"Persecuting Christians again!"......in Texas...

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

The question of how 'species' originated is not answered or considered by Darwin's theory.

LOL!

FocalPoint, you are doing a great disservice to readers of the boards with your ignorance of science.

Darwin's book, aptly titled "On the Origin of Species", does address the, um, origin of species.

And as for scientific fact, it might do best to substitute the term "observable occurrence".

It goes like this:

Hypothesis (guess): Earth is round

Fact (observable occurrence): When ships come into port, they appear tip-of-sail first.

Theory (i.e., explanation): Ships are seen tip of sail first because the earth is round.

Until macroevolution is observed, it cannot be considered a fact.

[G10]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

The question of how 'species' originated is not answered or considered by Darwin's theory....only how species evolved through natural selection.

Darwin believed in evolution but if I am right, I think he also believed that it may have all been originally started off by a creator and evolved from there, no?

[FocalPoint]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Well, I can't say thank you enough for making this a debate over my credibility. Of course you know that in doing so, you also make it about your credibility.

And having accepted that both your credibility and mine is on the line, I went back and read the context of every single instance (first page Google) of "creationism is fact".

Now I must inform you, every instance on the first page was indeed as I stated - people arguing against creationism attributing the phrase to their straw man opponents. Not a single instance sourced.


Since you made this about credibility, I'm sure you will now do the honorable thing and have it tattooed in your forehead "I have no credibility".

Strange that the first google entry on the link you provided contradicts what you just stated as true....It is called "Why I believe in Creation" by Joseph Farah...he is apparently a radio commentator and in his completely unsourced article he makes the claim that he is 100% certain that dinosaurs raomed the earth at the same time as man...and further that he doesn't believe that dinosaurs are really extinct....

The second entry is pro science but...

The third entry from debatewise.com (also unsourced) states that creationism should be taught in science class as another theory along with evolution....

And the fourth entry asks us to "Take a moment and accept theory as fact" and goes on from there expounding on creationism...

The first entry alone wipes out your credibility for making the statement that 'every instance on the first page was' as you stated....'people arguing against creation'....you are simply not truthful...

When I did the search I typed in creationism is fact without quotation marks. The results were slightly different but the first entry was also pro-creationism....clarifyingchristianity.com...the 2nd was creationism and creation science, the third entry was pathlights also pro creationism, and the 4th entry was the aforementioned "Why I Believe in Creation".....

[John Scott]

Okay, since you seem to prefer to feign stupidity, I'll make this extremely simple for you.

In the top ten results, I simply one you to provide one instance of the statement "creationism is fact" where the assertion that creationism is fact is sourced.

A single instance.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by G10

Darwin believed in evolution but if I am right, I think he also believed that it may have all been originally started off by a creator and evolved from there, no?

Not too sure about that, but he was a self described agnostic.

[FocalPoint]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint
The question of how 'species' originated is not answered or considered by Darwin's theory.

Originally posted by John Scott
FocalPoint, you are doing a great disservice to readers of the boards with your ignorance of science.

Darwin's book, aptly titled "On the Origin of Species", does address the, um, origin of species.

And as for scientific fact, it might do best to substitute the term "observable occurrence".

You may notice that I placed 'apostrophes' around the word 'species'....this was because I was quoting Atom's words when I thought he may have meant origin of 'life' rather than species. I finally did ask him to clarify what he meant and he did say yes...he meant 'life'.... I hope this clears it up for you...

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

You may notice that I placed 'apostrophes' around the word 'species'....this was because I was quoting Atom's words when I thought he may have meant origin of 'life' rather than species. I finally did ask him to clarify what he meant and he did say yes...he meant 'life'.... I hope this clears it up for you...

I understood Atom's meaning, and it's no excuse for making such a wildly irresponsible statement that Darwin's theory didn't address the origins of species.

[G10]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Not too sure about that, but he was a self described agnostic.

Darwin was an interesting cookie and here is an excerpt taken from "The Origin Of The Species"

A lot of evolitionists talk about the book as if they have read it but always manage to leave out this part which I find interesting..

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

How species originated may not be scientifically answered by Darwins theory but even though he was a stout evolutionist, he did have his own educated views on how it began as one can see from his book.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by G10

Darwin was an interesting cookie and here is an excerpt taken from "The Origin Of The Species"

A lot of evolitionists talk about the book as if they have read it but always manage to leave out this part which I find interesting..

How species originated may not be scientifically answered by Darwins theory but even though he was a stout evolutionist, he did have his own educated views on how it began as one can see from his book.

Thank you, you beat me to it.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by John Scott

LOL!

FocalPoint, you are doing a great disservice to readers of the boards with your ignorance of science.

Originally Posted by John Scott;

Okay, since you seem to prefer to feign stupidity, I'll make this extremely simple for you.

Well, I certainly don’t want to start anything, but my fairness meter is in the red. So at the risk of getting a poke in the eye, I feel compelled to point out that just the other day another poster was banned for being disrespectful and condescending to a fellow poster. True, there were warnings first, but that’s the point…there were warnings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Please don’t misconstrue this as a “warning” because I obviously have no right. I’m just expressing myself.

*crawls back under rock*

[FocalPoint]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Okay, since you seem to prefer to feign stupidity, I'll make this extremely simple for you.

In the top ten results, I simply one you to provide one instance of the statement "creationism is fact" where the assertion that creationism is fact is sourced.

A single instance.

I found this instance to be interesting if inconclusive....It may not be the best sourcing possible, but it is a source...


The year is 1406
Friday, 25. March 2005, 12:16:41

The year is 1406 & the Church is issuing instructions to the learned people of the land. Here is the conclusion: Creationism is Fact: devise ways to show this is so.

The future of biology

1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"

Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.

and

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

(And it also proves that God can refrain from performing miracles when asked to reverently)

[Cricket]

Play nice boys.

[WhatsLeft]

Here's a link to the testimony of one of the scientists who appeared before the Texas Board of Education.

[pinkfluffybunny]

A recent survey by the U.S. National Science Foundation found that
52% of the respondents believe that the earliest human beings
lived at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Aaaah but not surprizing, 90% of SEO guys think PR helps organic placement....

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

I found this instance to be interesting if inconclusive....It may not be the best sourcing possible, but it is a source...

I asked you to provide a single sourced statement of the assertion that "creationism is fact", from the ten results on the first page. None of which contain the text you present, and the text you present isn't sourced as well.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Well, I certainly don’t want to start anything, but my fairness meter is in the red. So at the risk of getting a poke in the eye, I feel compelled to point out that just the other day another poster was banned for being disrespectful and condescending to a fellow poster. True, there were warnings first, but that’s the point…there were warnings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Please don’t misconstrue this as a “warning” because I obviously have no right. I’m just expressing myself.

*crawls back under rock*

\
My hypocrisy meter is in the red. If you are going to accuse me of being unfair for calling a member on his feigned stupidity, then you ought to call the member prior to that for attacking my credibility.

As somebody recently said, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And for the record, accusing somebody of feigning stupidity isn't rude. It's a compliment. It implies that they are intelligent enough to know better. If I accused him of stupidity, on the other hand, that would definitely be rude.

[FocalPoint]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I asked you to provide a single sourced statement of the assertion that "creationism is fact", from the ten results on the first page. None of which contain the text you present, and the text you present isn't sourced as well.

Any particular reason you would like me to limit my search to the ten results on the first page on google?...

Apparently you have already searched them so I'll take your word that there are no sourced statements that say specifically that "creationism is fact"....

There are, however, many creation sites that claim that creationism is the truth...as a matter of 'fact', they all do....

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

Any particular reason you would like me to limit my search to the ten results on the first page on google?...

Yes, of course. Why focus on the first ten results of the first page in Google? Because that is where you focused. Did you forget already? Reminder. And because you made thing topic of question of credibility, we need to ascertain whether your statement is true or not.

You also stated that "I didn't find a single article by an 'anti-theist' that was not sourced", so you should have no problem providing a an example of a sourced article in the top ten. If not, then we will have to assume that you lied.

And while we are discussing your credibility, I'd like you to cite the source of your statement that "The original post was about a dispute in Texas in which creationists were putting pressure on the Bd of Ed to include creationism in the science classroom."

Where in the original post does it say this? Quote the text verbatim where a Texas creationist involved in the debate states that they would like creationism taught in science class.

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

There are, however, many creation sites that claim that creationism is the truth...as a matter of 'fact', they all do....

Normally, this would be considered highly dishonest. But I am going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was not dishonesty, but lack of education, that leads you to make this statement.

You see, both scientifically and philosophically, "fact" and "believe to be true" are not anywhere in the same ballpark.

In this thread, you stated that creationists want to call creationism fact; I corrected this and offered my opinion that most people who believe creationism to be true do not call it fact.

You attempt to rebut this with the claim that they believe it to be true, so they must believe it to be fact. I have corrected you several times, and yet you continue to make the same claim. So I must consider that you are not in fact interested in honest debate, but rather in spreading anti-Christian propaganda. And that's all good and fine, as Christians have done wrong in society. But you might want to remember that anti-religious - like yourself - have killed far more than Christians have, so the "glass houses" saying comes to mind.

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by G10

Darwin believed in evolution but if I am right, I think he also believed that it may have all been originally started off by a creator and evolved from there, no?

He didn't express his belief earlier in life, but as he got closer to death, he more and more spoke about that.

[FocalPoint]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, of course. Why focus on the first ten results of the first page in Google? Because that is where you focused. Did you forget already? Reminder. And because you made thing topic of question of credibility, we need to ascertain whether your statement is true or not.

Unfortunately, you are again misleading...I never said to limit discussion to the 10 results on the first page of google. I used the first several entries to disprove your original statement of "...I did several searches for 'creationism as fact' and all I came up with is anti-theists (your word) disputing the claim without being sourced." You then decided to limit the discussion by a series of statements leading to your challenge to use the 10 results on the first page of google....

Here are those statements and how they evolved:

And having accepted that both your credibility and mine is on the line, I went back and read the context of every single instance (first page Google) of "creationism is fact".

Now I must inform you, every instance on the first page was indeed as I stated - people arguing against creationism attributing the phrase to their straw man opponents. Not a single instance sourced.

Okay, since you seem to prefer to feign stupidity, I'll make this extremely simple for you.

In the top ten results, I simply one (sic)you to provide one instance of the statement "creationism is fact" where the assertion that creationism is fact is sourced.

Now I must inform you, every instance on the first page was indeed as I stated - people arguing against creationism attributing the phrase to their straw man opponents. Not a single instance sourced.

You also stated that "I didn't find a single article by an 'anti-theist' that was not sourced", so you should have no problem providing a an example of a sourced article in the top ten. If not, then we will have to assume that you lied.

Regardless of those artificial limitations, (not at all the way to engage in serious discussion) it would have been impossible to find any article at all by an "anti-theist" since I know of no one who goes by that lable, and it appears to be a pet perjorative of your own (or someone else's) making...in other words, there are no articles written by anti-theists...that I know of...you set up a 'stacked deck' of pre-reviewed entries where the dreaded "creationism is fact" is not stated then limited the search to 10 pre-reviewed entries on the first page of google...and yet...and yet...you claim to want to have an "honest" debate....

Also not aiding you in honest debate is your penchant to attempt to denigrate those who disagree with your opinion...with words such as..anti-religious, anti-Christian and ant-theist...