Home > FreeHovind > Content > Discussion: Stacking the Deck
Stacking the Deck
19 Comments - 31496 Views
Baseless Creationism
Submitted By ben on 09/02/20
Ninnies 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

I was over on AiG and came upon this little ditty.
 
If someone expects you to argue that the Bible or creation is true without using the Bible as evidence, they are stacking the deck in their favor.
 
Is that true? Is it not possible to argue Creationism without the Bible?
 
I understand that it is disheartening to argue just on evidence because one is required to make demonstrably untrue claims such as radiometric dating doesn't work or dinosaurs and humans lived together. That doesn't mean one should allow a particular creation myth to be used as evidence.
 
Why use the Bible when it is not accurate historically?

» Reply to Comment
Where is the Bible not accurate historically?
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 15:30 GMT
Where is the Bible not accurate historically? Answer and then I may have to do research for a while. Be patient my friend.
» Reply to Comment
Well we can start with the life of Jesus. Herod
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 17:31 GMT
Well we can start with the life of Jesus. Herod's slaughter of the innocents. The census (Either Matthew is correct about Herod the Great or Luke is correct about the Census of Quirinius) to include the practice of requiring one to go to an ancestral home. The crucifixion eclipse. The dead walking from their graves. I can go into the changes between Mark and Matthew (Matthew embelishes to make Jesus more powerful) and why they do not agree on key points.
» Reply to Comment
-Supernatural intercession-
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 16:14 GMT
Since we have already established that supernatural intercession is very likely, as opposed to autopoiesis. It is at that point, left up to the individual or communal approach to indentify with a head model to help to explain and expound the observations.
 
The interesting thing about most theistic religions is the convergance of central deitie(s) abased around prime similarities of correspondance. Most monotheist and polytheistic religions are structured around god(s) and spirits, like angels, demons and devils.
 
Other expounding similarities are focused around the creation of the universe, earth and life. Most belief today is based around Abrahamic countenance.
 
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Judaism-Christianity-Islam.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology
 
The christian religion and bible is a branch off the abrahamic archetype. It derives from judaism and includes the appropriation of salvation of man. The reproach and deriviation does not have any political bearing on the scientific plain.
 
The choice doctrine of chrisianity on creation explains phenomena, creationists have furthered the explanations and elaborated on the sophisticated analysis of the universe, earth and life. All aspects of science is thoroghly explained with creation. But, alas, thorough explanation is not enough for our evolutionist friends.
 
For instance, Dr. Hovind, the genious, thoroughly explains an elaborate theory about geology, the ice age and prime aspects of physical science. It is very credible and answers a lot of questions that evolution couldn't hope to.
 
http://freehovind.com/watch-_4930240196747890104
 
Naturally, fans of evolution turn their noses to this kind of material. Why? It doesn't support evolution.
» Reply to Comment
How have you possibly established that supernatura
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 17:47 GMT
How have you possibly established that supernatural intercession is likely?
» Reply to Comment
How else has everything come about?
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 18:19 GMT
How else has everything come about?
 
Oh yea, I forget. Nothing created everything. Thats clearly more probable.
» Reply to Comment
How else has everything c
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 18:51 GMT
How else has everything come about?
 
Oh yea, I forget. Nothing created everything. Thats clearly more probable.
 
What a ridiculous over simplification.
 
First of all: unlike creationists, scientists are intellectually-honest enough to admit when they don't fully understand something - and the cause of the Big Bang falls under that heading.
 
Second: the proposed explanations have all been a *teensy* bit less simplistic than your "Nothing created everything" strawman. For example (from the "Ask an Astronomer" page run by Cornell University):
 
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
» Reply to Comment
The choice doctrine of chrisiani
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 18:27 GMT
The choice doctrine of chrisianity on creation explains phenomena, creationists have furthered the explanations and elaborated on the sophisticated analysis of the universe, earth and life. All aspects of science is thoroghly explained with creation.
 
It's hardly "thorough" when your explanations depend entirely on supernatural intervention.
 
But, alas, thorough explanation is not enough for our evolutionist friends.
 
It doesn't help when you claim to have a thorough explanation for natural phenomena - yet fail to offer any details of the mechanism by which those phenomena occur.
 
Not only that, but creationists insist that the mechanism CAN'T be explained because "It's not for us to know the mind of God" (or some other convenient excuse).
 
For instance, Dr. Hovind, the genious,
 
A "genious" (sic)... yep, that's the word I would use to describe someone who constantly mentions that he's taught science, yet doesn't understand the difference between a nebula and the big bang.
 
 
Naturally, fans of evolution turn their noses to  this kind of material. Why?
 
Maybe they're distracted by Hovind's constant ranting about tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories (New World Order? Maybe he should tour with David Eicke) - and his use of every cheap debating trick in the book.
 
It doesn't support evolution.
 
Nor is it supported by any evidence or even any sort of compelling argument.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 18:44 GMT
Creation outlines probabilities, possibilities and impossibilities. Creation also gives biological details as to the process of creation and constructs of scientific entails.
 
Baraminology was structured according to the genetic impregnable barriers that exist between all kinds of animals and all forms of organisms. Common ancestry is impossible due to these genetic barriers that sustain a chasm of hereditary lineages. abeomutosis is also exclusive creation material outlined by limited changes in science over time do to reproduction and adaptation.
 
The theory of the cosmic allomanifestation explains the manifestation of life and matter and energy.
» Reply to Comment
Look, we aren't arguing about that, we are saying
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 21:46 GMT
Common ancestry is not impossible, since its been proven using the same methods to administer paternity tests and catch criminals. I recommend you read up on the subject you attempt to debunk.
» Reply to Comment
That's pretty funny - a de facto admission fr
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 18:53 GMT
That's pretty funny - a de facto admission from AiG that creationism is not scientific (not that that should be news to anyone, but it's still amusing to watch them shoot themselves in the foot).
» Reply to Comment
It's even funnier that you guys think that the mon
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 4:09 GMT
It's even funnier that you guys think that the monkey to man belief is scientific. I'll never get over that one (lol).
» Reply to Comment
That's probably because you are intellectuall
19 minutes - 25v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 4:28 GMT
That's probably because you are intellectually lazy.
 
For starters, let's look at chromosome 2:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2
 
I have yet to find a creationist who could refute that (much less understand it.) Basically, evolution is the only way to explain why two chimp chromosomes are analgous to one of ours. A point of divergence in the evolutionary tree must have been the fusion of those two chromosomes in our immediate ancestors. But if you're right and there's no evolution, God is really trying to mess with us.
 
Why don't you people read Francis Collins' book "The Language of God"? He's a brilliant Christian who addresses all of this so you unlearned folk can appear competent in popular science.
» Reply to Comment
"Obviously God did it to trick us!!! Its a te
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 15:31 GMT
"Obviously God did it to trick us!!! Its a test of Christian faith!!! REPENT!! REPENT!!!"
 
-Every Creationist ever
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Francis collins is a smart man. This chromoso
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 15:50 GMT
Francis collins is a smart man. This chromosome 2, in addition to most aspects of DNA, illustrates exactly what we have been saying. 'DESIGN'. These chromosomes, if looked at by the unbiased eye, would see the striking similarities between man and other animals, namely chimpanzees.
 
DNA is widely agreed to be the building blocks of life and elaborate similarities between all living things is no real suprise. Things like Bisymmetry, intelligence, fingers and toes, sensory employment, hair, organs, brain, etc., most everything can be found in DNA.
 
It's obvious humans share physical traits and characteristics with other animals, especially apes. This is because he have correlating patterns in DNA! Now, I understand this is new to some of you, but science backs this up entirely. Instead of looking at similarities in DNA and agreeing that we are similar and share many traits with animals and all life, some disoriented individuals blindly believe that we are all family.
 
http://creationwiki.org/Genetics
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_similarity#Genetic
» Reply to Comment
This is not a case of simply some similar seq
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 16:56 GMT
This is not a case of simply some similar sequences. Here is a quick explanation of what he is getting at.
 
Chromosomes have something called a telomere at the end of each arm to protect the strand during replication. They also have something called a centromere (in vertebrates) which helps in replication. As you can guess it is normally somewhere near the center.
 
Just so we are clear you have telomeres at the end (they only serve to keep the ends of the DNA strand from not replicating - a cause of cancer) and a centromere in the middle. There is only one centromere as it is the point of replication.
 
Now for the fun stuff about human chromosome 2. We have a telomere at each end but in the middle there isn't a centromere. There is instead a double telomere. Hmm, why would that bit of usless junk be there? More importantly where is the centromere. Turns out there are two, one between the normal telemere and the double telomere on each side of the double telomere.
 
Okay so our chromosome 2 is simply the fusion of two chromosomes. Well that doesn't prove anything right? Well it turns out we are unique among the primates at having 23 pairs instead of 24 pairs. Our chromosome 2 matches 2 different chromosomes on bonobos.
 
It could be God designed us with junk in the middle to make it look like our C2 was the fusion of the C2 of bonobos. That is an interesting god. Why would you worship a god like that? Oh yeah because if you don't he will torture you for eternity. Some god.
» Reply to Comment
It's even funnier that you guys
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 19:39 GMT
It's even funnier that you guys think that the monkey to man belief is scientific.

 

Except we don't, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. But don't let accuracy get in your way when you're busy erecting strawmen to hack at.

 

I'll never get over that one (lol).

 

Good to see that you're easily-amused. For some odd reason, I'm reminded of the way that birds react to shiny objects.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 19:48 GMT
We already understand that the correlation between sin and death is systematic. Hell, like the worlds calamities, automatically take function as per the spiritual law that binds this world to the spiritual world.

 

Therefore, going to hell would be a systematic result of rejecting god. As this is not gratifying to some people, they prefer to believe that the most high sits atop a poofy cloud, with flaming eyes and a bag of lighting bolts saying, "go ahead punk, make my day". This is not so, a child that plays in the road, despite parental protests, gets hit by the car. No fault of the parent, it just happens.
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 20:46 GMT
We already understand that the correlation
between sin and death is systematic. Hell, like the worlds calamities,
automatically take function as per the spiritual law that binds this
world to the spiritual world.
So you say. There is no sin and even without sin there is death. Infants cannot sin but they die.
 
Therefore, going to hell would be a systematic result of rejecting
god. As this is not gratifying to some people, they prefer to believe
that the most high sits atop a poofy cloud, with flaming eyes and a bag of lighting bolts saying, "go ahead punk, make my day". This is not so, a child that plays in the road, despite parental protests, gets hit by the car. No fault of the parent, it just happens.
That is how he is described in the text. If you want I can get you examples of God's wrath.
In your example it would actually be the fault of the parent but that is flawed as it doesn't fit the god of the Hebrews.

According to the myth, God creates man and knows he will sin. God also creates the serpant who he knows will tempt man. God also puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil with man knowing man will eat it.
God then gets surprised (how if he is all knowing) because man wanted to gain knowledge. God prefers people to be ignorant I suppose.
» Reply to Comment
Therefore, going to hell would b
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 21:09 GMT
Therefore, going to hell would be a systematic result of rejecting god.

 

Which would still be preferrable to spending eternity with fundamentalist Christians.


GenTime: 0.0344 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff