Jump to content


Photo

Frdb Forum Cannot Even Control It's Own Members.


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:51 PM

I have yet to see anyone "scientifically" disprove the evidence above. All I have heard is that a creationist carved it, but yet there are no witnesses. It broke up into something that now looks like a dino print, so now it's debunked. AIG backed off so it must be fake. So what part of each claim makes the evidence "scientifically debunk? Zero. So science now debunks evidence on hearsay, and false accusation, and majority opinion. I guess if you really are desperate to disprove something, anything will do.

View Post


I was under the impression the dino-footprints had been investigated by specialists would said they were either faked or it was erosion. Not sure if that depends who you talk to, or if there are multiple examples of this. Either way, I thought it had been scientifically falsified.

Then we have the Ica stones. Kinda funny that the pattern of a stone carved before the petrified dinosaur skin, some how just happens to match the pattern. I seem to remember several evolutionists making the claim that the Ica stones made the dinosaurs look like they had turtle shells. Not realizing tat this was actually skin armor. Like how the crock has extra tuff skin. But none can explain how the ica stone carver knew the pattern of the dino skin. Maybe he saw it in a dream?

View Post


Cool, I didn't know fossilized dino-skin had been found!? I thought it was still based on the assumption that they were lizards and therefore should have lizard like skin. Any chance you could throw me the link about the fossilized skin? I'd love to read it.

Regards,

Arch.

#42 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 04:51 AM

You laugh because there are no scientific journals that support creation? Well good on you for taking it in your stride, but I'd find it really annoying :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


No Arch, I laugh when the evo-zealots won’t allow discussion in, then hypocritically claim there are no “scientific” papers supporting Creation. :lol: Then their strident lemmings follow them over the ledge of ignorance and come to sights like this because they can’t stand opposing opinion either. Strange how that works… huh! :blink:

Oh, and by the way, there are plenty of peer reviewed “Creation” scientific journals (because the evo-zealots won’t allow discussion in). But, of course you’ll wave your hands (by spreading the pixie dust) and pretend they still don’t exist. :)


So here are just a few of them:


http://www.icr.org/i...action=all&ID=2

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/

https://www.csm.org....1b32bdf86727890

http://www.creationr...h.org/crsq.html




You can also write to a few others (there are more Arch... Don't worry :lol: )

Christian Scholars Review :
Circulation Department
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 USA


Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
Blackwell Publishers
238 Main Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 USA
800-835-677

#43 heyhey911

heyhey911

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 99
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • United States

Posted 14 August 2009 - 05:39 AM

No Arch, I laugh when the evo-zealots won’t allow discussion in, then hypocritically claim there are no “scientific” papers supporting Creation.  :)


There were several people, who adressed this question several times: What would any YEC willing to join the thread would accept as evidence?

Oh, and by the way, there are plenty of peer reviewed “Creation” scientific journals....

So here are just a few of them:
http://www.icr.org/i...action=all&ID=2

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/

https://www.csm.org....1b32bdf86727890

http://www.creationr...h.org/crsq.html
You can also write to a few others (there are more Arch... Don't worry  :blink:  )

Christian Scholars Review :
Circulation Department
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 USA
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
Blackwell Publishers
238 Main Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 USA
800-835-677

View Post

For crying out loud, why did nobody post this there? The question was asked liiterally like 20 times. Now the thread has just degraded into something that seems very familiar feeling, and by the way what is up with this thread being created?

For the members here that have posted in the one over there: Why didn't you post your feedback there, instead of the peanut gallery here?

#44 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:43 AM

Then we have the Ica stones. Kinda funny that the pattern of a stone carved before the petrified dinosaur skin, some how just happens to match the pattern. I seem to remember several evolutionists making the claim that the Ica stones made the dinosaurs look like they had turtle shells. Not realizing tat this was actually skin armor. Like how the crock has extra tuff skin. But none can explain how the ica stone carver knew the pattern of the dino skin. Maybe he saw it in a dream? :)


Question: Does someone who makes duplicates of original things make the original things fake? Like: Does a painter who paints a copy of the original make the original fake?

etc...

View Post

Of course any counterfeit makes all genuine articles fake. Have you never encountered their argument regarding scripture: because frauds & (maybe) incompetents have produced bogus translations, all translations are bogus.

Like all principles, they apply it selectively (because there are no absolutes?). None of them refuse to possess money, although they freely admit counterfeit money exists.

There were several people, who adressed this question several times: What would any YEC willing to join the thread would accept as evidence?
For crying out loud, why did nobody post this there? The question was asked liiterally like 20 times. Now the thread has just degraded into something that seems very familiar feeling, and by the way what is up with this thread being created?

For the members here that have posted in the one over there: Why didn't you post your feedback there, instead of the peanut gallery here?

View Post

You call this a 'peanut gallery'?

That place is a looney bin. And have you seen all the claims of credentials of the membership over there? I still don't know what to make of it. Advanced evosickness, or taking advantage of the internet to lie about who they are? I'm pretty confident it's both.

They should be grateful for the amount of time Adam's wasted on them. I wouldn't. I don't think it's a particularly profitable venture, but I'm thankful for the laughs.

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:17 AM

For crying out loud, why did nobody post this there? The question was asked liiterally like 20 times.

View Post

I was taking a stance against the reasoning. That's why. There are plenty of sources but I'm trying to get people to realize that they don't have to sit on their heads and they can actually think through the implications of matters without getting all disjointed about sources.

#46 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:34 AM

For the members here that have posted in the one over there: Why didn't you post your feedback there, instead of the peanut gallery here?

View Post


Most likely because of the attitude you show when using bashing language such as “the peanut gallery here”. It isn’t worth the time, anymore, to deal with such low standards and unenforced rules violations. :)

#47 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:35 AM

I was taking a stance against the reasoning. That's why. There are plenty of sources but I'm trying to get people to realize that they don't have to sit on their heads and they can actually think through the implications of matters without get all disjointed about sources.

View Post

No, Adam, I don't think they can :)

#48 heyhey911

heyhey911

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 99
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • United States

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:10 AM

Most likely because of the attitude you show when using bashing language such as “the peanut gallery here”. It isn’t worth the time, anymore, to deal with such low standards and unenforced rules violations.  :)

View Post

I was commenting on this specific thread, which was made in observation of the original thread created at FRDB. It didn't take a condescending tone until someone realized a commentary thread had been created here.

What I see mostly is the fact that certain creationists were complaining over the way they are treated (the netiquette), versus the evolutionists there complaining about unfounded claims (the evidence).

So before it turned into another personality bashing contest, some people were trying to determine what level of evidence would be acceptable for having a discussion on the confliction between evolution/creationism if any.

I don't really have any pull, seniority, or otherwise at either one of these forums, but as I see it, shouldn't another two forum thread bashing be avoided for the benefit of both?

_

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:11 AM

Most likely because of the attitude you show when using bashing language such as “the peanut gallery here”. It isn’t worth the time, anymore, to deal with such low standards and unenforced rules violations.  :)

View Post

Oh no, the rules are enforced very strictly :blink:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=37280

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33442

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33443

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33444

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33445

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33446

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33447

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33448

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33449

Don't worry Occam has three red* by his name to show everyone how truly fair the discussions are over there. :huh:

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:30 AM

I was commenting on this specific thread, which was made in observation of the original thread created at FRDB. It didn't take a condescending tone until someone realized a commentary thread had been created here.

View Post

Not true. I'll comment on this in a few seconds.

So before it turned into another personality bashing contest, some where trying to determine what level of evidence would be acceptable for having a discussion on the confliction between evolution/creationism if any.

View Post

This isn't true. That thread at FRDB, was far progressed and even locked before this thread existed.

I don't really have any pull, seniority, or otherwise at either one of these forums, but as I see it, shouldn't another two forum thread bashing be avoided for the benefit of both?

