Comments on: Begging Jason Lisle to shutup… http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/ A sanctuary for young free-thinkers Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:32:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: wishwon http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-14413 wishwon Sun, 16 May 2010 02:55:44 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-14413 Cerca You are correct that Simbera did not mention the specific god, yet I am sure he/she was talking about the Christian God. "I just had a browse through the AiG website...". Answers in Genesis is a Christian website. We are talking about Dr. Lisle who is a Christian. Now if Simbera was talking about a Hindu god, or some sort of generic god, I am sorry that I made the mistake but Simbera owns part of the blame for not being very obvious. I wouldn't accuse Simbera of being dishonest if the Christian God was not being spoken of, I would accuse Simbera of not being clear. However, I think the most obvious conclusion is that it is you who is mistaken Cerca. But... I could have been wrong as well. Cerca

You are correct that Simbera did not mention the specific god, yet I am sure he/she was talking about the Christian God. “I just had a browse through the AiG website…”. Answers in Genesis is a Christian website. We are talking about Dr. Lisle who is a Christian. Now if Simbera was talking about a Hindu god, or some sort of generic god, I am sorry that I made the mistake but Simbera owns part of the blame for not being very obvious. I wouldn’t accuse Simbera of being dishonest if the Christian God was not being spoken of, I would accuse Simbera of not being clear. However, I think the most obvious conclusion is that it is you who is mistaken Cerca. But… I could have been wrong as well.

]]> By: Cerca Trova http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-13008 Cerca Trova Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:16:05 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-13008 Wishwon - Simbera doesn't specifiy a biblical God in his post, he seems to be simply referring the general concept of a creator being. It would appear that you have created a straw man argument yourself... Wishwon —

Simbera doesn’t specifiy a biblical God in his post, he seems to be simply referring the general concept of a creator being.

It would appear that you have created a straw man argument yourself…

]]> By: Wishwon http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-13005 Wishwon Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:57:21 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-13005 Simbera Your argument, "the creator couldn’t come from nothing either — something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum" is a "straw man" argument. If your attempting to argue against the idea of the God in the Bible, it would be wise to first understand the God of the Bible. Your attempting to discredit the Biblical God based on the Law of Cause and Effect, which is a scientific law. Science is the study of nature, yet God operates (according to the Bible) outside of nature. The God of the Bible created nature and is descried as greater (satisfying the Law of Cause and Effect) , that is why we call Him SUPERnatural. So your creating a "straw God" and arguing against your made up God instead of arguing against the God of the Bible. If you want to argue against your own made up concepts, then I guess there must be some enjoyment for you and I hope it makes you a better debater. If you want to argue against the God of the Bible, then you must learn the nature (nature used in a different context here) of God as described in the Bible. A seemingly good place for you to start is the doctrine of an eternal God. Simbera

Your argument, “the creator couldn’t come from nothing either — something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum” is a “straw man” argument. If your attempting to argue against the idea of the God in the Bible, it would be wise to first understand the God of the Bible. Your attempting to discredit the Biblical God based on the Law of Cause and Effect, which is a scientific law. Science is the study of nature, yet God operates (according to the Bible) outside of nature. The God of the Bible created nature and is descried as greater (satisfying the Law of Cause and Effect) , that is why we call Him SUPERnatural. So your creating a “straw God” and arguing against your made up God instead of arguing against the God of the Bible. If you want to argue against your own made up concepts, then I guess there must be some enjoyment for you and I hope it makes you a better debater. If you want to argue against the God of the Bible, then you must learn the nature (nature used in a different context here) of God as described in the Bible. A seemingly good place for you to start is the doctrine of an eternal God.

]]> By: Seth http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-12840 Seth Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:17:03 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12840 Simbera: "the creator couldn’t come from nothing either — something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum." First of all, this reasoning does not accomplish any sort of disproof of creation. What you just said is that it is absolutely impossible for any of us to be here right now because nothing can exist if there was no beggining of some sort wether it be simple matter or a Creator. But obviously, we are here and we do exist. What would make more sence though, all of this coming from some rational matter at the beggining of time or all of this came from some Creator who knows more than us, who created the laws by which the universe is governed, created our brain's compacity to comprehend somethings but not all things, someone who we cannot expect to comprehend how or by what means he exists because he created humans for his own purpose and with their own limits. I agree with you that science cannot prove everything and nothing can be proved absolutely, but a good deal of reason needs to be used with the science to come to any realistic conclusion. If you still think that your argument supports evolution more than creationism, then you are mistken. If you want some more good scientific evidence for Creationism, visit http://www.icr.org/ and click on "Evidence for Creation" on the left hand side and see for youself. Simbera: “the creator couldn’t come from nothing either — something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum.” First of all, this reasoning does not accomplish any sort of disproof of creation. What you just said is that it is absolutely impossible for any of us to be here right now because nothing can exist if there was no beggining of some sort wether it be simple matter or a Creator. But obviously, we are here and we do exist. What would make more sence though, all of this coming from some rational matter at the beggining of time or all of this came from some Creator who knows more than us, who created the laws by which the universe is governed, created our brain’s compacity to comprehend somethings but not all things, someone who we cannot expect to comprehend how or by what means he exists because he created humans for his own purpose and with their own limits. I agree with you that science cannot prove everything and nothing can be proved absolutely, but a good deal of reason needs to be used with the science to come to any realistic conclusion. If you still think that your argument supports evolution more than creationism, then you are mistken. If you want some more good scientific evidence for Creationism, visit http://www.icr.org/ and click on “Evidence for Creation” on the left hand side and see for youself.

]]> By: Rev. Reinard http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-12809 Rev. Reinard Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:23:25 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12809 1) The magnetic field flip-flops every couple of millennia. 2) The moon is receding at a slower rate than most Creationists like to claim. I have no idea where they get their numbers from. 3) The direction of planetary rotation and comet formation prove the accretion disc theory correct. Why would creationism predict this? (BTW, it's spelled "Oort Cloud") 4) Spiral galaxies are formed by density waves. Spirals are energetically favorable. 5) The Mississippi river did not form at the same time as the rest of the planet. It would be foolish to claim that it did. 6) Helium is light enough to escape the earth's atmosphere and does at a constant rate. 7) The sun is not shrinking at a constant rate. It expands and contracts cyclically. Any other complains that you have can probably be answered on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE 1) The magnetic field flip-flops every couple of millennia.

2) The moon is receding at a slower rate than most Creationists like to claim. I have no idea where they get their numbers from.

3) The direction of planetary rotation and comet formation prove the accretion disc theory correct. Why would creationism predict this? (BTW, it’s spelled “Oort Cloud”)

4) Spiral galaxies are formed by density waves. Spirals are energetically favorable.

5) The Mississippi river did not form at the same time as the rest of the planet. It would be foolish to claim that it did.

6) Helium is light enough to escape the earth’s atmosphere and does at a constant rate.

7) The sun is not shrinking at a constant rate. It expands and contracts cyclically.

Any other complains that you have can probably be answered on this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE

]]> By: mr bulow http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-12806 mr bulow Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:54:07 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12806 So strength of planetary magnetic fields is not evidence? Nor the recession of the moon, or the direction of planetary rotation, or the uniform temperature of the universe, or the presence of comets (don't just say Oorb cloud - quote the evidence for it), or the spiral nature of the galaxies, or the heat radiated from the planets? None of these things are evidence? What about the Mississippi river delta, which has been accumulating for an estimated 4,000 years? Or the level of helium in the atmosphere? Or the shrinking size of the sun? So strength of planetary magnetic fields is not evidence? Nor the recession of the moon, or the direction of planetary rotation, or the uniform temperature of the universe, or the presence of comets (don’t just say Oorb cloud — quote the evidence for it), or the spiral nature of the galaxies, or the heat radiated from the planets? None of these things are evidence?
What about the Mississippi river delta, which has been accumulating for an estimated 4,000 years? Or the level of helium in the atmosphere? Or the shrinking size of the sun?

]]> By: Simbera http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-12790 Simbera Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:54:54 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12790 Seth: okay then, if you can't make something from nothing and you therefore need a creator, who created the creator? By your reasoning, the creator couldn't come from nothing either - something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum. Creationism is not scientifically supported - I just had a browse through the AiG website and most of the arguments seem to follow the line of "X is orderly, and it could only be orderly if God forced it to be, therefore God exists". If you can't see why that makes no sense then there's no point in me trying to explain it to you. Feel free to point me in the direction of some real evidence if you have it, though. Bristol: we don't know what happened before the big bang (or if 'before' is even a relevant concept when you're talking about the big bang - time is a dimension too, kiddies) but the thing is, we can admit when we don't know - and then work at finding the answers. More to the point, you can't explain anything either - far less than we can, in fact. Seth: okay then, if you can’t make something from nothing and you therefore need a creator, who created the creator? By your reasoning, the creator couldn’t come from nothing either — something would have had to create the creator, and so on ad infinitum. Creationism is not scientifically supported — I just had a browse through the AiG website and most of the arguments seem to follow the line of “X is orderly, and it could only be orderly if God forced it to be, therefore God exists”. If you can’t see why that makes no sense then there’s no point in me trying to explain it to you. Feel free to point me in the direction of some real evidence if you have it, though.

Bristol: we don’t know what happened before the big bang (or if ‘before’ is even a relevant concept when you’re talking about the big bang — time is a dimension too, kiddies) but the thing is, we can admit when we don’t know — and then work at finding the answers. More to the point, you can’t explain anything either — far less than we can, in fact.

]]> By: Skelliot http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-2/#comment-12785 Skelliot Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:37:39 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12785 Creation is religion, not science. Creation is religion, not science.

]]> By: Richard Hughes http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-1/#comment-12780 Richard Hughes Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:35:53 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12780 <em>"There is no way that you can call Jason Lisle an incompetent, uneducated douchebag..."</em> No, I totally can: Jason Lisle is an incompetent, uneducated douchebag. See? Easy as pie. “There is no way that you can call Jason Lisle an incompetent, uneducated douchebag…”

No, I totally can: Jason Lisle is an incompetent, uneducated douchebag.

See? Easy as pie.

]]> By: Seth http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/begging-jason-lisle-to-shutup/comment-page-1/#comment-12779 Seth Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:34:00 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=3732#comment-12779 There is no way that you can call Jason Lisle an incompetent, uneducated douchebag, he has like 3 PhDs and does not engage in circular reasoning like you said he did. Yes, he does use the Bible to back up his evidence, and if you don't think the Bible is true then you can call his reasoning circular and not believe him. But to say that Creationism is not supported by scientific facts and that evolution is without holes is utter bitterness and ignorance. I would love to see those studies, and i've searched, but I haven't found them. Creation is very scientifically supported, and if you don't think so, I would just like to ask you if you have read any studies or heard any presentations on the AiG website. It's unfair to assume something when you haven't done any research on. If you want to use science to prove something, use this very scietific principle; you can't make something from nothing. Try sometime, its pretty hard. A creator is inevitable. There is no way that you can call Jason Lisle an incompetent, uneducated douchebag, he has like 3 PhDs and does not engage in circular reasoning like you said he did. Yes, he does use the Bible to back up his evidence, and if you don’t think the Bible is true then you can call his reasoning circular and not believe him. But to say that Creationism is not supported by scientific facts and that evolution is without holes is utter bitterness and ignorance. I would love to see those studies, and i’ve searched, but I haven’t found them. Creation is very scientifically supported, and if you don’t think so, I would just like to ask you if you have read any studies or heard any presentations on the AiG website. It’s unfair to assume something when you haven’t done any research on. If you want to use science to prove something, use this very scietific principle; you can’t make something from nothing. Try sometime, its pretty hard. A creator is inevitable.

]]>