And then this one, going down to the end:
In the past, I have allowed the duplicity of David H. to tie me up in knots, emotionally speaking. But no more! I am much stronger than I was and I won't let him or any other Creationist con artist tear me down ever again! I truly feel like a million bucks tonight!
"Also could you tell me one scientific fact that creation science denies? Not interpretation of a fact....an actual fact. Thanks."
"As far as giving you one scientific fact that creationism denies, how about the age of the Earth and the solar system, for starters?"
"Now on to the facts. You just messed up. The age of the world and universe are not observable facts. They are interpretations based on assumptions. That uniformitarianism is true is first assumed. That the decay rates have been constant since the beginning because they are now and haven't been accelerated...all assumptions made. Their are cosmologies which don't require nor interpret the universe as being as old as the interpretation you hold to but I don't think you are aware of them."
My comment --- When I saw this exchange, I became outraged for a simple reason: MOST SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE NOT BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Not only do we not know the facts of evolution by direct observation, but even the internal structure of the Earth and atoms as well as the origin of the Solar system and the universe at a whole is not known via direct observation!
Supposed the sacred book of the Bellas religion proclaimed that the earth was hollow. Scientists measuring earthquake waves to determine the internal structure of the Earth say that it has a core of iron and nickle. A follower of Bellas would deny this "fact" and merely say it was an "interpretation" of data that might also be just as useful to indicate that the Earth is hollow. "You are acting on blind assumptions regarding how earthquake waves operate underground," the Bellasite would tell the scientists.
Would that be fair?
Hi, Dale, seems you are too young to know, but this Hollow Earth debate did take place when I was a boy - and the ID debate strongly reminded me of it! Same stupid kind of argumentation...
No matter how many books and ''witches'' the empire burned at the stake, the earth remained round.
The peddlers of barbaric fables can not change reality, but only corrupt the children within it.
LIES require threats of ''Hell'' and denial of ''Heaven'' to ENFORCE them upon the innocent children TRAPPED in sunday schools.
Truth requires NO ENFORCEMENT, just patience.
Here I took what had merely been an attempt by Freediver to insult an entire nation of people and turned it into an explanation for the problem based on an evolutionary hypothesis. I humiliated him so badly!
Some people never learn, do they?
Oops! I forgot that it was in a group closed to public veiwing. Anyway, here all you need to see from it:
I have learned from experience that debating with Freediver on anything often leads to a slugfest because he will argue with his opponent on point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on until his opponent finally is exhausted and throws in the towel. That's really the ONLY way he can "win" an argument like this.
But there is a better way to discredit him and that is based on the principle that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And such a blatant weakness is found HERE:
If someone makes an observation, comes up with an hypothesis, then makes more observations to check whether it agrees with the hypothesis, and continues making such observations indefinitely, that is not science.
I can totally refute that assertion with just one word:
There is no debate about evolution.
there are scientific facts supportin evolution and then there are people who believe we popped up here like magic.
thats not debate........ thats just crazy.
and the fish guy is totally off his rocker....
and you cant debate with complete nitwits, too much effort and no payback
It is indeed instructive to occationally engage in debates with the Creationist opposition, but do not ever expect to "win" such a debate by proving your opponent wrong. Not only are their premises totally different from yours, so are their standards for judging if something is true or even plausible. Quite simply, even if they use the language of science to spread their propaganda, they do not use genuine scientific methods at all, but rely on religious prejudices to make their case. And some of them are even willing to lie outright.
Scientific debates, if done properly, eventually end when the necessary evidence is discovered in the physical universe to disprove the claims of one side. But Creationists make their case in such a way that their case can never be disproven in a scientific way. And at the same time, they think evolution could be opposed by "proofs" that really have no substance to them at all.
exactly my point.... that with creationists id'ists..... there is no debate. they go off of faith we go off of scientific discovery....
I'm a creationist viewpoint and I have no problem having discussions about evolution. So that's not entirely true. I believe in reincarnation and that doesn't exactly follow a creationist viewpoint.
Hi Dale! Hi Dann!
Evolution of Galaxies (in Acoustic Coffee House)
US to breed new 'superbugs'
For me, dealing with Freediver's lame comments is actually more annoying than facing an opponent that is armed with actual scientific integrity.
Excellent in what sense? The Creationist opponents were so lame there that I wondered why they even bothered to post against me. They NEVER addressed the physical evidence regarding evolution, and that's what I care about.