View Post

That sounds good but I believe as certain members continue their tenure at FRDB it will continue to only draw people who like to scoff and not simply have an open respectful discussion. I actually wonder why certain evolutionists hang around there because they would do so much better in a different environment rather then a scoff fest.

What I see mostly is the fact that certain creationists were complaining over the way they are treated (the netiquette), versus the evolutionists there complaining about unfounded claims (the evidence).

View Post

Any information that is not evolutheism approved will be stamped as 'unfound claims' at FRDB. That's a grantee.

Take a look at this:

http://www.freeratio...885#post6056885



http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=283

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=28586

Don't worry I'm sure there are a bunch of lame excuses why this research is illegitimate but all the rock solid (pun intended) radiometric dating tests that only work with the geologic column assumed first are perfect in every consilient way.:)


You were asked for the primary data, not links to your own YEC apologetics site or youtube videos claiming to have the data.

Please try again.


Occam just posted this and it reveals his intention. His intention is to keep people from entertaining any information that is counter to his own beliefs. To me, that is weak.

So now my suspicions are confirmed. Any conversation of evidence that will lead away from evo-approved 'consensus' views will be strictly snapped back into line by demanding the approved 'science journal' sighting, that agrees with any alter conclusions.

heyhey911, if you think this is the way discovery and growth and intelligent progress takes place, you can have it. But I have news for you. It's a classic cult mentality and Occam over there is a self-professed clergy member helping the poor lost sheep see that he knows what writings are the truth and if an idea is not found in these approved writings then they must be illegitimate. If you agree with Occam, I want to tell you, that you are in a cult of sorts.

You'll be fine as long as you don't actually entertain the implications of evolution being wrong are Darwin forbid the Bible being right.

Now you will say isn't this the same thing that a Bible believing Christian does? I haven't once told anybody that they can't have an intelligent conversation with me unless they site all their opinions in the Bible. I will gladly start from someone elses perspective to discuss science, philosophy or the scriptures. Occam will only discuss evolution from his own perspective and demand that any other perspective is stupid. So Occam can't get out of his bubble because he can't look at anything outside of it lest he be drawn by something he doesn't already believe.

#51 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:32 AM

I was commenting on this specific thread, which was made in observation of the original thread created at FRDB. It didn't take a condescending tone until someone realized a commentary thread had been created here.

What I see mostly is the fact that certain creationists were complaining over the way they are treated (the netiquette), versus the evolutionists there complaining about unfounded claims (the evidence).

So before it turned into another personality bashing contest, some people were trying to determine what level of evidence would be acceptable for having a discussion on the confliction between evolution/creationism if any.

I don't really have any pull, seniority, or otherwise at either one of these forums, but as I see it, shouldn't another two forum thread bashing be avoided for the benefit of both?

_

View Post


I see you are missing the point in its entirety heyhey. If the forum cannot even control their own boards by enforcing the set rules, and allowing Assist (amongst a few others) run amok, what makes you think the debate field even has a chance of being level? And, when Assist makes a claim to evolutionist autonomy as the steering wheel that drives the debate, instead of only the “raw” un-slanted and un-spun “data”, how much more uneven can that field become.

No my friend, I have yet to witness an un-condescending tone there (even from some of the moderation). Although it is interesting as to how low Assist and some others will delve to satiate their own religiosity.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:00 AM

It's funny and kind of flattering but every time I discuss anything at FRDB I notice that I'm like a magnet. If I'm taking the time to post and there are a couple of responses back and forth the thread gets filled with lurkers and participants.

If creation was totally bogus, as they try so hard to purport, why the interest? I mean if somebody wanted to defend a position that the earth was flat and that space aliens were responsible for implanting our memories while all of us were really automatons on the puppet strings of these aliens that have given us only the impression of having lived a life, and defending it like he really means it, how much effort would be need to correct this dangerous falsehood lest others fall prey to this thinking?

If creation has no convincing power and no evidence, why is it taken so seriously? Whether a seriousness to trust it or a seriousness to crush it?

As much as I make fun of evolutionary thinking, and I know I do, I believe there are very good questions and things that are worth taking extremely seriously because of their appearance of having explanatory power. The appearence of having explanatory power means that things can look like they support evolution and issues should be viewed as genuinely convincing even if the method and pronouncements are disagreed with.

Why are so many evolutionists afraid to take seriously the notion that creationism has convincing power when it does?

#53 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:20 AM

It's funny and kind of flattering but every time I discuss anything at FRDB I notice that I'm like a magnet. If I'm taking the time to post and there are a couple of responses back and forth the thread gets filled with lurkers and participants.

If creation was totally bogus, as they try so hard to purport, why the interest? I mean if somebody wanted to defend a position that the earth was flat and that space aliens were responsible for implanting our memories while all of us were really automatons on the puppet strings of these aliens that have given us only the impression of having lived a life, and defending it like he really means it, how much effort would be need to correct this dangerous falsehood lest others fall prey to this thinking?

If creation has no convincing power and no evidence, why is it taken so seriously? Whether a seriousness to trust it or a seriousness to crush it?

As much as I make fun of evolutionary thinking, and I know I do, I believe there are very good questions and things that are worth taking extremely seriously because of their appearance of having explanatory power. The appearence of having explanatory power means that things can look like they support evolution and issues should be viewed as genuinely convincing even if the method and pronouncements are disagreed with.

Why are so many evolutionists afraid to take seriously the notion that creationism has convincing power when it does?

View Post


It’s that whole Cleopatra thing Adam :lol:

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:53 AM

It’s that whole Cleopatra thing Adam  :lol:

View Post

I don't get it. :lol:

Can you explain so I can laugh too? :P

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 12:36 PM

Occam want's me to defend creationism without acting like a Christian. :lol:

http://www.freeratio...115#post6057115


The sad thing is that this issue is discussed extensively so you you are only kidding yourself if you want to believe there are no sound explanations for what it means to live a life submitted to Christ.

Now the flip side is even more interesting. Every time I've attempted to discuss epistemology with atheists/agnostics the results are always silence or painful displays of circular reasoning. After all, the truth is we can't be sure about anything.:P

Keep your preaching out of this thread Adam. Go witness somewhere else, this is a science discussion.

Mods, please remove his above post.


It's a no holds barred when Occam is simply telling Da Truth but when I talk like a Christian it must be censored. :lol:

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:40 PM

I was in the middle of responding to Stephen (Franklin here) and that thread was locked again.

I want to place my response to this post here and since Franklin is a member here also he can freely respond:

http://www.freeratio...362#post6057362

"There is this shallow perspective that sort of heralds this idea that facts = reality but this isn't true. Facts are facts and reality has meaning. ...the truth can be uncovered by help from the facts but the facts alone will not guarantee discovery of the truth." (Adam_777).

Brute facts do equal reality.
If my last bottle of whisky is dropped onto a tiled floor and smashes into pieces, that is a brute fact; the fact I can no longer drink anything from it is another brute fact. A bottle smashed into many  pieces and my no longer being able to drink whisky - or anything else - from it are realities.

Jesus has nothing to do with them.

As to the question why the bottle was dropped, that is both a matter for forensic inquiry in terms of the mechanics of the event (which, if proficient enough, may establish more brute facts, ie that it  was wet and slippery) and and inquiry into my wife's state of mind at the moment she dropped it.

The truth of that may never be known.

Her "truth" - that the bottle was wet and slippery and it slipped through her fingers, doesn't coincide with my "truth" that I had  had two whiskies already, that she dislkes me drinking just before I'm going to take her out for a meal and that she therefore "accidentally-on-purpose" let it slip through her fingers onto the tiled floor.

Jesus can't help with that, either.


Hi Stephen,

Now you just hit on a very important matter and I appreciate it, more than you know (except for the silly little pokes about "Jesus can't help", but whatever...). Now my statement had an implication that I left out unwittingly that allowed you to come back with this well thought out post. I should have been more contextually precise with what I said but I wasn't. However, I'm glad I wasn't because you just nailed it, right at the heart of this thread.

Let's review Occam's gracious offer again :P :

I'll again make my offer to any YEC interested.

I am willing to engage in civil, ad hom free discussions on any topic concerning evolutionary theory of your choosing.

The only caveat is, we must both support our position with evidence taken from the primary scientific literature. Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR. The primary scientific literature.

I make this caveat so there can be no question about additional "spin" put on the data, or baseless propaganda, or quote-mining.  Just the raw scientific evidence.

Let's see who wants to discuss the actual science.


Now, Stephen, what you just said above is interesting and I don't completely agree with what you said because I truly believe there is a contextual oversight in stating facts = reality.

The part I do agree with is this. If reality is properly derived from a body of facts then that reality derived by all rights is now a fact, if and only if the reality that is derived from a body of facts is indeed true.

So now what?

Well, Occam's wonderful caveat to decide what journals are accepted, which we haven't gone over nor do I care to, since any peer reviewed outfit that supports creationism will be scoffed at and rejected by Occam's blinding bias. This is painfully obvious by this statement:

Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR.


You see even though it is true that all Young Earth Creationist sites are apologetic sites, they are also a peer review outlet, where scholars share and wrestle with relevant issues.

However, for the sake of argument let's say I agree to only use secular peer review science journals (which isn't going to happen for the reasons I'll explain) this is the way things will fall out:

There will be facts: Grand Canyon is a big scar on the earth, DNA has the code for life, animals can adapt to their environment, etc, etc, etc...

Now we will look at those facts and derive certain realities. Then what? We will accept those realities as facts and take the next step to discovery to infer additional realities and so on and so forth. How long will it take before I an defending an alternate possible view that is rejected by secular journals based on the evolutionary paradigms acceptance which I am seeking to argue against?

At what point will I find the reality that I am arguing for in journals that reject such propositions out of hand?

His premise governs his victory based solely on how he believes scientific inquiry is conducted on a lay level. We can only defend positions based on the thinking of those he has already deemed intellectually acceptable. Don't be surprised that his offer only works on someone who doesn't see his bias and his effort to tie the hands of anybody he talks with because it's obvious he can't actually carry on a dialogue with another human being without simply asserting himself as some supremely evolved intellectual hockey player. If you dare get out of line, he'll check you with a heaping helping of empty insults. :lol:

:lol:

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:05 PM

Don't worry Occam has three red* by his name to show everyone how truly fair the discussions are over there.


I doubt that means much because Occam is well loved over there. It's probably a ploy to make us "think" it's all fair. Because if it were an actual 3 red warning, and Occam respected that forum and it's authority. He would be pulling back from the norm of what he does to start things. But I see no difference (same attitude). What I do see are edits all over the place as a weak attempt to "look" like something is being enforced. But edit after edit, no warnings, and no change speak volumes about what is really going on.

No fear of "real" enforcement of rules = members that "will" continue to do what they want. And anyone whom cannot abide by the rules, does not belong if all they can do is cause trouble. If the forum does not want to ban, then suspensions should be used. Each one being longer than the other until the rule breaking member gets the message.

If a member acts like a child who needs a stiff kick to make them straighten up, you treat them like one and do what is needed. Other wise your forum ends up just like 1,000s of others all over the net. And who wants the same type forum everywhere you go to debate C vs E?

One has to determine which is more important:

1) Keeping members at all costs (ban no one regardless of what they do) which allows the members to actually run the forum and make the rules.
2) Or enforce the rules and take control to keep a certain amount of order. Which means that some members might have to go.

Number 1 is like allowing the members to have a union where their say and power can be as equal as any mod or admin.

