Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 2:39 am

This 10 min video, if you care to watch, illustrates how Creationists can be that deceitful.

The video consists of two creationists, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort,, and the way they try to "debunk" Evolution, seems like a win on dishonesty.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaLQHay3ji4[/youtube]


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 01 Jul 2010, 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 2:44 am

Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 2:49 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
"Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:

That is not exactly what I am arguing in this thread, what they do in the video, (Cameron and a guy named Comfort) their actions in it, they are being deceitful.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 01 Jul 2010, 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 2:52 am

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
"Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:

That is not what I am arguing in this thread, what they do in the video, their actions in it, they are being deceitful.

So these people in particular are being deceitful and yet the thread title is not properly qualified to reflect this.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 2:56 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
So these people in particular are being deceitful and yet the thread title is not properly qualified to reflect this.

Actually, it is.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


ellomo
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 121

01 Jul 2010, 2:57 am

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
"Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:

That is not what I am arguing in this thread, what they do in the video, their actions in it, they are being deceitful.


They? Is that the people in the video you are referring to or creationists as a collective group? If it's the people in the video, so what? Lots of people are deceitful. I don't see the connection to 'all creationists' either sorry.

Peace ellomo



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 3:02 am

ellomo wrote:
They? Is that the people in the video you are referring to or creationists as a collective group? If it's the people in the video, so what? Lots of people are deceitful. I don't see the connection to 'all creationists' either sorry.

Peace ellomo

well, iamnotaparakeet objected with that but I'm not making the argument that all Creationists are as deceitful as these ones seem to be, in this thread.

But I'm showing these two creationists, and the way they attack Evolution, and well, it's hard to imagine Creationism being defended without some sort of intellectual dishonesty, but this one seems a win on dishonesty, well, that if there are worse that I don't know of.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jul 2010, 4:50 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Creationists can be quite sincere. Being sincere is no guarantee of being factually correct. Creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis is flat out wrong. It is contrary to fact. It is a flat out denial of nearly five hundred years of scientific work and progress.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 8:25 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Creationists can be quite sincere. Being sincere is no guarantee of being factually correct. Creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis is flat out wrong. It is contrary to fact. It is a flat out denial of nearly five hundred years of scientific work and progress.

ruveyn


No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jul 2010, 9:06 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Creationists can be quite sincere. Being sincere is no guarantee of being factually correct. Creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis is flat out wrong. It is contrary to fact. It is a flat out denial of nearly five hundred years of scientific work and progress.

ruveyn


No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.



The Bible clear implies the Earth is about 6000 years old. The facts are it is closer to four and a half billion years old.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 9:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Creationists can be quite sincere. Being sincere is no guarantee of being factually correct. Creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis is flat out wrong. It is contrary to fact. It is a flat out denial of nearly five hundred years of scientific work and progress.

ruveyn


No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.



The Bible clear implies the Earth is about 6000 years old. The facts are it is closer to four and a half billion years old.

ruveyn


Define the word 'fact', please.



Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

01 Jul 2010, 11:27 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Define the word 'fact', please.


Reality.


_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jul 2010, 11:29 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Given axiomatically that's he's being deceitful (I'm not going to watch the video because it would disturb my wife who is sleeping right now), even so do you then argue as such: "Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Creationists can be quite sincere. Being sincere is no guarantee of being factually correct. Creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis is flat out wrong. It is contrary to fact. It is a flat out denial of nearly five hundred years of scientific work and progress.

ruveyn


No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.



The Bible clear implies the Earth is about 6000 years old. The facts are it is closer to four and a half billion years old.

ruveyn



Define the word 'fact', please.


The measure of argon to potassium transmutation.

Look up radiological dating on wiki (not to be confused with carbon dating).

next question?

I have a question for you: how much science (particularly physics) do you know and understand? From your output I would assume you are fairly ignorant of science. That is just a guess and an estimation.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 11:40 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The Bible clear implies the Earth is about 6000 years old. The facts are it is closer to four and a half billion years old.

ruveyn


Define the word 'fact', please.

Oh, it is obvious what he means, you just disagree with it.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jul 2010, 12:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
"Kirk is a creationist and Kirk is deceitful, therefore all creationists are deceitful." :?:


Doesn't matter if you're deceitful or earnest; if you're a creationist you're wrong.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 12:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.

It denies cosmology, geology, biology, archaeology, some aspects of physics, as well as some of our psychology and sociology which ends up being a rather large fraction of our scientific knowledge.