind's one attempt at completing a credential
in higher education was Jackson Hole Bible College in
1999, which is not a real college.

Jackson Hole is an
unaccredited, one year Christian school at a campsite
that offers a "Diploma in Biblical Foundations" (not to be
confused with real credentials such as degrees that take
years of study complete).

Unlike real college classes that
are taught by people with PhDs for several weeks,
Jackson's classes last only a week, such as its
"backpacking" class.

This means Hovind has no education or credentials in
science. He has admitted that he has never taken a class on evolution at a secular college and judging from Hovind's
own biography he hasn't even spent one day in any science
quoteclass at an accredited community college.

This is despite him operating a million dollar store that specializes in DVDs that accuse scientists (people who have spent decades in classes and labs) of being wrong.

In 2013, Eric Hovind served as a "teacher", if one calls it that, at Jackson Hole Bible College, where he taught
" Presuppositional Evangelism in the 21st Century" for a week. This is the same argument that got publicly torn apart by a child in 2012.

Apparently, the students and operators of the "college camp site" aren't as smart as the child and can't see the flaws in Hovind's arguments as he was invited back to teach "Presuppositional Evangelism in the 21st Century" in 2014. [/b]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_Hovind

Eric hovind has made a series of apologetics used by most creationists here on nairaland..(most notably OLAADEGBU )

In his $24.95 video series entitled "Beginnings" he displays the common dishonesty and misinformation of creationists..


http://creationtoday.org/product/beginnings-exploring-biblical-creation/



Eric Hovind


It’s time to start your journey through Beginnings, the curriculum that will educate, entertain, and prepare you for the most pressing topic of our day— creation versus evolution! Join Eric Hovind for six fascinating sessions:

Session 1: They’re Both Religions

Session 2: How Old Is It?

Session 3: It Was Good

Session 4: Dinosaurs With Man

Session 5: Fact vs. Faith

Session 6: The Truth

Beginnings is a creation experience for small groups, churches, and individuals from all walks of life. Creation Speaker, Eric Hovind, explores the age-old questions of life, the evidence for a young earth, and how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible. The included guide provides an introduction to each lesson, creative challenges, great discussion questions, and practical ways to apply each lesson to everyday life!

Answers are found in the Beginnings.

The links below are a testament of his dishonesty

Eric hovind vs 6th grade atheist..

[lnk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhDPrP-tpeo [/lnk]


Eric hovind commentary

[lnk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXZ_6QayZg&itct=CDsQpDAYACITCJ-D_O6V7MMCFcOkvgodyoEACVIYRXJpYyBob3ZpbmQgY29tbWVudGFyaWVz&hl=en&gl=NG&client=mv-google [/lnk]

To follow up on the above rebuttals... check the link below

Eric hovind commentaries by King crocoduck


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXZ_6QayZg&fulldescription=1&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

His apologetics were also ousted by a group of agnostic christian theists...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omdkrD5WB4k

Joshthefirst:
Although this is a straw man, since you put it up as the owner of the thread I will address it. Note that before this I did not bring up anything about the fundamentals of creation and existence, you did.

what fundamentals? and when did I agree it's a creation?

Equivocation yet again

I keep telling you that until you can demonstrate "creationism",you can't call anything natural,a "creation"....

Now, the general informed theist's POV is not that everything came up out of nothing. Please go and educate yourself and stop misyarning here.

So now I'm the uneducated one here? From someone that believes two loaves and a few fishes could feed thousands

Anyway lets see if this accusation is true,shall we?

We believe that since something always has an origin and a cause then the universe had an origin.

I'm going to pawn you in two ways,first using your own bible,next through a well constructed argument...

So you believe something always has an origin do you? you're bible states in john 3:8;

"The wind blows where it wishes and you
hear the sound of it, but do not know where it
comes from and where it is going"

So as a biblical literalist/creationist joshthefirst how can you go against "god's word" and say that something always has an origin?....or would you now interprete this verse because it's uneasy to you?

And then my other say is about energy,it has no origin...merely vessels or if you will,bodies that dissipate and/or utilize it...

Again we have the virtual particles in quantum mechanics that make up for a vacuum and its potential vacuum energy..

And minus the universe, this origin is timeless, spaceless, unchangeable and infinite. As this origin is infinite, then it is extremely powerful. This is basically the God-definition.

This is a childish and basal form of logic(no offense intended)..

Subtracting the properties of a body does not give you any idea of its origin...

If we subtracted the properties of a human,would you say the origin is a brainless,boneless,handless,invertebrate-less,unintelligent something?

Or lets use your "genius logic" to find the origin of DNA,so it would be an oxygenised-pronucleic base,no?

