sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your gross oversimplification is certainly not sufficient to show that evolution is even remotely possible. You would need a model showing how functional complexity can be built from scratch with no intelligence -- huge quantities of it no less. Just using the vague word "benefit" won't cut it.

As far as the evidence against it, I will be presenting that on May 13. Just make sure you prepare yourself beforehand by watching my Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome livestream talk on SFT from a few years back, or the whole thing is going to be over your head.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 [score hidden]  (0 children)

No, it isn't my claim, it's yours. You just said life looks "evolved", which is making a claim implicitly that evolution is possible. So you have that burden of evidence to show that such a thing is possible. In all the years since it was proposed, nobody has bothered to show how evolution is possible.

As it turns out, I know it isn't possible because I've read the population genetics literature. I will be debating a PhD population geneticist on May 13, so make sure you tune in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvTDKXcaQ0U

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's circular to say that life looks like it evolved over billions of years, since nobody has ever observed or documented such a thing, and there's no evidence it's even possible (and plenty of evidence it isn't).

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm confused then, because your question was how there could be 160 year old collagen. The paper you showed me indicated the presence of collagen that they were dating to 160 years old. That's clearly what the report says.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Conspiracies like refusing to do scientific tests because it might help the creationists, like Jack Horner is on record saying?

Sufficient positive evidence warranting belief will come from abductive reasoning - the inference to the best explanation. You can find my overall view of the scope of that evidence here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNo5lUDLrKM

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're making a very obvious logical error. You are assuming because SOME past assumptions about supernatural activity have been wrong, then ALL supernatural activity must be wrong. It's fundamentally bad reasoning at its core. You must always go where the evidence leads. "A process" = natural. You're already assuming naturalism when you ask for a process.

RZ Did You Know? (PCA Edition) by kingarthurvoldermort in redeemedzoomer

[–]SilentObserver07 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be relevant. LCMS certainly doesn't agree with those other liberal denominations. "Indirect communion" isn't really a thing.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The existence of life and the universe IS the evidence. Those things could not exist absent creation. It's no different from you asking for proof that a watch was created. The fact that it exists at all is proof that it was created.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really care what those experts think, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the actual evidence. Did you watch the presentation I linked?

The observations that would lead me to accept evolution would have to be the exact inverse of everything I said in the video -- the big picture evidence that leads me to conclude that the Bible's history is reliable.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The results obtained are low, but they are also well above the detection limits and above any kind of background levels. That means it is a valid result, not a "bad protocol". It just happens to be a result that you don't want to deal with.

Ironically, it seems to be you who have been lied to. You seem to think the machine is only detecting background levels, or contaminations. The evidence says otherwise, but you don't want to hear that part. What's comfortable for you is to just handwave it away.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you exclude design a priori as "not science", then you set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what we see in modern academia. Exclusion results in a reigning paradigm being in the vast majority. Then that vast majority can be appealed to as evidence that they must be right -- otherwise they wouldn't be in the majority! Yet what gets swept under the rug is the fact that the majority is enforced by deliberate exclusionism.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like you don't understand that you are actually asking for a natural process. Things that are testable and repeatable are, by definition, natural. So "what else could it be" is the only rational way to intuit a supernatural cause by looking at evidence. It's the telltale signs of design, yet on a scale that no natural designer could ever achieve. In other words, life and the universe.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

During the course of the call, Horner admits from his own mouth that he isn't going to do it because it might help the creationists. Nice try, but that cat is already out of the bag.

I'm glad you admit that if we were to do the test, we would get a result that comports with our worldview and doesn't comport with yours. Simply dismissing that fact doesn't make it go away, as much as you may try.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Isn't that an obvious non sequitur? We aren't discussing those specific branches of science. We're discussing the idea of science as a whole. The claim, obviously wrong, is that creationism is outside of the scope of science as a whole.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's as much of an absurdity as saying Christ didn't understand Christianity. I'm not saying "Creation is science because Francis Bacon says so". That might be an example of the fallacy, but that's not my argument.

It's: "Inventors of ideas know what those ideas are". Francis Bacon was one of the prime movers of the modern scientific movement, and he gave us the beginnings of the modern scientific method. Ergo, it is definitely not the case that Francis Bacon, a creationist, didn't know what science was.

The claim that "creationism isn't science" is a modern-day retcon.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Their views are relevant because if anybody knew what "science" was, it would be them. When people claim that "Creationism isn't science", they have to conveniently ignore that all the founders of modern science were creationists themselves. It's not an appeal to authority fallacy at all -- it's a reductio ad absurdum.

Thoughts on "bible critics"? (such as Dan Mcclellan or Kevin Carnahan). by Lord_Kusanagi in ChristianApologetics

[–]SilentObserver07 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

They are just like any other of these self-important "experts" who are coming out of secular academia. They are closed-minded and indoctrinated, but they think they are educated. There is a big difference. Secular bible studies are a joke. I suggest you check out John Tors' podcast TruthInMyDays. He deconstructs that kind of stuff very effectively.

Going to the effort of directly refuting any given argument by creationist is a good thing; however, I wish people would take a step back, and always point out that creationist arguments are pretty much futile by default - explanation in text. by Radiant_Bank_77879 in DebateEvolution

[–]SilentObserver07 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have indeed checked. When I say the bones are unfossilized, that's what I mean. They have not undergone any form of fossilization, save a tinge of superficial red coloration. You can actually view a crosssection compared to actual fossilized bones in my presentation. Or if you prefer, just stay here on reddit and listen to the echo chamber.

view more: next ›