Thread: Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

Originally Posted by tg16

It is my opinion, that the complexity of nature and humanity indicates there is a designer. As to talking snakes and the garden of Eden, I wasn't there and can not give first hand knowledge of what did or didn't happen or exist, I can only speak to what I believe....

Yes, but if you have a being that is omniscient and omnipotent, why would he resort to creating the earth, whole, 3000 years ago in an already existing universe? Or do you think that the entire universe was created 3000 years ago and all of Astrophysics is incorrect along with evolutionary theory? If a god in the Christian sense created the universe with all its complexity and rules he would know (being omniscient) that complex life would evolve and be aware of his existence. Why not allow these rules he conceived and created to take effect and develop into the life that he foresaw? Simply popping the earth into existence seems a crude and boorish way to do things when the much more elegant solution would be to simply plant the seed and let the tree grow. If I were Catholic I would find creationism horribly insulting to God.

And officially they do. I believe that AronRa reveals in his First Foundational Falsehood of Creationism video that the Catholic church has accepted evolution as a fact. No need to wait another 300 years at all. The future is here except for those who want a return to darkness.

I've spent the last 4 days "studying" your "evidence" checking sources, running down who has said what about who and the only conclusion I can come to is there is nothing new here just a difference in logic and worldview, the same old garbage and I'm finished with that. I'm not even gonna attempt to make comments on some of the stuff being thrown out here. Yes, I am Christian, yes I believe the Bible, yes I believe Creation studies have valid points and raises some interesting questions, No I'm not out to destroy evolution, and yes I know this puts me in the minority. I also know with the stranglehold put down in the first post here

(don't bother asking how we know it to be true any more because it has now been answered. Don't post any links to junk science because it has been completely refuted in the videos posted here. Don't claim that Intelligent Design is a valid concept because it has been effectively refuted in the videos posted here. Don't trouble people with the backward notions put forward by televangelical creationists because it has been completely and effectively refuted in the video series provided and also, you would only be doing the dirty work of the dangerously foolish and the hate monger.)

This is a completely bias and insensitive attempt to bash anyone who would challenge your point of view. Talk about doing the dirty work of the dangerously foolish and the hate monger. Notice how there seems to be only one voice, one point of view here and anytime a difference of opinion comes up it is crushed with no thought or conscience. This is not a debate it's a "Lets try to kill any resistance to our way of thought area."
While studying I decided to study some of those making comments here to see how they have talked and reacted in other threads in the past. To say the least they are interesting. I did find one thread that bothers me just a touch, it was from about 2 years ago and it was about The Merits Of Discouraging Selected Discourse On SRP. The first line states and I quote "We have recently lost another valuable member of our community due to a harmless politically themed thread having turned a little unsavory and I must confess that my frustration over such topics has been quite acute recently as well". My point here is this: This has become a whipping post for any viewpoint but atheistic, agnostic, evolutionist's. It's no wonder those who are unsure of who or what they are will steer clear and would rather fall away quietly than be crushed for a belief other than yours. In another part of this post it says "There are times when one's opinion isn't only unwanted, it's unacceptable. Clearly we shouldn't disallow simple comments such as "We'll be praying for you" but that's not the same thing as a long post about 'what's wrong with liberalism' and not nearly the same as a long thread composed of people picking sides on an issue and trying to ram their ideas through their perceived rivals' heads. As we've seen, somebody will almost invariably end up feeling hurt and it's only a matter of time before we get to hear somebody else say, "I'm taking my ball and going home". I'm not taking my ball and going home but enough is enough already. I do not / will not see things your way and you certainly don't / won't see them mine so maybe it's time to quit this and go on before something happens and someone does get hurt and leaves.

Sour grapes ENUF and you're trolling really aren't you. All of your claims about opinion, conduct and intent have been refuted up thread.

Originally Posted by ENUF2

... yes I believe Creation studies have valid points and raises some interesting questions...

No creationist concept has ever been able to stand toe to toe with the rigors of science. Your sources have certainly left you ill informed. Dogma depends on an ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning herd. That's why it's dangerous. If you are willing to pose your questions in a spirit of open learning and discovery and you can remain unhurt when you are wrong (because let's face it, we're all wrong sometime) then by all means please present them. If you'll only get mad when it turns out that an idea doesn't hold water though then don't bother. That's not what questioning people do when they discover facts they were previously unaware of. They revel in the light of reason and rejoice in learning.

Originally Posted by ENUF2

... My point here is this: This has become a whipping post for any viewpoint but atheistic, agnostic, evolutionist's...

Nope.
Post #4
Post #31
Post #50

Originally Posted by xman

Please, everyone. Do not start trolling here and spouting opinion or useless creationist drivel. Do not post anything without viewing the videos posted in the first post in this thread and then only about specific points.

I have refrained from actually posting in this thread, although I've enjoyed reading it a great deal. At this point, I feel like I really have to point out a few things.

1. Youtube videos are the academic equivalent of The National Inquirer. Many of those videos are of well known and respected members of the scientific community, and contain very valid points, but that doesn't change the fact that they are pop-sci in terms of their format.
2. Many of us are highly educated, myself included. If you've spent 4 or 8 or God knows how many years sitting in a university, there is little or no inclination to watch multiple hours of youtube videos carefully compiled to support a particular point. I've already been educated a great deal, and don't feel that I am likely to be greatly enlightened by watching 10 hours of pre-screened videos that are selected to prove your point.
3. You're not being any more scientific about this than the creationists you're trying to debunk. The whole point of the scientific method is that you start with a question, and conduct repeatable experiments to find an answer. You opened this thread with an answer in mind, and presented the evidence to support it. This thread is therefore not scientific in nature, but argumentative. If you start an argument, you can't be annoyed with people arguing with you.
4. The undeniable, irrefutable, fact of the matter is that you can NOT conduct repeatable scientific experiments that concretely prove any theory about the creation of the universe, because that would require recreating the universe. Even Steven Hawking has said that it's entirely possible God created the universe, but he either did it when the big bang is calculated to have happened, or did it so that it would look like the big bang happened when it did. What that means, is that at the end of the day, it's faith either way. Faith in scientific theories based on observation, mathematical models and hypotheses that make sense logically, or faith in old traditions.
5. (This one is purely opinion) These sorts of discussions are about as effective at convincing someone with firm belief in creationism that they are wrong, as door to door evangelism is effective at converting people to Mormonism. Does it work every once in a while? Sure. Does it work often enough that most people wouldn't consider it laughable? No. No it doesn't.

I can accept that God created the world, and created the human race, whilst also accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang. To me, they are not mutually exclusive.

Rather than post countless hours of video supporting my personal opinions, I'll give you an opportunity to engage me directly, and answer a question that your videos don't address at all as far as i could see from my partial viewing of those videos.

The question is this: IF a person has accepted that there is a God, and that this god is truly omnipotent, why is it not entirely possible for that god to create the world exactly as described in the bible, but do it in such a way that thousands of years later it would appear that the world was created in the big bang, and that we evolved from lesser primates? (before answering, you should double check the definition of 'omnipotent')

And before you ask why, the answer to 'why' is simple. As you and countless others before you have pointed out, the theory of evolution, and the various theories about the big bang have advanced science, and our understanding of the nature and behavior of the natural universe. It is entirely possible that they are constructs created by God to help later man understand the workings of the universe.

Thanks a lot Steve.....I had to laugh about the mormonism comment because I've actually done that a few times and it's just like you described. Occasionally it has an effect. But not as much as simply searching out those who are already interested.

You're not going to convince anyone who isn't already doubting.

As for other stuff. I found it amusing to read. However I am somewhat disturbed at things like calling people "trolls" and calling their opinions "Useless drivel".

No matter how into a subject you are....there's just no call for that.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

No matter how into a subject you are....there's just no call for that.

Indeed, and it was that attitude that finally got me to chime in. There is no value for either side of a debate when all arguments for one side are offhandedly dismissed by the other, and their proponents are belittled. (That comment is not directed at one person, but several)

Sir,

With all respect, I'll take the word of highly educated scientists, professors and teachers over YouTube and Wikipedia anyday. Why would I spend over 6 hours watching "scientific" information information on a free-for all website? If I used Wikipedia or YouTube as a reference for an engineering report I'd probably be laughed out of the office or fired. Even if they interview respected people, or are published by respectable firms, honestly I have no proof that they are since they are on YouTube. And in the other thread we brought up "Expelled" the movie which interviews several high profile evolutionary scientists (Dawkins et al) and made them look like complete idiots.. The veracity of those interviews was questioned, so why should I assume that something on YouTube is any less biased?

Originally Posted by xman

Because you haven't reviewed the videos at the start of this thread. We get this from observation. Mountains of biological and paleontological evidence bears out the facts of evolution. There can be no question of its veracity, only of one's comfort with the facts. Please review Potholer54's Made Easy videos on Evolution and Human Evolution, #'s 7 & 8. Please also simply type "evolution" into Wikipedia for direct explanations, plenty of sited sources and further links.

