• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should scientists debate creationists?

Should scientists debate creationists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 40 32.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 68 55.7%

  • Other.

    Votes: 14 11.5%
  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .
rittjc said:
I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe. Probably the worlds foremost expert in microbiology. Don't know of any more famous than him.
Click to expand...

See? This is what I'm talking about. Somebody needs to have a very public fit of uncontrollable, hysterical laughter whenever the good Behe speaks. The man is hilarious!
 
rittjc said:
Oh, a Christian hater. Cool, for a second there I thought you were here to debate science.

I don't go church you bigot.

Good counter argument, insults! You atheists have so much scientific background. No wonder you don't want to debate science.

You are the perfect example of what evolutionists and atheists do in debates. Go to insults rather than try to make scientific counter argument. Try to discredit the opponent if you are helpless to counter him.

This is what I am talking about. This is why secularists, evolutionists, and atheists don't want objective disclosure of their position. They are completely vapid and this scream why it is time to start having national debates on the subject so the world can see and make up their own minds rather than having you atheists make it up for them.

Thank you for underscoring my point. I could not have made it any better.
Click to expand...

You know, you didn't just form the above opinion overnight, did you.

Who's the pot calling the kettle black?

Seriously, just look at what you wrote.

You are the one who made your forum debut full of hostility. You are not seeing much scientific debate because you don't appear to be able to actually compose a post that has any point.

Try posting some good scientific questions, take the nastiness and sweeping insults out of your posts, and perhaps you will have a conversation on your hands, rather than schoolyard taunting.
 
Last edited:
rittjc said:
The opposite of Atheism is Theism (look at the greek). They are references to belief systems or religions. Not all religions are theistic...
Click to expand...


Eymological fallacy. (The etymology of a word has no necessary bearing on the nature of the concept that word represents.)
 
rittjc said:
I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe. Probably the worlds foremost expert in microbiology. Don't know of any more famous than him.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't that incredibly questionable.

You've named one. You said the world's top scientists were ID'ers. So far you've put forward Behe. Any idea how many scientists there are in the world?
 
Standard scientist versus creationist debate:

Moderator: "In one sentence can you sum up your world view?"

Scientist: 2 + 2 = 4

Moderator: "I understand, thank you. And you sir?"

Creationist: "The most amazing miracle, performed by the most amazing being who we can never hope to comprehend, who will bar-b-que us in hell if we don't obey, will let us live forever in heaven, grovelling at his feet if we do, who is completely undetectable but wrote a book about his wonderful exploits, that only looks like it was written and changed by men, as proof of his existence, and who immaculately created a loving son who turned out to be more evil than he was to come down and die so that his father may justify our horrific afterlife + 2 = 4."

Moderator: "Okay, thank you . . . I think!"

rittjc: "Wow! That creation "scientist" sure knows his stuff!"
 
Rittjc still hasn't provided me with an example of a scientist saying evolution just happens, or of one invoking the bible.
 
rittjc said:
Again, nothing but emotional diatribes. Do you consider yourself a logical thinker or just a big hater who hopes he make points with pointless insults?
Click to expand...
Why the reluctance to name your "renowned" scientists?

ETA BEHE?! Okay, seriously. You're a troll, aren't you? You can't be serious.
 
rittjc said:
I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe.
Click to expand...

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

He is as much of a Scientist as Doctor Seuss! Oh, wait a minute, that isn't fair to Doctor Seuss. Doctor Seuss created children's stories as does Dr. Behe. Unlike Behe, Seuss' stories are excellent, he knew they were complete fabrications of his own imagination and sold them as such.
 
That's not fair. Behe may be wrong about something big but he is still a qualified science and has done good science.
 
rittjc said:
Oh, a Christian hater. Cool, for a second there I thought you were here to debate science.

I don't go church you bigot.
Click to expand...

PS. I did. For years. I was a very sincere Christian. Luckily, I read the entire bible and questioned it.
 
rittjc said:
I see secular scientists claim they won't debate intelligent design and creationists and they give a pretty lame excuse that they will get "emotional discourse" instead of scientific ones.

I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

I have yet to see a creationist's fundamental arguments every be addressed by the secularists. They always say "it just happens". That's anything but scientific or intelligent discourse.

Secularism is a religion that is emotionally defended. It is a faith and a religion just like all belief systems of thinking human beings. What is dishonest discourse is when it tries to distinguish itself from other belief systems. Only a brain that doesn't function has no beliefs no assumptions and lacks absolutes.

That's my experience.
Click to expand...

Ok rittjc I'll break the rule and debate you on scientific grounds. We'll not argue that the only thing Dr Duane Gish or Behe is famous for is debating scientist about evolution. Because there is so much evidence I will only mention a few. You say evolution is not testable. Name any part of evolution that hasn't been observed. (I can name only one but it's your job to figure it out.)

We see it in the fossil record.
We have transitional fossils.
We've seen new species evolve in recorded history.
We see vestigial structures (Arguable so let's leave that one alone).
We have DNA analysis.
We have computer modeling.

Ok so The fossil record is obvious so lets see if what we learned from it can be independently verified. Ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? synopsis from; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/7723/67027

What this is is what's left of a viral infection scar within our DNA and can be passed to offspring when it by chance happens to a reproductive cell that survives. It never happens exactly the same way twice. A very large part of our genes was left there by extinct retroviruses of the past. That means that by identifying how some viruses that you have had in your life have scared your DNA it can be used to identify your offspring in the future. Even if humans evolve into something other than humans! It can be used as absolute proof of your ancestry. This means that by finding very ancient viral scares in people we can look in other animals for the same viral scare. Guess what? Humans and chimpanzees have 7 of the exact same viral scars identified so far. This does not mean we evolved from chimpanzees, it means that both us and chimpanzees evolved from an earlier common ancestor. We can also estimate how long ago it happened by looking at the random variations. This comes out to about 5-8 million years ago. This just happens to match when the fossil record says us and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor. We also have markers that we share with mice. When we calculate when this happened it comes out to about 70-80 million years ago. Guess what? This is also when the fossil record said the split between rodents and primates occurred. It is essentially proof that if you go far enough back in time that mice and men had the same parents at one time. It does not mean those parents were anything like the mice you see today. Now we have independent confirmation from entirely different sources and they even agree on when it happened. The only way to deny this is to claim God put it there that way to fool us. You can read about it here to;
http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

DNA itself was discovered because evolution theory indicated that there must be a master instruction set to facilitate evolution. The Mr Behe you mentioned is famous for Irreducible Complexity (IC). This has been totally proved false. You can even download free programs that mimic some aspects of evolution. These programs have evolved irreducibly complex programs that wasn't included in the original program.

So now you can say evolution is equal to creationism because they are both untestable.

Your turn.

EDIT: Misstated second to last sentence LOL.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
That's not fair. Behe may be wrong about something big but he is still a qualified science and has done good science.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmm . . . . I think someone caught in this big of a fabrication will have everything he has ever done questioned and most will simply ignore him in favour of trusted sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom