How do you explain easter without the bunny...
Honestly. That question makes more sense than most creationists questions
Topic: 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution - page 23. (Read 18771 times)
February 17, 2014, 02:39:50 PM
February 17, 2014, 02:31:04 PM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
I had never heard of David Berlinski until today. A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to. He really is brilliant.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?
An agnostic and atheist are not one in the same. One can be agnostic and be theistic but they admit that there is no proof of that existence. It seems that David Berlinski is very much a philosopher and I would think his claim of being "agnostic" was one in which he takes a more neutral stance in his belief in God. There is more about him on Wikipedia though.
February 17, 2014, 02:15:08 PM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
I had never heard of David Berlinski until today. A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to. He really is brilliant.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?
February 17, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
Evolution is a scientific theory. So it is testable, and observable under laboratory conditions. You can observe it in nature.
The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. The earth is not a closed system. The sun gives energy to the earth. Decaying radioisotopes in the earth also give it a lit of energy. The moons orbit also gives it some energy. Furthermore some energy is lost to space.
Most of those questions are really unintelligent. If any of these people were designed for today's society I'd say their brains were unintelligently designed.
The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. The earth is not a closed system. The sun gives energy to the earth. Decaying radioisotopes in the earth also give it a lit of energy. The moons orbit also gives it some energy. Furthermore some energy is lost to space.
Most of those questions are really unintelligent. If any of these people were designed for today's society I'd say their brains were unintelligently designed.
February 16, 2014, 10:34:47 AM
Creationism vs. Evolution should not be a discussion anymore. Agreeing to disagree is the only way the two sides are going to survive in harmony... there is literally no logical way that either side can make any headway with the other. If someone wants to believe something, they will. If the two opposing sides begin a debate, you can always see how each side simply tries to trick the other into agreement. No one learns anything, and nothing gets solved...so why do people still have this talk?
tl;dr: Creationism says: "Science doesn't know everything. I could be right.". Evolution says: "Science is trying to understand things. You could be wrong."
Everyone flames and no one wins.
Russell's Teapot, etc.
tl;dr: Creationism says: "Science doesn't know everything. I could be right.". Evolution says: "Science is trying to understand things. You could be wrong."
Everyone flames and no one wins.
Russell's Teapot, etc.
February 16, 2014, 07:35:34 AM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
I had never heard of David Berlinski until today. A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to. He really is brilliant.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
Yeah it is refreshing to listen to someone who is truly unbiased when he looks at the data and the facts. He can clearly see a correlation between the MONEY behind the studies, and how that has swayed the "science" behind evolution. It's like how the government has "ended the debate" over the safety of GMO's. If they put enough money into a study, they can get whatever outcome they want
February 16, 2014, 12:30:29 AM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
I had never heard of David Berlinski until today. A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to. He really is brilliant.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
February 08, 2014, 11:11:36 AM
I hope everyone understand this "22 bla bla" is mocking with creationists...
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely.
I never have thought much about it though! 
I watched this debate...
I do not like this kind of debates... Because there is not a debate regarding this issue. There are certain kind of religious folk who want to push their particular religion on other folk, and this only happens in USA, this king of Christian extremism only happens in USA, there are not creationist out of USA, at least with this kind of propaganda...
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely.
I never have thought much about it though! I watched this debate...
I do not like this kind of debates... Because there is not a debate regarding this issue. There are certain kind of religious folk who want to push their particular religion on other folk, and this only happens in USA, this king of Christian extremism only happens in USA, there are not creationist out of USA, at least with this kind of propaganda...
So extremism only comes from Christians in the USA "and this only happens in USA".
Got it.
February 08, 2014, 12:48:24 AM
I hope everyone understand this "22 bla bla" is mocking with creationists...
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely. I never have thought much about it though!
I watched this debate...
I do not like this kind of debates... Because there is not a debate regarding this issue. There are certain kind of religious folk who want to push their particular religion on other folk, and this only happens in USA, this kind of Christian extremism only happens in USA, there are not creationist out of USA, at least with this kind of propaganda...
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely.
I never have thought much about it though! I watched this debate...
I do not like this kind of debates... Because there is not a debate regarding this issue. There are certain kind of religious folk who want to push their particular religion on other folk, and this only happens in USA, this kind of Christian extremism only happens in USA, there are not creationist out of USA, at least with this kind of propaganda...
February 07, 2014, 06:14:26 PM
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely.
I never have thought much about it though! Yah, I didn't get that part either, lol.
February 07, 2014, 05:36:25 PM
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
I watched. For the most part I really liked it. Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him. To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.
Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics. One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity. To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess. At least the discussion was started. It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on. That was a good point Ken Ham made.
And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex? I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely.
I never have thought much about it though! February 07, 2014, 01:36:58 PM
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side. Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution. Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
February 07, 2014, 01:34:55 PM
First they ask what you believe in.
Then they say it's a heresy.
Next they burn you at the stake.
Then they say it's a heresy.
Next they burn you at the stake.
February 07, 2014, 01:32:01 PM
These should be turned into a meme.
I'm sure it will be if it hasn't been already.
February 07, 2014, 01:31:32 PM
Mustn't.... Give in... To stupid creationist trolling!........
Answer to question 5: http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/earth_rotation_axis.jpg
...... Failed miserably
Answer to question 5: http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/earth_rotation_axis.jpg
...... Failed miserably
February 07, 2014, 01:29:02 PM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
What's the less crazy alternative?
February 07, 2014, 12:55:53 PM
Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
February 07, 2014, 11:46:46 AM
These guys 
February 07, 2014, 12:53:52 PM
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
February 07, 2014, 11:33:41 AM
These should be turned into a meme.
Jump to: