Who's lying now?

[Inferno]

Because I know what creationists do all day: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. No research, no experiments, no nothing. Show me a creationist laboratory. Show me where there is a collection of creationist evidence and creation scientists running tests and doing experiments.

Loma Linda University, how about that one? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Gnug215]

</B></COLOR>

Hey squawk did I not tell you how this would be.
It's not that scientist know, it's they don't want to know. That is why what they tell us is a deliberate lie, by many.

For the scientists this is like, believing in Santa Claus , they know he is not real, but they support it anyway.
Now some of you want me to show you the proof, of the God of the bible.
This topic was on the scientists lying to people, I showed that over an over again. But some here still do want to, get it.
So whats the point?
The first thing for the scientists for the support, of who God is, is that the evidence we have is that life was created.
So that means no abiogenesis and no 'evoluiton', just creation.

And we also went over the flood account. That supports the bible.
So we have already covered scientific evidence, that what the bible says is correct.

<COLOR color="#00FF00"><B>


It's quite simple, deluxe.

You don't have the slightest grasp of evolutionary biology, and yet you're trying to tell us how it works (and how your warped version of it is impossible - which it of course is.)

Then you have the gall to keep telling us that scientists in general (numbered in the millions, of all kinds of creeds and convictions) are biased and have beliefs beforehand that they're trying to prove, when it is YOU and Creationists in general that are biased and have beliefs that you're trying to prove.

So yeah, one the one hand:
Millions of different scientists with all kinds of beliefs that accept evolution.

On the other hand:
A handful of creationist "scientists" who are OPENLY and OBVIOUSLY biased, being confessed creationists, who deny evolution - often for seemingly moral reasons.

I don't remember exactly what you told Squawk about how this would pan out, but if you expected any of us to change our minds with the pathetic drivel you've served up, then that's just yet another thing you're deluded about.

Oh, and the irony that you'd bring up Santa Claus.

How's that all-loving father figure living in the sky, promising eternal happiness working out for you?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Because I know what creationists do all day: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. No research, no experiments, no nothing. Show me a creationist laboratory. Show me where there is a collection of creationist evidence and creation scientists running tests and doing experiments.

Loma Linda University, how about that one? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't see them claiming to offer a degree in "creation science"...

 

[Inferno]

Because I know what creationists do all day: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. No research, no experiments, no nothing. Show me a creationist laboratory. Show me where there is a collection of creationist evidence and creation scientists running tests and doing experiments.

I don't see them claiming to offer a degree in "creation science"...

You only asked for a creationist laboratory, NOT for deluxe to have a degree!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You only asked for a creationist laboratory, NOT for deluxe to have a degree!

Do they actually have a "creationist laboratory" or just a "laboratory owned by creationists"? After all, I'm sure in an America where 80+ percent of the population is nominally Christian, I've shopped in "stores owned by Christians" but for the life of me I can't say I've ever bought "Christian groceries" or "Christian gas" or especially not "Christian single malt Scotch."

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Still waiting for evidence of the Christian god...

I don't think he will, because he/she can't supply evidence that will follow the rigors of a highly successful methodology.

Can't you see by now that the whole debate practice often results in which party can put the other on the defensive. What one party fails to realize is that even if a person states the wrong information that the correct information (looking it up for yourself and following the rigors of a highly successful experimental and/or logical method) has a truth 'value' assigned to it, mostly independent of human bias. The telephone game is a great example of how human thinking is flawed. Just imagine taking the telephone game and placing it in a civilization 2000 years ago. Are you really going to use the telephone game as a real basis for the value of truth (for people that literally interpret the bible)? If so, then I think that persons methodology is severely flawed. Even if someone tape records you saying something, I would hope that all of us have learned a little something about proper context and how the original question or statement was elicited by following the psychological states of the participants. It appears to me that one side has a self-correcting mechanism installed in the process (use critical thinking and look the damn data up yourself) whereas the other side is typically dogmatically followed through the phone so to speak.

 

[Inferno]

Do they actually have a "creationist laboratory" or just a "laboratory owned by creationists"? After all, I'm sure in an America where 80+ percent of the population is nominally Christian, I've shopped in "stores owned by Christians" but for the life of me I can't say I've ever bought "Christian groceries" or "Christian gas" or especially not "Christian single malt Scotch."

Apparently they do. It was a joke because whatever they do there, it's not science. In this video by potholer54, near 04:00, the "scientists" at Loma Linda University perform an experiment and the outcome is so clearly bullshit, prompting him to say: "But Loma Linda is a seventh-day adventist university so miracles probably happen a lot more in their experiments than they do in less god-fearing universities."

 

[australopithecus]

I don't think deluxe is coming back....

 

[Dean]

I don't think deluxe is coming back....

We will soon see ..... and if he does not come back, well... this has been a (somewhat) amusing and interesting (if pointless) conversation with a creationist. If he does come back, then this thread has the potential to plow on ad infinitum.... :geek:

And anyhow, it seems evident from deluxe's posts that not only is he/she not interested in looking at evidence; but his/her mind is permanently wedded to his/her ossified preconceived ideas, so it shall come as no surprise to me if he is gone for good, this time. It would appear that next to nothing has been gained by discussing this with deluxe. His mind is immovable.

 

[Dean]

Hmmm - not really. Morality is another way of solving a problem, a better solution then infighting among a species. Consider a pack of wolves, or a horde of piranha. They get more food out of cooperating to take down larger animals then they would feuding with each other. This is the basis for morality, and we can see it in dozens of non-human species.

Bringing everything down? You'll need to supply evidence for that. Like I said in the second part of my post, things are better right now then they have been for most of human history.

What you have mentioned here instinct .

Dogs are in pacts because that was programed into them.The feuding at the end was dominance in the pacts.It kept the strong and leaders well feed. Morality is totally different than that.
We are born with a sense of justice. Kids will be the first ones to say that is not fair. But wolves do not care about that, the dominant ones get to be first and take all they can.

You apparently ignore the rudimentary sense of morality we observe in social mammals. Yes, human morality is evolutionarily rooted in the natural, partly innate and partly learned dispositions and patterns of socioemotional behaviour we find in social groups of higher animals, particularly of apes. I think the basic function of animal morality is to maintain social cohesion, stability, and a survival-enhancing social equilibrium.

According to Hare's prescriptivism, which is a form of ethical nonrealism, there are no moral truths or facts, and thus there is no moral knowledge either. For moral judgements are reducible to imperative statements, which aren't truth-apt. That is, a moral judgement such as "Killing innocent people is wrong" is reducible to "Don't kill innocent people!", and such an imperative sentence is certainly neither true nor false. Whether or not this can be said to be true is up for debate.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do they actually have a "creationist laboratory" or just a "laboratory owned by creationists"? After all, I'm sure in an America where 80+ percent of the population is nominally Christian, I've shopped in "stores owned by Christians" but for the life of me I can't say I've ever bought "Christian groceries" or "Christian gas" or especially not "Christian single malt Scotch."

Apparently they do. It was a joke because whatever they do there, it's not science. In this video by potholer54, near 04:00, the "scientists" at Loma Linda University perform an experiment and the outcome is so clearly bullshit, prompting him to say: "But Loma Linda is a seventh-day adventist university so miracles probably happen a lot more in their experiments than they do in less god-fearing universities."

Oh, wow...

 

[Coyote]

Greetings, all.

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in this thread. I actually know very little about chemistry, and I happened upon your site while doing research for a presentation on abiogenesis for my biology class. The information in this thread has been very helpful. Thank you.

Sometime again,
--Coyote

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings, all.

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in this thread. I actually know very little about chemistry, and I happened upon your site while doing research for a presentation on abiogenesis for my biology class. The information in this thread has been very helpful. Thank you.

Sometime again,
--Coyote

Wow!

Cool.