Unfortunately, you have exposed that your primary sources are sadly misinformed or at least uncomfortable with believing in reality, and I find it particularly sad that these people are educators (not biologists though thankfully). To debunk many myths associated with evolution please review the links on this page: An Index to Creationist Claims

As for the Time magazine article (which is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory BTW, but is often challenged in the same breath by creationists because both refute the biblical creation myth), it is not directly creationist propaganda, but when edited by people who think as your teachers have, it's easy to understand how a scientist's possibly valid work (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it) can be ridiculously misrepresented. The Time article is moronic. It may be that the title is there to attract readers, but it is misleading as I think is the title The Selfish Gene. It implies that there is a gene for selfishness and that naturally we are selfish creatures, which is not the point of that book as I understand it. The title of the book in the Time article is even more misleading though. What Came Before the Big Bang is an impossible question. It ask about something before space/time. There is no before time and there is no thing outside of space. Indeed as cosmologists look further and further back in time (which is equal to further away from us) there comes point where space/time breaks down and there is a wall of evenly distributed background radiation. It is theorised that at this point which were the earliest few seconds (perhaps microseconds) of the universe, the fundamental forces at work in our universe were operating together as one force. The nature of reality would be completely different than the one we now know. Space/time was a radically different place. This is almost a 'before' for time, but probably not quite. Before that? Not a valid option. Simply put, there is no chance for a 'before' without time. There is no chance for anything to exist without a place for it to exist either. If that idea addles you mind as much as it should (it does mine) then you are better able to appreciate the awesome genius of people who dabble in such cosmological mysteries.

I see not much has changed here in my week away from this thread.

It is an endless argument, and one that can never be won. A believer will never concvince an atheist about creationism, or anything. But, to call us believers ignorant Xman, is as uncalled for now as it was a week ago. For one afternoon at least it looked like all sides were at least trying to be friendly and keep the subject separate from our opions on each other as people but here we are back at square one.

I am as strongly convinced of my viewpoint as you are of yours BUT I will never accuse you of ingnorance or of being misguided. Either of us, or both of us could be wrong on this subject.

Argue your points all you wish, but argue science, not a persons intelligence.

Tony

[QUOTE=xman;436001]
No creationist concept has ever been able to stand toe to toe with the rigors of science. Your sources have certainly left you ill informed. Dogma depends on an ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning herd. That's why it's dangerous. If you are willing to pose your questions in a spirit of open learning and discovery and you can remain unhurt when you are wrong (because let's face it, we're all wrong sometime) then by all means please present them. If you'll only get mad when it turns out that an idea doesn't hold water though then don't bother. That's not what questioning people do when they discover facts they were previously unaware of. They revel in the light of reason and rejoice in learning.

These are your opinions and utube does not qualify as a certified agent of unbiased learning. I am not part of an ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning herd. I enjoy learning and aggravating the self centered self righteous cold hearted, hard headed self purposing people inside as well as outside the Church. I will not continue to lower myself into a truly one sided biased discussion especially since there is no chance of true debate on or even an unbiased look at what Creation studies has to offer. If we were to sharpen a razor with this type of onesidedness the blade would be destroyed. As for some of what is already here.

Your first video started off 100,000 years ago..... To an ignorant person this goes unquestioned but to me it turns me off immeadiatly just like "once upon a time". You wish to draw truthful attention? Start off with" it is believed that"..... or "Before recorded history"..... Words have more power than most give credit. The Bible begins in the beginning God..... and God said..... These would be "majic words" if God were human but He is not we are created in his likeness. Most people want to bring God down(humanize) while lifting Man up(deifiy) instead of using God given knowledge to figure out how and why things are. By the way xman you never did answer the question " have you ever read the Bible"? The bible is not a tech manual but it does give direction to those who wish to use ALL available information to form an opinion. The book of John Begins " In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. His thought, His vision, His action, not our own.....( Oh, I guess this isn't admissable because it doesn't fit this kangaroo court's criteria). That first video also had a box with a question about "whats inside". I know what's inside ...We are, Every thing we know about the known universe is inside the box. The issue is not what's inside but what's outside. People who think want to know whats outside and do not believe we have to drag Whoever or whatever in to learn about it.


About your debunked tele evangelists, Out of the the ones who claim Christ "Dr. Dino" is the only with any rebuttal on his scientific views. (I don't believe I used any of his stuff here even people like me think he's on the flakey side) Ethics and other issues are overlooked on any other group when it comes their political / scientific views but let a professing Christian fall anywhere and wham any view of theirs is no longer valid. There is a few places and 1 person in perticular I did not see on your "list" and these are....

The Discovery Institute, Facts of Faith, Creation studies Institute, and The Center for Scientific Creation. And the person I'm speaking of well let's start with his credentials.....

a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. He is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life he was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, he has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood. His name? Dr. Walt Brown

As you can see I have given NO links to any of these areas being the ignorant person I am so, if you wish to attempt to crash them go find them maybe by doing more than just watching, something could be learned. By the way try reading it's good for you.

To be ignorant is to be uninformed I am not uninformed in Science or Christian Theology and I do take it personally but then again it was Jesus who said,(more words) "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." As for me and my house, we shall serve the LORD!