There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
Argument from design

From Iron Chariots Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
The argument from design is an attempt to prove the existence of God based on the natural order of the universe.
Contents

[hide]

[edit]
Background information

The argument from design is one of the most common arguments for god. It ranges in complexity from Paley's watchmaker to the laughable plea of the average Christian to Just look at the trees!
Despite being one of the most popular arguments for god, and more or less providing the underpinning for the entire intelligent design movement, the argument is deeply flawed on almost every level. Logically it goes so far as to commit not one, but two separate cases of special pleading.
[edit]
Example

"I see and think about God every time I look around and see birds in air, trees, flowers, grass, sun and raindrops. I am thankful to be alive because God made me, the world and all that's in it."
— Letter to the Editor, Hampton Roads Daily Press
[edit]
Argument

[edit]
Paley's watchmaker

This is the watchmaker argument, one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design.
William Paley in Natural Theology c.1802:
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there."
William Paley in Natural Theology (Ch. XXIII, Pg. 441):
"Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.]"
[edit]
Ray Comfort's divine painter

This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist Ray Comfort or his many followers.
Ray Comfort on Atheist Central / Ray Comfort Food blog:
"First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."
"Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."
"Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that."
[edit]
Syllogism

p1. We appear to observe features in nature too complex to have happened by chance p2. These features exhibit the hallmark appearance of design p3. Design implies that there must be a designer c1. Therefore nature must be the result of an intelligent designer c2. This designer is God (note: The Intelligent Design movement ends their version of the syllogism at c1. in a feeble attempt to shoe horn creationism into science classrooms. They believe that by not naming this intelligent designer God, the argument by fiat, is not religious. This is analogous to a child's game of peek-a-boo. When small children cover their eyes and can't see you, they assume you also can't see them)
[edit]
Counter arguments

[edit]
Manipulating is not Creating

To say that the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter proves the existence of an intelligent being creating ex nihilo, is a non-sequiter. Making consists of manipulation of pre-existing matter and energy. It is true that the existence of a building or car presupposes a maker. But it also presupposes something else: pre-existing matter and energy that the maker manipulates. The maker of a building does not “make” it by saying: “Let there be a house. And let it be of brick and have shingles of asphalt. And let the brick be yellow in color and the window trim be of almond coloring.” A “maker” makes something by starting with something that already exists. She then manipulates it by changing its shape or size or even applying energy to change its attributes and then assembles the modified pre-existing matter into the building.
A log cabin maker first finds existing trees, chops them down, removes the branches, shapes them and then piles them in a particular way to “make” the cabin walls. The raw materials of glass are subjected to heat until the heat manipulates it into a transparent substance that is then molded or cut to fit holes in the walls to make windows. A sand castle maker does not make the sand, he merely shapes existing sand into a shape we call a castle. Making is not “creating.” It is merely manipulating. And, of course, existing matter and energy can only be manipulated by a manipulator.
Creation ex nihilo or speaking something into existence is a completely different category of event. Where making presupposes the previous existence of matter and energy, creating presupposes the opposite – that nothing exists previously.
Noticing that existing matter and energy can be manipulated tells us absolutely nothing about how the matter and energy came to exist in the first place. Finding a piece of clay and noticing that it can be manipulated it the shape of a horse tells me nothing about how the clay got there to begin with.
[edit]
False premise p1: Complexity

The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!”
This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”.
Ray Comforts version of the argument (in classic Ray Comfort slap your knees fashion) bypasses this entire premise by committing a fallacy of begging the question and simply assuming a priori in the premises that nature is a “creation”.
[edit]
False premise p2: Definition of design

As taken from Wiktionary:
Noun design (plural designs) 1. A plan (with more or less detail) for the structure and functions of an artifact, building or system. 2. A pattern, as an element of a work of art or architecture. 3. The composition of a work of art. 4. Intention or plot. M. Le Page Du Pratz, History of Louisisana (PG), p. 40 I give it you without any other design than to shew you that I reckon nothing dear to me, when I want to do you a pleasure. 5. The shape or appearance given to an object, especially one that is intended to make it more attractive. 6. The art of designing Danish design of furniture is world-famous. We know that man-made objects are designed a posteriori. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because of our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed
Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long evolutionary process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that it was designed for our benefit; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce well-adapted organisms.
Continuing in the evolutionary vein, one of the beneficial adaptations of humans is the ability to infer intent. This allows us to anticipate behavior on the part of other organisms that might be detrimental (or beneficial) to our survival. However, this ability can be overgeneralized; we can see intent and purpose where there is none. Seeing design in nature is an example, since the religious view is usually that the universe was designed for our benefit. Thus, inference of design is really a kind of fallacious inference of intent.
Paley compares the watch to a stone, noting that it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the stone occurred naturally, while the watch must be the result of intelligent design. This is entirely reasonable and consistent with science, yet Paley fails to clearly identify the precise reasons we're able to make such a distinction. Additionally, proponents of this argument often portray this as an argument that complexity, order and beauty are, on their own, evidence for design.
[edit]
Special pleading p2: Recognition of design

The truth that Paley only hinted at, and many creationists reject, is that we recognized design by contrast to the naturally occurring. The very fact that Paley singles out the watch in the argument as an apparently designed object, implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which seems to refute the whole point of the designer argument. On some level Paley knows there is an intrinsic difference between the watch and the rock.
The appearance of design is subjective. What features denote design? Complexity? Order? Beauty? Suitability to a purpose? Any of these can be lacking in objects we know to be designed (i.e., manufactured by humans). We recognize designed objects by comparison with previously known designed objects and by contrasting them with naturally occurring objects.

  • In the case of the watch, we have knowledge about how watches are designed, we can identify specific designers and manufacturers. We even teach these skills to new designers and manufacturers. Thus, we know the watch had a designer because there is no evidence that watches occur naturally and a mountain of evidence that they are designed and manufactured. Furthermore,

  • Where the rock is concerned, the opposite is true. We have no evidence to support the idea that the rock was designed and overwhelming evidence that it is the result of natural processes.

  • In the case of the tree theists sometimes instruct us to “just look at”, we also observe the proses of self replication and genetic variation. We do not observe this in any designed human artifacts.
[edit]
False premise p2: Definitional paradox

Following the implied definition of design to its logical conclusions, this view is logically flawed and raises problems which transcend Paley's original argument. If complexity and order are, on their own, evidence for design then everything must have been designed, as all things are complex and ordered at various scales, thus everything must serve as evidence for this designer. Essentially, that rock which Paley dismisses can also be considered complex and ordered and must also serve as evidence for a designer. Indeed this is precisely what many Christians claim, utilizing verses from the Bible to support it:
However, if we consider the stone, the watch, the tree and all things as evidence of a designer, Paley's original argument is completely destroyed. The logical contrast between the designed and the naturally occurring, which forms the basic definitions of the argument is thereby eliminated, along with the argument.
[edit]
Special pleading: Intelligent designer

The conclusion of this argument is also self refuting. The entire premise for the argument is based on notion that there are aspects of nature too complex to have simply sprung into existence by chance (once again for the sake of the argument, ignoring the obvious evolutionary straw man).
Though as Richard Dawkins points out in his Ultimate 747 Gambit, the idea of solving this problem of complexity by invoking an infinitely complex, and thus by their own argument, an infinitely improbable deity, doesn't really make sense at all.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ultimate_747_Gambit
[edit]
Which religion

Main Article: Which god? Even if we grant all the false premises, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, purple space pixies, Santa Claus, or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be Yahweh.
During an interview conducted under false pretences for the creationist propaganda film Expelled, Ben Stein posed Richard Dawkins with a leading hypothetical question as to what Dawkins thinks about “the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.”
Richard Dawkins in Expelled:
"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
This is the point were Stein attempts to use “creative editing” by pausing in the middle of the interview to call “Shock! Horror! Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design!”
"And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."
Stein then continues with the tirade that “Richard Dawkins believes in space aliens.” and that “He doesn't have a problem with intelligent design, just when the designer is called 'God'.” Not withstanding Dawkins response was a hypothetical based on the premise that we actually had some evidence of design, Stein didn't actually bother to address the issue that an argument for intelligent design supports space aliens just as well as his God, and without breaking any of the known laws of physics to boot.
[edit]
Other counter arguments


  • Some proponents of Intelligent Design claim sightings of the Golden Ratioin nature as evidence that life was designed. The chambered nautilus in particular is often cited as an example. These claims have been discredited, however, because much variation in proportions has been observed in these cases.


[edit]
Argument from poor design

See the article Argument from poor design which seeks to display the imperfections of the natural world as a powerful atheistic argument against the existence of God.
[edit]
Bertrand Russell and Design

"Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: "Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe." I am not very much impressed by the splendor of those people. Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless".
[edit]
Links

[edit]
See also


[edit]
External links


[edit]
Reference


 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Some of you just crack me up. You all are still just trying to discredit me. With all the info to discuss in these videos everybody just tries to make me out to be some tard. I had to take critical thinking classes in college. I keep posting this stuff to see if anyone will address these subjects. But I guess its too much to ask so you all can have this thread. I'm bored with this. Time for a new thread on a different subject.
Click to expand...
We don't try to make you out as a 'tard'. You refuse to see any of our points, or to argue your points without using little tricks and deception. Even now you are pretending as if none of the points you made have been addressed. Only one side of this discussion has had to resort to lies and pretense.
 
|3laze

|3laze

Member
Crackerboy is a 'tard as far as I am concerned. He lacks the most basic understanding of how critical thinking and the scientific method work. The entire creationist argument is based on a falsifiability fallacy. A proposed hypothesis is not considered valid if there is no experiment that can be performed that would, if the hypothesis is incorrect, fail. One cannot disprove that a creator exists - thus claiming this is proof that a creator exists is a logical fallacy and therefore unacceptable as a scientific theory. This is the crux of most creationist arguments - they insist that they have scientific proof that a creator exists simply because science cannot conclusively prove them wrong, even though the have no proof of their own to validate their theory. Essentially the whole argument boils down to "You can't prove me wrong so therefore I am right" which is a totally invalid and illogical argument. I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe but don't get up on your soap box and start trying to pass off religious views as science.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Google Ariel A. Roth and then look up his credentials. Then go read one of his books. Once you have done that come back here and we will have a real discussion. Try reading the opposite point of view that you hold. It will help you understand a lot more on a subject. The truth always lies in between.


  • B.A. Pacific Union College, 1948, Biology
  • M.S. University of Michigan, 1949, Biology
  • Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1955, Biology
[edit] Academic activities and honors


  • Atomic Energy Commission Grantee in radiation biology 1960
  • National Institutes of Health Grantee for research on metabolism of schistosomes 1961-1963
  • Visiting Research Scientist, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology 1968, 1970
  • Visiting Professor, Andrews University Extension in Europe. 1970
  • Atomic Energy Commission Grantee for research on coral reefs at Eniwetok 1971, 1972, 1973
  • Member, NSF-AEC sponsored Symbios research team to study coral reef metabolism at Eniwetok 1971
  • Consultant on creation to the California State Board of Education 1971
  • Director, Loma Linda University Research Team for underwater research on coral in the Bahamas 1973, 1974 (Sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; lived on the ocean floor for 1 week)
  • Editor: ORIGINS journal 1974-1996
  • Keynote speaker, public hearing, House Education Committee, State of Oregon 1981
  • Witness for the State of Arkansas: Evolution-creation trial 1981
  • Visiting Professor of Biology, University of Eastern Africa, Baraton 1995
  • Visiting Professor of Biology, Spicer College, India 1995
  • Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1993–1996
  • Visiting Professor of Biology, Caribbean Union College 1997
  • Lecturer for the William A. Osborne Distinguished Lecture Series, Caribbean Union College 1997
  • Member, Loma Linda University Councilors 2000-
  • Recipient: Charles Elliott Weniger AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE 2003
[edit] Selected publications


  • Roth, A.A. 1955. Gametogenesis in the final generation of Schistosomatium dotthitti (Cort, 1914) Price, 1931 (Trematoda: Schistosomatidae). Dissertation Abstracts 15(4):647-648.
  • Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1957. The anatomy of the male and female reproductive systems of Onco-melania nosophora. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 74:52-69.
  • Roth, A.A. 1960. Aspects of the function of the bursa copulatrix and seminal receptacle in the prosobranch snail Oncomelania formosana Pilsbry and Hirase. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 79: 412-419.
  • Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1960a. The development of sexual maturity in Oncomelania nosophora (Robson) snail vector of oriental schistosomiasis. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 79:429-438.
  • Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1960b. Notes on the production of eggs in Oncomelania nosophora and O. formosana. Nautilus 73:147-151.
  • Roth, A.A. and L.N. Hare. 1966. Effect of Schistosoma mansoni on amino acid levels in a chemically defined medium. (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 41st Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, p. 60.
  • Roth, A.A. and H.E. Heidtke. 1966. Removal of schisto-somes from hosts with minimal physiological disturbance to the parasite. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 85:422-426.
  • Tkachuck, R.D. and A.A. Roth. 1967. Free amino acids in plasm of mice infected with Schistosoma mansoni. (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 42nd Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona, p. 29.
  • Carter, C.E. and A.A. Roth. 1967. Carbon dioxide fixation in Schistosoma mansoni. (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 42nd Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona, p. 30.
  • Roth, A.A. 1971a. Effect of various light treatments of calcification rates in Acropora sp. (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, p. 21.
  • Roth, A.A. 1971b. Effect of the addition of nutrients on the variability of calcification rates in a single colony of Pocillopora damicornis. (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceano-graphy, San Diego, pp. 21–22.
  • Roth, A.A. 1971c. Estimate of carbonate production of some species on Japtan Reef. (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, p. 22.
  • Johannes, R.E. and 22 other authors including A.A. Roth. 1972. Project Symbios: an examination of the metabolism of some coral reef communities. BioScience 22:541-543.
  • Roth, A.A. 1974c. Factors affecting light as an agent for carbonate production by coral. (Abstract) Geological Society of America Abstracts 6:932.
  • Roth, A.A. 1975. The pervasiveness of the paradigm. Origins 2:55-57.
  • Roth, A.A. 1975. Turbidites. Origins 2:106-107.
  • Roth, A.A. 1975e. Some effects of light on calcification in coral. Abstracts of Symposia and Contributed Papers for the Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting (San Francisco State University, December 26–30, 1975) of the Western Society of Naturalists, p. 29.
  • Clausen, C.D. and A.A. Roth. 1975a. Estimation of coral growth rates from laboratory 45Ca-incorporation rates. Marine Biology 33:85-91.
  • Clausen, C.D. and A.A. Roth. 1975b. Effect of temperature and temperature adaptation on calcification rate in the hermatypic coral Pocillopora damicornis. Marine Biology 33:93-100.
  • Smith, A.D. and A.A. Roth. 1977. Carbon dioxide and calcification in the red coralline alga, Bossiella orbigniana. (Abstract) Pacific Division, American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, 58th Annual Meeting, San Francisco State University.
  • Roth, A.A. 1978c. Creation concepts should be taught in public schools. Liberty 73(5):3, 24-27; Rebuttal, 28-29.
  • Smith, A.D. and A.A. Roth. 1979. Effect of carbon dioxide concentration on calcification in the red coralline alga Bossiella orbigniana. Marine Biology 52:217-225.
  • Roth, A.A. 1980a. Implications of various interpretations of the fossil record. Origins 7:71-86.
  • Crabtree, D.M., C.D. Clausen, and A.A. Roth. 1980. Consistency in growth line counts in bivalve specimens. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 29:323-340.
  • Roth, A.A., C.D. Clausen, P.Y. Yahiku, V.E. Clausen, and W.W. Cox. 1982. Some effects of light on coral growth. Pacific Science 36:65-81.
  • Roth, A.A. 1983b. Why some scientists believe in creation. These Times 92(3):6-11.
  • Roth, A.A. 1984a. The current controversy over origins. Part I: teaching creation in public schools. The Journal of Adventist Education 46(3):30-31,35-37.
  • Roth, A.A. 1984b. The current controversy over origins. Part II: Seventh-day Adventists and the creation movement in the United States. The Journal of Adventist Education 46(4):31-32,39-40.
  • Hodges, L.T. and Roth, A.A. 1986. Orientation of corals and stromatoporoids in some Pleistocene, Devonian, and Silurian reef facies. Journal of Paleontology 60:1147-1158.
  • Roth, A.A. 1995. Fossil reefs and time. Origins 22:86-104.
  • Roth, A.A. 1998. The disadvantage of collective ignorance. The Record (Australia), August 29, 1998, p. 3.
  • Roth, A.A. 1998. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Review and Herald Publishing Association.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
I just want to end this thread with on little fact. Over 80% of the worlds population are religious. Is it that they are all wrong about there being a God or are you wrong that there is not.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
I just want to end this thread with on little fact. Over 80% of the worlds population are religious. Is it that they are all wrong about there being a God or are you wrong that there is not.
Click to expand...
The truth is not always somewhere in between. That's insane. 80% of the worlds population is religious, But 100% of them can't agree on what god to worship, even the ones who worship the same god make different contradictory claims about god. This is Argumentum ad Populum. It is also a logical fallacy.. Like every thing you say..

Argumentum ad populum

From Iron Chariots Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Argumentum ad populum ("argument from popular appeal", "appeal to the majority") is a logical fallacy whereby a proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by large numbers of people.
Contents

[hide]

[edit]
Examples


[edit]
Discussion

Argumentum ad populum comes in two varieties:

  1. The first is to argue from sheer numbers: "Everyone knows X, so X must be true". This argument is appealing because in many cases, what "everyone knows" is true: the Sun rises in the east, not the south; grass is green; and George Washington was the first President of the United States. This is effective because it pressures people to be "normal". People have a desire to be like their peers. Thus tactics involving alienation are often used to bully people into submission, this is often a sign of a bad argument.
  2. The second variety is "snob appeal": A proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by an elite or distinguished group of people. This argument often appears in advertising, (e.g., "Z Cola: The official soft drink of the Big-Time Sports Event").
[edit]
Counter-apologetics

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy because the fact that many people believe something does not make it true. For many years, most people believed that the Earth was the center and most important feature of the universe. Millions of people believe that astrology works. Neither is true.
One special case is that in which a statement is said to be true because it is believed by most of the experts in the field (9 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X toothpaste!). For example, if most astronomers say that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way around, then that is very likely to be true. In this case, however, we are trusting the judgment of people who have carefully studied the matter. In effect, we are trusting that the experts have reached their conclusions through valid arguments based on careful observation, so there is no need for us to research the matter ourselves. This type of argument is often reliable, but not always. After all, scientific knowledge is never perfect and complete. However, for most "mature" scientific fields, the likelihood of a complete reversal of views — such as moving the Earth from the center of the universe to the outskirts of one unremarkable galaxy among millions — is incredibly, and ever increasingly, small.
[edit]
See also


 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Google Ariel A. Roth and then look up his credentials. Then go read one of his books. Once you have done that come back here and we will have a real discussion. Try reading the opposite point of view that you hold. It will help you understand a lot more on a subject. The truth always lies in between.
Click to expand...
Let me guess. He makes no actual testable arguments but regurgitates the same 'evidence against Darwinism' that is so prevalent in popular literature. It looks like he doesn't have any problem getting published in a refereed journal. I wonder why none of his creation arguments are published in an actual science journal instead of education?

Either way, you have just made an argument from authority. If you cannot present his arguments here on the forum, then his opinion is worthless. We have presented evidence from science that you still haven't been able to refute. It would be more correct to say that we can't continue this discussion until you post a reasonable response to those facts.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
mindphuk said:
Let me guess. He makes no actual testable arguments but regurgitates the same 'evidence against Darwinism' that is so prevalent in popular literature. It looks like he doesn't have any problem getting published in a refereed journal. I wonder why none of his creation arguments are published in an actual science journal instead of education?

Either way, you have just made an argument from authority. If you cannot present his arguments here on the forum, then his opinion is worthless. We have presented evidence from science that you still haven't been able to refute. It would be more correct to say that we can't continue this discussion until you post a reasonable response to those facts.
Click to expand...

I think that you would be pleasantly surprised at the stances that he takes on a lot of these issues. I'm not going to argue with you about this. But just read his book "Origins". Its a good read. He presents evidence from both points of view and discredits the BS on both sides. He attempts to stick strictly to the science. He also references over a 100 secular sources. He is not as biased as you seem to think he is.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
I think that you would be pleasantly surprised at the stances that he takes on a lot of these issues. I'm not going to argue with you about this. But just read his book "Origins". Its a good read. He presents evidence from both points of view and discredits the BS on both sides. He attempts to stick strictly to the science. He also references over a 100 secular sources. He is not as biased as you seem to think he is.
Click to expand...
I do try to read as many books as I can. However, in the meantime, can you present a few examples of some of his arguments here? Otherwise, lacking any reasonable response to the posts I have made, I would say that idea of universal common ancestry is pretty safe.
 
|3laze

|3laze

Member
So I googled Ariel A. Roth like you recommended. He believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and believes that the world did have a massive, global flood some 6000 years ago. His words, not mine. He also believes that the world was created in 6 days, and can of course, offer no proof of this, or proof of any of his idiotic claims. He has already formed his conclusion and is now trying to find information to back up that conclusion - another logical fallacy. Calling this guy a scientist is like calling the Jenna Jameson a registered nurse. (just because she wears a nurse outfit in her porn flicks don't make her a nurse) His most recent work: "Origins: Linking Science and Scripture." I nearly fell our of my char laughing after reading that - what a fucking fraud this guy is. If that is the best you can come up with crackerboy you really are retarded.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
|3laze said:
So I googled Ariel A. Roth like you recommended. He believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and believes that the world did have a massive, global flood. He also believes that the world was created in 6 days, and can of course, offer no proof of this, or any of his idiotic claims. His most recent work: "Origins: Linking Science and Scripture." I nearly fell our of my char laughing after reading that - what a fucking fraud this guy is. If that is the best you can come up with crackerboy you really are retarded.
Click to expand...

Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.

As a matter of fact there is a whole chapter dedicated to the Geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. In that chapter he shows several diagrams as well as references to 41 different secular sources for his information.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.
Click to expand...
Umm. No.. He's actually telling the truth..

Ariel Roth dose believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. and according to wikipedia:
Ariel A. Roth (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth#cite_note-0
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Here is his conclusion to that chapter.


The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past. Such evidence fits well with a flood model. The incredibly widespread deposits in earths sedimentary layers also seem to support a flood model. The scarcity of erosion at the gaps in the sedimentary layers, where significant portions of the geologic column are missing, infers rapid deposition, as we would expect during the flood, without long intervals of time between. Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top