It makes me sad every time...

OrbitalDawn said:
You're misrepresenting my position, after I've already corrected you once. That's the strawman.
Click to expand...
No you haven't put up any position to debate. You just called people that deserve much more respect than you apparently from your conduct here nuts and I called you out on it.

OrbitalDawn said:
Nonsense. I've given Behe and Dembski's arguments due consideration. Everything from specified complexity (Dembski) to irreducible complexity (Behe). It's not my fault that it's piffle.
Click to expand...
See there we go again. You dismiss it and call them nuts because you think it's piffle.

OrbitalDawn said:
I've also asked you to provide me with the arguments for creation so that I can read it. You didn't.
Click to expand...
I can't remember you asking for arguments for creation. If you did I missed it sorry. In any case it's not about what I belief but about your contention that evolution is the intellectually superior belief, something which has been shown repeatedly to be false.

OrbitalDawn said:
Besides, you're the one who dismissed out of hand the evidence I provided, which was neatly compiled by an expert in the field. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I've seen all the arguments and came to a logical conclusion that it's "piffle" :p. Sorry I missed the supposed evidence you provided. Can you please point to it again?

OrbitalDawn said:
What did Ruse do?
Click to expand...
Present a demarcation criteria he knew to be false.
 
Swa said:
No you haven't put up any position to debate. You just called people that deserve much more respect than you apparently from your conduct here nuts and I called you out on it.
Click to expand...

I said I didn't dismiss them merely because they're p.o.v. is different from mine, but because of their conduct and behaviour. You kept saying it's because I disagree with them. That's the misrepresentation.

Swa said:
See there we go again. You dismiss it and call them nuts because you think it's piffle.
Click to expand...

Dembski and Behe's contentions have been debunked numerous times. Behe can waffle on about the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum as long as he wants, he's still wrong. Have you ever actually read what these guys are contending?

Swa said:
I can't remember you asking for arguments for creation. If you did I missed it sorry. In any case it's not about what I belief but...
Click to expand...

So you accuse me of not giving the creation arguments due consideration, and when I said I did, and that you can provide me with more you say it's not about that anymore?!

Swa said:
about your contention that evolution is the intellectually superior belief, something which has been shown repeatedly to be false.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. You've claimed this a couple of time now without ever once backing it up.

Swa said:
I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I've seen all the arguments and came to a logical conclusion that it's "piffle" :p. Sorry I missed the supposed evidence you provided. Can you please point to it again?
Click to expand...

You did, as it happens. I gave you this link, and you immediately said they're the worst because they twist facts. Another unsubstantiated assertion, by the way.

Swa said:
Present a demarcation criteria he knew to be false.
Click to expand...

Got a link? I can't find anything with a cursory google.
 
AntiThesis said:
A teacher here just asked me to print out a poster on Evolution for her and then proceeded to tell me that "It's OK if it's got something funny in it, it's junk anyway. It's just a theory."

I don't know if I have the strength to explain the difference between "theory" in English and "Theory" in Science again. :erm:
Click to expand...

Maybe she also watched the Kent Hovind series of seminars. Interesting. Must watch.

For info:
Free downloads at www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html

Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth
Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden
Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs in the Bible
Seminar 4 - Lies in the Textbooks ...(must watch)
Seminar 5 - The Dangers of Evolution
Seminar 6 - The Hovind Theory
Seminar 7 - Question and Answer
 
EESt said:
Maybe she also watched the Kent Hovind series of seminars. Interesting. Must watch.

For info:
Free downloads at www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html

Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth
Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden
Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs in the Bible
Seminar 4 - Lies in the Textbooks ...(must watch)
Seminar 5 - The Dangers of Evolution
Seminar 6 - The Hovind Theory
Seminar 7 - Question and Answer
Click to expand...

:D

Lol
 
EESt said:
Maybe she also watched the Kent Hovind series of seminars. Interesting. Must watch.

For info:
Free downloads at www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html

Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth
Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden
Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs in the Bible
Seminar 4 - Lies in the Textbooks ...(must watch)
Seminar 5 - The Dangers of Evolution
Seminar 6 - The Hovind Theory
Seminar 7 - Question and Answer
Click to expand...

Hovind's creationist presentations have asserted that the reason creationism based on the Genesis creation narrative is not taught in public schools is tied to "an international conspiracy" of "'The New World Order' (NWO) consisting of Ted Turner and his wife Jane Fonda, the British Royal Family, the State of Israel, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a smattering of former and present US government officials, business leaders, and social activists (particularly those advocating population control) — shades of the Trilateral Commission."
Click to expand...

Yeah, smart guy.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
I said I didn't dismiss them merely because they're p.o.v. is different from mine, but because of their conduct and behaviour. You kept saying it's because I disagree with them. That's the misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
You have not shown any negative conduct and behaviour other than your disagreement on their conclusions.

OrbitalDawn said:
Dembski and Behe's contentions have been debunked numerous times. Behe can waffle on about the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum as long as he wants, he's still wrong. Have you ever actually read what these guys are contending?
Click to expand...
Yes I have and while I don't completely agree with the method he has valid points. Half a flagellum is not an evolutionary advantage. Apply it to larger structures and evolutionists have a tough time explaining how something can get by for millions of years on malformed forelegs until it has proper working wings. Thinking it can happen through some chance occurrences does not mean it can so nothing has been debunked.

OrbitalDawn said:
So you accuse me of not giving the creation arguments due consideration, and when I said I did, and that you can provide me with more you say it's not about that anymore?!
Click to expand...
Try to keep up. It was never about arguments for creation. It's about the holes and inconsistencies in your belief.

OrbitalDawn said:
No, it hasn't. You've claimed this a couple of time now without ever once backing it up.
Click to expand...
I don't need to back up that you haven't proved your position. You're trying to shift the burden of proof again.

OrbitalDawn said:
You did, as it happens. I gave you this link, and you immediately said they're the worst because they twist facts. Another unsubstantiated assertion, by the way.
Click to expand...
Ah now I see what you're talking about. I did not dismiss it. I reject it for its obvious agenda (real scientific sites don't present anything from a "let's try to debunk the creationists' arguments" position) and the gross inaccuracies and misinformation. A notable example being the list of supposed intermediates which does not mention that probably every single one of them is disputed. You continue to accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims but you have not backed up anything you claim.

OrbitalDawn said:
Got a link? I can't find anything with a cursory google.
Click to expand...
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html
See from page 247
 
Swa said:
You have not shown any negative conduct and behaviour other than your disagreement on their conclusions.
Click to expand...

Read for yourself. Behe testified under oath that the book received more thorough peer-review than most scholarly journals. Turns out 4 of the 5 people that reviewed it disagreed quite strongly with this. One only got a 10-minute rundown over the phone. Another one disagreed completely with his conclusions, and the other two rejected the book outright. Behe completely misrepresented the one reviewer's own work regarding blood clotting, quite knowingly. The book is filled with quote-mines and misrepresentations of other scientists' work on the matter.

Dembski's record speaks for itself. After the Dover trial he also made a snarky animation ridiculing the Judge, and everyone else involved in the trial.

Swa said:
Yes I have and while I don't completely agree with the method he has valid points. Half a flagellum is not an evolutionary advantage. Apply it to larger structures and evolutionists have a tough time explaining how something can get by for millions of years on malformed forelegs until it has proper working wings. Thinking it can happen through some chance occurrences does not mean it can so nothing has been debunked.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it has. It doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage. The creature just has to survive and reproduce.

Swa said:
Try to keep up. It was never about arguments for creation. It's about the holes and inconsistencies in your belief.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Swa said:
I don't need to back up that you haven't proved your position. You're trying to shift the burden of proof again.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:. Guess I should point out again that the last 150+ years of inquiry into the matter has shown the theory's strength, and it's affirmed by various scientific disciplines and new evidence gathered almost daily. If you think it's false, then show me the evidence gathered to support this. Others, like Dembski and Behe, have only been able to come up with is misrepresentations of actual scientists' work, ignoring evidence, or sometimes blatant lies. This is the best 'your side' has to offer?

Swa said:
Ah now I see what you're talking about. I did not dismiss it. I reject it for its obvious agenda (real scientific sites don't present anything from a "let's try to debunk the creationists' arguments" position) and the gross inaccuracies and misinformation. A notable example being the list of supposed intermediates which does not mention that probably every single one of them is disputed. You continue to accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims but you have not backed up anything you claim.
Click to expand...

I guess every reputable science institution and society in the world also has this 'obvious agenda', huh? It must suck when only charlatans like the Discovery Institute support your views.

What gross inaccuracies and misinformation? Look at the references at the bottom of every page he cites. Those are actual scientists who work in the field every day. They don't reference lawyers or philosophers like the ID crowd is in the habit of doing.

The website has a specific section for addressing common creationist arguments. Why does this bother you? Does it bother you that it's mostly nonsense?

Swa said:
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html
See from page 247
Click to expand...

What am I supposed to be seeing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X