Joshthefirst:
One becomes an ardent follower in "science" once the concept is the of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. It cannot be proved. It cannot be observed. It is an interpretation of the timelines. An opinion of history, not science.

So your DNA is an opinion?

The hardy weinberg equation used to trace back paternal/maternal relationiships is also an opinion?

It's I guess also,only an assumption that evolution is used as a heuristic tool in tracing retroviral insertions?

It's also only an assumption that is used in studying leprosy and congenital illnesses?

My lack of belief in that particular interpretation would not invalidate my position as a scientist.

Your phrasing would have been correct if evolution were a belief,so no.
You only object to the science so as to hold a literalist interpretation of christian mythology.

If stephen Hawking refuses to believe in the common ancestor concept it wouldn't make him any less a scientist.

Actually it would,you see scientists go by empirical methodology so if he objected to it,he would have to have a scientific argument against common decent and it would have to answer why evolution fulfills biochemical,archeological,anatomical,behavioural predictions...

Without it he would only be voicing an empty opinion,of which would degrade his own credibility...

Please try to make your points quick and precise. Instead of leading in different directions.

I believe anyone that has read our discourse well knows the truth of this..

davien:

So your DNA is an opinion?

The hardy weinberg equation used to trace back paternal/maternal relationiships is also an opinion?

It's I guess also,only an assumption that evolution is used as a heuristic tool in tracing retroviral insertions?

It's also only an assumption that is used in studying leprosy and congenital illnesses?

The opinion here is on our origins. The opinion is that all living organisms come from a common ancestor. That is the opinion. It is merely an opinion of history and it cannot be confirmed, or observed.

davien post: Your phrasing would have been correct if evolution were a belief,so no.
You only object to the science so as to hold a literalist interpretation of christian mythology.

I believe I have dealt with this before in other posts on this very thread. I am tired of repeating myself.

I could turn the tables and say you only subject to the naturalistic BELIEF of origins because you are afraid of the ramifications of a non naturalistic one.

davien post: Actually it would,you see scientists go by empirical methodology so if he objected to it,he would have to have a scientific argument against common decent and it would have to answer why evolution fulfills biochemical,archeological,anatomical,behavioural predictions...

Again, I have dealt with this sort of nonsense already. Common descent is not an observable opinion thus it is not experimental. The opinion of common descent has nothing to do with the experimental successes we are seeing in observable science today. I have nothingmore to say on this issue if you repeat yourself again, as I am tired.

davien post: Without it he would only be voicing an empty opinion,of which would degrade his own credibility...

Creation is not an empty opinion mind you. It is very well based on stable scientific logic and observed processes and citations of intelligent design.

davien:
what fundamentals? and when did I agree it's a creation?

Equivocation yet again

I keep telling you that until you can demonstrate "creationism",you can't call anything natural,a "creation"....

Toh. Until you an demonstrate common descent through a change in kind where a new organism with new and relevant genetic material is generated from an old one then you cannot say every living thing evolved from a common ancestor.

davien post: So now I'm the uneducated one here? From someone that believes two loaves and a few fishes could feed thousands

Anyway lets see if this accusation is true,shall we?

Lol. This attempt at mockery is coming from someone who vehemently claims to share the same physical ancestory with an ape.

davien post: 'm going to pawn you in two ways,first using your own bible,next through a well constructed argument...

So you believe something always has an origin do you? you're bible states in john 3:8;

So as a biblical literalist/creationist joshthefirst how can you go against "god's word" and say that something always has an origin?....or would you now interprete this verse because it's uneasy to you?

And then my other say is about energy,it has no origin...merely vessels or if you will,bodies that dissipate and/or utilize it...

Again we have the virtual particles in quantum mechanics that make up for a vacuum and its potential vacuum energy..

Seriously? Does the fact that a man does not know where the wind comes from and where the wind is going make the wind without origin? Nawa oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Oh you bring up the energy topic eh? God is a being of energy. More precisely, Energy itself is an aspect of God's nature. So that doesn't count.

And virtual particles are a function of the vacuum energy themselves.

davien post: This is a childish and basal form of logic(no offense intended)..

Subtracting the properties of a body does not give you any idea of its origin...

If we subtracted the properties of a human,would you say the origin is a brainless,boneless,handless,invertebrate-less,unintelligent something?

Or lets use your "genius logic" to find the origin of DNA,so it would be an oxygenised-pronucleic base,no?

This is poor comprehension. No one is subtracting the properties of any body. We're speaking of the originof the universe. The universe is space and time and matter. It is natural, there its origin is unnatural. Spaceless, timeless, without beginning, changeless and extremely powerful. (See the kalām cosmological argument)

I don't see any thing wrong with the biblical account of creation.

I don't see any thing wrong with the biblical account of creation.

really?