Jose Fly
New member
And as 6days has agreed, AiG isn't a scientific organization.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
And as 6days has agreed, AiG isn't a scientific organization.
gcthomas
New member
No, I don't believe vague and woolly things. And telling me that I do is an interesting, yet ultimately futile, rhetorical exercise.
Feel free to either: reference a solid bit of creation science that wasn't published in an in-house creationist 'journal, or find some 'vague and woolly' thing that you think I believe.
Over to you.
Rosenritter
New member
There's no point debating with a fool that's wise in their own eyes. And the point was not to debate. I am talking about life-saving treatments. Chemo and radio aren't it, they're dangerous and barbaric, they will kill you, and if they don't kill immediately your immune system will get trashed and the cancer comes back stronger because it wasn't cured.
But the point here is that you weren't asking about life-saving treatments. You didn't ask "what is the alternative" or "where has it worked" but you were rather interested in trash-talking.
6days
New member
You believe in many vague, wooly and false things. The examples are numerous. For example you recently listed a number of different dating methods. You suggested that these methods all agree with each other exactly. That is just one of many examples of your vague and wooly beliefs. The dating methods sometimes agree...often not. And, as I recently showed the dating methods you listed are disregarded, and dates are assigned, to fit with evolutionary beliefs.*gcthomas said:
Another example.... a year or so ago you made a vague *claim defending the Piltdown fraud, suggesting it was an example of how science works to disprove things. You suggested the fraud was perpetuated for only a very brief period of time, and never made it into textbooks. You were shown the fraud was still used as a proof of evolutionism in textbooks and journals for MANY years. Amazingly, this year you again made the same vague, wooly, false claims.*
Sure..... I can do this as soon as you reference a solid bit of common ancestry 'science' that has been published in a Creationist peer reviewed journal. *We know the hue and cry of subscribers that happens when secular journals inadvertantly publish something that suggests a creator.*gcthomas said:
EXAMPLE:*
"Researchers who wrote “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it."
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-that-says-human-hand-was-designed-by-creator-sparks-concern-1.19499
gcthomas
New member
You are becoming a caricature of yourself, 6Days. Why on Earth would a reputable scientist try to publish in a journal that openly favours faith over science? They are not scientific journal, 6D. Get a grip, you are starting to flap around.
Did you agree with the findings of the paper, 6Days? I would have thought that a paper which confirmed the millions of years of evolution would have had you baying for its rejection along with the scientists.
Jose Fly
New member
Note how 6days attempts to paint a picture of equivalency, where there are "secular journals" and "creationist journals"....two equivalent processes occurring in parallel arenas, and it's merely a matter of "interpretation" and "starting points" that differentiates the two.
But as anyone who's even vaguely familiar with science knows, they aren't at all equivalent or even comparable. "Secular journals" (more aptly described as "the scientific literature") is the currency of science and has been for centuries. These journals are where scientists present their ideas, research, analyses, results, and conclusions....it's where they criticize each other, agree with each other, and generally present for the record how they are conducting science. Pretty much every single scientific advancement and achievement has been published, discussed, and analyzed in these journals.
Are "creationist journals" at all similar? Not even close, and we can illustrate that with a simple observation.....not one scientific advancement has ever come about via a publication in a "creationist journal".
So as we can see, 6days may as well be trying to compare and draw equivalencies between NASA and the daily horoscope in the newspaper. In both cases, one is and always has been where actual science takes place, while the other is scientifically irrelevant fodder for believers.
But as anyone who's even vaguely familiar with science knows, they aren't at all equivalent or even comparable. "Secular journals" (more aptly described as "the scientific literature") is the currency of science and has been for centuries. These journals are where scientists present their ideas, research, analyses, results, and conclusions....it's where they criticize each other, agree with each other, and generally present for the record how they are conducting science. Pretty much every single scientific advancement and achievement has been published, discussed, and analyzed in these journals.
Are "creationist journals" at all similar? Not even close, and we can illustrate that with a simple observation.....not one scientific advancement has ever come about via a publication in a "creationist journal".
So as we can see, 6days may as well be trying to compare and draw equivalencies between NASA and the daily horoscope in the newspaper. In both cases, one is and always has been where actual science takes place, while the other is scientifically irrelevant fodder for believers.
Tyrathca
New member
:chuckle: Looks who's talking. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black I think.
BTW I'm not wise, just better educated and with better experience
At the risk of derailing this thread I don't much care if you don't want to debate. You're spouting of stupid ignorant advice about medical treatments with a lot of research showing their effectiveness and their complication rates. You talk as if rates of recurrence, new cancers or length of immunosuppression haven't been studied. FYI people who had chemo years ago and are no longer on any immunosuppressants are not consider to be immunocompromised to any clinically significant degree.
You're incredibly ignorant. Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
.
You are trash talking a whole treatment and telling people it is never effective in its intended function. Discusing alternatives is irrelevant to correcting your terrible advice and disrespecting Al for having used them.
Besides I'm highly doubtful you'd have any good information on alternatives given how crudely you describe your current objections. Furthermore I'd be derailing this thread even more than it already is and I'd rather avoid that.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Creationists and evolutionists may publish articles about their beliefs of origins. But it is only evolutionist beliefs which have hindered science and harmed people. It is only evolutionists who have fabricated evidence to help sell their beliefs.*JoseFly said:
It is only creationist beliefs which helped birth modern science. And according to one famous evolutionist (Loren Eiseley), it is the creationist belief system that *still sustains science today. So... lets just say that Biblical creation is the cornerstone of science in 2016.*
Rosenritter
New member
:chuckle: Looks who's talking. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black I think.
BTW I'm not wise, just better educated and with better experience
At the risk of derailing this thread I don't much care if you don't want to debate. You're spouting of stupid ignorant advice about medical treatments with a lot of research showing their effectiveness and their complication rates. You talk as if rates of recurrence, new cancers or length of immunosuppression haven't been studied. FYI people who had chemo years ago and are no longer on any immunosuppressants are not consider to be immunocompromised to any clinically significant degree.
You're incredibly ignorant. Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
. You are trash talking a whole treatment and telling people it is never effective in its intended function. Discusing alternatives is irrelevant to correcting your terrible advice and disrespecting Al for having used them.
Besides I'm highly doubtful you'd have any good information on alternatives given how crudely you describe your current objections. Furthermore I'd be derailing this thread even more than it already is and I'd rather avoid that.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Just stay with whatever belief system you prefer Ty. If and when you have cancer get yourself poisoned or irradiated. Have faith in it.
Jose Fly
New member
Thank you for illustrating my point about you dishonestly (or delusionally) attempting to paint the two as equivalent.
Remember this from one of Hitler's speeches in 1936? Probably not since you ignored it the last time I posted it...
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
Really? So every "piece of the true cross" that's for sale across the world is genuine? Every Christian artifact that's ever been for sale is genuine? There's never been a single fake Biblical artifact?
I'm sure that's what you feel you need to believe. More's the pity....
6days
New member
Creation scientists would love to publish articles in journals that favor faith based evolutionism...just as many evolutionists would love to publish in faith based creation journals. *But, editors generally cater to their subscribers and print only letters to editor from oppsing belief scientists- and even rarely that.*gcthomas said:
GC... unable to counter the arguments you keep trying to create new goalposts...and creating strawmen arguments. *This was the reason I gave for the quote from 'Nature'. "We know the hue and cry of subscribers that happens when secular journals inadvertantly publish something that suggests a creator."gcthomas said:
Tyrathca
New member
No faith required. I like to read the actual literature and go with evidence based medicine rather than what some uneducated random cobbled together and quotemined on the Internet without peer review.
This is just more of your typical antiscience conspiracy rhetoric. It's a continuation of your creationism and your antivaccines. I really do wonder if there is any branch of science you think ISN'T part of a conspiracy? Or are you really so smart you know more than all the experts in all these fields?
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Hitler and the Nazi's were evolutionists.They were trying to create the fit, and eliminate the unfit. The holocaust rests on Darwinian beliefs,....not even a tiny bit related to Biblical creation.JoseFly said:
Evidence Nazi's were evolutionists...Smoking Gun...http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...A2DF50833373740F70C7A2DF50833373740&FORM=VIRE
Sure.... there are many fake artifacts, I agree. But that has nothing to do with creationism. (You and GC must play dodgeball together?) It is evolutionists who fabricated evidence to try sell their beliefs. (And decades of shoddy conclusions in peer reviewed secular magazines)JoseFly said:
BTW.... It would be interesting to see how many people selling the religious artifacts you mention, were evolutionists.
Rosenritter
New member
The several million pieces of the "true cross" weren't being used to sell people on the idea that there was a cross or that there was a Christ. That was already a given. Neither were any of the other (admittedly absurd fake) relics used in that sense. But I'm sure if we looked really hard high and low we could find someone who has fabricated evidence who wasn't an evolutionist.
Rosenritter
New member
It is written, that a fool answers a matter before he hears it. You serve as an excellent illustration of the proverb.
gcthomas
New member
Your avoidance of the question is noted.
So, the paper you mentioned specifically refutes your belief in a young earth, and it supports the science of evolution. Why did you reference a paper you don't agree with? (Don't tell me you only read the creationist blog headlines. Say it ain't so!)
Darwinists cannot survive without irrational nonsense.
That a paper provides some support to an idea is no requirement to accept everything the paper asserts.
Try to develop a rational argument. :up:
Misapplied faith is an opioid to critical thinking. The original gospel of Jesus didn't rely on the Old Testament as a foundation for its authority. The Jewish converts to their new religion about Jesus attempted to substantiate their new faith by relying on their old theology from Judaism. So for 2000 years we were stuck with a real mess that has retarded science and the quest for truth. Sadly, Bibliolatry is retarding the spread of the original gospel.
6days
New member
Yes.... Not sure if you followed the exchange with GC, but his 'argument' evolved into irrational nonsense. He wondered why creationists don't publish in secular journals. I showed what happened when even an evolutionist dares to mention the word 'creator'. But, as you suggested, there are some good ideas in the article, although the evolutionists freaked out over it.
- Status