Number 2 takes away most of the union power of the members so that the forum runs like the owner wants it to. And the members learn that they have a say, they just don't have as much power.

Also, number 1 takes away the respect that a mod or admin needs to control the forum because the members soon find out that warnings and edits mean nothing because nothing happens because someone else whom has the power is to lenient. So they talk back and respect is lost.

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:18 PM

It's funny and kind of flattering but every time I discuss anything at FRDB I notice that I'm like a magnet. If I'm taking the time to post and there are a couple of responses back and forth the thread gets filled with lurkers and participants.

If creation was totally bogus, as they try so hard to purport, why the interest? I mean if somebody wanted to defend a position that the earth was flat and that space aliens were responsible for implanting our memories while all of us were really automatons on the puppet strings of these aliens that have given us only the impression of having lived a life, and defending it like he really means it, how much effort would be need to correct this dangerous falsehood lest others fall prey to this thinking?

If creation has no convincing power and no evidence, why is it taken so seriously? Whether a seriousness to trust it or a seriousness to crush it?

As much as I make fun of evolutionary thinking, and I know I do, I believe there are very good questions and things that are worth taking extremely seriously because of their appearance of having explanatory power. The appearence of having explanatory power means that things can look like they support evolution and issues should be viewed as genuinely convincing even if the method and pronouncements are disagreed with.

Why are so many evolutionists afraid to take seriously the notion that creationism has convincing power when it does?

View Post


It was the same way at a forum I used to debate when I first started out debating for creation. It got to te point where 10 to 20 evolutionists would debate me at one time. I started pointing out how many it took to debate me and try to prove me wrong. They soon get embarassed and left because I would name how many were in there. And list names. 20 against one? It was work but it was also a learning experience.

I left that so called Christian forum when I saw them allow a Christian to covert to atheism and never lifted a finger. In a ministry, you are supposed t help each other in times one becomes weak in the faith. You don't allow your fellow brother or sister in Christ to fall an offer no help what so ever. But in the end if it's their choice to leave, you have to accept it. Because even Christ understood free will. He did ot chase a person from town to town trying to convert them. If they rejected, He moved on.

#59 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:31 PM

Occam want's me to defend creationism without acting like a Christian. :lol:

http://www.freeratio...115#post6057115
It's a no holds barred when Occam is simply telling Da Truth but when I talk like a Christian it must be censored. :lol:

View Post


That pretty much proves my point that I made earlier. The so called debate is already totally tilted in his favor. He likes those odds. It means he can be right on every issue, and the creationists wrong.

What makes this also ironic, I was reading a thread a few months back where some certain evidence was found that supports the world wide flood because it solves the water problem. One member made the comment:

I hope the creationists don't see this and use it.

And another member said:

Yeah, isn't it funny how they use "our" evidence to prove their stuff?

So you see one of the problems with science is that they think evidence all evidence is owned by them,and should never be used by creationist because their only goal is to prove evolution.

So question is: Where does ownership of evidence came into play on how evidence should be used? And how is ownership proven? Is there a title of ownership to the evidence that says: Said evidence is owned by said person and can only be used to prove or support evolution?

You see that type of bias that Occam knows exists makes him the default winner even before debate starts. Because "all" scientific evidence is owned by evolutionists to make sure it only supports evolution.

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:43 PM

I was under the impression the dino-footprints had been investigated by specialists would said they were either faked or it was erosion. Not sure if that depends who you talk to, or if there are multiple examples of this. Either way, I thought it had been scientifically falsified.
Cool, I didn't know fossilized dino-skin had been found!? I thought it was still based on the assumption that they were lizards and therefore should have lizard like skin. Any chance you could throw me the link about the fossilized skin? I'd love to read it.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Attached File  image003.jpg   26.46KB   4 downloadsAttached File  footprints.jpg   17.88KB   4 downloads

Please explain what makes the creation evidence on the left fake, and the evolution evidence on the right real?

Here is where you can do some research on dino skin: http://images.google...start=0&ndsp=20




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users