Reply With QuoteYep, that illustrates the magnitude of their mistake rather well.
Found this on youtube, kind of give me th ewarm and fuzzies for some reason, thought you guys might appreciate, enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDER...eature=related
Yep, that illustrates the magnitude of their mistake rather well.
I liked that - that raised a laugh.
I click on this video on the 'related videos', anyone fancy working up a rebuttal? (It's a bit long!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00
Most obvious thing for me is the Argument from Authority; the guy is standing there in a white lab coat.
The other thing I noticed was his continual misrepresentation of evolution (straw man?). Evolution says nothing about the Big Bang; that's cosmology. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life; that's abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the age of rocks; that's geology.
Any more fallacies?
I didn't watch all of the video but did he avoid mentioning ice cores?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_coreAn ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years,
Last edited by ZERO; 10th July 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason: Add bolding
Worst signature ever.
Of course! And all the evidence for young fossils he presented involved limestone calcifications.Originally Posted by ZERO
I am astounded that a man of science could be so deluded.
Confucius he say: Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous.
His claim that a 'generation' (presumably the mean age at which people have children) is 50 years is laughable. I'd suggest 25, or younger, is a more reasonable figure - particularly 2000-6000 years ago.
He also uses only one of the two genealogies of Jesus given in the Bible - one is far longer than the other.
His claim that the population of Earth doubles ever 150 years is also completely unfounded. I'd take a guess that the figures of 150 was selected specifically because it would tie in with young Earth timescales.
Three genealogies..
Luke 3:23–31
Matt 1:7–16
Chronicles 3:4–5,10–24
Oh that's interesting - I didn't know about the one in Chronicles. Is there any reasonable degree of correlation between the one in Chronicles and the ones in the Gospels?
The chroincles one is not offered as a complete Genealogy of Jesus but a general genealogy, there's some overlap with the one from Matthew.
Wiki has complied a comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
I'm having a debate with a young earth creationist and, as usual, he is trying to attack the smallest details in subjects like carbon dating and evolution while mentioning that he believes in the great flood. I want to challenge him on this.
Somewhere I heard a great essay (I think it was the skeptoid podcast) that explain that there isn't enough water on the earth to flood all the land masses. Unfortunately I can't find it. Does anyone have the details?
"I can't say if the virgin Mary physically ascended into heaven or not. I wasn't there. I do know she would have passed out at 30,000ft," an unnamed scientist commenting on the Vatican's decision to label the virgin Mary's physical ascension into heaven as biblical truth.
There plenty of stuff over at Talk Origins Higgledy.
Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
Great thanks.
"I can't say if the virgin Mary physically ascended into heaven or not. I wasn't there. I do know she would have passed out at 30,000ft," an unnamed scientist commenting on the Vatican's decision to label the virgin Mary's physical ascension into heaven as biblical truth.
I really like the idea of a 3 toed sloth that can go 130 x faster than a 747. And the quantity of people who've died of aids? - that figure might have been a lot less had the Christians not interfered with the Reagan administration's policy regarding STD's. Research into finding a cure could have begun 10 years earlier but the US Christian church held back the funding for it due to aids being a' 'decease sent by God to punish homosexuals'
I'm not bitter...
You may well be right Stunty but can we have some evidence please? Did "the Christians" interfere with Reagan's STD policy or it this a post hoc rationalisation of the lack of research investment anywhere? Also which US Christian Church held back the funding (evidence please) - there are, of course. several hundred of such churches and they don't all agree on the issue you raise. Oh, and please show me the evidence where the view of AIDS as a "decease(sic)" sent by God to punish gay people affected or influenced the decisions of the US Department of Health or the Medical research funding bodies?I really like the idea of a 3 toed sloth that can go 130 x faster than a 747. And the quantity of people who've died of aids? - that figure might have been a lot less had the Christians not interfered with the Reagan administration's policy regarding STD's. Research into finding a cure could have begun 10 years earlier but the US Christian church held back the funding for it due to aids being a' 'decease sent by God to punish homosexuals'
I'm not bitter...
On the young earth creationists - is it possible to be more wrong that wrong? What worries me is that this rubbish is given an equal billing in a growing number of places - in the US because of fundie Christians, in the UK because we daren't offend fundie Muslims.
"No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority." Robert Heinlein
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks