| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
30 May 2007 05:04:39 PM |
| Object: |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the end of the month,
and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single item of positive
scientific evidence for creation.
He cannot, and he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Instead, he *runs* from the challenge and hides behind reams of "no it
isn't" and "I can't accept that" drivel, none of which has any over-
arching basis in science, and much of which has been refuted even
before he posted it.
This is why he's a coward.
Then, having failed to supply a shred of positive science himself, he
demands ever more from scientists, who have already supplied 150 years-
worth of positive scientific evidence supporting evolution and
abiogenesis.
This is why he's a hypocrite.
He failed. Creationism failed. His whole belief system is a lie.
This is why he's a liar.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
30 May 2007 05:55:41 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 8:04 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The debate challenge was simple:http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the end of the month,
and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single item of positive
scientific evidence for creation.
He cannot, and he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Instead, he *runs* from the challenge and hides behind reams of "no it
isn't" and "I can't accept that" drivel, none of which has any over-
arching basis in science, and much of which has been refuted even
before he posted it.
This is why he's a coward.
Then, having failed to supply a shred of positive science himself, he
demands ever more from scientists, who have already supplied 150 years-
worth of positive scientific evidence supporting evolution and
abiogenesis.
This is why he's a hypocrite.
He failed. Creationism failed. His whole belief system is a lie.
This is why he's a liar.
Budikka
I also posted this under "Do flies have free will". It's all a
matter of interpretation.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
What's the best "proof" of creation?
War of the Worldviews sneak preview series: part 11
See table of contents
and list of authors.
by guest columnist Catherine Myers, Creation Museum volunteer
February 25, 2006
To the average person today, it may seem as though there is not enough
scientific "proof" to establish the scientific case for creationism.
Many of us amongst the creationist crowd want foolproof, scientific
evidence that will make creationism mainstream and acceptable in the
ever-increasingly secular world. However, as Ken Ham points out in
chapter 12 of War of the Worldviews, the evidence is out there; yet
what is at the core of the debate is not the evidence, but
interpretation of that evidence-which is ultimately based on
presuppositions that an individual has.
Ham writes that creationists and evolutionists all have the same
evidence or facts; the difference is in the way we interpret the
evidence. People will interpret facts differently based on different
presuppositions, or beliefs they hold. Presuppositions are starting
assumptions that are assumed to be true without being provable. Ham
writes that when Christians and non-Christians argue about scientific
evidence, they are really arguing about their interpretations of the
evidence based on their presuppositions.
For example, in July 1994, scientists recovered soft tissue (red blood
cells and traces of hemoglobin) in what was described as a "70-million-
year-old T. rex fossil"; however, these soft tissues should have
decomposed if they were millions of years old and not fossilized. Ham
points out that the researchers' reaction was a perfect illustration
of how evolutionary bias can result in trying to make hard facts fit
the presupposition of millions of years. One researcher was quoted:
It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course,
I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: "The bones, after
all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that
long?" 1
Ken Ham encourages Christians that they need to understand this issue
of presuppositions. Christians need to be able to recognize that a
person's starting beliefs will influence how they interpret scientific
facts. He also exhorts Christians that they cannot divorce the
spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. He writes that
a non-Christian is not neutral.
Ham offers suggestions for Christians to follow when engaging others
in the creation/evolution debate. He teaches that you must
begin with the understanding that scientific facts are interpreted,
and you must try to determine the presuppositions a person has when
they interpret those facts.
hold fast to the Bible's account of the history of the universe. Don't
let your evolutionist friend frame the terms of the debate to exclude
the Bible. Without the Bible, your presuppositions are gone, and you
will be unable to effectively debate your interpretation of the facts.
look at scientific facts through your biblical presuppositions, and
interpret them differently.
use the operational science of the present, which the evolutionist
also uses, and see if that science (when properly understood) confirms
your interpretation based on the Bible.
Ham writes that you will find, over and over again, that the Bible is
confirmed by science. He also states that many who oppose creationism
are not aware that they have evolutionary presuppositions, and when
they are challenged to logically defend their position in a way that
is consistent with both science and their presuppositions, they will
find that they cannot.
Ham closes the chapter by encouraging Christians not to jump in a
blind-faith way at evidences we think we need in order to "prove"
creation. He reminds us that Jesus Himself rose from the dead in the
most startling demonstration of the truth of God's Word, but many
chose not to believe (Luke 16:27-31). He writes that we mustn't be
intimidated by apparent evidence for evolution, but instead we must
try to understand the right way to think about that evidence. Then,
using this same evidence, we can show the evolutionist that he has the
wrong interpretation, and that the scientific facts of the real world
do confirm the biblical history of the universe. In this way,
Christians can stand their ground for a biblical worldview.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
31 May 2007 07:45:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
< snip >
hold fast to the Bible's account of the history of the universe. Don't
let your evolutionist friend frame the terms of the debate to exclude
the Bible. Without the Bible, your presuppositions are gone, and you
will be unable to effectively debate your interpretation of the facts.
look at scientific facts through your biblical presuppositions, and
interpret them differently.
use the operational science of the present, which the evolutionist
also uses, and see if that science (when properly understood) confirms
your interpretation based on the Bible.
Ham writes that you will find, over and over again, that the Bible is
confirmed by science. He also states that many who oppose creationism
are not aware that they have evolutionary presuppositions, and when
they are challenged to logically defend their position in a way that
is consistent with both science and their presuppositions, they will
find that they cannot.
Ham closes the chapter by encouraging Christians not to jump in a
blind-faith way at evidences we think we need in order to "prove"
creation. He reminds us that Jesus Himself rose from the dead in the
most startling demonstration of the truth of God's Word, but many
chose not to believe (Luke 16:27-31). He writes that we mustn't be
intimidated by apparent evidence for evolution, but instead we must
try to understand the right way to think about that evidence. Then,
using this same evidence, we can show the evolutionist that he has the
wrong interpretation, and that the scientific facts of the real world
do confirm the biblical history of the universe. In this way,
Christians can stand their ground for a biblical worldview.
You base your 'whole' argument on the Bible ?
It is a load of crap ....... a pathetic collection of Fairy Tales ......
First of all, you have to show the Bible has any 'facts' in it at all
........
therefore your argument collapses in a screaming heap .........
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
31 May 2007 06:29:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:45:11 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f3mgv4$7bu$1@austar-news.austar.net.au>
bobcrowley@dodo.com.au wrote:
< snip >
hold fast to the Bible's account of the history of the universe. Don't
let your evolutionist friend frame the terms of the debate to exclude
the Bible. Without the Bible, your presuppositions are gone, and you
will be unable to effectively debate your interpretation of the facts.
look at scientific facts through your biblical presuppositions, and
interpret them differently.
use the operational science of the present, which the evolutionist
also uses, and see if that science (when properly understood) confirms
your interpretation based on the Bible.
Ham writes that you will find, over and over again, that the Bible is
confirmed by science. He also states that many who oppose creationism
are not aware that they have evolutionary presuppositions, and when
they are challenged to logically defend their position in a way that
is consistent with both science and their presuppositions, they will
find that they cannot.
Ham closes the chapter by encouraging Christians not to jump in a
blind-faith way at evidences we think we need in order to "prove"
creation. He reminds us that Jesus Himself rose from the dead in the
most startling demonstration of the truth of God's Word, but many
chose not to believe (Luke 16:27-31). He writes that we mustn't be
intimidated by apparent evidence for evolution, but instead we must
try to understand the right way to think about that evidence. Then,
using this same evidence, we can show the evolutionist that he has the
wrong interpretation, and that the scientific facts of the real world
do confirm the biblical history of the universe. In this way,
Christians can stand their ground for a biblical worldview.
You base your 'whole' argument on the Bible ?
It is a load of crap ....... a pathetic collection of Fairy Tales ......
First of all, you have to show the Bible has any 'facts' in it at all
.......
therefore your argument collapses in a screaming heap .........
The title of this thread is 100% accurate.
He has zero facts, so he quite simply MUST lie his tiny little head
off.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
30 May 2007 07:15:03 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 5:55 pm, wrote:
Funny, but when I snipped everything that wasn't positive scientific
evidence for **creation**, there was nothing left in your message to
refute. No surprises there. LoL!
Thanks for proving my case, you vacuous moron.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
30 May 2007 09:16:15 PM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 17:15:03 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1180570503.002801.24240@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 5:55 pm, wrote:
Funny, but when I snipped everything that wasn't positive scientific
evidence for **creation**, there was nothing left in your message to
refute. No surprises there. LoL!
Thanks for proving my case, you vacuous moron.
Budikka
He does a great job of making his cretinous crowd look even more like
the amoral con-artists than I could ever hope to do!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris s" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
01 Jun 2007 08:31:43 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 6:55 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 8:04 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
< Big Snip>
I really tried to see *any* evidence in that post. There was
nothing. All smoke and mirrors as usual.
It ties in with an article I just read this morning:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/05/30/so-that-s-why-evolution-is-in-trouble.aspx
The summary is (describes Bob):
"The same sort of childish psychology can trip you up when it comes to
scientific information, though. Few people immerse themselves in the
voluminous scientific literature about, say, evolution. People who
reject evolution are doing so because they haven't escaped the
childish notion that everything has a purpose for its existence (which
violates the purposelessness of evolutionary processes), and because
they evaluate obscure information by the source that brings it to
them. In this case, many of those who deny the fact of evolution are
rejecting the sources that argue in its favor-those godless, secular-
humanist, elitist, amoral scientists and the media that channel them.
They are rarely evaluating the evidence themselves. (I don't mean to
tar only creationists with the brush of childish thinking. Many
Americans who say they believe that evolution is real and that it
operates through natural selection cannot accurately describe either
evolution or natural selection; they just trust the sources that make
that claim.)
What all this means is that resistance to science starts in childhood
and can easily persist into adulthood. That's most likely to occur
when the scientific claim is in dispute within a society (because it
challenges a religious dogma, most obviously), if there is a
nonscientific alternative that makes more intuitive sense, if that
alternative is championed by people you trust and if the scientific
claim is pushed by people you don't. Evolution clashes with our
childish notion that everything has a purpose and a design, so it has
one strike against it from the start. It is championed by people
widely viewed as elitist and godless and with a stake in the outcome
(more funding for their research, triumphing over religion); strike
two. The alternative, creationism, is backed by respected religious
and political leaders with no obvious horse in the race; strike
three.
Whenever people ask me what's important to know about science, my
answer is never the long list of facts-from heliocentrism to the
genetic code-that passes for science standards in so many schools
today. What people need to know about science is what it means to
think scientifically-how to evaluate evidence that goes counter to
their intuition and hopes, how to break out of childish thinking
patterns. Being able to do that, much more than being able to explain
how earthquakes arise, is true science literacy. "
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1 |
31 May 2007 02:29:05 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:55:41 -0700, bobcrowley wrote:
What's the best "proof" of creation?
Good question, let's find out.
To the average person today, it may seem as though there is not enough
scientific "proof"
What we're after, properly, is evidence, not proof.
hold fast to the Bible's account of the history of the universe.
Er... no, not unless the Bible itself is demonstrated to be a valid
record containing a correct recount of the relevant events. Since this
hasn't been established we cannot use the Bible as a reference; thus we
discard it right now - along with any claims, arguments, etc it makes.
Oh, whoops. Nothing left. I'm sorry, I thought you were going to show us
this "proof" of creation? Could you kindly do so now? I, for one, would
be fascinated to see it.
--
When there is one critical thinker left walking around the world, the
foolish can’t rest easy knowing that they look foolish - justifiably so -
to that one. -- Fredric Rice
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #2
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #20
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #13
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #6
| Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #12
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #8
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #4
Scott McClellan Calls Pat Robertson a Liar
WTS no longer "spirit inspired?": JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LIAR EXPOSED
Fred Stone Calls Fred Stone a Fucking Liar
|
|
|
