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

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I challenge you, instead of this ad hominem argument, to point out where I was wrong in the arguments I make.

I will not point out where your arguments are wrong because if I lived to be 200 I would still not be smart enough (or learned enough) to know whether you're wrong or not. My previous (and probably forthcoming) comments are not directed at your message but rather at your delivery.

Originally Posted by Ferre

Keep your replies substantive, as per forum rules please.

I have, but you chose to ignore me. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[Ferre]

The point is that creation stories are all cool, there are many of them, the biblical story is not the only one, it's just one of around 40 different creation myths documented on this planet by various cultures during the ages, the judeo christian religions have a build-in expansion drive, by force if experienced recistance as history proves and that's why this one creation myth is more widespread "believed" but that doesn't make it any more true than any of the other 40 something creation myths;

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html

See, the problem is not that creation myths are not accepted, people love them, even lots of academics. The problem arises when certain individuals attempt to give those myths a "scientific credibility".

That's where the creation myths fail to gain this credibility, simply because when the scientific method is applied those myths do not stand the test (until this day).

Biblical ID/Creationists are not satisfied with that, they MUST HAVE that "sientific credibility" at all costs in the eyes of the believers and they resort to deceit, lies and dishonest twisting of scientific facts to get at least the non literate (academic wise) believers to support them because those people have no clue about the actual lies and frauds in the ID/creationists arguments.

The truth is that ID creationism is not rejected because science refuses to examine their claims, the truth is that they are refused because other scientists examined their claims.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

That's where the creation myths fail to gain this credibility, simply because when the scientific method is applied those myths do not stand the test (until this day).

Biblical ID/Creationists are not satisfied with that, they MUST HAVE that "sientific credibility" at all costs in the eyes of the believers and they resort to deceit, lies and dishonest twisting of scientific facts to get at least the non literate (academic wise) believers to support them because those people have no clue about the actual lies and frauds in the ID/creationists arguments.

The truth is that ID creationism is not rejected because science refuses to examine their claims, the truth is that they are refused because other scientists examined their claims.

Ok, so the bible has lost all credibility with scientists.

Just out of curiosity here, which part of the 'biblical myth' has science managed to prove wrong?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

Ok, so the bible has lost all credibility with scientists.

Just out of curiosity here, which part of the 'biblical myth' has science managed to prove wrong?

Dude, again you prove to use logical fallacies and dishonest misinterpretation of the FACTS as an argument.

Please QUIT IT.

I'll explain it to you;

Fact: "Science" does not judge the Bible's credibility.

Fact: "Science" examines scientific claims (hypothesis) which can be supplied to "science" by everyone.

Fact: When scientific claims are rectified and found to be correct by means of the scientific method and peer review, they are added to the science curriculum.

Fact: There is a group of religious people who provide hypothesis and scientific claims to "Science" on a regular basis, most of them involving "intelligent design".

Fact: ALL those hypothesis and claims have been examined and peer reviewed and rejected as not valid.

"The Bible" did not loose credibility Gio, the people who repeatedly deposed ID-claims to "Science" and their claims lost credibility, and rightfully so.

Science does not judge the Bible, Science judges scientific hypothesis when those hypothesis are provided, that's their job.

Nou, Creationists indeed have provided loads of biblical based hypothesis which all failed the scientific validation test, don't blame science for that, blame the ID/creation people who supply the pseudo science to be reviewed all the time.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

The point is that creation stories are all cool, there are many of them, the biblical story is not the only one, it's just one of around 40 different creation myths documented on this planet by various cultures during the ages, the judeo christian religions have a build-in expansion drive, by force if experienced recistance as history proves and that's why this one creation myth is more widespread "believed" but that doesn't make it any more true than any of the other 40 something creation myths;

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html

See, the problem is not that creation myths are not accepted, people love them, even lots of academics. The problem arises when certain individuals attempt to give those myths a "scientific credibility".

That's where the creation myths fail to gain this credibility, simply because when the scientific method is applied those myths do not stand the test (until this day).

Biblical ID/Creationists are not satisfied with that, they MUST HAVE that "sientific credibility" at all costs in the eyes of the believers and they resort to deceit, lies and dishonest twisting of scientific facts to get at least the non literate (academic wise) believers to support them because those people have no clue about the actual lies and frauds in the ID/creationists arguments.

The truth is that ID creationism is not rejected because science refuses to examine their claims, the truth is that they are refused because other scientists examined their claims.

Ok, you do realise that the bible is based on creation right and that if creation is rejected then so would the bible teachings be and this would mean that this book would lose all credibility based on what it teaches as (accordingly) it had been proven wrong..

So bearing this in mind, again I ask the same question....

Which part of the biblical myth did science manage to prove wrong?

I asked a question, answer it!

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by G10

Which part of the biblical myth did science manage to prove wrong?

I'll field this one. How about Isaiah 40:22 where it refers to "the circle of the earth", when we all know the earth is fla...wait a second! (never mind)

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

Ok, you do realise that the bible is based on creation right and that if creation is rejected then so would the bible teachings be and this would mean that this book would lose all credibility based on what it teaches as (accordingly) it had been proven wrong..

So bearing this in mind, again I ask the same question....

Which part of the biblical myth did science manage to prove wrong?

I asked a question, answer it!

The answer is:

Every part of the Biblical myth that was offered to "science" as a "scientific hypothesis" for review was proven wrong Gio.

Here's the list AGAIN:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Don't want the myths to be proven wrong?

Then don't offer the myths to be reviewed by science as "scientific hypothesis".

It's as simple as that, but apparently you still don't get it.

When Creationists, including the "Discovery institute" with all their "scientists" want to be globally respected all they need to do is provide hypothesis that can be respected and not as they do all the time, provide hypothesis based on misunderstandings of the real science.


Do you get it now Gio? Or need I be even more simple in the way I describe this for you to understand?

"The Bible" is NOT on trial in the science community Gio, "Myths" are also NOT on trial in the science community Gio. Hypothesis are, and only when they are offered to the science community for review.

[Ferre]

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolu...php?doc_id=450

[~kev~]

The problem here is - RESPECT.

Neither group respects the beliefs of the other. If there was mutual "respect", the schools, states, governments and countries would not be having some of the problems we have today.

If someone wants to believe the myth of evolution, that fine with me. I really dont care. But in return, do not try to push the myth of evolution one me or my children.

I do not push my beliefs on others, and in return I do not get pushed. But that is not the way it works. Someone out there is always trying to prove the other one wrong.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

The problem here is - RESPECT.

Neither group respects the beliefs of the other. If there was mutual "respect", the schools, states, governments and countries would not be having some of the problems we have today.

If someone wants to believe the myth of evolution, that fine with me. I really dont care. But in return, do not try to push the myth of evolution one me or my children.

You are wrong.

Science respects other people's believes, what they do not respect is people who try to force their believes into the science curriculum without hem respecting the basic rules to get into that curriculum.

Science does not respect the lies, the deceit and the fraud.

It does respect religions and I assure you, the minute that any of the claims set forth by the ID movement does confirm to the basic rules, it will be accepted.

Please do not misunderstand the aversion science has against fraudulent claims and dishonest pseudo science with beliefs, beliefs are not the issue. Dishonesty and fraud is the issue.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Ferre

You are wrong.

Thank you, that proves my point.

If there was real respect, one group would not be trying to prove the other one wrong. The words "your wrong" would not be used between groups that really respected each other.

For one side to be "wrong", someone has to be "right". That means there is a winner and a loser. So by saying "your wrong", your also saying that I am the loser and you are the winner. Well, I can not lose in a race I am not running. I care not to compete, but instead, to sit back and watch.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Thank you, that proves my point.

If there was real respect, one group would not be trying to prove the other one wrong. The words "your wrong" would not be used between groups that really respected each other.

For one side to be "wrong", someone has to be "right". That means there is a winner and a loser. So by saying "your wrong", your also saying that I am the loser and you are the winner. Well, I can not lose in a race I am not running. I care not to compete, but instead, to sit back and watch.

"You are wrong" isn't as black-and-white as you clearly see it yourself. "You are wrong" in this case meant that you just based your entire argument on an assumption which was wrong. I pointed out where you made a mistake in the basis of your argument.

As the argument was based on misunderstandings in the first place, there is no one "right" or a "winner" in this case. only a misunderstanding is cleared for all I'm concerned.

[Muddy]

I propose that we all just admit that Ferre is unequivocally right and that anything that remotely contradicts what he says is wrong. That way he can flop down in his comfortable windmill overlooking a vast and beautiful field of tulips and say, "There, that's much better." And the rest of us can crawl back to our intellectual hovels and do our best to be content with the crumbs of thoughts, beliefs and ideas that we've been lucky enough to hoard.

[Muddy]

We bow before your superior understanding of all things large and small Ferre. Please don't take your toys and go home.

[FocalPoint]

I really do not care about what "science" shows, because next week some discovery could be found that will change everything.

It's pretty clear you have little understanding or knowledge about how science works. Maybe if you read the story of how Isaak Newton (a religious man, btw) discovered gravity, the basic laws of motion, light and its properties and developed a form of math called calculus (all of which is still considered valid science today) you may develope a better understanding of how science works. btw, I wouldn't suggest you test the 'theory of gravity' by jumping off a building. Also, btw, Newton was in awe of the universe as most scientists are...not the 'know it all' you try to portray....

"We" (humans) think we know everything. Generation after generation has this belief that they know "all there is to know". Well, what science "knows" as fact today, will be wrong tomorrow.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

It's pretty clear you have little understanding or knowledge about how science works. Maybe if you read the story of how Isaak Newton (a religious man, btw) discovered gravity, the basic laws of motion, light and its properties and developed a form of math called calculus (all of which is still considered valid science today) you may develope a better understanding of how science works. btw, I wouldn't suggest you test the 'theory of gravity' by jumping off a building. Also, btw, Newton was in awe of the universe as most scientists are...not the 'know it all' you try to portray....

I just spent 20 minutes looking for who it is that you are addressing without success. That pisses me off. Who in the hell are you talking to? I want to examine the rest of their post/s if you don't mind.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by Atom

I just spent 20 minutes looking for who it is that you are addressing without success. That pisses me off. Who in the hell are you talking to? I want to examine the rest of their post/s if you don't mind.

So did I!

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Muddy

So did I!

I think we need to keep an eye on that guy.

[Muddy]

Back and forth I searched and was just mouthing the words "to hell with it" when you posted the above!

[Muddy]

I'm tellin' ya Atom, eyesight...it's the second thing to go. Here it is.